Contents
1. Introduction
2. ICTs and Development
3. The Digital Divide
4. The Digital Divide and Trademarks
5. ICT and Intellectual Property
6. Trademarks and ICTs
7. Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
8. Trademark Protection Technology
9. Trademarks and Domain Names
10. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
11. UN Information and Communication Technologies Task Force (UN ICT TF)
12. International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
13. The Road Ahead
14. Appendix #1, United Nations Information & Communication
Technology Task Force (UN ICT TF) Member List
15. Appendix #2, The United Nations ICT TF Plan of Action
16. Appendix #3, The Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process
Executive Summary
The UN Meets Trademarks at the Digital Divide
By Talal Abu-Ghazaleh
1. Introduction
It is a great honor for me to have this opportunity to address such a distinguished and influential audience. Intellectual Property may be thought of as the substantiation of the insubstantial, the valuation of the invaluable, and a way to put a price on the most important aspect of human development, creativity and innovation. Of course, this is not a textbook definition, but I think it is helpful in understanding the significance of IP, and more specifically, it offers me a good lead-in to my topic today, The Relation of Trademarks to the Digital Divide. First, I will give you a little background into the subject of the Digital Divide and the situation for development in what used to be called the “Third World”, and then move on to discuss the situation as it relates to trademarks.
My early advocacy of strong Intellectual Property laws in developing countries, long before it was common to do so, was not motivated by a desire to enhance the earnings potential of foreign multinational corporations, nor to show my empathy and support for the economic interests of developed countries. It was because I believed that the absence of Intellectual Property protection was a hindrance to Arab development and developing countries in general. The fact that this worked out to be a win-win proposition was fortuitous.
By the way, many of the positions I take on various issues represent what I would classify as a marriage of pro-business and pro-development policies. No doubt, there are many people who simply cannot buy that, as evidenced by the increasing rough-going that the ‘protest camp’ has given to globalization and development forums in recent years, but to me it doesn’t matter. We have to go on with what we are doing, and do the best we can. If you honestly care about development, then it is wholly appropriate to use your business resources and activities to advance development causes. As for me, I feel so strongly about this that I have made contributions to the socio-economic development of the Arab world, a part of my private company’s core mission statement. I don’t expect everyone to go to that extreme, but a balanced contribution is always welcome.
I got into the development field by chance. I am a businessman, but I was born in the Arab world at a time of widespread disillusionment and social and economic frustration. I was not happy with the underlying infrastructure for professional services (and remain unsatisfied even now) and so I took the responsibility to begin working to change things, to develop things.
Now I have reached the stage where I have become involved in the development to such an extent that I enter businesses for development reasons, rather than enter development for business reasons. That is a luxury which I am happy to be able to afford. For example, my personal firm, TAGO, entered into a partnership with Cambridge International Examinations (CIE), a division of the venerable Cambridge University in the UK, to offer CIE’s highly respected computer training materials and certification through the Arabic language e-learning initiative. We made that commitment despite a negative assessment of profitability and risk from our in-house consultants; I gave the go-ahead, not for reasons of profit, but to pursue the potential development outcomes. And as it turned out, the project has worked out well, delivering its anticipated development outcomes and, on the financial side, is almost close to breaking even in its third year.
After all, it is the Arabs who invented numbers on which the digital language of zeros and ones is based.
Our Cambridge project is representative of a whole new dimension to the development work in this brave new information society whose birth we have all witnessed. On the one hand, it highlights the importance of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs); on the other hand, it illustrates the changing nature of what we might call, “development coalitions of the willing”. These tend to involve multi-stakeholder and multi-geographic participation (as in the example above, Cambridge University, the Arab Knowledge Management Society, and an Arab professional services group).
Even more representative of this trend, and really a unique manifestation of development cooperation, is the United Nations Information & Communication Technology Task Force (UN ICT TF). I speak to you today in my capacity as a vice-chair of this UN body that is constituted by a multi-stakeholder cross-section of governmental, NGO, and private sector representatives. The UN ICT TF, chaired by Jose Maria Figueres Olsen, former President of Costa Rica and Special Representative of the Secretary General on ICT, is charged with a mission to: help harness the power of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) for advancing the internationally agreed development goals of the U.N. Millennium Declaration, particularly halving the number of people living in extreme poverty by 2015, and to provide a global forum for integrating ICTs into development programs.
2. ICTs and Development
When we look at Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), we find what, in many ways, is the perfect complement to Intellectual Property; a medium that is as amorphous as its content and, seemingly, just as helpful in adding and, indeed, creating value.
In recent years, there has been a continuing reappraisal and a developing new consensus on the role of the Internet and contributing technologies to society and to the development of both the developed and developing countries, particularly in regard to economic growth and social development. In contrast to dotcom euphoria, there is a more measured view that ICTs should be seen as a tool that works with, but does not replace, the real world. However, this does not mean that ICT is not important. In fact, it remains an incredibly important aspect of business, social interaction, and development work.
It is important in considering the added value of the Internet and related technologies to remember that some benefits are quantifiable and some, while important, are increments in the quality of life that are hard to quantify. E.g. in 1915, long distance telephone services from New York to San Francisco cost $20.70 for a 3 minute call. Today, the same type of long-distance call can be made for less than 50 cents, and sometimes free on certain times and telecom programs. The reduction in costs is quantifiable, but how do you measure the improvement in life of being in touch with business and social contacts on the other side of the continent? The point is, simply, that talking only about numbers and figures does not address one of the key issues of advancement, which is how it changes the way we live our lives.
That being said, the numbers alone are rather impressive. According to the WIPO website, the number of Internet users is currently estimated to be about 600 million worldwide, and it is forecasted to reach one billion by 2005. The global value of e-commerce B2B transactions is forecasted to be 7.3 trillion dollars next year, up from 145 billion in 1999. Profound changes have occurred in how businesses operate. According to the Global Information Infrastructure Commission, “Networked organizations and decentralized corporate processes have changed relationships between the producers and users of goods and services, and spurred the rapid integration of global markets. Information and Communication Technologies and new developments, such as online business-to-business exchanges and virtual trading networks, have transformed traditional business practices by connecting critical business systems directly to key constituents like customers, employees, suppliers, and distributors via the Internet.”
Who can venture to guess as to how much the vast improvements in the communication of knowledge, which modern ICTs have facilitated, have increased the potential for human creativity and innovation, and related advances in economic and educational attainment? This is far from advocating the position that ICTs represent some sort of panacea. But, it is a fair proposition to venture that ICTs are important in stimulating development across a wide and, as yet, uncharted realm of enhanced possibilities. ICT developments generated their own IP related inventions and promoted other inventions in all fields. A whole world of IP rights!
It is this great unelaborated potential of ICTs to act as healthy catalysts to human society, which makes the Digital Divide so unfortunate. It is not an ‘either/or’ proposition to feel bad about the absence of an ICT infrastructure in those societies where it is lacking. In other words, it doesn’t mean that we will aim to replace food aid with computers to alleviate a famine, but, as always, there is a diversity of needs, and ICTs have a role. It is true that they must be seen as a tool and not as a separate category. The current emphasis is on “mainstreaming” ICTs, which is a way of saying, using them in a way that is helpful (i.e. as a tool), rather than looking for anything helpful to use them. One slight adjustment to this concept that has been making its way through the developed community is the idea that ICTs are the tool of choice when they provide a greater net-benefit than alternative tools; in other words, that we should not be so enamored of ICTs that we use them without reflection as to whether they are the right tool for the job in any given situation. As always, the ‘devil is in the details’ and, in this case, the detail is how you measure these benefits and how you measure subjective, qualitative improvements in life. Efforts are being made to find models by which to do this, but it is definitely, and will be for some time, a work in progress.
3. The Digital Divide
The Digital Divide would appear to be a singular phenomenon and, as the name implies, the division between digital ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. However, it is more accurately viewed as a collection of divides. Some of the key aspects of Digital Divide include:
· Those between developed and developing countries.
· Those between different geographical, racial, class, income, gender, and other groups within the same country.
· Those between different developing countries.
The divide that most people probably think of is that which encompasses those people who have no access to telecommunications, no computers, no Internet, and no telephones. This also tends to include those who are illiterate, under educated, and socially disadvantaged, in general. There is another group that is just as disadvantaged and that is the group that suffers not so much from a “Digital Divide” as from a “mental divide”. There are people in the United States or Europe that have nothing keeping them from technology but themselves. There are Internet enabled computers in free public access points like libraries or schools that people simply pass by because of a lack of interest. Of course, some people view a lack of interest as a sign of poor education and, thus, a symptom of an educational divide. Which Digital Divide is more important; the divide of motivation or the divide of opportunity? I guess the answer to this question is that they are both equally important; but you must first have the opportunity and then you must be educated to grasp that opportunity. I believe that education is the motivating impulse that will provide the desire and motivation to bridge this Digital Divide.
There is also the issue of culture. It has been reported that computers and the Internet are seen as an American thing. In fact, some see the digital world as the “American-white” world, not something that is a part of them. That can be a self-fulfilling prophecy and it leads to a perpetuated Digital Divide in places that do not suffer from any financial or infrastructure barrier.
Developing countries may suffer from all these divides. Of course, it is important to take note of the progress that the developing countries have made and are making, even with the real resource constraints they face. Basic use of e-mail is now taken for granted by businesses in much of the world, and that is becoming the case in the developing countries as well. Web-based businesses have taken off and, as elsewhere, are altering the way people go about normal activities of life. In Cairo, you can get on the Internet and find a website (www.otlob.com) where you can have delivered almost any type of food from a wide range or restaurants; if you crave a midnight snack you can order a 5-course dinner at 1:00 in the morning. But you can’t pay over the Internet; you pay on delivery. This illustrates the way the culture extends through the net (i.e. Egyptians are Mediterranean late-night people so services are available late, through the net or otherwise), but is constrained by infrastructure issues (credit cards are uncommon and non-cash transactions are usually difficult in developing countries). Actually, there are significant and increasing numbers of business websites in the Arab world, which, aside from Africa and Eastern Europe, is the least connected area of developing countries. An increasing number of these are in the Arabic language, which makes them more accessible to a mass audience.
On the other hand, the numbers of people that actually use these sites and services constitute a small percentage of the society and the actual volume of trade is small; in other words, we face the Digital Divide; and that divide is particularly acute when we compare the developed countries to the developing countries, or that minority of citizens in the developing countries who have access to and use the Internet to those who have no access. There is no question in my mind that the biggest obstacle we face is, indeed, the Digital Divide.
The Digital Divide is only the largest mountain in the mountain range, however. There is no shortage of challenges: Telecom policy (privatization and liberation issues), the need for enabling legislation, questions about enforceability of online contracts, customs and tariff issues, security and consumer confidence, adequacy of the court system, and administration of justice in general. In fact, many of the barriers to e-business are either causes and/ or effects of the nation’s status as ‘developing’ in the first place. Information and Communication Technologies may help societies to leap-frog over some stages of development, or help to speed up development, but they cannot instantly transform society because the Internet and e-commerce are dependent on society to thrive.
As the situation currently stands, we are quickly seeing the formation, not of an absolute Digital Divide in the developing countries, but something of a reflection of the normal societal division between the haves and have nots. That small percentage of society with financial, social, and educational wherewithal to do so in the developing countries are quickly maximizing what they can get from it, within the context of their national and local infrastructure. But getting the most from living in the Information Age, including e-business, requires board participation of the society. We need legislators who can implement good legislation, regulators who understand the need for liberalization of infrastructure, lawyers and judges who are familiar with e-business, doctors and nurses who can take advantage of the vast medical resources available in our networked world, and so on and so forth. In order to achieve this, we need broad and sustained efforts in education and capacity building in order to develop the human resources necessary to build an information society in which e-business will naturally evolve, adapt, and prosper.
It is a mammoth task. The good news is that the big wheels of the world are all moving to make it happen. Virtually all the global development organizations have embraced the theme of ICTs as an integral part of development efforts and the overcoming of the Digital Divide and digital opportunities as primary goals. The UN ICT Task Force is working in cooperation with the initiatives of all the major development organizations, including the UNCTAD, the World Bank, the WIPO, the WTO, the World Economic Forum, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) led World Summit on the Information Society, the International Chamber of Commerce, etc.
Development of e-business in the developing countries is a win-win proposition for both the developed and developing countries. Aside from altruistic and moral imperatives, there is a good business rationale for assisting the developing countries to create a prosperous information society in which e-business will naturally take root. In this context, we might ask what more can the international business community do to speed up the development process.
I venture to claim that the ICT Digital Divide, unlike the wealth divide, is bridgeable. While the economically developed often find it difficult to dip into their pockets for the economically underdeveloped, it is in the interest of the knowledge-developed to bridge the knowledge gap. As a pragmatist, I am basing my optimism on the conviction that the present narrow “knowledge- developed society” is knowledgeable enough to realize that working towards expanding into a wider “global knowledge society” is in its own economic interest as much as it is in the interest of the “knowledge underdeveloped society.” A digital economy of more than six billion consumers is larger than a digital economy of less than one billion!
4. The Digital Divide and Trademarks
The significance of the Digital Divide for stakeholders in the global system of trademarks is not direct, but is still important. It is widely accepted that we are entering a new era, the Information Age, characterized by a digitally supported “knowledge economy” in which knowledge, creativity, and innovation, “knowledge capital”, replace physical capital as the driving force of economic growth and competitiveness, and in which ICTs rapidly eliminate the significance of geographic and territorial borders in economic, cultural, and social activity.
The expansion of trade, economic growth, and, particularly, the digitally supported economic development offers opportunities to both established and new entrants into the global economy. For business in general, there is a constant need to seek out new markets. An article last year in the Harvard Business Review, by C.K. Prahalad and Aleen Hammond, stated that it is actually the global business community that has the most powerful means and incentive to help the poorest of poor. Their argument runs that the collective purchasing power of the poorest members of society is a growth opportunity that the business community has missed due to the various misperceptions concerning the challenges and benefits posed by the developing countries.
The Digital Divide hinders the full development of human knowledge and creativity. It limits the expansion of communications and, therefore, of markets, and it undermines the acceleration of the economic growth that has been observed in those markets where both the Digital Divide and other underlying social and educational impediments are successfully addressed. According to Jeffrey Sachs of the Center for International Development (CID) at Harvard University, there is clear evidence that “economic growth, without question, reduces poverty. And, therefore, achieving sustained and high rates of economic growth in poor countries is…likely to be the most powerful mechanism for poverty reduction in years ahead”. And, as the UNCTAD notes in their E-Commerce and Development Report for 2002, “E-commerce is one of the most visible examples of the way in which Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) can contribute to economic growth.”
So, the reasons for why the Digital Divide is important to the trademark community are because:
· The Globalization of brands increases the value and the ubiquity of brands.
· The increasing competitiveness of the developing countries increases their respect and need for Intellectual Property protection in both their own nations and globally.
· Economic growth is necessary to facilitate the growth of markets and brands.
· ICTs are one of the key requirements for economic growth.
· And for the trade mark attorneys and agents, all this globalization and market growth equals a healthy business economy prosecuting and protecting trademark rights
It is more than evident that bridging the Digital Divide will create a larger e-business and e-government environment and, thus, will enhance protection globally. It is in everybody’s interest to have as many governments and businesses involved not only in the protection process, but also in the transaction of trademarks.
5. ICT and Intellectual Property
The increasing speed of technological advancement and economic integration, in recent years, has highlighted the importance of Intellectual Property and has put great stress on the ability of established national and international systems that administer IP rights to effectively serve the global community.
WIPO, which is the specialized UN body responsible for the administration of the global IP system, continues to provide excellent leadership and support. Their work to develop and expand the international treaties that govern IP at the global level, to provide technical assistance to the developing countries, to support human capacity building, etc., cannot be faulted. However, the challenge that WIPO faces is not theirs alone. They are only the leader in addressing it. The challenge is one that faces the entire world’s business community and our (the business sector’s) support is of pivotal importance in dealing with the many challenges currently faced in the IP field.
Intellectual Property is a complex discipline by any standard, regardless of which national system you care to consider; but when viewed from a global standpoint, the varying and often conflicting national systems are extremely difficult to coordinate and reconcile. In the past, this was a tolerable inconvenience, a normal frustration, but increasingly, globalization has accentuated the discordance between national IP systems and has increased the demand for a more rationalized and coordinated global system.
In consideration of the important role of IP in the global economy and for the business community, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) publishes an IP Road Map that is updated annually. This Road Map details the leading issues confronting business in regard to IP. The top five are:
1. The globalization of the economy.
2. The development of new technologies.
3. The growth in the economic importance of non-technological business innovations and resources not protected by existing Intellectual Property regimes.
4. The politicization of Intellectual Property issues.
5. Changes in the ways businesses operate.
The Road Map seeks to layout the principal IP issues facing business and what sort of support is necessary in addressing the issue. For us, it is our role as IP stakeholders to consider this global Road Map and to see how it relates to us. What is its relation to us in our part of the world? What are our priorities? Do we follow the same map, or do we have a different map to follow?
One thing that I think we can clearly say is that globalization is not a Western phenomenon; it is, by definition, global. Globalization is associated with the interrelated phenomena of multilateral trade liberalization and new technological developments, particularly, regarding:
Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), which have reduced the significance of geographical distance, created new ways of doing business, and underscored the need of global corporation.
While globalization and technological developments are benefiting and challenging most business communities around the world, everyone has their own particular point–of-preference from which to view and respond to those developments. One of the challenges of globalization for business is the fact that the trademark systems that were developed in an earlier era are no longer fully adequate to the task of serving a global economy. While business and the economy maybe going global, Intellectual Property is still mostly a national matter, and this creates a conflict. It also often results in unfair situations; excessive burdens and financial loss for businesses. Thus, the cooperation, harmonization, and movement toward the ultimate goal of a truly global IP administration are key goals for much of the business community around the world.
6. Trademarks and ICTs
In general terms, Intellectual Property (including trademarks) is influenced by a number of the aspects of modern ICTs, including the facilitation of globalization (and the globalization of brands), enhanced economic growth, enhanced creativity and innovation, proliferation of new products and services, types and numbers of business, increased competition, and the simultaneous stimulation of both greater market diversification and organization. ICTs and their utility in development are important because development is important; it brings a synergetic effect that increases net total benefit to all so that both the developed and developing countries can win.
ICTs are also important to trademarks in some very specific ways. The most well known impact has been in the area of cyber-squatting, the conflict that exists between the trademarks regarding the use of trademarks in Internet commerce. These are still being worked out in courts around the world; they include the issues of trademarks used as internet key word identifiers, as Meta tags, and other issues regarding what amounts to fair or unauthorized use of a trademark. Probably the biggest challenge facing the trademark community is the issue of how to reconcile a system based on local jurisdiction with ICT-spawned globalization and the Internet, which has shrunk the world, enhanced global opportunities, and created one of the most serious challenges that the Intellectual Property community has ever faced.
When the internet burst onto the collective consciousness in the mid and late 90’s, a sort of libertarian, anarchistic, and utopian concept seemed to be prevalent in the people’s attitude about this new medium. But as we saw, this free for all environment resulted in profiteering and unethical behavior, and it challenged existing standards and institutions, much as the opening of the American west resulted in the coining of the term ‘the wild west’ to reflect the craziness and the lawlessness of the times. During that period, many people took advantage of the brief lapse in normalcy returns, and the revealing institutions including businesses, still exist for the most part, with only the occasional exceptions. And, a few new entities now also exist such as ICANN, the global administrator of the Internet.
Intellectual Property was among the early losers, as the unique characteristics of cyberspace conflicted with the previous system of trademark infringement. Many opportunists in the early years of the early internet age received handsome dividends from owners who, in particular, suffered from this practice. The novelty of the medium contributed to the duress of these IPR owners, as the prevailing hyperbole of the Dotcom Bubble made it appear worth any price to get one’s trademark registered as a domain name in the virtual world. Unfortunately for them, many of the traditional ‘brick & mortar’ firms were not so quick to understand the importance of cyberspace as the more IT savvy technophiles. However, the ‘brick & mortar’ firms have certainly shown the value of substance as opposed to the merely symbolic, and have now definitively humbled the more radical of the Internet gurus. Once again, the “medium” exists for the “message” and not for the reverse. Once again, trademarks are relatively safe from pseudo-legal extortion, but of course, with some slight adjustments to our old ways of doing things.
7. ICANN
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the non-profit NGO created to take over the management of the global domain name system from the US government, began the search for a solution in the late 90’s to the problem posed by the clash of the trademark system and the domain name system. Even if one supposed the absence of bad faith anywhere along the line, there still remains a fundamental problem that domain names took on commercial significance gradually and without any planning. Because each domain name is a unique global identifier, the domain name system conflicts with the system of trademarks that is based on national laws and allows for the use of the same or similar trademarks in a variety of countries. The domain name system, being global, posed a conflict, along with the proliferation of domain name registrations made in bad faith.
WIPO, in coordination with ICANN, initiated a comprehensive review of the issue and, based on WIPO’s findings, ICANN implemented its Uniform Resolution Dispute Policy (URDP) on December 1, 1999. ICANN’s UDRP has basically solved the most pressing conflicts between trademarks and domain name registrations. Naturally, it hasn’t fundamentally changed the nature of the domain name system, so we still do have conflicts in the trademark field, but with the addition of several different top-level domains (.biz, .info, etc.), country code domains, and the implosion of the Dot-Com bubble, the problem is partially resolved. The implosion of the Dotcom bubble took the hype (and the excess $) out of the Internet and reduced the scope for profiteering and speculation. The introduction of various new top-level domains (and the prospect of more) has made it more difficult for one entity to get a ‘lock’ on all the names, even if there was no Dispute Resolution Policy.
8. Trademark Protection Technology
It is often said that technology moves faster than law. In the case of protection of trademarks on the Internet, I am afraid both are as slow.
I claim that we need to accelerate ICT research towards creating a Trademark Protection System, which is as important as the Domain Name System. It can and will be done. Watermarking is its primitive form. What I would like to see is a situation where a trademark is locked into the Internet system just as a domain name is. We need to concentrate more on prevention while we continue protection surveillance, search and corrective action through UDRP and courts.
It is worth noting that the end result of that process led WIPO to request ICANN to extend protection to two further identifiers:
- Names of Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) (which are protected under the Paris Convention).
- Country names (which are not subject to any international treaty but are identified in the communication from WIPO as the long and short names of states given in the UN Terminology Bulletin).
Protection needs to be extended to personal names (especially those which are trade names as well), geographical identifiers, and trade names in general (and famous names, in particular); all of which are being studied under the second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process.
In fact, we need a special WIPO trademark/trade name process to explore and outline the needed protection.
9. Trademarks and Domain Names
With all due consideration to the comments above, there still remains a need to consider domain names when registering trademarks, and a possible conflict between the two systems. If one is opening a new business, creating a new product, or developing anything that might generate the need for trade or service marks, it is now almost necessary to consider the domain name needs of the business and to coordinate domain name and trademark searches and registrations. It is also wise to consider registering as many marks as possible that may be considered closely connected to one’s business, insofar as the resources of the company allow. In general, what we are seeing develop is a situation where the trademark system is gradually adapting to and including the domain name system within the trademarks system. Instead of fundamentally altering or damaging the trademarks system, the Internet has simply resulted in further development and some accommodation.
Trademark protection on the Internet may be said to have reached a certain accommodation with the Domain Name System (DNS). However, much remains to be accomplished. ICANN’s UDRP has achieved a great deal, but the question remains as to how to deal with a great deal of infringement directed at trademarks in general, and particularly famous trademarks. I think we have to accept that the complexity of the situation and the inherent conflict between the trademark system and an instantly and inexpensively global medium, need to be worked out slowly but consistently. The most difficult issues regard the problem of concurrent rights that occur when the essential territorial nature of trademark rights conflicts with the global nature of the modern ICTs.
10. WIPO
WIPO continues to exercise its leadership, in seeking to resolve remaining issues at the global level. While much of the cyber-squatting problem has been resolved, there are still large-scale attempts by disreputable entities to manipulate the Domain Name System. The problem is that it is not easy to uphold the needs of the trademark community without fundamentally retarding the efficiency of the global Domain Name System. So, for the time being, we are left to deal with the situation largely as it stands, and it is more or less as fair a compromise to deal with the situation largely as it stands, and it is more or less as fair a compromise between the two systems as could be found. The UDRP doesn’t stop abuse, but it offers a relatively effective antidote. One of the biggest weaknesses, however, is that it only solves the problem of domain name abuse for businesses and those above the ceiling of the UDRP costs, which is $1500. This is a reasonable amount for most businesses, but not for individual users or very small business. Moreover, for nascent businesses in the developing countries, this entry cost maybe too high.
11. The United Nations Information & Communications Technology Task Force (UN ICT TF) and the Digital Divide
Shortly after the WIPO actions, the United Nations Information and Communications Technology Task Force (UN ICT TF) was formed in November 2001 by the Secretary General of the United Nations in response to the request of the United Nations Economic and Social Council. The initiative was meant to give a fully global character and leadership to global efforts at bridging the Digital Divide and building on the UN’s unique attributes.
The Task Force is composed of working groups focused on:
- National & Regional E-Strategies.
- Human Resource Development and Capacity Building.
- Low-cost connectivity and access.
- Business enterprise and entrepreneurship.
It also utilized regional networks to maintain global information, with networks based in:
- Africa.
- Latin American and the Caribbean.
- Asia.
- Arab World.
- Europe and Central Asia.
The UN ICT TF reports to the UN Secretary General. It is an entity focused on bringing leadership and rationalization of global ICT efforts. Thus, it does not undertake projects itself, but instead works with all interested stakeholders. This is one of its unique characteristics, in that it is a UN body, it is composed of the private sector, NGOs, and government representatives.
The UN ICT TF is seen as the successor to the DOT Force, which had previously exercised a similar leadership, but whose mandated period of operation had expired. Similarly, the UN ICT TF has a limited mandate, which will expire or need to be renewed after the World Summit of the Information Society (WSIS) in 2003.
12. ICC
It is also my pleasure to represent EBITT – ICC as its Chair. EBITT is the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Commission of E-Business, IT and Telecoms. Business leaders and experts drawn from the ICC membership establish the key business positions, policies, and practices on e-business, information technologies and telecommunications through the EBITT Commission.
With members who are users and providers of Information Technology and electronic services from both the developed and developing countries, EBITT provides the ideal platform to develop global voluntary rules and best practices for these areas. Dedicated to the expansion of cross-border trade, the ICC, led by its Secretary General, Maria Cattaui, champions the liberalization of telecoms and the development of infrastructure that support global online trade.
The main objectives of EBITT are to:
· Formulate policies on critical telecommunications, information security, data protection and privacy, cyber crime, freedom of communication, international harmonization efforts, and jurisdiction and applicable law in e-commerce issues based on a consensus building process.
· Create a framework of self-regulatory rules, principles, and tools for trustworthy electronic commerce.
· Provide an industry interface on telecommunications, IT, and e-business issues, with all relevant intergovernmental organizations, including: World Trade Organization (WTO), World Bank, United Nations Conference on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), G8, UN/CEFACT, International Telecommunication Union (ITU), and the European Parliament and Commission.
13. The Road Ahead
I am invited to deliver a keynote address in Tunis on October 16, 2003 at the World Congress on “Engineering and Digital Divide” organized by the World Federation of Engineering Organizations. INTA needs to enhance its part. In addition to its familiar trademarks in cyberspace, INTA needs to explore its horizon. Perhaps it will organize a conference on “Trademarks and the Digital Divide” to discuss some of the issues I have highlighted this morning. Such a program will not only be useful to INTA members, but it will also stimulate discussions in the developing countries.
I am sure that WIPO, the UN ICT TF, the ICC, and other global stakeholders will be happy to join an endeavor towards a vision for making all related disciplines in the real world truly “Internet compatible”. Disciplines that will provide a clear and predictable technical and legal framework for the protection of trademarks and other distinctive signs on the Internet need to be agreed.
INTA does have a stake in seeing the closing, or at least the narrowing, of the Digital Divide. The issue of how and to what extent this might be addressed in the future is relevant to the INTA members. The membership of INTA is composed of an influential and dynamic group of people that have the power to make a difference in the world. I would not say that the Digital Divide is priority # 1, but it is safe to say that bridging the Digital Divide is in all our interest, and it may be very important to the long-term economic prospects of Intellectual Property owners and practitioners, including trademark agents.