Organisations with these keywords are all fronts for influence or lobbying advocacy firms that just call themselves what they want the same as signing up to this site I could have used the username A_Policy_Expert whether it's true or not.

Policy, Centre, Council, Watch, Observatory, League, Campaign, Foundation, etc.

Virtually all of these organisations tend to exploit a simply trick. People inject The before the name subconsciously. They're intended to trick people into the assumption that they're actually official, qualified and accredited when they are not. It also tricks people into believing they're the central authority on the issue (monopolises, exclusive). To contrast this think about why Group or Organisation is less often used. Other terms may be used as organisations vie over the same wordspace like Assembly but they will try to sound as official and backed by authority as possible (Rights for example, very much used these days to imply authority).

There are of course other suspect keywords and other naming strategies but this is one that's particularly common.

Organisations like "Tell Mama" and "Black Lives Matter" are up front hostile.

The keywords International or Global are also somewhat suspect. Though it might still not speak to the integrity of the organisation, commission or national tend to as least be more official. That's because commission more literally means official rather than suggestively and anything national would usually come under the standard national instrumentation such as government. It's actually easier to create an organisation you can call international out of thin air than it is to create one called national.

It's almost an unwritten rule, bit like a trademark or sometimes it may even be protected title (probably often is by law) so that you can't use titles that would overwhelmingly have people mistake organisations for government. On the other hand international who protects that? The UN doesn't really have the clout.

These are usually NGOs but people tend to feel like they official organisations part of the normal system and body of departments when it's not so. If you have a little bit of cash, you can go register a domain such as CenterForDemocraticIntegrity with the TLD you fancy then use some out of the box theme, inject your content and that's it. It can take a week to a month and a few hundred or thousand dollars to have your very own official sounding and looking organisation. All you need is a domain, wordpress and a little content. Pay a hundred dollars to send off a few pamphlets to addresses of political offices and that's it. You're a policy maker now. Some very basic skills and some cargo cult to dress things up nicely and bang. Also send pamphlets to media organisation offices with contact details so they address book you when they need quotes for a story. You would be amazed what a little bit of junk mail or spam can do with just some basic targeting.

Believe it or not there's often a lot more in a name than people appreciate. Dumb as it might sound it often works. It's not even always because people are dumb either but exploiting that they're operating on the basis of trust for lower cognitive load so don't really stop to think about it.

To reduce cognitive load whenever anyone introduces some other agency just say by default who are they and why should I have to listen to what they have to say or do what they have to say. Always put it on the other person to prove the veracity of their organisation or person. Be careful not to get roped into the load domain of you having to prove they're not legit. It's the other way around. All you have to do is not be convinced while the other person expends more and more effort and energy to convince you until they either run out of steam, implode or buckle under the weight.