Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed protection matrix - to be discussed during the next call

[Mason Cole <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck --

I agree with that interpretation.  I don't intend to oversimplify this 
complicated task, but much of the difficulty of this effort I believe is in the 
wide gray area of "public importance" and the claims for needed protection that 
may be attempted on that basis.  I'd appreciate hearing on the call today 
whether or not there is a way to establish a metric that's actually useful.

Mason


On Feb 27, 2013, at 5:24 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Here are my personal thoughts regarding two of criteria mentioned by Claudia 
> based on my view of whether they are objective & measurable.
>  
> “international scope and operations” – objective & measurable
>  
> “of such public importance” – only measurable based on subjective criteria
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Claudia MACMASTER TAMARIT
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 6:50 AM
> To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: FW: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed protection matrix - to be discussed 
> during the next call
>  
> Dear All,
>  
> I fully agree we must give an overall rationale to grant protection on a 
> non-biased basis. 
> It follows that we object to the suggestion of excluding INGOs with 
> international scope and operations, and whose primary mission is of such 
> public importance that some form of special protection for its name and 
> acronym can be justified simply because their names may not enjoy protection 
> “beyond” national and international trademark laws, e.g., organizations that 
> enjoy trademark protections in over 150+ countries and rely on such treaty 
> protection as from the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris Convention to grant 
> equal treatment under trademark laws in foreign jurisdictions.
> 
> Let’s think of who that might exclude unjustifiably.  Notably large 
> international NGOs like those who enjoy General Consultative Status with the 
> UN ECOSOC (some 140) must satisfy rigorous criteria and tend to be fairly 
> large, established international NGOs with a broad geographical reach.
> 
> Apparently to be eligible for consultative status,
> ·        an NGO must have been in existence (officially registered with the 
> appropriate government authorities as an NGO/non-profit) for at least two 
> years;
> ·        must have an established headquarters;
> ·        a democratically adopted constitution;
> ·        authority to speak for its members;
> ·        a representative structure;
> ·        appropriate mechanisms of accountability; and,
> ·        democratic and transparent decision-making processes;
> ·        The basic resources of the organization must be derived in the main 
> part
> from contributions of the national affiliates or other components or from 
> individual members.
>  
> See list as of November 2011, PDF.
>  
> Sincerely,
> Claudia MacMaster Tamarit
> (ISO) International Organization for Standardization
>  
>  
>  
> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Jim Bikoff
> Sent: 2013-02-26 23:44
> To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: David Heasley; Kiran Malancharuvil
> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed protection matrix - to be discussed during 
> the next call
>  
> Dear All,
>  
> Thomas’ amalgamation of criteria makes meaningful progress in the right 
> direction, and is consistent with Mary's overall rationale, which can be 
> found in her email from February 13, 2013.  
>  
> On Friday, as was suggested during the group teleconference, we had a very 
> constructive conversation with Mary about her summation of the overall 
> rationale--a summation of common ground among qualification criteria that 
> includes all the "fruit," while allowing for differentiation among the 
> different fruits.
>  
> Mary's February 13, 2013 summation had three planks:
>  
> “It seems to me that what we are striving to get to is a minimum standard to 
> qualify for special protections (of whatever nature), and that many of those 
> that have been suggested already, e.g. treaties, national laws, 
> organizational mandates etc., are a form of proxy for the vague concept that:
>  
> "an organization be
>  
> ·         international in scope and operations, and
>  
> ·         its primary mission be of such public importance
>  
> ·         that some form of special protection for its name and acronym can 
> be justified." [bullets added.]
>  
> We have suggested to Mary, and we now suggest to the group as a whole, that 
> one criterion be added to her original three:
>  
>             "an organization [must] be
>  
> ·         international in scope and operations, and
>  
> ·         its primary mission be of such public importance
>  
> ·         that it receives multilateral or multinational protection beyond 
> ordinary trademark laws, and
>  
> ·         that some form of special protection for its name and acronym can 
> be justified."
>  
> We look forward to moving this proposal toward consensus during tomorrow’s 
> teleconference. 
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Jim
>  
> James L. Bikoff
> Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
> 1101 30th Street, NW
> Suite 120
> Washington, DC 20007
> Tel: 202-944-3303
> Fax: 202-944-3306
> jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx
>  
>  
> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 4:15 PM
> To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed protection matrix - to be discussed during 
> the next call
> 
> Dear all,
> based on our discussions, I have below tried to amalgamate the points I have 
> perceived to be supported by some in the WG into a consistent set of measures 
> / protections / recommendations. 
>  
> You will see that I have separately dealt with the IOC, RCRC, IGOs and INGOs, 
> but still used a definition based on Mary's proposal to give an overall 
> rationale for the protections. You will also see that I have covered for each 
> of the above:
>  
> 1. qualification criteria
>  
> 2. protections for the top level and the second level
>  
> 3. protections in the launch phase and as of general availability
>  
> 4. protections that work preventive and preventions that work curative
>  
> 5. protections for identical matches and similar strings
>  
> You will note that I have provided responses for all those aspects for all 
> types of organizations separately. As I mentioned, we need to look at the 
> organizations separately as no consensus was in sight on determining a 
> unified set of criteria. 
>  
> Also, you will find different protections for different phases / scenarios to 
> respond to the proposal (as made by Evan) that the response/protection should 
> correspond to the concrete threat or I should better say likelyhood of threat 
> (paraphrasing now). To give an example: If someone took the string World 
> Health Organization (exact match name of the organization) the threat level 
> would be higher than if someone took the acronym (who). 
>  
> ToDos / Next Steps:
>  
> I recommend you go through the proposal one by one per organization (type) in 
> question and give feedback whether you are fine with the approach. If you 
> think, other protections should be granted, please do explicitly mention 
> them. 
>  
> If you think that one or more organizations should fulfill other or more 
> qualification criteria, please do explicitly mention them and come up with an 
> alternative proposal. 
>  
> If you think that the matrix is not covering all aspects it should include, 
> please provide concrete information on what is missing. I know the matrix 
> just provides headings and not all information we have exchanged in calls or 
> in writing. Completeness for that can be checked by you when you get the 
> draft report (which staff is thankfully starting to write up in parallel - 
> thanks to Brian and Berry!!!). 
>  
> If you think that you cannot grant protections to one or more of the 
> organization (types) on the basis of the methodology, please spell out 
> explicitly and comprehensively what you need to know, add to support a 
> recommendation to provide protections. If you do come up with such requests, 
> the group will consider whether such request can be responded to. If you 
> think you cannot support protections for one or more organizations anyway, 
> please indicate. 
>  
> Since the group has extensively discussed all aspects of the issues in 
> question and provided all information that the members regarded relevant were 
> put forward, I believe we are now at a point where we should move forward to 
> the next stage and work on actual conclusions / proposals.
>  
> Hence, you find below a set of recommendations with proposed recommendations 
> for all 4 organization(s) types. Please note that these do not necessarily 
> reflect my own preference, but such proposals that I think might get some 
> support after having listened to all of you for a long time. 
>  
> We will discuss this set of recommendations during the next call. If you 
> provide substantive feedback or alternatives, we will include such 
> information if it finds sufficient working group support. If no alternatives 
> are proposed, we will refine the proposals with additional explanations and 
> include it in the report so that the report can be put out for public comment 
> as soon as possible. We will call for view on all 4 organization(s) (types) 
> separately, so you can say yes or no to each individually, unless there is 
> broad support by the group that we should group the proposals into less than 
> four segments.   
>  
>  
> Attached you find the:
>  
> Proposed protection scheme for organizations that serve the global public 
> interest, that are international in scope and operations, and whose primary 
> mission is of such public importance that some form of special protection for 
> its name and acronym can be justified.
>  
> Eligible Organizations:
>  
> Meeting two of the following criteria is deemed to be sufficient evidence of 
> the above requirements for an organization to be eligible for protections. 
> The protection encompasses the name and the acronym of the respective 
> organization as well as designations that - as the case may be - are 
> explicitly mentioned in a treaty as a protected designation.   
>  
> - Protection by treaty  
> - Protection in multiple national jurisdictions (either by virtue of a 
> specific law or treaty protection that is enforceable in a multiple 
> jurisdictions without the requirement of a specific enactment 
> - Mission serving the global public interest
> - inclusion in the Ecosoc list 
>  
> I am looking forward to receiving your feedback.
>  
> Thomas
>