| Internet Shoes: Two Appeals
Courts Address Internet Based Personal Jurisdiction |
6/14. On Friday, June 14, both the U.S. Court of Appeals
(4thCir) and the U.S.
Court of Appeals (DCCir) issued opinions which contain
lengthy analyses of the Due Process requirements for the
exercise of personal jurisdiction over out of state companies
whose only connection with the state in which the Court sits
is Internet activities. Both cases extend the minimum contacts
analysis of International
Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), to corporations
doing business on the Internet.
The District of Columbia Circuit stopped just short of holding
that the District of Columbia has jurisdiction over a Nebraska
based online brokerage firm. (It did not actually hold that
jurisdiction exists because the District Court had not yet
established a factual record, and because it affirmed the
District Court's dismissal on other grounds.) The Court mocked
the legal arguments of counsel for the brokerage, which fought
jurisdiction. The Court wrote that cyberspace "is not
some mystical incantation capable of warding off the
jurisdiction of courts built from bricks and mortar."
In contrast, the Fourth Circuit identified limits to finding
jurisdiction over out of state companies that are on the
Internet. It held that the District Court in Maryland cannot
exercise personal jurisdiction over a Georgia based ISP in a
copyright infringement case on the sole basis that it provided
web hosting services to the alleged infringers.
The two cases contain consistent applications of the minimum
contacts analysis. In the DC case, the online brokerage
conducted a wide range of transactions electronically with its
customers in the District of Columbia. In the Fourth Circuit
case the ISP had no customers in Maryland. |
|
|
| Fourth Circuit Holds No
Personal Jurisdiction Over Out of State Web Host |
6/14. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (4thCir) issued its opinion
in ALS
Scan v. Digital Service Consultants, a case
holding that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over an out
of state Internet service provider that provides web hosting
services to an alleged copyright infringer in a copyright
infringement suit.
Background. ALS Scan is a Maryland corporation with its
place of business in Columbia, a Maryland suburb situated
between Washington DC and Baltimore. ALS Scan is in the
business of taking girly pictures, which it then markets over
the Internet. ALS Scan alleges that Alternative Products and
Robert Wilkins copied some of its photographs, and published
them in their web sites for commercial gain. Digital Service
Consultants is an ISP in Georgia that provides web hosting
services to Alternative Products and Wilkins.
District Court. ALS filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (DMd)
against Digital, Alternative, and Wilkins alleging copyright
infringement. Digital filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction over it. Digital alleged that it has no
office or customers in Maryland, that it derives no revenues
from Maryland, and that it does not advertise in Maryland,
except by having a web site. The District Court granted
Digital's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
ALS filed this interlocutory appeal.
Appeals Court: Review of Supreme Court Precedent. The
Appeals Court affirmed. The Court noted first that
historically in personam jurisdiction depended upon personal
presence in the state. The Court continued that this
changed with International
Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945): "Over time,
however, and with the introduction of personal service of
summons or other forms of notice, the Supreme Court recognized
that ``due process requires only that in order to subject a
defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present
within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum
contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does
not offend ``traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.´´"
The Court added that "Although the courts have recognized
that the standards used to determine the proper exercise of
personal jurisdiction may evolve as technological progress
occurs, it nonetheless has remained clear that technology
cannot eviscerate the constitutional limits on a State's power
to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant."
The Court also reviewed the standards for specific and general
jurisdiction. "Determining the extent of a State's
judicial power over persons outside of its borders under the
International Shoe standard can be undertaken through two
different approaches -- by finding specific jurisdiction based
on conduct connected to the suit or by finding general
jurisdiction." It cited Helicopteros
Nacionales de Columbia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984).
It elaborated that "If the defendant's contacts with the
State are also the basis for the suit, those contacts may
establish specific jurisdiction. In deter mining specific
jurisdiction, we consider (1) the extent to which the
defendant ``purposefully avail[ed]´´ itself of the privilege
of conducting activities in the State; (2) whether the
plaintiffs' claims arise out of those activities directed at
the State; and (3) whether the exercise of personal
jurisdiction would be constitutionally ``reasonable.´´"
"On the other hand, if the defendant's contacts with the
State are not also the basis for suit, then jurisdiction over
the defendant must arise from the defendant's general, more
persistent, but unrelated contacts with the State. To
establish general jurisdiction over the defendant, the
defendant's activities in the State must have been
``continuous and systematic,´´ a more demanding standard
than is necessary for establishing specific
jurisdiction."
Appeals Court: Analysis of Internet Contacts. The Court
then applied this Supreme Court precedent to Internet based
activities. It wrote that "because the Internet is
omnipresent" "when a person places information on
the Internet, he can communicate with persons in virtually
every jurisdiction. If we were to conclude as a general
principle that a person's act of placing information on the
Internet subjects that person to personal jurisdiction in each
State in which the information is accessed, then the defense
of personal jurisdiction, in the sense that a State has
geographically limited judicial power, would no longer exist.
The person placing information on the Internet would be
subject to personal jurisdiction in every State. But under
current Supreme Court jurisprudence, despite advances in
technology, State judicial power over persons appears to
remain limited to persons within the State's boundaries and to
those persons outside of the State who have minimum contacts
..."
The Court also considered that "the argument could still
be made that the Internet's electronic signals are surrogates
for the person and that Internet users conceptually enter a
State to the extent that they send their electronic signals
into the State, establishing those minimum contacts sufficient
to subject the sending person to personal jurisdiction in the
State where the signals are received." Moreover, the
Court noted that "if that broad interpretation of minimum
contacts were adopted, State jurisdiction over persons would
be universal, and notions of limited State sovereignty and
personal jurisdiction would be eviscerated."
The Court added that "it would be difficult to accept a
structural arrangement in which each State has unlimited
judicial power over every citizen in each other State who uses
the Internet."
The Court suggested that "The convergence of commerce and
technology thus tends to push the analysis to include a
``stream of commerce´´ concept, under which each person who
puts an article into commerce is held to anticipate suit in
any jurisdiction where the stream takes the article."
However, the Court added that this approach "has never
been adopted by the Supreme Court as the controlling principle
for defining the reach of a State's judicial power."
Appeals Court: Holding. The Court concluded that
"a State may, consistent with due process, exercise
judicial power over a person outside of the State when that
person (1) directs electronic activity into the State, (2)
with the manifested intent of engaging in business or other
interactions within the State, and (3) that activity creates,
in a person within the State, a potential cause of action
cognizable in the State's courts. Under this standard, a
person who simply places information on the Internet does not
subject himself to jurisdiction in each State into which the
electronic signal is transmitted and received. Such passive
Internet activity does not generally include directing
electronic activity into the State with the manifested intent
of engaging business or other interactions in the State thus
creating in a person within the State a potential cause of
action cognizable in courts located in the State."
Then, the Court applied this standard to the facts of the
present case. It wrote that "Digi tal's activity was, at
most, passive and therefore does not subject it to the
judicial power of a Maryland court even though electronic
signals from Digital's facility were concededly received in
Maryland. Digital functioned from Georgia as an ISP, and in
that role provided bandwidth to Alternative Products, also
located in Georgia, to enable Alternative Products to create a
website and send information over the Internet. It did not
select or knowingly transmit infringing photographs
specifically to Maryland with the intent of engaging in
business or any other transaction in Maryland. Rather, its
role as an ISP was at most passive."
The Court hinted that this area of law may be appropriate for
Supreme Court review. The Appeals Court inserted the following
phrase: "Until the due process concepts of personal
jurisdiction are reconceived and rearticulated by the Supreme
Court in light of advances in technology ...". |
|
|
| DC Circuit Suggests
Personal Jurisdiction Over Out of State Online Brokerage |
6/14. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (DCCir) issued its opinion
in Gorman
v. Ameritrade, a case regarding personal
jurisdiction over an out of state online brokerage firm. The
Appeals Court found that personal jurisdiction over Ameritrade
could exist.
Background. David Gorman is the sole proprietor of a
business called Cashbackrealty.com. He is based in McLean, a
suburb of Washington DC located in northern Virginia. Ameritrade is an online
stock brokerage company based in Omaha, Nebraska, that
conducts electronic transactions with residents of the
District of Columbia (DC). Gorman entered into a contract with
Freetrade.com, an Omaha business, under which Freetrade.com
agreed to place a hyperlink on the home page of its web site
to the Cashbackrealty.com web site. Ameritrade acquired
Freetrade.com. Gorman demanded that Ameritrade's home page
link to his web site. Ameritrade refused.
District Court. Gorman filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (DC)
against Ameritrade alleging breach of contract. Subject matter
jurisdiction is based upon diversity of citizenship. DC has a
long arm jurisdiction statute that provides for jurisdiction
over foreign corporations doing business in DC. The District
Court dismissed the case, without allowing discovery, for lack
of personal jurisdiction over Ameritrade, and for
insufficiency of service of process. The Court held that
operating a web site used by DC residents is not enough to
establish the "miminum contacts" required by International
Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), and its progeny.
Gorman appealed.
Appeals Court. Ameritrade argued that it does not do
business in DC. Rather it does business in
"cyberspace". The Appeals Court was unimpressed. It
wrote that "``Cyberspace,´´ however, is not some
mystical incantation capable of warding off the jurisdiction
of courts built from bricks and mortar. Just as our
traditional notions of personal jurisdiction have proven
adaptable to other changes in the national economy, so too are
they adaptable to the transformations wrought by the Internet.
In the last century, for example, courts held that, depending
upon the circumstances, transactions by mail and telephone
could be the basis for personal jurisdiction notwithstanding
the defendant's lack of physical presence in the forum. There
is no logical reason why the same should not be true of
transactions accomplished through the use of e-mail or
interactive websites. Indeed, application of this precedent is
quite natural since much communication over the Internet is
still transmitted by ordinary telephone lines."
(Footnotes omitted.)
The Court then applied the "continuous and
systematic" contacts test announced in GTE
New Media Services v. BellSouth, 199 F.3d 1343 (D.C. Cir.
2000). In that case the Court held that defendants who
operated "Yellow Pages" websites accessible to DC
residents had insufficient contacts to permit the exercise
specific jurisdiction under the DC long arm statute.
The Court distinguished the facts in GTE from those in the
present case. It wrote that this case "is substantially
different from GTE. Ameritrade's contact with the District is
not limited to an ``essentially passive´´ website through
which customers merely access information about the financial
markets. ... To the contrary, Ameritrade concedes that
District residents use its website to engage in electronic
transactions with the firm. ... The firm's customers can open
Ameritrade brokerage accounts online; transmit funds to their
accounts electronically; and use those accounts to buy and
sell securities, to borrow from Ameritrade on margin, and to
pay Ameritrade brokerage commissions and interest. Using
e-mail and web-posting, Ameritrade transmits electronic
confirmations, monthly account statements, and both financial
and product information back to its customers. As a result of
their electronic interactions, Ameritrade and its District of
Columbia customers enter into binding contracts, the customers
become the owners of valuable securities, and Ameritrade
obtains valuable revenue."
The Court concluded, "it is quite possible that, through
its website, Ameritrade is doing business in the District of
Columbia by continuously and systematically ``enter[ing] into
contracts with residents of a foreign jurisdiction that
involve the knowing and repeated transmission of computer
files over the Internet.´´" (Citation omitted.)
However, since there was no discovery, and no factual record,
in the District Court, the Appeals Court merely held that
jurisdiction could exist. It did not hold that personal
jurisdiction does exist. Although, given the reasoning of the
Appeals Court, this would appear to be the inevitable
conclusion to be reached eventually by the District Court.
Also, since the Appeals Court held that service of process by
mail upon the Securities Director of the District of Columbia
was insufficient, it affirmed the dismissal of the case.
Notable and Quotable. Judge Merrick
Garland, writing for the three judge panel of the Appeals
Court, also wrote that "Ameritrade is quite wrong in
treating ``cyberspace´´ as if it were a kingdom floating in
the mysterious ether, immune from the jurisdiction of earthly
courts." |
|
|
|
| Kolasky Advocates Strong
Investigative Tools, Fair Procedures, and Checks and Balances
in Merger Reviews |
6/14. William Kolasky, a Deputy Assistant Attorney General
for the Antitrust Division
of the Department of Justice, gave a speech
in New York City titled "Mergers & Acquisitions:
Getting Your Deal Through in the New Antitrust Climate".
This speech followed Kolasky's speech
of March 18 in Cape Town, South Africa, titled
"Comparative Merger Control Analysis: Six Guiding
Principles for Antitrust Agencies -- the New and Old". In
that speech the six principles which he advocated were:
Protect competition not competitors, recognize the central
role of efficiencies, base decisions on sound economics and
hard evidence, realize that our predictive capabilities are
limited, impose no unnecessary bureaucratic roadblocks, and be
flexible and forward looking.
His June 14 speech expands on the third principle: base
decisions on sound economics and hard evidence. He added that
he hopes this speech will be part of an ongoing series.
He stated that "First, we need a sound analytical
framework that is firmly grounded in economic science. Second,
we need an infrastructure in which lawyers and economists can
work together in evaluating the likely competitive effects of
proposed transactions, each bringing their comparative
advantage to bear in reaching a sound outcome. Third, we need
strong investigative tools, fair procedures, and effective
checks and balances."
Economic Science. He emphasized that he used the term
"economic science" rather than "economic
theory". He elaborated that "the minds of economists
are extremely fertile. It is very easy to come up with
theories of competitive harm. The difference between theory
and science is that science requires that hypotheses be
testable empirically. By economic science, I refer to those
economic theories that have been tested empirically and not
yet disproven. This is the case, for example, with Stigler's
theory of oligopoly ..." He then reviewed how the DOJ's
1982 merger guidelines first incorporated economic science
into DOJ policy.
Infrastructure. He described at length how the DOJ's 85
person Economic Analysis Group is organized and integrates
into the Antitrust Division. He concluded at the end of the
speech that "we are now working with other competition
authorities around the world, especially those created in just
the last few years, to help them do likewise".
Procedure. Finally, he advocated certain investigative
tools, fair procedures, and effective checks and balances. On
this topic, he first stated that investigations should be
thorough, and involve testimony under oath. He said that
"we have learned that we cannot rely on the
representations of parties to a transaction or of complainants
seeking to block it without thoroughly investigating the
underlying factual basis for those representations. This
requires that we obtain and carefully review underlying
business documents, as well as that we interview third parties
with a more objective view of the transaction. We often find
it helpful also to question employees of the merging parties
and complainants under oath ..."
Second, he said that fair procedure includes giving "the
parties and complainants an opportunity to present their
cases, not just to our staffs but also to senior decision
makers".
He also addressed checks and balances. He said that
"Under our system, the principal check on our decision
making is that we cannot block a transaction without going to
court to obtain an injunction. This means that throughout our
investigation we must constantly ask ourselves whether we have
sufficient evidence to persuade an independent judge, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the merger may
substantially lessen competition and thereby harm consumer
welfare. It means also that we know that any witnesses or
other evidence we present will be subject to searching cross
examination by the lawyers for the parties to the
transaction."
The prepared text of his speech does not reference the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). However, it advocates procedures that are not in place
in the FCC's merger review process.
Kolasky closed with two case studies: Suiza Dean and Comdisco
Sungard. |
|
|
| DC Circuit Grants Petition
for Review in AT&T v. FCC |
6/14. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (DCCir) issued its opinion
in AT&T
v. FCC, granting AT&T's
petition for review of the Federal
Communications Commission's (FCC) Declaratory Ruling
holding that long distance carriers have an obligation to
purchase interstate switched access services provided by
competitive local exchange carriers. The Appeals Court vacated
the Declaratory Ruling.
AT&T is an interexchange carrier (IXC), or long distance
carrier. It generally carries phones calls that originate
with, and terminate with, customers of local exchange carriers
(LECs). IXCs charge the caller for the telephone call, and pay
originating access charges, and terminating access charges, to
the LECs. Since passage of the 1996 Telecom Act, LECs have
included both incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) and
competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs).
The Appeals Court noted that "CLECs possess a ``series of
bottleneck monopolies over access to each individual end user.´´...
If an IXC wants to provide long distance service to customers
of a CLEC's local service, the IXC must utilize access
services from that particular CLEC." Consequently, the
Court wrote, "some CLECs began charging access rates that
were well above the rates ILECs charged for similar
services."
AT&T then determined not to purchase access services from
certain CLECs, and began taking steps to cut off its ties with
these CLECs. However, some CLECs continued to send long
distance calls to AT&T and then billed AT&T. The Court
wrote that "They were able to do so without AT&T's
agreement because the CLECs first routed their traffic to a
tandem switch operated by the ILEC in their area. By the time
the call reached AT&T's network, it was intermingled with
the traffic of other carriers, and AT&T was unable to
identify and block the traffic on a CLEC specific basis."
AT&T filed a petition for a declaratory ruling with the
FCC in 1999. In October 2001 the FCC issued its declaratory
ruling, in which it stated that "an IXC cannot refuse to
exchange originating or terminating [access] traffic with the
CLEC."
The FCC relied upon 47
U.S.C. § 201(a) which provides: "It shall be the
duty of every common carrier engaged in interstate or foreign
communication by wire or radio to furnish such communication
service upon reasonable request therefor; and, in accordance
with the orders of the Commission, in cases where the
Commission, after opportunity for hearing, finds such action
necessary or desirable in the public interest, to establish
physical connections with other carriers, to establish through
routes and charges applicable thereto and the divisions of
such charges, and to establish and provide facilities and
regulations for operating such through routes."
AT&T filed the present Petition for Review of this
declaratory ruling. The Appeals Court granted the petition and
vacated the declaratory ruling. Judge
Raymond Randolph wrote the opinion of the three judge
panel.
The Court reasoned that "The first clause of § 201(a)
-- the clause preceding the semicolon -- establishes the duty
of every common carrier to furnish communication service upon
``reasonable request.´´ The second clause -- after the
semicolon -- provides that the FCC may order a carrier to
establish a through route only after opportunity for a
hearing."
The Court continued that "The language of § 201(a)
is clear: if the FCC wants to compel AT&T to establish a
through route with another carrier, then the FCC must follow
the procedures specified in the second clause of § 201(a).
In ruling that AT&T was obligated to purchase access
services from CLECs, the FCC sought -- without first having
followed the procedures specified in the second clause of
§ 201(a) -- to compel AT&T to establish a through
route. It cannot be that a CLEC's demand to an IXC for a
physical connection or a through route is a request by the
CLEC's customer for such service under the first clause of
§ 201(a). This would allow the first clause in § 201(a)
to render the second clause meaningless." |
|
|
| Fairfax Opposes the
Classification of Cable Modem Service as Information Service |
6/14. The City
of Fairfax, in Northern Virginia, submitted a comment
[PDF] to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) in its proceeding
regarding the appropriate regulatory classification of cable
modem services.
The FCC released its 75 page Declaratory
Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [PDF] back in
March instituting this proceeding. 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 ..." This is CS Docket No. 02-52.
Numerous local governmental entities have submitted comments
opposing the classification of cable modem services as an
information service. The City of Fairfax wrote that "The
FCC's ruling that cable modem service is an interstate
information service, as opposed to a cable service, is in
contravention of the Cable Act, ignores the constitutional
limitations on its authority to regulate cable modem service1,
and, quite simply, is lacking in common sense protection for
American consumers. By promulgating this Ruling, the FCC
challenges the authority of local governments to recover
franchise fees related to cable modem service and to provide
consumer protection and right of way management with respect
to such service."
Fairfax asserted that "It is imperative that local
franchising authorities retain the ability to regulate
customer service standards for cable modem service." It
also argued that "The Ruling will have a significant
impact on franchise fee revenues for municipalities across the
country." |
|
|
| Rep. Boehlert Says Research
Funding is Out of Whack |
6/14. Rep. Sherwood
Boehlert (R-NY), the Chairman of the House Science Committee,
gave a speech
to the National Society of
Professional Engineers in which he stated that the
relative levels of funding for the National Science Foundation
(NSF) and National Institutes of
Health (NIH) are "out of whack". The NIH, which
does medical research, receives far more funding that the NSF,
which funds research and education for information technology,
nanotechnology, the physical sciences and engineering.
"But the Congress has come to recognize that our national
security and our future economic success rest on the
investments in research and development (R&D) we make
today. And there's a growing recognition that our R&D
investments of late have excessively favored the biomedical
field," said Rep. Boehlert. "But improving health
care is not the only challenge the nation faces, and even
health research depends on advances in other fields. Yet just
the proposed increase in the NIH budget for next year is
larger than the entire proposed research budget of the
National Science Foundation. That indicates things may have
gotten a little out of whack. We have to ensure that the
physical sciences and engineering are also moving
forward."
For FY 2002, the NSF has $4.6 Billion in funding. See, OMB
document. NIH has $23.6 Billion. See, NIH
document.
Rep. Boehlert was speaking about HR 4664,
the Investing in America's Future Act, a bill to authorize
appropriations for the National
Science Foundation. The House passed it by a vote of
397-25 on June 5. See, Roll
Call No. 212. It has yet to pass the Senate. The Senate Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions Committee is scheduled to hold a
hearing on proposed legislation authorizing funds for the NSF.
Moreover, the Appropriations Committees would still need to
appropriate the funds authorized by HR 4664.
HR 4664 would authorize the appropriation of $5.5 Billion for
FY 2003 for the NSF. Included in the funding
authorization is $704 Million for networking and information
technology research, $238 Million for the Nanoscale Science
and Engineering Priority Area, and $60 Million for the
Mathematical Sciences Priority Area.
The bill authorizes an increase in funding for the NSF of 15%
in FY 2003, and similar increases in future years. If the
funding authorized by this bill were actually appropriated, it
would double the NSF's budget within five years.
He also repeated words from his speech in the House on June 5.
"When we look at the new fields of science and
engineering that will boost our economy in this new century,
fields like nanotechnology, where do we turn to ensure that
our nation’s researchers stay at the cutting edge? NSF. When
we look at the field of information technology, which
facilitates every activity in today's economy, where do we
turn to ensure that the U.S. remains at the cutting edge? NSF.
When we consider our ever more urgent need for a highly
skilled, technologically literate workforce, where do we turn
to ensure that our education system from kindergarten through
post graduate work is preparing the people we need? NSF."
Rep. Boehlert also spoke about a second bill pending in the
Congress, HR 3130,
the Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and
Technology Education Improvement Act, which was approved by
the House Science Committee on May 22.
He stated that "To counter the various forces that
conspire to turn students away from math, science and
engineering, we've put together a bill to encourage colleges
and universities to put more of their resources into
undergraduate education. The bill is called the Tech Talent
Act, and I've introduced it in the House, and Joe Lieberman has
introduced it in the Senate."
He added that "The bill has been strongly endorsed by
high tech companies, which are struggling to find well trained
Americans to work in their businesses."
He explained that "Under the bill, NSF would award grants
to colleges and universities that propose ways to improve
their undergraduate education programs in math, the physical
sciences or engineering, and in return the institution must
increase the number of graduating majors in those fields by a
specified number that they select." |
|
|
|
| People and Appointments |
6/16. Joseph Nacchio resigned his positions as
Chairman and CEO of Qwest
Communications. The Board of Directors elected Richard
Notebaert, a former Chairman and CEO of Ameritech, to
replace him. Philip Anschutz resigned as non-executive
Chairman of the Board, but remains a Director and Chairman of
the Executive Committee of the Board. See, Qwest
release.
6/13. Sen. Charles
Grassley (R-IA), the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance
Committee, named Everett Eissenstat Chief International
Trade Counsel. He has been International Trade Counsel since
March 2001. The Senate Finance Committee's jurisdiction
includes trade promotion authority, trade agreements, and
oversight of the Office of the U.S.
Trade Representative (USTR). Eissenstat was previously
Legislative Director for Rep.
Jim Kolbe (R-AZ). Before that, he was a Special Assistant
in the Office of the Western Hemisphere at the USTR. And
before that, he was an attorney in the law firm of Dixon and
Dixon in Dallas, Texas.
6/14. President Bush designated Deanna Okun as Chairman
of the U.S. International
Trade Commission (USITC) for a two year term. Okun has
been Vice Chairman since 1999. Before that, she was counsel
for international affairs to Sen. Frank Murkowski
(R-AK). President Bush designated Jennifer Hillman as
Vice Chairman of the USITC. Hillman has been a Commissioner of
the USITC since 1998. Before that, she was General Counsel for
the U.S. Trade Representative.
See, White
House release.
6/12. America Online named John
Buckley Executive Vice President for Corporate
Communications, effective July 8. He replaces Ann Brackbill,
who was named Vice President, AOL Time Warner, reporting to
Executive Vice President Kenneth Lerer. See, AOL
release. |
|
|
| Monday, June 17 |
The House will meet at 12:30 PM for morning hour, and at
2:00 PM for legislative business. No votes are expected before
6:30 PM. The House will consider a number of bills under
suspension of the rules.
The Senate will meet at 2:00 PM to resume consideration of the
S 2600,
the Terrorism Insurance Bill.
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
Telecom. Union's satellite network filing process.
Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C305.
Deadline to submit comments to the FCC regarding
its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 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 |
The House will meet at 10:30 PM for morning hour, and at
12:00 NOON for legislative business.
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 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? 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.
2:30 - 4:30 PM. The Department
of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory
Committee (ITAC-D) will hold a meeting. This Committee advises
the Department on policy, technical and operational issues
with respect to the International
Telecom. Union (ITU). For more information, and security
restrictions, see notice
in Federal Register. Location: Room 1406, DOS.
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 House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business.
The FCC has
scheduled 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.
10:00 AM. The Senate
Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Science, and
Transportation Communications will hold a hearing to examine
future sufficiency and stability of the Universal Service
Fund. Location: Room 253, Russell Building.
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 reservations or more information,
contact Noel Luddy at luddyen
@aol.com or 301 299-2270. The price to attend is $35.
Location: Wyndham City Center Hotel, 1143 New Hampshire Ave.,
NW.
1:45 PM. The Senate
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee will hold
a hearing on proposed legislation authorizing funds for the National Science Foundation,
focusing on math and science research, development, and
education. Location: Room 430, Dirksen Building.
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.
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. |
|
|
| Thursday, June 20 |
The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business.
8:00 AM - 4:00 PM. The NIST
will host an event titled NIST
Nanotechnology Open House. Location: NIST, Gaithersburg,
MD.
9:30 AM. The Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee will hold a hearing to
examine the President's proposal to create a Department of
Homeland Security.
Day three 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.
The FCC's Technological Advisory
Council will hold a meeting. Location: FCC, 445 12th St.,
SW., Room TW-C305. |
|
|
| Friday, June 21 |
The House will meet at 9:00 AM for legislative business.
8:30 - 9:30 AM. The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce will host a breakfast. The speaker
will be Nick Calio, Assistant to the President for
Legislative Affairs. Webcast. Location: 1615 H Street, NW.
1:00 PM. The FCC will hold a
meeting to receive input from industry and other affected
parties on proposals to reform the FCC's universal service
contribution methodology. See, notice
[PDF]. Location: FCC, Room TW-C305, 445 12th Street, SW.
1:30 - 3:30 PM. The U.S. International Telecommunication
Advisory Committee Telecommunication Advisory Committee
Radiocommunication Sector (ITAC-R) will hold a meeting. The
purpose of the Committee is to advise the Department of State
on policy and technical issues with respect to the
International Telecommunication Union (ITU). This meeting will
address activities of the Study Groups of the ITAC-R,
preparations for the upcoming WRC-03 and guidelines for ITAC-R
participation. See, notice
in Federal Register. Location: Department of State, Room 1408.
Day four 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. |
|
|
| Saturday, June 22 |
| 10:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The Electronic
Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and others will host an
event titled "The Public Voice in Internet Policy
Making". At 10:10, Paul Margie, Legal Advisor to FCC
Commissioner Michael
Copps will speak on "Privacy Challenges for Internet
Users in Europe". Following Margie, Erika Mann, a Member of
the European Parliament, will speak. See, agenda.
RSVP to publicvoice02
@epic.org. For more information contact Sarah Andrews at andrews @epic.org.
Location: Crystal
Gateway Marriott, 1700 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington,
VA. |
|
|
| Bush Addresses Trade
Promotion Authority |
| 6/14. President Bush gave a speech
at a Rick Perry for Governor of Texas reception in Houston,
Texas. He stated that "This Congress needs to give me a
trade bill so I can open up markets for Texas agricultural
products, for high tech products. Listen, if you're good at
something -- and we're good at a lot of things when it comes
to our economy -- we ought to be selling them to people around
the world. This country ought to be feeding the people of the
world. I need trade promotion authority from the United States
Congress for the good of the job creation." |
|
|
| BIS Red Flags Chinese
Electronics and Communications Companies |
6/14. The Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security
(BIS), which was formerly known as the Bureau of Export
Adminstration (BXA), published a notice
in the Federal Register "red flagging" nine
companies located in the People's Republic of China, and one
each in Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates. The unverified
list includes several electronics and communications
companies.
The BIS conducts pre-license checks (PLC) and post shipment
verifications (PSV) on certain export transactions. The notice
in the Federal Register lists 11 companies that were parties
to past transactions where PLCs or PSVs could not be conducted
for reasons outside the control of the U.S. The notice
"advises exporters that the involvement of a listed
person as a party to a proposed transaction constitutes a
``red flag´´ as described in the guidance set forth in
Supplement No. 3 to 15 CFR part 732. Under that guidance, the
``red flag´´ requires heightened scrutiny by the exporter
before proceeding with a transaction in which a listed person
is a party."
The notice is effective as of June 14, 2002. See, Federal
Register, June 14, 2002, Vol. 67, No. 115, at Pages 40910 -
40911. See also, BIS
release. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
|