Question: A lot of people think that WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) controls the actions of ICANN. What would you do to protect the interests of non-corporate entities and individuals from WIPO policies, and keep the two organizations separate and apart?

Nominee Replies

Barbara Simons - posted on 2000-10-01 20:57:27 WIPO has made proposals to ICANN that could have the effect of expanding trademark on the Internet. This is a very bad idea, and the ACM Internet Governance Project has submitted letters in which we point out problems with some of these proposals. I have said repeatedly in responding to these questions that ICANN should not be responsible for enforcing trademark law. Period. There are a number of people whose opinions I value who have called for the destruction of ICANN. At this point I think that would be a mistake, in part because I fear that if ICANN is destroyed that it will be replaced by WIPO. Emerson Tiller, J.D., Ph.D. - posted on 2000-09-26 07:12:46 ICANN must avoid being the pawn, or even appearing to be the pawn, of any group, whether it be WIPO, IETF, or other technical and policy organizations. More transparent decisionmaking would help do that. I think non-corporate entities and individuals should eventually benefit from the role that the at-large membership will play. However, there is some concern that the at-large membership may be currently dominated by technologists and intellectual property interests. These are the same groups dominating WIPO. Lawrence Lessig - posted on 2000-09-26 03:03:40 This is one of the most important issues of this election -- assuring that ICANN does not become captured by special interests. WIPO is such an interest. Some in WIPO believe they represent a uniform and international view about the law of intellectual property. They are trying to push ICANN to become their pawn in advancing that view of IPr. I think it is crucial for ICANN to resist this role as WIPO's IPr police. Most of my work these past few years has been in resisting the extreme claims of intellectual property types. I have been pushing for balance in IPr law, not the extreme version we have seen advanced in the US and elsewhere. ICANN is yet another context where the extremism should be resisted. ICANN is not a government; it is not in the business of enforcing governments' laws.