| 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.´´
ICANN is not, and should not become, the ``government of the
Internet.´´ "
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´´ 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.´´ 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´´ 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).´´ 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´´)
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´´ 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 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 @aei.org.
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 @ctia.org.
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 @aol.com 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 @press.org.
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. |
|
|