Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Qualification Criteria

["David W. Maher" <dmaher@xxxxxxx>]

+1


>From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.



-------- Original message --------
From: Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
To: Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Qualification Criteria


Thanks, I've listened to the call from Wednesday's meeting and have a few 
comments based on the discussion.

1.  I agree with others on the call who said there needs to be a greater 
showing of "why" these groups need special privileges at all.  It remains a 
concern for me that we may be required to reach a pre-determined outcome of 
creating new privileges (and only the precise formulation is in question), but 
without the community really being convinced new privileges are warranted in 
the first place.

2.  I disagree with going forward with new mechanisms that amount to prior 
restrictions on the speech of others (blocking proposals aka "preventative" 
measures).  The legal permissibility of prior restraints on speech are 
extremely rare and involve issues reaching the importance level of national 
security.  No one has even attempted to make a showing that there is a 
"problem" so horrific that prior restraints on speech of others should be 
written into an ICANN policy.  Even our exalted trademark rights holders aren't 
entitled to such a rare mechanism in ICANN RPMs.  But these (yet to be defined) 
groups are?

3.  I disagree with mechanisms that shift the burden over to a registrant to 
have to prove they have a right to register a name.  This is a significant 
shift in how the domain name system has operated for many years.  Its also 
shifts a jurisprudence scheme from a presumption of innocence to a presumption 
of guilt on the part of the registrant.   That's a pretty big deal that hasn't 
been discussed.

4.  I disagree with idea that permission of the IGO/INGO should be required to 
register a name.  This chills criticism, which is lawful noncommercial speech.

5.  Over-breadth remains problematic (prevents too much legitimate speech) in 
the "protection" analysis.  The scope and exceptions to rights are not taken 
into account anywhere.

Thanks,
Robin

On Mar 2, 2013, at 12:42 AM, Thomas Rickert wrote:

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<mailto: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<mailto:robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>







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<mailto:robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>