Trademarking IDEA

[Bojana]

Dear all, 
                                            
I would like to share with you some information I recently found out and
some of my thoughts about IDEA. Here they are: the membership
organisation IDEA, the organisation that was established as an
international membership organisation in Amsterdam in 1998 under the
name IDEA, doesn't really own its name. Before I continue I would like
to clarify something: legally, there is no IDEA - NL or IDEA - USA, that
is why I am not using these names in this text. Legally we do have IDEA,
which was established in 1998 in Prague by national debate
organisations, now voting members of IDEA - I am refering to this
organisation as membership or just  IDEA  and a few years later there
was IDEA Inc established in USA as a charity.  non-member organisation,
I am refering to it as IDEA Inc.   
 
Here are the quotations from Mr. Selegzi's emails explaining the
trademarking IDEA  to me: 
"the name IDEA and the IDEA logos are registered international
trademarks that are owned by IDEA-USA.  IDEA-NL has a license to use
them." A day or so later: " IDEA, Inc.'s trademarks are registered with
the United States' Patent Office and the equivalent office in the
European Union.  ... The marks were established with the full knowledge
of IDEA-NL and with the input of IDEA-NL's attorney." According to Mr.
Selegzi, who is the current president of the IDEA Inc. board, the
director of OSI debate programme and board member of the membership
IDEA, OSI gave $20,000 to IDEA Inc. in order to trademark the name. 
 
Of course I was surprised since the members of IDEA were not informed
about losing the ownership of the name. I knew we never voted about it
at the GA, so I asked a few simple questions.  When did it happen? How
did it happen? Who from membership IDEA approved it? Why was the name
not trademarked by the original IDEA, the membership organisation that
was established first and also come up with the name? 
 
It was really not easy to get  answers and I didn't get all of them. Mr.
Selegzi who informed me about the trade marking of IDEA firstly didn't
want to answer anything, telling me I should have asked the membership
IDEA representatives, than told me he didn't really know and I should
have asked the IDEA attorney, and others also told me maybe ZIP needed
to leave IDEA if we had so many concerns. However, Mr. Selegzi did
answer some questions, saying that everything was presented in the
Memorandum of understanding between both IDEAs at the Istanbul GA in
2004 in October.  Now, it happens I was there and yes, the Memorandum
was briefly introduced, but there was no decision made about it, it was
not voted on. Even more, I do not recall we ever discussed the ownership
of the name at the meeting.  
 
I must admit I found it really strange how come Mr. Selegzi, although I
do understand he is a very busy man, did not have the answers on my
questions if this trade marking obviously happened when he was the
executive director of membership IDEA, the executive director of IDEA
Inc. (the USA registered charity) and the director of OSI debate network
program.  How come somebody who holds all the executive positions of the
players involved  doesn't have an answer?  The whole discussion lasted
for almost two weeks and after I was informed when the trade marking
happened (thanks to Jurate!), I also understood why it seemed Mr.
Selegzi didn't want to answer: the IDEA Inc trademarked the name IDEA in
USA in March 2003  a year and a half before Istanbul GA and in Europe in
March 2004, a half a year before of Istanbul GA, when supposly by Mr
Selegzi words everything was agreed! Judging by the information I got in
this two weeks long discussion it seems that Mr. Selegzi didn't ask  or
inform anybody, not the IDEA members, not the IDEA governing board, but
just trademarked the name.   It seems that when he said   >The trade
marks were established with the full knowledge of IDEA-NL< he had in
mind himself in the role of executive director of IDEA, as it seems very
clear that not the governing board or maybe General Assembly and IDEA
members were informed about it. 
 
So it is not a surprise that the current governing board members  didn't
know anything about it. However, it is quite a surprise that  some GB
members felt that I am doing an outrageous wrong because I tried to find
out what  happened. And even bigger surprise that they didn't feel there
is anything wrong with the fact they even do not know the organisation
they are managing doesn't own its own name. 
 
Here is the important question which the governing board members and GA
should spend some time on: Why was the name not trademarked by the
original IDEA, the membership organisation which was established first
and also came up with the name? Why was the name trademarked by the
organisation that was established 3 years later as a charity
organisation? 
 
During the whole conversation some governing board members also tried to
persuade me that the whole story is not a big deal, arguing that these
IDEAs together build the trademark IDEA, that it doesn't really matter
which IDEA does what, that the only important thing is the name and the
name is ours, we all do share the same name. Although I do accept they
might think it is not a big deal and I am exaggerating, and after all we
are entitled to different opinions, I still very strongly feel that
members of the membership organisation should be informed about what is
going on about important things as well as not so important things. We
might have a debate if the trade marking is a major or a minor issue,
however we should never have a discussion about whether the members are
entitled to be informed or not. 
 
Furthermore, nobody, no member should ever be treated by the governing
board members as I was. It seems that the representatives of the
organisation, which claims to support, open discussion think asking
questions and seeking for transparency is wrong. Not to mention what
kind of attitude towards the members  they have when discussing among
themselves - it happened that by mistake I got an email that was not
supposed to be sent to me - guys, I was ashamed for you! 
 
However, I do not feel the trade marking is a minor issue. I feel it is
pretty major one. There are a few fundamental problems with this
trademark situation. If IDEA Inc. is the owner of the name they can give
the name to whoever they want, however they can also take it away. So,
it is possible  that IDEA Inc decides to terminate the license of using
the name to the membership IDEA.  
 
 In one of the emails I got it was said there are three IDEAs , I have
no clue what  is the third IDEA.  Is this the IDEA at Willamette
University? Is that the  OSI debate program? Or maybe it is the IDEA -
Seoul?   The fact is we do not really know and surprise surprise we are
also not entitled to be informed when IDEA Inc is doing something,
because they are not a membership organisation.  Furthermore, sometimes
it seemed some of my correspondents felt that IDEA is an organisation
which is already  doing or should be doing things instead of Open
Society Institute, like the OSI programme being shifted to IDEA, which
should >of course< also giving the OSI connected people bigger role in
IDEA.  Guys, I am not saying this is good or bad, but I do feel if this
is an intention that should be  discussed and if  accepted  publiclly
announced. 
 
 
The membership IDEA and the IDEA Inc. are two legally separated
organisations.  The voting members of membership IDEA  have a say about
the performance of the membership IDEA, as the General Assembly is the
highest decision making body of IDEA.  However they do not have a say
about what the IDEA Inc. is doing, because this organisation is a
charity. No members.   However, this doesn't stop  IDEA Inc. when
presenting itself  as an international organisation, they speak about
the network of debate programs. Furthermore, a lot of the organizers of
the People Speak Events 2006 globally were really upset and very
unsatisfied with the performance of IDEA Inc. - they needed to wait for
the money almost for a year, some of them still didn't get it, although
everything was done properly from their side. These organisations do not
know there are two or more IDEAs, they do not know that IDEA Inc. did a
bad job, and they blame IDEA and that means the membership IDEA as well.
I want to be proud of the organisation we are member of not to be
ashamed, especially if  the organisation we are not member of is doing
its job poorly. Why should the membership IDEA suffer for poor
performance of somebody else?  
 
To conclude: if it doesn't really matter which IDEA does what and all
IDEAs + OSI debate programme  together are creating a trademark or
however you want to call it, than all the organisations involved should
have an equal position. Right now the situation is that members of IDEA
at the GA decide only about the activities, strategy of membership IDEA
not about IDEA Inc. However, IDEA Inc presents itself as an
international organisation, refering to the debate network of membership
IDEA.  I would say this is pretty unfair, one organisation having more
say than the other  and secondly, the whole operation is really  not
transparent, very easy to avoid the responsibility or shifting it on
somebody else. Furthermore, the outsiders do not really know what it
going on, having an impression there is one IDEA. Question for the GA:
when a debater from the country X register as a member of IDEA, which
IDEA he or she or it are the member of? Membership IDEA or IDEA Inc or
the third IDEA?  
 
 
I was also told I can never challenge anything and I should be grateful
forever because the Slovenian debate program was founded and financed by
Open Society Institute and George Soros' money. Of course, this is more
than true: we were financed by OSI. And we are grateful to Mr. Soros. I
can also proudly say that Mr. Soros got really a lot for the money he
spent for Slovenian debate program. We  do have a strong network of
debate clubs doing really lots of quality debate activities. 
 
However, it is a complete mystery for me why the fact that we used to be
OSI grantees gives the right to OSI administrators and their loyal posse
to demand from us unconditional and unquestioning loyalty forever!.
Sadly, all the governing board members I had discussion with support
this ludicrous demand. Guys, this is the antithesis of what a debate
program is supposed to be teaching
 
Financers usually give money to different organisations so they can do
different projects.  The grantee is obliged to do the work for which
they get the money. That's it. There are no other obligations. Giving
the money for projects doesn't mean the financer owes the grantee or
that they can demand anything else than doing the job financed well.
Not during the time of being a grantee, not after that.  
 
 
At the end I need to admit that now even more than before I truly
believe in the global debate community, that I deeply admire and support
all of you, who strive for the successes of debate programs in your
school, your region and your country. I must also confess that
because the situation described bellow IDEA is no longer an organisation
we feel comfortable being a member of and also may very well be an
organisation that doesn't really satisfy the needs of its members. From
the very beginning I was a big supporter of IDEA, promoting it
everywhere. For me IDEA represented an international debate community,
the most fantastic network of debate programs in so many different
countries, promoting and supporting debating in national languages,
trying to reach different audiences.  I am also aware there is a group
of people there working hard to make IDEA a success and I would like to
make it really clear, that I do respect their hard work and I do wish
they succeed. I do wish IDEA is a success. And that is why, I am very
firm about    IDEA  facing the challenges and some difficult issues
need to be closely looked at and discussed at the GA and further on,
like transparency and relationship between IDEAs and OSI,  relationship
and attitude towards the members, cost benefit analyses of  hugely
expensive Amsterdam office and costly projects with no important results
like the accreditation process, or debate tracker, avoiding
responsibility for the projects e.g. the failed Comenius project or
People Speak Events  not  to mention that IDEA doesn't really do a lot
of services/activities for its members or governing board showing lack
of respect for the decisions voted at the GA. 
 
I do understand the connections between IDEA and Open Society Institute,
I also understand some transition period was needed, however I also feel
the transition process should be over and IDEA needs to clarify what
kind of organisation is it. Is it a true membership organisation, run by
the members, cooperating with different partnerts, like IDEA Inc, OSI
and others, operating transparently and publicly or is it something
else, as one of the IDEA board members said to me >Yes, IDEA is a
membership organisation, but not really< ?  I am curious about this >not
really<. Probably not only me. 
 
I also strongly feel that until IDEA doesn't solve this >not really a
membership organisation< can not really become a success story. 
 
 
Bojana Skrt
ZIP, Za in proti, zavod za kulturo dialoga/Pro et contra, Institute for
culture of dialogue 
Slovenia 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.idebate.org/pipermail/debate-l/attachments/20071104/b40d691f/attachment.html