Tech Law Journal Daily E-Mail Alert
July 18, 2002, 9:00 AM ET, Alert No. 472.
TLJ Home Page | Calendar | Subscribe | Back Issues
Rep. Goodlatte and Clark Debate Moving CSD to DHS
7/17. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Richard Clark both spoke at a luncheon in Washington DC for visiting members of the European Parliament. Rep. Goodlatte spoke in opposition to the President's proposal to move the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) to the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Clark, who is Special Advisor to the President for Cyberspace Security, defended the proposal.
Rep. Goodlatte, who is a Co-Chair of the Internet Caucus, stated that Clark is "very much involved in the work on the creation of the new Department of Homeland Security, which the Congress is in the process of debating, and which I hope we will soon pass through, so that President Bush can sign into the law. As a part of that process, a number of issues have come up, some of which have had a direct impact on the high tech community, and have been the focus of my, and other Members' of Congress, concern."
Rep. Goodlatte stated that "I did not want to miss the opportunity to ask if there weren't some accommodation that could be made in the creation of this Department that would avoid the transfer of the Computer Security Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, from that independent agency to what most of us perceive to be a law enforcement agency, which certainly has a very strong and legitimate technical concerns about those standards, and certainly needs strong support in the area of data analysis which I think the Congress should certainly provide. But, it is my hope that the independence of those who set the standards and who have the opportunity to do so, based upon scientific standards, and not from a law enforcement only perspective, will be able to continue to do that."
Rep. Goodlatte also reviewed the current status of the proposal to move the CSD. He said that "The Science Committee, as many of you well know, has removed that provision from the bill, and on the super committee that is now considering homeland security, the Chairman, Congressman Armey, has committed to keeping that provision at NIST."
Richard Clark responded. He outlined the threats to cyber security, and said that "that is why President Bush has created a cyberspace security advisor. That is why he wants a national strategy to secure cyberspace. And that is why he is taking five organizations from throughout the government, and bringing them together in the Homeland Security Department, creating a national, indeed a global, center of excellence for cyber space security."
He continued, "that is why, in answer to the Congressman's question, we believe that we need technical advisors from the Computer Security Division at NIST as part of that package. The fact of the matter is the Computer Security Division, where it is now, in NIST, is an orphaned child. It has not gotten attention from the leadership in the Department of Commerce over the last several administrations. It has not gotten the funding from the NIST institute. It has not gotten the attention it deserves. It has not been empowered to do the mission it has under law."
Clark asserted that "No one is talking about subordinating the standards process to law enforcement. We have no intentions of changing the standards process. But what we do believe is that we need benchmarks. We need standards, that are timely, and can be used by government agencies. All to often in the past, it has taken NIST a very very long time to develop standards. And by the time they are developed they are out of date, because the Division is too small, it has been an orphaned child, and it has been under funded by the Department of Commerce."
"Putting in this new center of excellence, to cyber space security, in the Homeland Security Department, we believe it will flourish, not as a slave to law enforcement, but as what it was meant to be in the first place. We look forward to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security because it will allow us to focus attention on cyber space, and the other aspects of protecting the critical infrastructure, because in the past these missions have been minor missions in the organizations where they have been put. But, by putting them together, and giving them the central mission of protecting our cyber space, protecting our critical infrastructure, we believe will make great progress," said Clark.
Reps. Tauzin and Boehlert Discuss Cyber Security with Select Committee
7/17. The House Select Committee on Homeland Security held another hearing on HR 5005, the Homeland Security Act, which would create a new Department of Homeland Security. The Committee heard from the Chairmen and ranking Democrats of the Committees with jurisdiction.
Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA), the Chairman of the House Commerce Committee, addressed the cyber security related changes to the bill made by his Committee. He stated in his prepared testimony that "with respect to the protection of our Nation's critical physical and cyber infrastructures -- such as those that run our telecommunications and electric power systems -- the President's efforts at consolidation and increased coordination are right on the mark. The key to success in this area is to recognize that many of the most important critical infrastructures are privately owned and operated, and may not be subject to Federal security mandates or requirements. Thus, the only way to succeed in ensuring their protection is through a strong and effective public private partnership for national security."
He stated that "The original language of H.R. 5005 could have been construed to give this new Secretary regulatory authority over the security of critical infrastructures that are not currently regulated by the Federal government, or that are regulated now by other Federal agencies. Based on testimony before our Committee by Governor Ridge, it is clear that such an interpretation was not intended by the Administration. Thus, the Committee Print makes an important clarification to ensure that the new Secretary's authority to assess vulnerabilities and support protective measures with respect to private sector critical infrastructures does not include new regulatory powers for the Secretary to directly compel security improvements through regulations or mandates."
Rep. Tauzin then stated that "The Committee Print also recommends that the emphasis on cyber security within the new Department be greatly enhanced. Over the past four years, our Committee has conducted extensive oversight of the cyber security practices of many of the agencies within our jurisdiction, including the Departments of Health and Human Services, Commerce, and Energy, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency. With the help of expert computer teams, sometimes known as ``red teams,´´ from the General Accounting Office, we found that, without exception, the computer systems of these agencies were riddled with pervasive weaknesses. Our homeland security depends on building improved defenses to cyber attacks, which are occurring every day."
"As a result, our Committee Print proposes the establishment of a Federal cyber security program that will provide computer security expertise to other Federal civilian agencies to help improve protection of their critical information systems. This program will include a Federal computer security ``red team´´ to test, and provide recommendations on, the security of key Federal information systems. It also will promote R&D on security enhancements for critical information systems, particularly the command and control systems that our Nation's critical infrastructures depend upon -- called SCADAs," said Rep. Tauzin.
Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), Chairman of the House Science Committee, discussed the President's proposal to move the CSD to the DHS in his prepared testimony.
HR 5005, as introduced would move the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) to the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Many technology industry companies and groups oppose the move.
Rep. Boehlert stated that "The basic problem is that while cybersecurity is one of our nation's greatest vulnerabilities, H.R. 5005 never deals with it explicitly. So we added a new section 205 to make the Title II under secretary's cyber duties explicit, and those include improving the security of federal computers and working with private, state and local officials to improve the security of their systems. We also create a volunteer corps to respond if and when security fails."
"For federal computers, we drew on the approach in current law and in Mrs. Morella's H.R. 1259, which the House has already passed. Under this approach, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, a federal laboratory that is trusted by industry as an honest broker, will develop standards for federal computers, which the new Department will then promulgate and oversee. This is a sensible division of labor, endorsed by the high tech community."
"With that division of labor in mind, the Science Committee rejected the proposal in H.R. 5005 to move NIST's Computer Security Division to the new Department. We believe the move would be counter productive in two ways. First, the move would sever the very useful links between the Computer Security Division and the rest of NIST's researchers, on whose work the Division depends. Second, the move would undermine the Division’s relationships with the private sector, which trusts NIST as a neutral, scientific agency with no direct regulatory authority or national security responsibilities."
He concluded that "I know that both a group of House Members led by Mr. Goodlatte and high tech industry are in the process of sending letters to the Committee -- if they haven't arrived already -- backing the Science Committee position on this matter."
Abernathy Summarizes Pending FCC Broadband Related Proceedings
7/17. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy spoke at a luncheon for visiting members of the European Parliament. She reviewed pending proceedings at the FCC that pertain to regulation of broadband Internet access services. She also outlined the principles that will guide her.
She stated that "the issues that we are facing at the FCC are somewhat similar to what you yourself are facing in your own countries. We all want to see this new service. We want consumers to have it at prices that they can afford. We want the applications that enrich our lives. And we all want this, oh, tomorrow, maybe the next day."
"First, and foremost, the Commission is taking steps to resolve what is the appropriate statutory classification of broadband Internet access services under the Communications Act." She pointed out the the Act does not mention "broadband Internet access services".
"In March we issued a Declaratory Ruling establishing that cable modem services, at least from our perspective, looking at the Act under which we operate, is an information service, rather than a cable service," said Abernathy. "And we said it also doesn't seem to be, according to the statutory language we have, a telecommunications service. You know, if it is not telecommunications, and that means that it is not subject to the common carrier provisions that we have in Title 2 of the Act -- very specific regulations governing the telecom companies. Nor, is it subject to the cable regulations that we have under Title 6 of the Act. So, our job now is to say what kind of regulatory framework should we create for this new kind of service."
She added that "We also issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in conjunction with this Declaratory Ruling on cable modem services. We seek comment on the regulatory implications of that information service classification. Again, what sort of regulations should apply? So, the Act -- whether the FCC should regulate access arrangements between the cable operators and the unaffiliated ISPs who provide the content. We also sought comment on the scope of local franchising authorities' jurisdiction over these interstate information services, because, again, the states, cable franchise authority, when you are providing pure cable, comes from the local jurisdiction. It is not an FCC role."
She then addressed wireline broadband. She stated that "we adopted a tentative conclusion that wireline broadband Internet access services, like DSL services, are also an information service. And, the Commission is currently reviewing comments on the appropriate classification of this proposal, as well as the regulatory interpretations. Again, what bells and whistles do we hang on to this classification. For example, we are considering whether to modify the access and non discrimination requirements that we now have in place for Title 1".
She also addressed the affect on universal service. "All of a sudden, we are taking a lot of units out of Title 2, telephony, contributes to our universal service fund, and we are moving them over into this new classification, Title 1. And so we have to ask ourselves what will be the impact for universal service, and how do we deal with the net result."
She also stated that "what I want to emphasize to you is that the cable modem declaratory ruling, and the wireline broadband NRPM that is looking at it from the wireline perspective, have have almost identical interpretations of the statute. And why do we do it? This is because after years of placing services in buckets based on legacy classifications, I am pleased that we are now starting down the path of focusing on the nature of the service that is being provided, rather than the identity of the provider. We don't really care what you call yourself. We want to look to the core service, what it looks like, and how it should be regulated under the Act."
She added that the FCC has not "figured out every piece of this puzzle yet. And there is lots of implications to this approach that we need to really think through before we come up with our final rules and regulations. But, I do believe that classifying all broadband Internet access services under Title 1 of the Act, that it represents not only the best reading of the statute, but it should also lead to increased harmonization of our regulatory approach to each of these services."
After she finished her summary of "regulatory classification land", she shifted to a discussion of the FCC's "separate proceeding that we have started that is called the dominant non-dominant proceeding." She elaborated that "we are looking at -- considering whether broadband transition services, that are provided by our incumbent telephone companies, are distinguished from Internet access services. Whatever is in Internet access -- if there is any other broadband services that the telephone companies provide under Title 2. We are looking at whether or not we should regulate them either as dominant in the provision of that particular service, or as non-dominant."
She also said that "this proceeding came out before our other two. And, in some respects, it has been overtaken by this whole broadband classification proceeding over -- we are talking about Title 1." However, she added that "we are still keeping that proceeding on tap".
Finally, she addressed the FCC's "triennial review of our unbundled network elements, which we affectionately call UNEs. This raises a number of important regulatory issues concerning broadband."
Abernathy said that "The NPRM focuses generally on the incumbent LECs' network facilities" and seeks "comment on the appropriate regulatory approach to facilities that are used to provide broadband services, because we still have all of the Title 2 unbundling obligations, that are associated with telecommunications services." For example, "should new entrants have access to newly constructed fiber links and packet switching equipment at TELRIC rates"? She also commented that the FCC's proceeding "has been very complicated by the recent DC Circuit decision that remanded the previous Commission unbundling order."
Commissioner Abernathy then reviewed the principles that will guide her in these proceedings. This is a subject which she has addressed in prior speeches. First, she said that she seeks to "promote regulatory certainty", which she said is necessary to facilitate business planning, and to incent investment. Second, she said that the FCC's primary duty is to follow the principles set forth in the Communications Act, and not the personal preferences of individual Commissioners. She also said that the FCC should rely on market forces to the extent possible.
House Judiciary Committee Passes Distance Learning Bill
7/17. The House Judiciary Committee approved S 487, the Technology, Education, and Copyright Harmonization Act of 2001 (TEACH Act), without amendment, by a unanimous voice vote. The Senate passed the bill on June 7, 2001. This bill amends copyright law to extend the exemption for distance learning to cover the Internet and other digital delivery media.
The bill may benefit rural schools with dispersed students bodies, colleges that are offering online courses to distant students, and busy adults who cannot attend their brick and mortar classroom sessions. The bill may also facilitate a shift from face to face classroom based models of education to online teaching models.
Congress amended copyright law in 1976 to create the distance learning exemption. At that time, the new technology at issue was analog closed circuit TV. That statute did not reference the Internet. Also, the 1976 law did not address the copying of files from one computer to another that is an inherent part of the operation of the Internet. S 487 addresses these concerns.
The TEACH Act has had a long history. First, the Congress recognized the possible need to update the distance learning exemption when it passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in 1998. Section 403 of the DMCA directed the Copyright Office to conduct a study on distance education. It issued a report that recommended that the Congress pass legislation. The first version of S 487, introduced by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-OR) on March 7, 2001, was an embodiment of these recommendations.
However, copyright holders were concerned that the original version of the bill would facilitate theft of intellectual property. Hatch and Leahy then instructed interested groups to negotiate compromise language that would address the concerns of property owners. Various groups did just that, and Leahy and Hatch amended the bill to reflect this agreement.
The bill just passed by the House Judiciary Committee is the same bill that passed the Senate. Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC), the Chairman of Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, has not sought to tinker with the compromise language worked out in the Senate.
Rep. Coble spoke in favor of the bill at the July 17 mark up session. He stated that "the Copyright Act contains provisions outlining permissible uses of copyrighted materials for educational purposes, such as fair use and other educational exemptions from copyright infringement. These provisions were written more than two decades ago, however, prior to the advent of digital technologies. Accordingly, the purpose of S 487 is to update the Copyright Act, by appropriately striking a balance between the rights of copyright owners and the ability of users to access copyrighted material via the Internet, and other medium, for educational purposes.
Rep. Coble continued that "the legislation makes three basic changes to current law. First, the bill eliminates the current eligibility requirements for distance learning exemption that the instruction occur in physical classroom, or to special circumstances that prevent the attendance of students in the classroom. Second, the bill clarifies that the distance learning exemption covers the transient or temporary copies that may occur through the automatic technical process of transmitting material over the Internet. Third, and finally, S 487 amends the Copyright Act to allow educators to show reasonable and limited portions of providing literature and musical works, audio visual works, and sound recordings, in addition to the complete versions of nondramatic literary and musical works, which are currently exempted.
Rep. Coble concluded that the bill "will greatly assist the education community without compromising the rights of copyright holders." Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the ranking Democrat on the Committee, then expressed his agreement with Rep. Coble. No other Committee members spoke.
Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) introduced his own bill on this topic, HR 2100, the Twenty First Century Distance Learning Enhancement Act, on June 7, 2001. His bill would have added nonprofit libraries to the set of exempted entities.
Tech Law Journal spoke with Rep. Boucher on July 17. He stated that had preferred language to "confirm the rights of libraries". However, he added, "I am content with this. So, we will let it go."
Summary of the TEACH Act's Changes to Copyright Law
7/17. S 487, the Technology, Education, and Copyright Harmonization Act of 2001 (TEACH Act), amends Title 17. Section 106 of Title 17 contains the basic protection of copyrighted works. It provides that "the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies ..." Section 110 of Title 17 provides exemptions relevant to education. First, there is the exemption for face to face instruction. Second, there is the distance learning exemption.
Current Statute. Section 110(2), the distance learning exemption, currently exempts a "performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work or display of a work, by or in the course of a transmission, if (A) the performance or display is a regular part of the systematic instructional activities of a governmental body or a nonprofit educational institution; and (B) the performance or display is directly related and of material assistance to the teaching content of the transmission; and (C) the transmission is made primarily for (i) reception in classrooms or similar places normally devoted to instruction, or (ii) reception by persons to whom the transmission is directed because their disabilities or other special circumstances prevent their attendance in classrooms or similar places normally devoted to instruction ..."
S 487. S 487 rewrites this section 110(2). The new, longer version of the subsection contains several new provisions. It removes that requirement that the instruction occur in a classroom. However, the new language requires that the instruction be "under the actual supervision of an instructor as an integral part of a class session offered as a regular part of the systematic mediated instructional activities of a governmental body or an accredited nonprofit educational institution".
Transient or Temporary Storage. S 487 amends Section 110 to provide an exemption for temporary storage of digital files. It provides that "no governmental body or accredited nonprofit educational institution shall be liable for infringement by reason of the transient or temporary storage of material carried out through the automatic technical process of a digital transmission of the performance or display of that material as authorized under paragraph (2). No such material stored on the system or network controlled or operated by the transmitting body or institution under this paragraph shall be maintained on such system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients. No such copy shall be maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary to facilitate the transmissions for which it was made."
Ephemeral Recordings. S 487 also amends Section 112, which deals with ephemeral recordings. S 487 provides that "it is not an infringement of copyright for a governmental body or other nonprofit educational institution entitled under section 110(2) to transmit a performance or display to make copies or phonorecords of a work that is in digital form and, solely to the extent permitted in paragraph (2), of a work that is in analog form, embodying the performance or display to be used for making transmissions authorized under section 110(2), if (A) such copies or phonorecords are retained and used solely by the body or institution that made them, and no further copies or phonorecords are reproduced from them, except as authorized under section 110(2); and (B) such copies or phonorecords are used solely for transmissions authorized under section 110(2)."
The bill further provides that "This subsection does not authorize the conversion of print or other analog versions of works into digital formats, except that such conversion is permitted hereunder, only with respect to the amount of such works authorized to be performed or displayed under section 110(2), if (A) no digital version of the work is available to the institution; or (B) the digital version of the work that is available to the institution is subject to technological protection measures that prevent its use for section 110(2)."
Prevention of Abuse. The new version of section 110(2) also contains several provisions intended to limit abuse. First, it maintains the requirement that "the performance or display is directly related and of material assistance to the teaching content of the transmission." Second, it requires that "the transmission is made solely for, and, to the extent technologically feasible, the reception of such transmission is limited to ... students officially enrolled in the course for which the transmission is made ..." Third, it requires that "the transmitting body or institution" must take steps to prevent further copying or retention. It must apply "technological measures that, in the ordinary course of their operations, prevent ... retention of the work in accessible form by recipients of the transmission ... for longer than the class session; and ... unauthorized further dissemination of the work in accessible form by such recipients to others." The educational institution must also not "interfere with technological measures used by copyright owners to prevent such retention or unauthorized further dissemination".
USPTO Study of Technological Protection Systems. The bill also requires the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (not the Copyright Office) to write "a report describing technological protection systems that have been implemented, are available for implementation, or are proposed to be developed to protect digitized copyrighted works and prevent infringement, including upgradeable and self-repairing systems, and systems that have been developed, are being developed, or are proposed to be developed in private voluntary industry-led entities through an open broad based consensus process."
Abernathy Addresses Nascent Services Doctrine
7/11. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy gave a speech titled "The Nascent Services Doctrine" to the Federal Communications Bar Association in New York City on July 11.
She stated that "I have developed the Nascent Services Doctrine. This doctrine holds that regulators should exercise restraint when faced with new technologies and services. Such restraint should facilitate the development of new products and services without the burden of anachronistic regulations, and in turn promote the goal of enhancing facilities based competition. Once the new facilities based competitor has demonstrated its viability, regulators must reexamine the overall regulatory scheme applicable to all providers in the marketplace in light of the new provider to assess whether existing regulations can be modified or repealed."
Financial Regulators Propose Rules Implementing Section 326 of USA PATRIOT Act
7/17. The Department of the Treasury and seven federal financial regulators issued proposed rules that would require certain financial institutions to establish minimum procedures for identifying and verifying the identity of customers seeking to open new financial accounts. These rules implement Section 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act.
See, 326 Bank Proposed Rule [PDF], 326 Broker Dealer Proposed Rule [PDF], 326 FCMIB Proposed Rule [PDF], 326 Mutual Fund Proposed Rule [PDF], 326 State Regulated Bank Proposed Rule [PDF], and Sec 326 Fact [PDF]. See also, Treasury release and SEC release.
The proposed rules were written by the Treasury Department, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision, and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Public comment on the proposed rules will be due within 45 days of their publication in the Federal Register, which has not yet occurred. 
FTC to Host Workshop on State Barriers to E-Commerce
7/17. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it will host a three day public workshop on October 8-10 to "explore how certain state regulations and private business practices may be having significantly anticompetitive effects on e-commerce". See, FTC release
Thursday, July 18
The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business.
9:30 AM. The House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection will hold a hearing titled "Are All Online Travel Sites Good for the Consumer: An Examination of Supplier Owned Online Travel Sites". The scheduled witnesses are Sam Gilliland (Travelocity), Bruce Wolff (Travelweb), Jonathan Zuck (Association for Competitive Technology), Mark Cooper (Consumer Federation of America), and Paul Ruden (American Society of Travel Agents). See, notice. Webcast. Press contact: Ken Johnson or Jon Tripp at 202 225-5735. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.
9:30 AM. The Senate Special Committee on Aging will hold a hearing on identify theft. Howard Beales, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, will testify. Location: Room 628, Dirksen Building.
10:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property will hold an oversight hearing titled "The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: Fee Schedule Adjustment and Agency Reform". Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.
10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold an executive business meeting. The agenda includes S 2395, a bill regarding counterfeiting and copyright piracy. See, amendment in the nature of a substitute released on July 11. Press contact: Mimi Devlin at 202 224-9437. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
10:00 AM. The Senate Banking Committee will hold a hearing on the nominations of Paul Atkins and Harvey Goldschmid to be Commissioners of the SEC. See, notice. Location: Room 538, Dirksen Building.
12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The National Youth Science Camp (NYSC) and Entrust, Inc. will host a luncheon and panel discussion titled the "Role of Technology in Establishing Homeland Security". Former NATO Commander General Wesley Clark and Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) are scheduled to deliver the keynote addresses. Lunch will be served. Interested media should RSVP by contacting Caroline Dietz at 202  715-1532 or caroline.dietz Location: Room 325 (Senate Caucus Room), Russell Building.
2:00 PM. The Senate Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary will meet to mark up several appropriations bills, including that for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies. Location: Room S-128, Capitol Building.
2:30 PM. The Senate Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on the nominations of Kathie Olsen and Richard Russell to be Associate Directors of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Press contact: Andy Davis at 202 224-6654. Location: Room 253, Russell Building.
5:00 PM. Hearing before the U.S. District Court (DC) in EPIC v. Department of Defense, a Freedom of Information Act case. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) seeks records from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) regarding its Information Awareness Office (IAO). The IAO web site states that its mission is to "imagine, develop, apply, integrate, demonstrate and transition information technologies, components and prototype, closed loop, information systems that will counter asymmetric threats by achieving total information awareness useful for preemption; national security warning; and national security decision making." This hearing concerns whether the DOD can charge the EPIC fees. This is Case Number 02-1233. Location: 333 Constitution Ave., NW.
Deadline to submit comments to the FCC in response to its request for comments on the FCC's Office of Plans and Policy's (OPP) Working Paper No. 35 [PDF], titled "Horizontal Concentration in the Cable Television Industry: An Experimental Analysis" authored by Mark Bykowsky, Anthony Kwasnica and William Sharkey. See, Public Notice [PDF].
Friday, July 19
The House will meet at 9:00 AM for legislative business. No votes expected after 6:00 PM.
12:30 PM. SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt will give a luncheon speech. Location: Ballroom, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.
Deadline to submit applications to the Department of Education for Community Technology Centers Program grants for Fiscal Year 2002 to create or expand community technology centers that will provide disadvantaged residents of economically distressed urban and rural communities with access to information technology and related training. See, notice in the Federal Register.
Deadline to submit comments to the State Department regarding the effects of the privatization of Inmarsat and INTELSAT on U.S. industry, jobs, and industry access to the to the global marketplace. See, notice in the Federal Register.
Monday, July 22
Day one of a two day seminar hosted by the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) on the Patent Cooperation Treaty. See, online brochure [PDF]. Location: Crystal Gateway Marriott, Arlington, VA.
2:00 - 4:00 PM. The FCC's Advisory Committee for the 2003 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-03 Advisory Committee) will hold a meeting. See, notice in Federal Register. Location: FCC, 6th Floor South Conference Room (6-B516), 445 12th Street, SW.
Deadline to submit comments to the FCC in response to its Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) "regarding the sunset of the statutory requirements under section 272 imposed on Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) when they provide in-region, interLATA services and seeks comment on whether, and if so, under what conditions, the structural and nondiscrimination safeguards established in section 272 should be extended by the Commission either generally or with respect to specific states." See, notice in the Federal Register.
Tuesday, July 23
11:00 AM. The Cato Institute will host a panel discussion titled "Who Rules the Root? ICANN, Domain Names, and the Battle over Internet Governance". The scheduled speakers are Milton Mueller (author of Ruling the Root: Internet Governance and the Taming of Cyberspace), Ira Magaziner (SJS Advisors), Michael Roberts (The Darwin Group), and Harold Feld (Media Access Project). Lunch will follow. See, Cato notice. Location: 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW.
2:00 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on pending nominations. Press contact: Mimi Devlin at 202 224-9437. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
Deadline to file reply comments with the FCC's Spectrum Policy Task Force in response to its request for comments on spectrum policy, including taking steps toward market oriented allocation and assignment policies, interference, efficient use of spectrum, public safety communications, and international issues. See, Public Notice [PDF].
Day two of a two day seminar hosted by the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) on the Patent Cooperation Treaty. See, online brochure [PDF]. Location: Crystal Gateway Marriott, Arlington, VA.
Wednesday, July 24
9:00 AM. Day one of a two day meeting of the Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee. The meeting will be partially open, and partially closed to the public. The agenda of the open portion of the meeting includes (1) a presentation on encryption in network management software, (2) a presentation on changes to the mass market encryption regulation, and (3) a discussion of the GAO report on advances in China's semiconductor industry. The BIS was formerly known as the Bureau of Export Administration (BXA). See, notice in the Federal Register. Location: Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Pennsylvania Ave. and Constitution Ave. NW.
DOJ Official Addresses Antitrust Compliance
7/12. William Kolasky gave a speech titled "Antitrust Compliance Programs: The Government Perspective" to the Practicing Law Institute in San Francisco, California.
He stated that "investigating and prosecuting hard core cartels has always been, and remains, our number one enforcement priority. Cartels -- whether in the form of price fixing, output restrictions, bid rigging, or market division -- raise prices and restrict supply, enriching producers at consumers' expense and acting as a drag on the entire economy. In our view, these are crimes, pure and simple, and those who perpetrate them are criminals who belong in jail."
He then spoke about "how to design a compliance program to prevent and detect antitrust crimes."
Kolasky is a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice.
People and Appointments
7/17. President Bush announced his intent to nominate Pamela Olson to be Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Policy. She is currently Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Policy since 2001. Prior to that she was an attorney in the Washington DC office of the law firm of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom. See, White House release.
Yesterday's edition of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert stated this: "7/16. The Senate Commerce Committee approved the nomination of Jonathan Adelstein to be a Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)." In fact, the Committee held a hearing on the nomination, but has not yet voted. Andy Davis, Communications Director for the Committee, stated on July 17 that "A quorum was not present at yesterday's session. Nonetheless, Sen. Hollings hopes to move Mr. Adelstein's nomination very quickly".
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.