Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Qualification Criteria

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robin,
thanks for your message. I understand this might be surprising in isolation, 
but please note that we had a log discussion on the next steps and reasons for 
it during the last call in particular. Can I ask you to go to the mp3 or 
transcript? In addition to that, I am more than happy to provide more 
background information offlist! Please let me know!

Kind regards,
Thomas

=============
thomas-rickert.tel
+49.228.74.898.0

Am 01.03.2013 um 21:53 schrieb Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> It still seems as though we are 'putting the cart before the horse'.  
> 
> I don't believe there has been a determinative showing that existing RPM's 
> are inadequate to protect legitimate interests.  Did this group decide at 
> some point to grant new privileges and now just trying to figure out 'who' 
> gets these special privileges?  If so, when was that decision made?
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2013, at 11:29 AM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
> 
>> 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."
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
>