RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Qualification Criteria

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The following are my personal comments.

I continue to have concerns about the subjective nature of some of the criteria 
as listed below.

Model A (alpha)

*        "Organizations . . . whose primary mission is of such public 
importance that some form of special protection for its name and acronym can be 
justified"  If we decided to accept this criterion, we would have to decide how 
to measure levels of 'public importance' and then establish some level of those 
measurements that must be achieved for an organization to qualify.

*        "Protection in multiple national jurisdictions"  How many 
jurisdictions would be needed?  Does it matter which jurisdictions are counted, 
i.e., their size or geographic locations?

*        "Mission serving the global public interest"  What is in the 'global 
public interest'?  Is the public interest the same across all jurisdictions, 
societies, form of government, etc.?  Who would set the criteria of what is in 
the public interest?  Who would evaluate whether any such criteria are 
satisfied?

*        "inclusion in the Ecosoc list"  Why?  I appreciate the value of a 
recognized list of organizations and also one that is limited, but when I look 
at the prerequisites for organizations to be included, I don't think I see any 
that stand out as needing special protections.

Model B (bravo or beta)

*        "its primary mission be of such public importance"  If we decided to 
accept this criterion, we would have to decide how to measure levels of 'public 
importance' and then establish some level of those measurements that must be 
achieved for an organization to qualify.

*        "it receives multilateral or multinational protection beyond ordinary 
trademark laws"  How many nations would be needed?  Does it matter which 
nations are counted, i.e., their size or geographic locations?  Are 10 small 
nations that involve 5 million people counted the same as 10 large nations that 
include half of the world's population ?

*        "some form of special protection for its name and acronym can be 
justified"  How do we determine what is justified? Who makes that decision?  
Who evaluates whether an organization meets the criteria for justification.

Both models in my opinion raise very similar issues with regard to subjectivity.

One option is for this WG to make a lot of the subjective decisions regarding 
the above criteria.  In other words, we could to the best of our ability try to 
reach reasonable agreement on specific answers to the questions I asked.  
Another option would be to simply accept recommendations submitted by the GAC 
or some modification of them.  A third option is to avoid any subjective 
decisions, an option that I am not necessarily advocating.  And I am sure there 
are other options.

Whatever we decide to recommend, we need to be able to provide a rationale so 
we need to keep that in mind  as we move forward, i.e., we need to provide an 
explanation of why we made our recommendations that is hopefully sellable to 
the broader GNSO community.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Berry Cobb
Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2013 9:41 AM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Qualification Criteria

Team,

Attached is a document referring to the QC Proposal history.  The first page 
provides the two working proposals as Thomas outlined below, with the remaining 
pages being the history of QC proposals.  This was all extracted from our email 
list dating back to mid-December 2012.  It may be useful to the WG as new 
suggestions are offered to the proposal and to better understand what had been 
proposed in the past.  Or at the very least, it may provide a reference to 
other attributes for improving the current working models.  Note that the 
history only includes "pseudo" models and not necessarily includes "debate of 
pros/cons" of the model.

Please send feedback over the list, as this will also become an agenda item for 
our next meeting.

Thank you.  B


Berry Cobb
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
720.839.5735
mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
@berrycobb


From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 12:29
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Qualification Criteria

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."