On the Founding of Covenants page 16 , Rhine Tribunal (GotF)
This is in relation to the First Tribunal.
While the specifics of how a Covenant obtains recognition may differ from tribunal to tribunal ,
we have nothing in current canon to say if all other Tribunals either follow or ignore this procedure.
I was reading through the history of the order and came across the following
942 1081 Stonehenge: Contact lost with London covenant, which had moved in the city repeatedly. [HtM]
952 1091 Stonehenge: Nova Roma magi report contact with magi of London covenant, in a clash over a vis site. No further contact with London covenant reported. [HtM] London covenant had always been mysterious. Its fate remains a secret, but they left no one behind to care.
So their is precident in "secret" vis sites. Granted this is between 2 covanents but the same should apply for lone Magi
It has already been noted earlier in this thread that some Tribunals, including the Rhine, in their Peripheral Code have set forth standards of reckognition.
Concerning this reference one thing is of importance, namely the use of the term "the First Tribunal". In terms of the Hermetic Law (especially found in the HoH:TL) the term First Tribunal is often used as a reference to the Tribunal held prior to division of regional Tribunals and the Grand Tribunal. The rulings of this proto-Grand Tribunal are binding to all magi and tribunals and can only be changed (if at all, as some traditionalist Quaesitors would question) by a Grand Tribunal. The term "First Tribunal" is however also used, yet in another capacity, by the magi of the Rhine Tribunal when speaking, with pride, of their own regional tribunal. This however does not make the rulings of the Rhine Tribunal binding to anyone else - although the regional tribunals often take heed of other tribunals way of solving issues. The reference you present use term in its second capacity and the reference even starts by stating it to be a decision of the Rhine Tribunal, which out of good faith you ought to have included in your argument. Especially since it is the key to realising that said ruling is not binding to any other regional tribunal, and thus the question of needing reckognition is still a regional issue.
I definately do not see them as the UN either, although the difficulties toward multilateral action is somewhat similar. I have attended the UN General Assembly in NYC, and although my experiences there could probably inspire several stories of political intrigue and relations, it is not how I imagine a Tribunal of magi unfold. 
I do not claim that they don't, only that the means of protection vary in terms of formal hermetic law according to the local (regional) Peripheral Code, or by using various non-legal (not necessarily unlegal) means to discourage new covenants.
And although some resident magi might not wish to share the existing resources in a Tribunal, there might be many other reasons for other resident magi not to be contrary to having more covenants or magi in the tribunal. To offset the current balance in the Tribunal, to have a stronger Tribunal (both in sense of votes at the GT aswell as for the pride), to have more likeminded magi of a shared House, Cult, stance or interest, to be stronger toward non-hermetic threats, or out of genuine benevolence toward ones sodales. These examples are just to highlight that the motives involved are much more varied than protectionism alone.
Yes - and the HoH:TL section on the Mercere tell that the Redcaps keep a confidental register of vis sources for exactly that reason, so as to be used in any future settlement of conflicts over vis, and that your sources can be registered there whether you or your covenant is known to the Tribunal. This register is open to covenants aswell as individual magi.
On a sidenote, the Stonehenge has been troubled with an unsteady Tribunal tradition, with long periods without quorate tribunals and with a few covenants only popping up once awhile. Even though some might prosper from the chaos others might be interested in more covenants alone for the reason of making the tribunal more stable and the tribunals effective.
Well , refering to the Rhine Tribunal i did not mean they were The (Capital T) First Tribunal ,
merely the First Tribunal. 
The ruling on unrecognized Covenants has been around for more than a few years within the Rhine Tribunal.
It would be of great surprise to me if the Tribunals founded by members from the Rhine Tribunal
did not copy them to some degree in this regard.
The Recognition Factors may change ,
but being able to persecute unsanctioned covenants and "take their stuff" without reprisals ,
seems like too good a deal to pass up.
(as long as their individual rights are respected of course)
You did?
Then I must have misread the following:
The only thing I see you question is what procedure of reckognition is followed, not the reckognition in itself. There is no follow or ignoring issue if said procedure was never decided upon by the Grand Tribunal or your own regional Tribunal.
No unreasonable. But you keep argueing in terms of formal law. It is only formal if decided upon by the regional Tribunal. Some Tribunal supplements specify such rulings, other do not, and yet others havent been published yet. Thus in most cases this is a question of how you carve out the tribunal of your saga.
I will not repeat the arguments from above, just say that said deal might not be the motivation of every magi attending the tribunals deliberating such a ruling. Secondly, there is a formal limit to persecuting and taking without reprisals and respecting their individual rights.