Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Qualification Criteria
The stated "goal" of this document says that our "goal" is to create new privileges in some formulation. I don't believe that is our goal or something this group has consensus on. Our goal is firstly to determine "if" we should create any new privileges and *only if* the answer is yes, then do we go to the goal stated in this document. Again I feel we are putting the cart before the horse here. We cannot presume that we must come create these privileges. We have to leave room for the possibility that we won't reach consensus to create any special privileges at all. Otherwise, I don't know what we are here for if it is only to rubber stamp the decisions or wishes of others. Thanks, Robin On Mar 2, 2013, at 6:41 AM, Berry Cobb wrote: 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 @berrycobbFrom: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo- ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas RickertSent: Friday, March 01, 2013 12:29 To: 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 justifiedMeeting 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."<QC_Proposal_with_History_v0.1.docx> 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
|