Tech Law Journal Daily E-Mail Alert
June 13, 2002, 9:00 AM ET, Alert No. 450.
TLJ Home Page | Calendar | Subscribe | Back Issues
Senate Subcommittee Holds Hearing on ICANN
6/12. The Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space held a hearing on governance of the Internet Corporations for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the non-profit corporation created in 1998 that manages the system of Internet domain names and addresses, pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Department of Commerce (DOC). This MOU is up for renewal. It is set to expire on September 30, 2002.
Sen. Ron Wyden (R-OR) presided. Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) and Sen. George Allen (R-VA) also participated throughout the two hour hearing. All three were in general agreement that there is dissatisfaction with the performance of the ICANN, that ICANN needs to narrow its focus, and that the Congress needs to exercise closer oversight. However, neither they, nor any of the witnesses, advocated replacing ICANN.
Sen. Wyden stated that "there is a widespread feeling that changes are needed". He added that "To be successful, ICANN needs a clearly defined mission. It needs sufficient resources to fulfill that mission. Its needs an organizational structure that ensures input from a wide range of voices and interests. And it needs processes that are transparent and fair, to earn the trust and confidence of the broad Internet community."
Sen. Allen stated "there has been expressed concerns to me, and many of these will be developed and addressed during this hearing this afternoon, that as a private corporation ICANN is attempting to become the Internet's governing body, or global regulator. There have been concerns expressed about how the selection process goes forward in the new generic top level domains".
Sen. Burns stated that "Congress does have a critical oversight role to play". He also stated that "ICANN is an experiment that has to succeed. And, if it is to succeed, serious structural reform must be undertaken. To accomplish this aim, I am seriously considering legislation that will condition the extension of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Commerce and ICANN, on reform efforts. For ICANN to function effectively in the future, it must narrow its mission, to administrative, rather than regulatory, matters, and implement transparency and due process in its operations." See, excerpt from Sen. Burns' opening statement, below.
Nancy Victory testified. She is the Director of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the unit of the DOC responsible for matters pertaining to the Internet domain name system (DNS) and the MOU with ICANN. She stated in her prepared testimony that the DOC "continues to support the goal of private sector management of the DNS." She added that "While generally supportive of private sector management, some stakeholders have urged abandonment of ICANN in favor of a new private sector entity. At this time, the Department considers this approach premature."
She then elaborated about reforms that ICANN should make, including narrowing its focus. She said that "it is critical for ICANN reform to take place in a timely manner. If it is going to be effective, ICANN must instill confidence and legitimacy in its operations and focus solely on the business of DNS management. The September termination date of the MOU will be a key time for the Department to determine whether ICANN is on track for doing so. What will we be looking for in making this analysis? In general, we need to see that ICANN is on track to be professionally run and managed, in a stable manner, for the long term."
Victory elaborated that "ICANN's mission and responsibilities need to be clarified. Understanding its core functions, and formulating its structure and process accordingly, is key to any organization's success. Further, especially for a new, experimental organization, a limited, rather than an expansive, view of its functions is prudent. The Department believes ICANN's efforts should be focused around coordination of the core technical and directly related policy areas initially set forth in the Department's 1998 Statement of Policy. We agree with the majority of stakeholders that ICANN's mission must ``stay narrow.创 ICANN is not, and should not become, the ``government of the Internet.创 "
She also stated that "ICANN's processes must be revised to provide transparency and accountability for decisionmaking" and that "ICANN's processes must be designed to ensure all Internet stakeholders have the opportunity to get a fair hearing."
Alan Davidson of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) offered blunt criticism of ICANN, but supported its underlying concept. He stated in his prepared testimony that "Today ICANN is at a crossroads, and in our view it is failing. Its authority over central naming and numbering functions gives it both a public trust and an enormous potential to exercise power over Internet activities. Its original conception is sound. Yet three years into its existence ICANN has not yet lived up to that original vision in key areas."
He continued that "Its current efforts appear likely to create a global Internet regulator with increasing powers, reduced public accountability, and a diminishing voice for the public's interests in its stewardship of public resources. ICANN is in need of substantial reform if it is to succeed."
Davidson also stated that "While ICANN was originally conceived as a narrow technical manager, it has increasingly acted as a broader policy maker, demanding massive and detailed contracts with registries, making subjective and at times arbitrary decisions, and reducing trust that there are meaningful limits on its powers."
The Subcommittee also heard testimony from Stuart Lynn, the President of the ICANN. He stated that "ICANN has serious problems to address", but that it is open, transparent and accountable, and that its "reform efforts are well on track". See, prepared testimony [PDF].
See also, prepared testimony [PDF] of Peter Guerrero of the Congress' General Accounting Office (GAO), prepared testimony [PDF] of Karl Auerbach, a Member of the ICANN Board of Directors, prepared testimony [PDF] of Roger Cochetti of VeriSign, and prepared testimony [PDF] Cameron Powell of SnapNames.
Extended Excerpt From Opening Statement of Sen. Burns
6/12. Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) had the following to say at the Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space hearing on governance of the Internet Corporations for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN):
"Congress does have a critical oversight role to play in these issues of Internet infrastructure and governance. The Internet has become so important to our nation's well being that we in Congress need to become better informed about its operations. It is particularly true in critical areas, such as the domain name system, which is highly technical in nature.

The critical issue which concerns this Subcommittee is the deregulation of the control over the domain name system from the Department of Commerce to ICANN. The formation of ICANN originated with the so called green and white papers of the Clinton administration back in 1998 that proposed the privatization of the domain name system. The White Paper called for the creation of a ``new non profit corporation formed by the private sector Internet stock holders to administer policy for Internet name and address system创 and declared that the U.S. government, and this is a quote, should end its role in the Internet number and name address system, unquote. Soon thereafter, ICANN was created and the Commerce Department began to delegate certain parts of the Internet domain names system to it.

The eyes of many critics -- this delegation of authority has happened way, far too swiftly. When ICANN is supposed to function by consensus of Internet community, its operations have often been controversial, and they have been shrouded in mystery.

Nearly a year and a half ago when I convened a hearing on ICANN governance, in my former role as Chairman of the Communications Subcommittee, we heard from numerous witnesses about serious and troubling concerns about the very legitimacy of ICANN. However, many of these criticisms were tempered with the qualification that ICANN was still an experiment. We are now nearly four years into the experiment.

However, we must make some hard judgments right now on where we stand. After last year's hearing, given my numerous concerns about ICANN, I requested a comprehensive GAO report on the organization's legitimacy, and also on its performance. I was particularly troubled that while ICANN was initially created to address purely technical concerns associated with maintaining the domain name system, it had transformed into a policy making body. However, it had none of the due process requirements placed on agencies given policy making power.

After examining the GAO's testimony, I am convinced that, more than ever, that ICANN is an experiment that has to succeed. And, if it is to succeed, serious structural reform must be undertaken. To accomplish this aim, I am seriously considering legislation that will condition the extension of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Commerce and ICANN, on reform efforts. For ICANN to function effectively in the future, it must narrow its mission, to administrative, rather than regulatory, matters, and implement transparency and due process in its operations.

The status quo simply is not acceptable. And, nor is it sustainable. Simply put, ICANN was never meant to be a super national regulatory body. Now, the issues are complicated. But the stakes are high. We tune in, and click in, to the Internet, and it works. We want to make sure it continues to do that around the world."
More News
6/12. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced that it will hold a meeting on June 21 to receive input from industry and other affected parties on proposals to reform the FCC's universal service contribution methodology. See, notice [PDF].
6/12. The Agriculture Department's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) announced that it will hold a meeting to receive public input on "the challenges of deploying broadband services to rural America, the successes, the role of competition in providing access to rural areas". See, notice in Federal Register, June 12, 2002, Vol. 67, No. 113, at Pages 40268 - 40269.
6/12. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) published in its web site a copy of a Request for Advisory Opinion [38 pages in PDF] from Careau & Co. and Mohre Communications regarding the application of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) to the sale and use of ISP services for Internet based political fundraising to make federal contributions.
6/12. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that it has initiated a rule making proceeding to adopt rules that would require a company's principal executive officer and principal financial officer to certify the contents of the company's quarterly and annual reports. Public comment on the proposed rules will be due within 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. See, SEC release.
Rep. Tauzin Writes FCC Re Triennial Review
6/11. Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA) wrote a letter to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Michael Powell regarding the FCC's upcoming triennial review. In particular, he recommended that the FCC consider the May 24, 2002 opinion of U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) in USTA v. FCC, which remanded the FCC's local competition order and line sharing order.
"The D.C. Circuit was clearly uncomfortable with the Commission's decision to create unbundling rules that applied on a uniform national basis, without regard to the level of competition or availability of alternative means of providing a particular service in types or classes of geographic areas or within a particular class of customers", said Rep. Tauzin. "As the Commission conducts its triennial review, the Commission must evaluate the rationale for requiring the unbundling of a network element based upon specific geographic and class-of-customer characteristics of individual markets across the nation."
Rep. Tauzin also wrote that "The D.C. Circuit appeared equally concerned with the impact of the Commission's unbundling rules on investment in telecommunications facilities. The court found that ``[i]f parties who have not shared the risks are able to come in as equal partners on the successes, and avoid payment for the losers, the incentive to invest plainly declines.创 The court concluded that the Commission's unbundling rules, and the pricing at which those elements must be leased, provided a disincentive to CLEC investment in their own facilities".
He continued that "True competition will emanate from facilities based deployment by all carriers. Removing either an ILEC's or a CLEC's incentive to invest in its own facilities reduces the likelihood that our markets will experience facilities based competition. Removing both an ILEC's and a CLEC's incentive to invest in new facilities virtually eliminates the possibility of achieving true facilities based competition and increases the likelihood that any competition would be of the ``wholly artificial创 type feared by the D.C. Circuit."
"Finally," wrote Tauzin, "the D.C. Circuit agreed with petitioners that the Commission's Line Sharing Order ``completely failed to consider the relevance of competition in broadband services coming from cable (and to a less extent satellite).创 The court clearly rejected the Commission's contention that permitting CLECs to unbundle the high frequency portion of a copper loop was the only way that consumers would enjoy the benefit of competition among broadband providers".
Rep. Tauzin concluded that the FCC's "triennial review presents an excellent opportunity for the Commission to rectify many of the problems with the Commission's unbundling rules identified by the D.C. Circuit. The Commission's unbundling rules must take into account the unique characteristics of markets that are differentiated by geography and economics. The unbundling rules should also maximize the incentives that both ILECs and CLECs have to invest in new facilities, especially facilities that can be used for advanced services. If the rules are crafted properly, we will witness an investment boom that will hopefully bring the telecommunications equipment sector out of its current slump."
If the FCC does not do these things, wrote Tauzin, "I fear that the Commission will be perpetuating a policy that has limited broadband deployment and deprived consumers of the type of meaningful competition that only facilities based carriers can provide."
Rep. Tauzin is the Chairman of the House Commerce Committee, which oversees the FCC. He is also the sponsor, along with Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), of HR 1542. This bill would address some of these issues. It passed the House on February 27, 2002, but faces the adamant opposition of Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC), the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.
With few legislative days left in the current session, and an election looming in November, it is unlikely that either HR 1542, or any other major telecommunications or broadband legislation will pass in this Congress. Hence, the most viable opportunity for changing the regulatory environment is the FCC's triennial review, and pending FCC rule making proceedings.
City Coalition Submits Comment to FCC on Classification of Cable Modem Service
6/12. The City Coalition submitted a comment [38 pages in PDF] to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its proceedings pertaining to the classification of cable modem service. It wrote that cable modem service should be classified as a cable service, and hence, be subject to local regulation.
The FCC released its Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [PDF] on March 15 addressing the legal classification and the appropriate regulatory framework for broadband access to the Internet over cable system facilities. See also, FCC release.
The FCC concluded "that cable modem service, as it is currently offered, is properly classified as an interstate information service, not as a cable service, and that there is no separate offering of telecommunications service. In addition, we initiate a rulemaking proceeding to determine the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction to regulate cable modem service and whether (and, if so, how) cable modem service should be regulated under the law ..."
The DR & NPRM further states that "The Communications Act does not clearly indicate how cable modem service should be classified or regulated", but nevertheless "conclude[s] that cable modem service as currently provided is an interstate information service, not a cable service, and that there is no separate telecommunications service offering to subscribers or ISPs." This is GN Docket No. 00-185 and CS Docket No. 02-52.
The City Coalition wrote in its comment that "Continued supervision of cable modem service by local governments is important to promote competition and open access. Because cable modem service provides more attractive features than its one viable competitor, digital subscriber line (``DSL创) service, it will soon develop into a natural monopoly. Without the oversight of a local regulatory body, many opportunities will exist for the cable modem operator to engage in anticompetitive behavior."
It also wrote that the FCC "should not preempt the local government's authority to impose open access requirements on the provision of cable modem service."
The City Coalition also addressed rights of way in its comment. "Previously charged franchise fees were assessed by the local government under its authority to charge a fee for use of the public ROW. The authority of local governments to assess such a fee is determined under state law. The Commission should not adjudicate the validity of each local government's exercise of its independent authority. Disputes regarding the scope of such authority should be determined by state courts which are more familiar with the extent of local power."
Sen. Leahy Introduces Contact Lens Bill
6/11. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced S 2609, the Contact Lens Prescription Release Act of 2002. The bill would require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to promulgate a rule to establish requirements with respect to the release of prescriptions for contact lenses.
The bill was referred to the Senate Commerce Committee. However, neither Senator is a member. The bill, if adopted, would, among other things, facilitate the sale of contact lens over the Internet.
Sen. Leahy stated in the Senate that the bill "will rectify a troubling anomaly in competition and health care law: Eye doctors have long been required to provide patients with the prescriptions for their eyeglasses, but not for contact lenses."
He added that "Patients must then pay for medical services they do not want, and cannot shop around for the best price or most convenient delivery service for their contact lens, like on-line ordering, or discount dealers."
The FTC has recently examined the sale of contact lens. On March 27, 2002, it filed a comment with the State of Connecticut regarding the sale of disposable replacement contact lenses over the Internet. The FTC wrote that "requiring stand alone sellers of replacement contact lenses to obtain Connecticut optician and optical establishment licenses would likely increase consumer costs while producing no offsetting health benefits" and "serve as a barrier to the expansion of Internet commerce".
The FTC first noted that "In contrast to prescription drugs, virtually no consumer is likely to try to ``self prescribe创 vision correcting contact lenses." Rather, wrote the FTC, "the medical purpose of the prescription requirement (aside from describing the proper lenses) is to induce the customer to have regular eye exams -- not to control where the customer may purchase replacement lenses with a valid prescription." (Parentheses in original.) The FTC concluded that there is "no systematic evidence that sales through alternative channels, such as Internet or mail order, pose any additional health risk as long as the retailer sells in accordance with a valid prescription."
The FTC wrote that "A variety of other laws and regulations help protect contact lens consumers and ensure that customers purchasing contact lenses from sources other than doctors receive the lenses that are specified in the prescription." It also stated that "Consumers have relatively easy recourse if an Internet or mail order firm fails to deliver the proper lenses. Unlike the situation with prescription drugs, consumers can easily determine if they have received the correct product by checking the box to ensure that it matches the prescription. In some instances, even if the consumer does not notice that he or she received the incorrect product, the customer may well discover the error when trying to wear the lenses. The customer can then simply remove the incorrect lens. Obviously, this does not rise to the kind of serious risk of harm as would occur if a consumer took the wrong prescription drug."
The FTC's comment concluded that "we believe that requiring stand alone sellers of replacement contact lenses to obtain Connecticut optician and optical establishment licenses would likely increase consumer costs while producing no offsetting health benefits. Indeed, such licensing could harm public health by raising the cost of replacement contact lenses, inducing consumers to replace the lenses less frequently than doctors recommend or to substitute other forms of contact lenses that pose greater health risks. An overly narrow interpretation of Connecticut law on these issues will likely have two significant detrimental effects: (1) it will restrict the choices available to Connecticut consumers, raise their costs, and reduce their convenience unnecessarily, and (2) it will serve as a barrier to the expansion of Internet commerce in the State of Connecticut."
Also, on March 13, 2002, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) released a related report [PDF] that addressed state regulation of e-commerce. It included a section on sale of contact lenses. This report concluded that "Buying contact lenses online can provide consumers with substantial savings. In addition, purchasing lenses online appears to pose no health risks, and in fact in some cases, may improve health since patients may replace older lenses more often. However, depending on the state in which they live, consumers may find it very easy or virtually impossible to buy contact lenses online."
This PPI report also found that "Under the guise of patient protection, optometrists and other contact lens providers have successfully lobbied in many states for laws that limit online competition. Fifteen states effectively prohibit competition from online lens providers. For example, Georgia requires contact lenses to be dispensed through a face to face transaction. Texas' law essentially prohibits purchasing contact lenses over the phone or through the Internet. Similarly, New Mexico requires that only a New Mexico licensed physician or optometrist can sell and dispense contact lenses."
District Court Denies Microsoft's Motion to Dismiss Non Settling States Demands
6/12. The U.S. District Court (DC) issued a Memorandum Opinion [PDF] in New York v. Microsoft, denying Microsoft's motion to dismiss the non-settling states demand for equitable relief.
Microsoft argued in its February 26, 2002, memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss that "the non-settling States are limited to seeking redress for state specific injuries caused by Microsoft's conduct. They cannot displace the United States in its role of establishing national competition policy." 
Thursday, June 13
The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. No votes are expected after 6:00 PM. The House will likely consider HR 4019, the Permanent Marriage Penalty Relief Act of 2002.
The Supreme Court is on recess until Monday, June 17.
8:30 AM - 3:00 PM. Day three of a three day meeting of the NIST's Computer System Security and Privacy Advisory Board. See, notice in Federal Register. Location: National Security Agency's National Cryptologic Museum, Colony 7 Road, Annapolis Junction, MD.
9:30 AM. The FCC will hold a meeting. See, agenda. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C05 (Commission Meeting Room).
10:00 AM. The House Ways and Means Committee will hold a hearing on the extraterritorial income regime. Location: Room 1100, Longworth Building.
10:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee has scheduled a meeting to mark up several bills, including HR 4598, the Homeland Security Information Sharing Act, HR 3215, the Combatting Illegal Gambling Reform and Modernization Act (which pertains to Internet gambling), and HR 4623, the Child Obscenity and Pormography Prevention Act of 2002 (which pertains to computer generated images). Audio webcast. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.
10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a business meeting. See, notice. No tech related bills are on the agenda. Press contact: Mimi Devlin at 202 224-9437. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
2:00 - 4:00 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a panel discussion titled The Future of the Distribution of Video Programming. The speakers will be Harold Furchtgott Roth (AEI), James Ramo (Movielink), Jerald Fritz (Albritton Communications), Michael Kupinski (A.G. Edwards), Jonathan Potter (DiMA), and Donald Whiteside (Intel). See, agenda and registration page. Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.
2:00 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on pending judicial nominations. See, notice. Press contact: Mimi Devlin at 202 224-9437. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
2:30 PM. The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property will hold an oversight hearing on titled Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel Structure and Process. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.
Friday, June 14
Flag Day.
CANCELLED. The FCC's Network Reliability and Interoperability Council (NRIC) will hold a meeting. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Commission Meeting Room. The next meeting of the NRIC will be on Friday, September 13. See, cancellation notice [PDF].
Saturday, June 15
Deadline for the FCC to submit its annual report to Congress regarding progress made in achieving the objectives of the Open Market Reorganization for the Betterment of International Telecommunications Act (ORBIT Act), 47 U.S.C. 646. See, FCC notice [PDF].
Monday, June 17
The Supreme Court will return from recess.
2:00 - 3:30 PM. The FCC's International Bureau will hold a public forum to discuss issues and policies pertaining to the international satellite network coordination process and the domestic regulatory aspects of the International Telecommunication Union's satellite network filing process. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C305 (Commission Meeting Room).
Deadline to submit comments to the FCC regarding its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the consequences of the FCC's classification of cable modem service as an information service. This is CS Docket No. 02-52. See, FCC release [PDF] and notice in Federal Register.
Tuesday, June 18
8:30 - 10:00 AM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a press breakfast titled "Telecommunications and Media Issues" with former FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott Roth and other AEI scholars. RSVP to Veronique Rodman at telephone 202 862-4871 or vrodman Location: AEI, 1150 17th Street, NW, 11th Floor Conference Room.
9:00 AM - 4:00 PM. The Global Internet Project (GIP) will host a conference titled Spam: Can It Be Stopped? Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Orson Swindle will give the opening keynote address at 9:20 AM. See, agenda. Location: Crystal Gateway Marriott, Arlington, VA.
12:00 NOON. The FTC will host an event titled Workshop on Merger Remedies. See, FTC release. Location: Room 332, FTC, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.
Day one of a four day conference titled "INET 2002: Internet Crossroads: Where Technology and Policy Intersect". See, conference information page. Location: Crystal Gateway Marriott, Arlington, VA.
Wednesday, June 19
The FCC has scheduled Auction 31 and Auction 44, pertaining to spectrum in the 700 megahertz band. On May 24, 2002, the FCC announced that Auction 31 is postponed until January 14, 2003, but that Auction 44 will proceed on June 19, 2002. See, FCC notice of postponement.
Day two of a four day conference titled "INET 2002: Internet Crossroads: Where Technology and Policy Intersect". See, conference information page. Location: Crystal Gateway Marriott, Arlington, VA.
11:30 AM. The Congressional Wireless Caucus will hold a press conference. The scheduled speakers include Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Rep. Chip Pickering (R-MS), and Rep. Al Wynn (D-MD). Press contact: Kimberly Kuo at 202 736-3202 or Kkuo Location: Rayburn Building Foyer.
12:30 PM? The Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers will hold a luncheon meeting. For more information, contact Noel Luddy at luddyen or 301 299-2270.
6:00 - 8:00 PM. The FCBA will host a Continuing Legal Education (CLE) program titled "TELRIC at the Crossroads: The Supreme Court Decision in Verizon v. FCC". The scheduled panelists are Bradford Ramsay (General Counsel of the NARUC), Lawrence Sarjeant (SVP/GC of the USTA), and John Windhausen (President of the ALTS). Location: Capitol Hilton, 1001 16th St., NW.
7:00 - 8:00 PM. The National Press Club CyberCocktail Lecture Series will host an panel discussion titled "The State of ePR". It will be followed by a cocktail reception at 8:00 - 9:30 PM. The participants will be Rod Kuckro (Bandwith), Lori Barnes (Public Relations Society of America), Mike Fulton (Golin Harris), Steve Ginsberg (Reuters), Mike McMearty (WTOP), Rick Rudman (Vocus), and Danny Selnick (PR Newswire). The price to attend for non members is $10. To make reservations, call 202 662-7501 or email lauraf Location: Ballroom, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.
Clarification Re Vote on North Dakota Privacy Bill
6/13. The TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 449 (June 12, 2002) stated that "The state of North Dakota held a primary election on June 11. The voters approved Ballot Item No. 2 [PDF], which pertains to the disclosure of customer information by financial institutions, by a vote of 69,802 to 25,737."
The North Dakota legislature previously passed Senate Bill 2191 [PDF], which relates "to disclosure of financial information by financial institutions and notification of privacy policies". Ballot Item No. 2 asked voters whether the bill should be upheld or repealed. The "no" votes, to "repeal" the bill, were in the majority. The "yes" votes, to "uphold" the bill, were in the minority. Also, the vote of 69,802 to 25,737 was a preliminary vote total. The vote total as of early on June 13 is 86,218 voting "no" and 33,196 voting "yes". Hence, the law was repealed. See, elections results.
About Tech Law Journal
Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year. However, there are discounts for entities with multiple subscribers. Free one month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free subscriptions are available for law students, journalists, elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and executive branch, and state officials. The TLJ web site is free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert and news items are not published in the web site until one month after writing. See, subscription information page.

Contact: 202-364-8882; E-mail.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy

Notices & Disclaimers

Copyright 1998 - 2002 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.