[comments-wipo] Written Congressional Testimony of Intellectual Property Constituency - 07/28/99

[Jonathan Cohen <jcohen@shapirocohen.com>]

STATEMENT OF

JONATHAN C. COHEN

PRESIDENT

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY

OF THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION (DNSO)

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

U.S.  HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AT THE

OVERSIGHT HEARING

ON

INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY                 
RIGHTS

JULY 28, 1999

Mr. Chairman:

On behalf of the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC), I am pleased
to briefly  present the position and concerns of the IPC  on
three matters:

        1)      On the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the process of Internet governance reform;

        2)      On the specific concerns of the members of the IPC about intellectual property, vis à vis the domain name system and the ICANN process; 

        3)      Third, on the subject of dispute resolution in relation to domain names on the Internet, and WIPO’s proposals therefor. 

Background

The IPC was officially approved and recognized by the Interim Board of ICANN in May, 1999, and is one of seven separate constituency groups which, in addition to the General Assembly (GA), comprise the Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO).  The DNSO is the first, and currently the only one of the three policy development bodies, or Supporting Organizations (SO’s), that was approved by the Interim Board of Directors of ICANN in March, 1999, pursuant to its Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation. 

According to ICANN’s By-Laws, each of the seven constituencies of the DNSO is entitled to elect three representatives to the Names Council (NC), the governing body of the DNSO that is responsible for managing the consensus building process of the DNSO and presenting recommendations resulting therefrom to the ICANN Board.  The NC carries out this responsibility through the formation of research and drafting committees, working groups and other bodies of the GA that are appropriate to carry out the substantive work of the DNSO.  Such bodies must include at least one representative from each constituency, and their work must include such participation and input of other interested parties as is practicable, as well as public posting of and comment periods for, all reports or recommendations presented to the NC. 

Each of the three Supporting Organizations is also entitled to elect three representatives to the ICANN Board pursuant its By-Laws. 

In accordance with Article VI-B, Section 3 of the ICANN By-Laws, the IPC of the DNSO was formed through a series of consultative meetings in North America and the Asia-Pacific region, during which time a number of successive draft IPC By-Laws were discussed and revised at the meetings before being posted on the ICANN  website for further international input on each draft.  In addition, current participating organizations actively engaged in further outreach in order to expand the consultation process. 

These IPC formation meetings were attended by representatives of most of the major international intellectual property organizations.  The application for accreditation of the IPC which was presented to the ICANN Board in Berlin in May, 1999 not only reflected the consensus of these organizations, which collectively represent tens of thousands of intellectual property practitioners and rightholders both small and large, commercial and individual, in respect of trade-marks, copyright and patents, in all parts of the world, but it also included the participation of the representatives of a second, parallel IPC application, pursuant to negotiations between the two groups in Berlin. 


1)  ICANN and Internet Governance Reform

We, the Intellectual Property Constituency of the Domain Name Supporting Organization, strongly urge this Subcommittee and the Congress to support this Administration’s effort to find a private management system for the Internet and its Domain Name System (DNS) that, while fully protecting American interests, allows significant international participation and cooperation.  In view of the leadership role the United States has historically taken in the development of the world economy, and more recently, in the creation and development of the Internet, as well as the fundamental principles it has historically upheld, the U.S. is clearly in a position to effect and assist the orderly transition of Internet governance. 

There are many striking similarities between the social and economic factors the United States faces at the end of the 20th century at the dawn of the electronic information age and the early stages of the age of Internet communication, and those which it faced at the close of the last century.  In many respects, the challenges are the same.

By 1999, the industries that fuelled the 20th century have matured.  Information technology is beginning to dominate the world economy, requiring a fundamental retraining process in labour markets around the world to fill the exponentially growing needs of a computerized, networked world.  It is difficult to foresee how this revolution in communication and information technology will shape the 21st century.  It is safe however, to presume that its impact will be profound.

Today, the United States stands alone as a Superpower.  Many would point to its economic and military might as the clear icons of this fact.  While they are obviously of much importance, I would submit that they are not the secret of its great success and important place in history. 

The tremendous strength and success of the United States has been its fierce commitment to liberty, individual liberty, and embracing people from all over the world with their different backgrounds and cultures, languages and history.  It has resulted in an unprecedented explosion of human creativity in that country over the last century in every sphere of activity - from the entertainment industry, to the space program, human rights, telecommunications, and so on.

The Internet has proven in a very short time frame to be an instrument for the creation of incredible wealth, and for reshaping the very fundamental methods by which we communicate, do business, meet people, entertain ourselves, shop, study and even how we carry on our politics.  It has become so pervasive in global society that the Internet is, in at least a significant part, about power, money and intellectual property.

The United States of America has a right to a very strong voice in the control of the Internet.  The infrastructure of the Internet, the protocols, commercialization, the “A” root server and most of its backups, and a very large percentage of the users are all American.  However, the Internet by its nature is an instantaneously international medium that has already been embraced by most of the industrialized nations of the world (and surely would be in the developing world, but for the lack of resources).  As with many new media, the ‘haves’ have more and the ‘have nots’ have less.  But like the television and the telephone, Internet access will soon be available to almost anyone anywhere. 

In this light, a decision of this Administration’s Department of Commerce to begin to remove the Internet from direct U.S. government control, and further to begin the process of internationalizing it, is a clear measure of its confidence in private individuals and in its first principles.  More importantly, this decision is consistent with the globalisation of the world economy and the removal of barriers to trade and services promoted by the U.S.  

Extensive international efforts have been ongoing since the formation of ICANN, to bring into existence the administrative and policy infrastructure that is contemplated by its By-Laws and the White Paper.  These efforts extend to all stakeholders in the private sector in the U.S. and around the world who are suddenly faced with the challenges and controversy inherent in attempting to reach the common goal of Internet privatization when the respective interests and concerns may be quite disparate and sometimes even seem to be in direct conflict.  The scope of cooperation and harmonization of effort that is required to successfully “internationalize” Internet governance is tremendous and unprecedented when placed in the context of an international private sector divided by scores of national boundaries, languages, cultures, politico-legal systems and interests.   But clearly, the consensus-building process has begun.  It is at these early formative stages of the privatization process that support from the U.S. Congress is most vitally needed to ensure that the international effort and progress that is made is not undermined or overcome by the obstacles standing in its way. 

Although much time, money and energy have been spent on the development of ICANN to date, it is not possible to yet say whether ICANN is the right organization to deal with the embryonic and embattled process of DNS reform, as well as the other aspects of Internet governance.  Only time can test that theory.   If ICANN fails, it should be because it is not the right organization to do the job and cannot do it effectively.  It should not fail because any persons inimical in interest can successfully sabotage it or because it is deserted by its creators and left without funds to wither and die on the vine.  We feel ICANN has every possibility of being the right “person” for the job, provided that certain pre-requisites for its successful operation are met.

One such pre-requisite facing ICANN is its lack of funds required to carry out the mandate with which it has been charged.  To date, and in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the U.S. Department of Commerce and ICANN which requires ICANN to defray its own expenses, ICANN has relied primarily on corporate financing to fund its activities, including those which were previously funded through contracts or grants by the U.S. government and/or NSI’s registration fees.  These activities include:  the assumption of financial and administrative responsibility for IANA and its staff; the creation of a competitive gTLD Registry-Registrar system, which include the development and implementation of the registrar accreditation process, and the development of appropriate measures to address the issues of registration data backup and WHOIS services in a multiple-registrar environment; the coordination and improvement of the root server system; the assumption of responsibility for the “L” root server; and creating and overseeing the international consensus- development process that is necessary for the private sector management of the Internet and DNS (public consultations, international meetings, Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees). 

The Interim Board of ICANN proposed to meet its first year transition expenses through a fee of $1 per domain name registration, per year, to be collected from each registrar.  The stated position of the Department of Commerce (DOC) is that ICANN is legally entitled to levy such a fee to recover the actual costs associated with its operations and that this is an appropriate cost recovery method that is consistent with the White Paper.  However, the DOC also recognized the controversy generated by the user fee and accordingly recommended that ICANN defer its implementation until after the nine members elected by the SOs join the ICANN Board in November, 1999.  At the same time, the DOC undertook to cooperate with ICANN and the Internet community to find an interim solution to ICANN’s financial difficulties.  ICANN has agreed to comply with this recommendation and has taken steps to consult with the entities comprising the DNS infrastructure (name and address registries and the registrars) through the creation of a task force to study alternate methods of cost recovery. 

We urge the Subcommittee to support the DOC in its undertaking to work with ICANN and the Internet community to identify and implement acceptable funding options on an urgent basis. 

The United States has started this process - we ask that it see it through.  With great power and wealth come difficult responsibilities.  We respectfully submit that this is one of them. 


2)  Specific Concerns of the IPC

The Intellectual Property Constituency strongly supports privatization process of Internet governance as set out by the Secretary of Commerce of the United States in the White Paper of June, 1998.  However, this is not to say that there are not clear problems and challenges, nor does it suggest that we as a constituency do not have our own concerns about ICANN and its attention to our primary concern - intellectual property. 

The currency of the Net is intellectual property.  Its technology, its commercial use, the spawning of information and ideas is, or is about, patents, trademarks, copyright and domain names.  In an information society, the right to protect information and the right to protect creative and commercial effort are critical.  This is particularly so in the context of a such a rapidly growing international medium as the Internet, where the average number of users per day has increased by several orders of magnitude from a few thousand people in 1991 to roughly 30 million people per day in 1998, and the number of domain name registrations has risen from 200 per month in 1991-2 to approximately 5,000 per day only five years later.  The Internet has clearly assumed a role of critical importance in worldwide commerce.

The number of trade-marks registered annually in the U.S. alone increased from 28,921 in 1978 to 97,294 in 1997.  There were a further 323,967 pending applications in total before the USPTO in 1997.  It has been calculated that the nearly 700,000 International Trademarks taken out under the Madrid registration system administered by WIPO are the equivalent of some 3.5 million individual trademark registrations in 47 different countries. Also, in the European Union, the Community trademark system only commenced in 1996 but it has proved immensely popular and over 100,000 applications were filed in the first 3 years.  Trade-marks are clearly one of the linchpins of the American and international economy. 

When considered in light of these statistics, it is clear that the right to protection of intellectual property on the Internet is essential, and this necessitates the consideration of specific measures for the purpose of facilitating such enforcement. 


i.   Intellectual Property Community Representation on the ICANN Board

It has been the feeling of many in the IPC that intellectual property concerns have been treated by some as “second class citizens” in the process of overall Internet governance reform.  None of the current Board members of ICANN have an intellectual property background, and there have been many in the other constituencies that have argued (and some who still argue) that intellectual property lawyers and interests do not belong in the DNSO.  The IPC has demonstrated not only that its participation is of very significant importance, but that it is open to working with the other constituencies in a manner consistent with achieving consensus, in a manner consistent with trying to understand the other points of view, in a manner consistent with cooperation, rather than litigation.  But we feel strongly that we must be represented on the ICANN Board.  We suggest that perhaps the current model for electing the ICANN Board should be revisited. 

The Names Council, which is the governing body of the DNSO, is elected from each of the constituencies that make up the DNSO.  Perhaps the ICANN Board should be elected in a similar manner.  For example, each constituency of the DNSO could elect one member to the ICANN Board.  Each of the other two Supporting Organizations, and ICANN’s General Assembly, could elect members to the ICANN Board. Perhaps the government,  or some other quasi-governmental body, could appoint several persons to the ICANN Board as Chairpersons in key positions.  The Board itself or a Nominating Committee of the Board could appoint a few members from any walk of life, or any country.    In this manner, or some other similar format, there would be assurance that all the constituencies that make up the stakeholders of the Internet are represented at the Board level.  But it would also ensure that a number of Board members could be nominated on the basis of their suitability and expertise, so that a nucleus of the members of the Board would always be the best people available for the job. 



ii.  Concerns of the entertainment / copyright and trade-mark sections of the IPC

Websites are used to promote and market copyrighted material including: books and other printed matter, music and sound recordings, audio-visual material, databases, and computer software for applications ranging from business to entertainment.  Technical support and information regarding these products is also available online, and online delivery of these copyrighted materials in digital form from these websites is increasing.  In addition, activities on some websites are becoming integrated into copyrighted products themselves, as with sites for interactive play of computer games over the Internet, or for the provision of enhanced features for commercially distributed audio compact discs. 

This extensive use and distribution of copyrighted material over the Internet raises the following concerns for the copyright industry, and for intellectual property owners in general:

1)      It is vital to the efficient administration of the DNS, that the introduction of competition in domain name registration services not interfere with the ability to register Second Level Domains (SLDs) quickly, reliably and at a reasonable cost.

2)      Copyright-based companies share the same concerns and vulnerabilities as the trade-mark industry in relation to the trade-marks, trade names, service marks, slogans, character names and titles which they own throughout the world.  Cybersquatting, warehousing and the other types of trade-mark infringement, dilution or tarnishment which arise in the absence of adequate SLD registration safeguards and dispute prevention / settlement procedures, threaten both the copyright and trade-mark industries equally. 

3)      WHOIS database access:  Copyrighted works can be distributed and downloaded in digital form over and from the Internet.  A domain name abuser thus has the ability to both weaken, tarnish or dilute a copyright-based company’s marks, and usurp some or all of the market for the company’s product by making pirated copies of copyrighted material available on their sites, the names of which may or may not directly threaten copyright interests. This activity is a major impediment to the development of electronic commerce and the viability of the World Wide Web itself as a venue for global business.   As a result, it is vitally important to the copyright industries that there be some method for preventing or stopping online digital piracy. 

This issue has been addressed by Congress in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (“DMCA”) wherein a non-judicial, effective and efficient “notice and takedown” procedure is available to copyright owners, allowing them to work with Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to quickly cut off Internet access to sites where piratical activity is taking place.

Free, unfettered, real-time access to the full range of registrant data contained in the WHOIS database is necessary in order for copyright owners to be able to use the DMCA’s “notice and takedown” procedure.  WHOIS allows identification of the ISP that hosts or provides connectivity to the site where piratical activity takes place, and therefore the ISP to whom the copyright owner should direct a DMCA notification.  Limiting public access to WHOIS information in any way, whether by allowing WHOIS queries only under license, requiring permission from the domain name registrar before making use of WHOIS search results, or by allowing registrars to withhold some or all WHOIS data from the public, would significantly hamper the ability of copyright owners to quickly, inexpensively and reliably determine the proper recipient of a DMCA notification.  This could seriously undermine the utility of the DMCA notice and takedown provisions. 

Additional intellectual property concerns include the following:

4)      The trade-mark community strongly supports the privatization process and feels that significant progress has been made to date.  However, out of concern for the maintenance of the integrity of the DNS and the Internet, we believe that ICANN and its SOs should have the proper opportunity to continue the work they have begun.

5)      There must be a dispute resolution system that is mandatory for bad faith registrations, and this system should be expandable, if not immediately available, for broader trade-mark / domain name disputes on the Internet for those who choose to voluntarily use it.  Any voluntary dispute resolution system should not interfere with the right of the parties to the dispute to resort to the courts to resolve the conflict.   

6)      The development of an online, effective and inexpensive dispute resolution system will be a very important step in ensuring a stable Internet, that can expand to encompass an increasing number of countries outside the traditional industrial powers, where the cost of multijurisdictional protection of one’s intellectual property rights would place the costs of participation on the Internet out of the question.

7)      The need for famous marks to be afforded special protection across gTLDs based on proper study and debate. 

8)      As stated earlier, there urgently needs to be some focus on ICANN’s funding so that it can be self-supporting and independent.

9)      As already discussed above, there is currently a lack of intellectual property expertise on the ICANN Board.  The trade-mark community feels strongly that this issue should be addressed and the suggestions made in this regard supra, should be considered. 

10)     Emerging intellectual property issues concerning Patents and Designs need to be taken into account at an early stage. 

3)  Dispute Resolution

We all know that the Internet poses new problems for the owners of intellectual property.  With each new medium, there instantly arise a cross-section of entrepreneurs, flim-flam persons, snake oil salesmen and others whose ingenuity and larceny are often the source of marvel, at least to those who are not being hurt.  For intellectual property owners who are the subject of much of the chicanery on the commercial Net, the international nature of the Internet raises new challenges.  Balancing privacy rights fairly and yet being able to find the perpetrators and have an effective and uniform method to deal with the bad-faith use of trademarks or domain names on the Internet, and, finding an economical and effective system for dealing with international intellectual property disputes that may cross-cut many national borders, is a very important part of the structure of the Internet required to be put in place to allow the commercial development of the Net to go forward in an orderly and dynamic manner.  The intellectual property constituency is playing a significant role in providing advice and counsel to the ICANN Board on the subject of WIPO’s proposal to provide dispute resolution services as requested by the Secretary of Commerce in the White Paper of June, 1998.  The ICANN Board has asked for the advice of the DNSO on that subject, and the current president of the IPC is the co-chairman of the Working Group on that subject.  Recommendations from the Names Council of the DNSO to the ICANN Board will likely be made at the end of July, 1999.  The IPC undertakes to forward the recommendations of the Names Council to this Subcommittee, and we urge this Subcommittee to review these recommendations and to support them. 


Conclusion

At this stage of the development of the ICANN process and of the Internet itself, there are many persons and interests jockeying for power, for control and for money.  Each interest has its own persuasive raison d’etre, and many no doubt, have influence in the halls of power of the United States.  We of the IPC urge this Subcommittee and the Congress to support the owners, users and practitioners of intellectual property to have their rightful and essential voice in the reform and conduct of Internet governance. 
Although the Internet represents tremendous commercial opportunity for intellectual property rightholders, it has also created a new and “difficult” medium for policing the infringement of the rights of copyright and trade-mark owners.  By establishing ICANN and the DNSO, the Secretary of Commerce has taken the first important steps to make the governance reform of the DNS and the protection of intellectual property rights proceed in an orderly manner.  We strongly urge that this process, and that ICANN and its Supporting Organizations be given the necessary support by the Congress of the United States so that it has a fair opportunity to be effective, and, not be subverted by the selfish pecuniary or political interests of the few.  We respectfully submit that the American people will be well served if the ICANN process succeeds.  It is now in the hands of the U.S. Congress to review the White Paper of June 1998, which begins the important and necessary process of internationalizing the Internet. We urge this Subcommittee to recognize the fundamental rights of all nations to participate in Internet governance.  We respectfully submit that it would be a mistake not to do so.  It would not reflect the best interests of the American people, and would merely be a triumph of a few special interests over the clear rights and interests of hundreds of millions of people around the world to a free and democratic Internet. The international nature of this process begun by the Secretary of Commerce, if now supported by this Subcommittee,  will only add to its success and to the prestige of the United States Congress and the principles for which it so bravely stands. 
Respectfully Submitted on behalf of the IPC by its President:
Jonathan C. Cohen, FICPI representative

c/o     Shapiro Cohen                           

        Group of Intellectual Property Law Practices

        112 Kent Street, Suite 2001             Telephone:      (613) 232-5300

        Ottawa, Ontario                         Facsimile:      (613) 563-9231

        K1P 5P2 CANADA                  E-mail:         jcohen@shapirocohen.com

(*) The opinions expressed hereinabove are an amalgam of the thoughts and views of the members and participating observers of the IPC.  Not all members necessarily subscribe to every point made, but, with one exception, there is general overall agreement.  The DNRC dissents.  Please see <http://www.domainname.org/dissent723.html> for the text of the DNRC dissent.

APPENDIX I

MEMBERS OF THE IPC AS OF JULY 28, 1999
American Bar Association  Intellectual Property Law Section  “ABAIPL”
American Intellectual Property Law Association  “AIPLA”
Asian Patent Attorneys Association  “APAA”
American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers  “ASCAP”
Associacion Interamericana de la Propriedad Industrial - “ASIPI” (*)
Association of American Publishers - “AAP” (*)
Broadcast Music, Inc.  “BMI”
Business Software Alliance - “BSA”
District of Columbia Bar Association – “DCBA”(*)
Domain Name Rights Coalition  “DNRC”
European Communities Trade Mark Association  “ECTA”
European Newspaper Publishers’ Association - “ENPA” (*)
Federation Internationale des Conseils en Propriété Industrielle  “FICPI”
Intellectual Property Institute - “IPI” (*)
International Federation of Phonographic Industry – “IFPI”(*)
International Intellectual Property Alliance  “IIPA”
International Property Law Association of Chicago - “IPLAC”(*)
International Trademark Association  “INTA”
Association of European Trade Mark Owners  “MARQUES”
Motion Picture Association  “MPA”
National Music Publishers Association - “NMPA”
New York Intellectual Property Law Association - NYIPLA” (*)
Recording Industry Association of America – “RIAA” (*)
Software & Information Industry Association - “SIAA” (*)

(*) By written application to be reviewed by IPC Council

        APPENDIX II

DESCRIPTIONS OF IPC MEMBERS AS OF JULY 28, 1999

American Bar Association Intellectual Property Law Section (“ABAIPL”)

Since 1894, the Section of Intellectual Property Law
of the American Bar Association ("ABA-IPL") has been committed
to protecting intellectual property rights and has contributed
significantly to the development and protection of these rights in the
United States and abroad. The ABA-IPL, the largest intellectual property
organization in the United States with over 17,000 members and associate
members, is dedicated to keeping its membership informed of the latest
developments in this ever-expanding field.
  
American Intellectual Property Law Association (“AIPLA”) 

The AIPLA is primarily a U.S. based bar association with nearly 10,000
members engaged in private and corporate practice, in government service,
and in the academic community.  The AIPLA represents a wide and
diverse spectrum of individuals, companies and institutions involved
directly or indirectly in the practice of patent, trademark, copyright,
and unfair competition law, as well as other fields of law affecting
intellectual property.  The AIPLA has active members in more than 20
countries as well as over 400 foreign affiliates from some sixty
countries and monitors and comments on developments in IP law and
practice in commercially important countries around the
world. 

The American Society of
Composers, Authors and Publishers (“ASCAP”) 

ASCAP is the oldest musical performing rights society in the United
States and holds the largest repertory of U.S. copyrighted musical
works.  It is a voluntary membership association with more than
82,000 members, representing owners of all genres of musical works. 
ASCAP is affiliated with fiftyeight foreign performing rights
societies.  ASCAP licenses on a nonexclusive basis the nondramatic
public performances of the repertory of its members and its affiliated
societies to those individuals and entities which desire to make public
performances of that music.  ASCAP’s licensees include, but are not
limited to, commercial and noncommercial television and radio stations,
concert halls, sports arenas and teams, hotels and airlines as well as
colleges and universities and websites.  ASCAP has always taken, and
is committed to taking, an active role in representing and defending the
public performance rights of its members internationally and
domestically.  ASCAP’s President and Board Chair, Marilyn Bergman,
just completed four years of service as the President of “CISAC” (the
Confederation Internationale de Societies de
Auteurs et Composeurs), which is an international confederation of almost
all national performing rights organizations, and ASCAP’s general
counsel, Fred Koenigsberg, served as one of the private sector
representatives to the WIPO Diplomatic Conferences. 

Associacion Interamericana de la Propriedad Industrial (“ASIPI)
(*)

ASIPI is an international organization mainly formed by Latin
American Intellectual Property Practitioners, including also members from
all around the world as well as in-house counsel from some major
companies.  The interests of all its members is the protection of
intellectual property rights all around the world.   It was
founded in 1965 and it currently has over 800 active members. 
ASIPI’s membership has increased largely over the past years, becoming
the largest and most representative IP organization in Latin
America.  

Association of American Publishers (“AAP”) (*)

AAP has 210 corporate members located throughout the U.S. and is the
principal trade association of the book publishing industry.  AAP
members publish hardcover and paperback books in every field, including
general fiction and non-fiction, poetry, children’s books, textbooks,
Bibles and other religious books, reference works, scientific, medical,
technical, professional and scholarly books and journals, and classroom
instructional and testing materials.  AAP members also produce
computer software and electronic products and services, such as on-line
databases, CD-ROM, and CD-I.  AAP’s primary functions are to promote
the status of publishing around the world, and to defend intellectual
freedom at home and the freedom of written expression worldwide. 

Asian Patent Attorneys Association (“APAA”) 

APAA was formed in 1969 with the three foundation members, Japan, Korea,
and Taiwan.  The Association has now extended to include membership
from within the Asian region with 14 countries now represented and has a
total individual membership in excess of 1400.  The Association has
as its main objective, to promote the intellectual property law systems
within the region and to foster ties of mutual understanding between
those practicing intellectual property within the Asian region. 

Broadcast Music, Inc.
(“BMI”) 

Founded in 1940, BMI is an American performing rights organization that
represents more than 200,000 songwriters, composers and music publishers
in all genres of music.  Through its music performance and
reciprocal agreements, it grants businesses and media legal access to its
repertoire of more than 3,000,000 musical works from around the
world.  BMI is an active participant in international organizations
focusing on intellectual property issues.  BMI licenses the public
performance of its repertoire on radio, television, cable, the Internet
and other media and in other businesses and establishments.  BMI has
taken a leadership role in representing, advocating, and defending the
public performing right and the interests of songwriters, composers and
music publishers.  In January of 1999, Frances W. Preston, BMI’s
President and CEO, was honored as “person of the year” at the annual
MIDEM Convention in Cannes, France - the highest international award
accorded to music industry executives.  Marvin L. Berenson, BMI’s
General Counsel, served as a member of the U.S. delegation to the WIPO
diplomatic conference that produced two treaties in 1996 to meet the
needs of the digital era.

Business Software Alliance (“BSA”)

The Business Software Alliance promotes the continued growth of the
software industry through its international public policy, education, and
enforcement programs in 65 countries.  BSA worldwide members include
the leading publishers of software for personal computers including
Adobe, Apple Computer, Autodesk, Bentley Systems, Corel Corporation,
Lotus Development, Microsoft, Network Associates, Novell, The Santa Cruz
Operation, Symantec and Visio.  BSA’s policy Council consists of
these software publishers and other leading computer technology
companies, including Apple Computer, Computer Associates, Compaq, Digital
Equipment Corporation, IBM, Intel, Intuit, and Sybase.  BSA operates
more than 50 hotlines around the world for callers seeking information
about copyright matters or reporting suspected incidents of unauthorized
copying of software.  

District of Columbia Bar Association (“DCBA”)(*) 

The DCBA is an association of lawyers representing both domestic and
foreign clients in intellectual property, trade and policy matters before
various courts and before the executive and legislative branches of the
U.S. government. 
  
Domain Names Rights Coalition (“DNRC”) 

The DNRC represents the interests and views of entrepreneurs, small
businesses and individuals on the Internet.  The DNRC works for
national and international policies which are fair and equitable to all
users of the Internet, and which promote the Internet as a global medium
of communication and free speech. 
  
European Communities Trade Mark Association (“ECTA”) 

 ECTA is an association of some 1,500 trademark professionals and
attorneys, some working in industry and some in private practice. Full
members have to be practising in one of the fifteen countries of the
European Community, but membership is also open to affiliates and
associates from any country in the world. Over 50 countries are currently
represented in this way. ECTA acts as an informed spokesman on all
problems relating to the protection and use of trademarks in the European
Community, in particular the Community Trademark Regulation, the
Community Trademark Office, the harmonization of national legislation
with that of the EC, and the consequences arising from the exercise of
national trademark rights in EC Member States.  

Federation Internationale des Conseils en Propriete Industrielle
(“FICPI”) 

FICPI is an organization made up of over 4000 members from over 70
countries, all of whom are experienced intellectual property
practitioners.  The international group and its national
associations regularly participate in national and international
discussions in relation to all aspects of intellectual property. 
  
The International Federation of Phonographic Industry (“IFPI”)(*)

IFPI is the worldwide voice of the recording industry.  Founded in Rome in 1933, IFPI has been active in developing and presenting the views of the world's major record companies, as well as those of hundreds of independent record companies, in numerous forums around the world. Currently, IFPI counts over 1,200 record companies, located in
70 countries, among its members.  In addition, the national record industry associations of 44 countries are members of IFPI. IFPI is a strong supporter of intellectual property, as its members depend on the strong protection of copyright and trademark in order for them to invest in and distribute recorded music around the world.  Consistent with this position, we strongly advocate the protection of copyright and trademark in online environments where the dangers to authors and rights owners from the lack of such protection are so severe.  We have therefore followed the recent developments in the field of domain registration, including the WIPO process, with great interest and support
the goals of these undertakings. 
International Intellectual Property Alliance (“IIPA”) 

The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) is a private sector coalition formed in 1984 to represent copyright-based industries - business software, films, videos, music, sound recordings, books nd journals, and interactive entertainment software - in bilateral and multilateral efforts to improve international protection of copyrighted works.  IIPA is comprised of seven trade associations, each representing a significant segment of the U.S. copyright community.  

International Property Law Association of Chicago (“IPLAC”)(*) 

IPLAC consists of over 900 members who are engaged in the practice of intellectual property law.  Among the missions of the IPLAC is to “aid in the development of the patent, trademark and copyright laws, the administration thereof, and the procedures in connections therewith.”  Because of the importance of domain names and the Internet
in the field of intellectual property, the IPLAC are extremely interested in the activities of ICANN. 
  
The International Trademark Association (“INTA”) 

INTA is a 120yearold notforprofit membership organization.  Since the Association’s founding in 1878, membership has grown from 17 New Yorkbased manufacturers to approximately 3,700 members from the United States and 119 additional countries. 
Membership in INTA is open to trademark owners and those who serve trademark owners.  Its members are corporations, advertising agencies, professional and trade associations, and law firms practicing trademark law.  INTA’s membership is diverse, crossing all industry lines and spanning a broad range of manufacturing, retail and
service operations.  All of INTA’s members, regardless of their size or international scope, share a common interest in trademarks and a recognition of the importance of trademarks to their owners, to the general public, and to the economy of both the United States and the global marketplace. 
  
The Association of European Trade Mark Owners (“MARQUES”) 

The objectives of MARQUES are to assist European based brand owners in the selection, management and protection of their trade marks and to create a forum for the free exchange of ideas and information providing a platform for the representation of their interests.  They have approximately 450 members in 75 countries. 
  
The Motion Picture Association of America (“MPA”) 

The Motion Picture Association of America acts domestically as the voice and advocate of seven of the largest producers and distributors of filmed entertainment.  MPAA’s counterpart, the Motion Picture Association (MPA) serves the same purpose on an international basis.  Founded in 1922 as the trade association for the American film
industry, the MPAA has broadened its mandate over the years to reflect the diversity of the expanding motion picture industry.  Today these associations represent major producers and distributors of entertainment programming for television, cable, home video, and looking into the future for delivery systems not yet imagined.  Among its principle missions, the MPAA directs an antipiracy to protect, through copyright and other laws, films in 72 countries around the world. 

National Music Publishers Association (NMPA)

NMPA is a trade association representing over 600 U.S. businesses that own, protect, and administer copyrights in musical works.  For more than seven decades, NMPA has served - in the national and international arenas - as the eyes, ears, and voice of the American music publishing association.  NMPA’s wholly-owned subsidiary, the Harry Fox Agency, Inc. (HFA), acts as agent for more than 16,500 U.S. publishers in connection with the issuance of mechanical licenses, covering the majority of musical compositions contained in U.S. records, tapes, compact discs, and imported phonorecords.  HFA also collects and distributes royalties for licenses it issues and audits them to ensure the accuracy of licensees’ accountings.  Through reciprocal representation agreements with similar collecting societies throughout the world, HFA provides these services to its publisher principals on a global basis.  In addition, HFA often licenses on a worldwide basis on behalf of its publisher principals for use in films, commercials, television programs, and other types of audio visual media.  Through its involvement in various international organizations including BIEM, an umbrella group of trade associations operating in over 80 countries, NMPA/HFA plays an active role throughout the world in protecting copyright interests of the U.S. music publishing industry.  
  
New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA”)(*) 

One of the oldest intellectual property bar associations in the United States whose more than one thousand members are actively engaged in the protection of intellectual property assets in the U.S. and abroad. 

Recording Industry Association of America (“RIAA”)(*) 

RIAA is a trade association that represents the companies that create, manufacture or distribute approximately 90 percent of the sound recordings in the U.S.  With $14 billion in domestic sales and foreign sales of over $16 billion, U.S. recorded music represents approximately 60 percent of the world's consumption of music.  The U.S. recording industry employs hundreds of thousands of workers at a variety of levels and produces a foreign trade surplus.  The RIAA works to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes its members' creative and financial vitality around the world.  Toward this end, the RIAA works to protect intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists; investigates the illegal production and distribution of pirated sound recordings; conducts consumer, industry and technical research; and
monitors and reviews state and federal laws, regulations and policies and represents the music industry's interests before legislators. The RIAA also certifies Gold, Platinum, Multi-Platinum and Diamond? sales awards.

Software & Information Industry Association (“SIAA”) (*)

SIIA is the principal trade association of the software code and information content industry.  SIIA represents more than 1,400 leading high-tech companies that develop and market software and electronic content for business, education, consumers and the Internet.  SIIA was formed on Jan. 1, 1999, as a result of the merger between the Software Publishers Association (SPA) and the Information Industry Association (IIA).  Information on SIIA and its wide range of activities can be found at <www.siia.net>.  
(*) By written application to be reviewed by the IPCC. 

                                      End of document

Shapiro Cohen

Group of Intellectual Property Practices

Ottawa, Canada

Telephone: (613)232-5300

Facsimile: (613) 563-9231

________________________________________________________________________

This correspondence is intended for the person to whom it is addressed

and contains information that is confidential, and/or privileged to the

named recipient, and may be proprietary in nature. It is not to be used

by any other person and/or organization.  If you have received this

e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by telephone (collect)

and/or return e-mail.