| 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
@dittus.com. 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. |
|
|
| Correction |
| 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. |
|
|