[gnso-igo-ingo] Qualification Criteria

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,
we have discussed the question of qualification criteria (again) during our 
last call, as you will recall. 

What we have on the table at the moment are the two proposals below. 

Do you think we can merge them or come up with a new set of criteria? 

Following the last call, let me also remind you that these criteria are the 
first hurdle to be taken qualify for the protections. #

We discussed that there might be additional criteria (admission criteria) for 
the protection mechanism in question. 

I guess Alan was the first to make the point during the call. Can I ask all of 
you (and Alan in particular :-)) to think of whether and what additional 
criteria you would like to set up as a second hurdle for admission to the 
protections?

Thanks,
Thomas

Here come the two sets of qualification criteria:

1. What I amalgamated from Mary's proposal and our previous discussions:


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

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 

1. What Mary/Jim have recently submitted:

“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 [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."