ICANN Asks VeriSign to Suspend Wildcard
Service |
9/20. The Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN) released a
statement on September 19, 2003 regarding
VeriSign's deployment of wildcard
service into the .com and .net top level domain zones. It asked VeriSign to
"voluntarily suspend the service". On September 20 the
Internet Architecture Board (IAB) released a
report
that reviews the nature of the service, and the problems that it has created.
For example, it finds that the service "broke several simple spam filters", and
creates "significant privacy concerns".
ICANN Statement. The ICANN stated that "VeriSign's wildcard
creates a registry-synthesized address record in response to lookups of domains
that are not otherwise present in the zone (including restricted names,
unregistered names, and registered but inactive names). The VeriSign wildcard
redirects traffic that would otherwise have resulted in a ``no domain创 response
to a VeriSign-operated website with search results and links to paid
advertisements." (Parentheses in original.)
"Since the deployment, ICANN has been monitoring community reaction,
including analysis of the technical effects of the wildcard, and is carefully
reviewing the terms of the .com and .net Registry Agreements." The ICANN added
that "In response to widespread expressions of concern from the Internet community
about the effects of the introduction of the wildcard, ICANN has requested
advice from its Security and Stability Advisory Committee, and from the Internet
Architecture Board, on the impact of the changes implemented by VeriSign.
ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee is expected to release an
objective expert report concerning the wildcard later today."
The ICANN stated that it "called upon VeriSign to voluntarily suspend
the service until the various reviews now underway are completed."
IAB Report. The IAB subsequently released its report titled "IAB
Commentary: Architectural Concerns on the use of DNS
Wildcards". It explains what wildcards are and why they create problems,
reviews several examples of problems that they create, and offers policy
recommendations.
The IAB explained that "Web browsers all over the world stopped displaying
``page not found创 in the local language and character set of the
users when given incorrect URLs rooted under these TLDs. Instead, these browsers
now display an English language search page from a web server run by the zone
operator."
The IAB reported that one of the problems that has resulted from VeriSign's
installation of these wildcards is that it "broke several simple spam filters
commonly used to front end inbound mail servers, as well as more complex
filtering that checks for the existence of a sending domain in order to screen
out obviously bogus senders".
The IAB also reported that the installation creates privacy problems. It
wrote that "An interception service with this kind of scope raises significant
privacy concerns, since traffic received by the interception service is, pretty
much by definition, not going where its sender originally intended. The
potential for abuse in this situation is very high, and makes the interception
service an even more attractive target, this time for attackers who wish to gain
control of it in order to practice such abuse."
The IAB also addressed security problems. It states that "Even for cases in
which the redirection service works as intended, such a service creates a very
large single point of failure. Single points of failure are obvious targets both
for deliberate attacks and for the sort of accidental "attacks" caused by bugs
and configuration errors which already generate much of the traffic at the DNS
name servers for the root zone. Furthermore, the IP address associated with this
single point of failure is a likely target both for routing attacks intended to
redirect the IP address to some other server.
The IAB proposed the following guidelines. "If you want to
use wildcards in your zone and understand the risks, go ahead,
but only do so with the informed consent of the entities that
are delegated within your zone."
Also, "we do not recommend the use of wildcards for record
types that affect more than one application protocol. At the
present time, the only record types that do not affect more than
one application protocol are MX records."
The IAB added that "We hesitate to recommend a flat
prohibition against wildcards in ``registry创-class zones, but
strongly suggest that the burden of proof in such cases should
be on the registry to demonstrate that their intended use of
wildcards will not pose a threat to stable operation of the DNS
or predictable behavior for applications and users."
Finally, the IAB stated that "We recommend that any and all
TLDs which use wildcards in a manner inconsistent with this
guideline remove such wildcards at the earliest opportunity."
|
|
|
5th Circuit Rules in El Paso Rights of Way
Case |
9/19. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (5thCir) issued its
opinion
[PDF] in Southwestern
Bell Telephone Company v. El Paso, a case involving the laying of
fiber optic cable, public rights of way, and local authorities who seek to
extract fees. The Appeals Court upheld the District Court's grant of summary
judgment to SWBT, which is laying the cable, and against a local water district,
which is trying to charge fees for laying cable across its ditches.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT) is
a telephone phone company that provides services in, among other places, the City of El
Paso, which is located in west Texas. The El Paso County Water Improvement
District (EPCWID) is a water district organized under Texas law. In 1996, the
federal government deeded to the EPCWID certain irrigation canals, laterals and
ditches, which the Appeals Court refers to as "facilities".
The EPCWID established application procedures that include the payment of an
application fee of $500, followed by an ad hoc charge for the crossing.
SWBT is placing lines, including fiber optic cable, across the EPCWID's
facilities.
The incident that gave rise to this
litigation was SWBT's laying of fiber optic cable along a public road that
crossed one of EPCWID's facilities. The EPCWID threatened to arrest the line crews for
trespass and remove the cables there and elsewhere if SWBT did not
comply with EPCWID's application process and pay
it the fees that it demanded.
SWBT filed a complaint in
U.S. District Court (WDTex) against
the City of El Paso and EPCWID seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. It
alleged that EPCWID's application process and fees for the crossing of its facilities
constituted an illegal taking in violation of the 5th Amendment and the Contract
Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a violation Section 151 of the Communications
Act, codified at 47
U.S.C. S 151, and a violation of the Texas Utility Code, � 181.082.
The District Court granted summary judgment
to SWBT, but denied its request for attorney's fees. The Appeals Court affirmed
the summary judgment on state law grounds, declined to address federal issues,
and reversed and remanded the denial of attorney's fees.
The Appeals Court also rejected several frivolous procedural issues raised by
the EPCWID on appeal.
The is the second time that this dispute has been to the Fifth Circuit. On
March 19, 2001, the Appeals Court issued
its
opinion rejecting the EPCWID's
11th Amendment immunity argument. The District Court denied
the motion, on the grounds that the EPCWID is not an arm of the state. The
Appeals Court affirmed. See, TLJ
Daily E-Mail Alert No. 147, March 20, 2001; see also, Southwestern Bell Tel.
Co. v. City of El Paso, 243 F.3d 936.
In the present appeal, the District Court had granted summary judgment to SWBT,
first, on the grounds
that SWBT had authority, pursuant to Texas Utilities Code � 181.082, to lay the
fiber optic cable across the EPCWID's ditch because it was laying within the
right of way of a public road that crossed the ditch.
Section 181.082 provides that "A telephone or telegraph corporation may
install a facility of the corporation along, on, or across a public road, a
public street, or public water in a manner that does not inconvenience the
public in the use of the road, street, or water."
"The roadways are public, and � 181.082 applies", wrote Judge
Higginbotham for a unanimous three judge panel of the Appeals Court. "It
is well established in Texas law that � 181.082 and its
predecessor statutes grant telephone companies broad powers
to install their lines within the rights-of-ways of
public roads, and that local governments cannot deny
this right."
The Appeals Court added that "it is contrary to the policy of � 181.082
to allow EPCWID to regulate or charge a fee
for SWBT's facilities that are within the rights-of-ways of public roads."
The Appeals Court declined to rule on several other grounds upon which it
might have also affirmed the District Court. For example, the District Court
held, in the alternative, that the EPCWIC's canals and ditches carry waters,
which are public waters, which bring the EPCWID's
facilities within the scope of � 181.082. The Appeals Court wrote that "This
alternative basis is in fact much broader than simply allowing SWBT to
utilize the rights-of-ways of public roads to cross EPCWID's facilities since
it would allow SWBT to cross EPCWID抯 property at any point. Given that the
summary judgment evidence before the court concerns only cables laid within the
rights-of-ways of public roads, and the fact that there is no guidance from the
state courts on this difficult issue, we decline to address this alternative basis
to sustain the summary judgment."
Finally, the Appeals Court ducked the Communications Act and constitutional
claims. It wrote only that "Because state law provides an adequate basis for
deciding the issue, we also decline to consider" the federal claims.
This case is Southwestern Bell Telephone Company v. City of El Paso, El Paso County Water
Improvement District, et al., Nos. 02-50825 and 02-50899, appeals from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas.
|
|
|
3rd Circuit Rules on Section 211 and Filed
Rate Doctrine |
9/12. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (3rdCir) issued its
opinion [11
pages PDF] in WorldCom
v. GraphNet. The Appeals Court reversed the District Court's
dismissal of a complaint brought
by one communications carrier against another for failure to make payments under
a pair of contracts. The Appeals Court ruled that the District Court erred in it
application of Section 211 of the Communications Act, and regulations thereunder,
and the filed rate doctrine.
WorldCom (now known as MCI) is a large telecommunications
company. Graphnet provides communications services and network products.
WorldCom and Graphnet entered into a contract under which WorldCom provided
two-way telex transmissions between their respective networks for telex traffic
originating on each other's networks. Graphnet failed to pay Worldcom pursuant
to the contract. Graphnet also failed to pay for over three hundred thousand
dollars for additional telecommunications equipment and services provided
pursuant to second contract. WorldCom did not file either of these contracts
with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
WorldCom filed a complaint in U.S.
District Court (EDVa) against Graphnet alleging breach of contract and unjust
enrichment. The action was transferred to the
District of New Jersey. Graphnet
sought to avoid judgment by raising a number of issues, including jurisdiction,
statute of limitations, and an alleged prior settlement agreement. However, the
noteworthy aspect of this case is Graphnet's affirmative defense of failure to
state a claim, arising out of WorldCom's not having filed the contracts at
issue with the FCC.
The District Court held that Worldcom could not recover under
any of the contracts at issue because they were never filed with the FCC. It
held that 47 U.S.C.
� 211 requires the filing of all contracts with the FCC, and
that failure to do so bars any recovery, even under the theory of unjust enrichment.
It further held that WorldCom's claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine.
The Appeals Court reversed. First, it held that the District Court misread Section 211.
Section 211 provides, at subsection (a), that "Every carrier subject to this
chapter shall file with the Commission copies of all contracts, agreements, or
arrangements with other carriers, or with common carriers not subject to the
provisions of this chapter, in relation to any traffic affected by the provisions
of this chapter to which it may be a party."
However, subsection 211(b) qualifies this. It provides that "The Commission
shall have authority to require the filing of any other
contracts of any carrier, and shall also have authority to exempt any
carrier from submitting copies of such minor contracts as the Commission may
determine."
The Appeals Court wrote that "The district court erred by
concluding that Worldcom was required to file the contracts at issue. This
complex issue could not be resolved at this stage in the litigation. The fact
that there was no filed tariff does not itself violate the FCA. Under the FCA, a
carrier may conduct its business either by tariff or by contract."
The Court continued that if a common carrier chooses to conduct
business by contract, it is required file copies of all contracts with other
common carriers. However, it added that subsection 211(b) empowers the FCC to
exempt carriers from filing certain contracts. Moreover, the FCC has promulgated
regulations exempting certain contracts.
The relevant regulation, 47 C.F.R. � 43.51, provided, at the
relevant time, in part, that "(a) Any communications common carrier engaged in
domestic or foreign communication, or both, which has not been classified as
non-dominant pursuant to Section 61.12(e) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �
61.12(e), is not treated under the regulatory forbearance policies established
by the Commission, and which enters into a contract with another carrier must
file with the Commission, within thirty (30) days of execution, a copy of each
contract, agreement, concession, license, authorization or other arrangement to
which it is a party ..."
The Appeals Court wrote that "this language exempts non-dominant
carriers from the filing requirement", and hence, "the district court erred by
finding that Worldcom was required to file the contracts at issue." However, the
Court added that "At this stage in the litigation, it cannot be determined that
Worldcom was so required." The District Court must, on remand, determine whether
"Worldcom was, in fact, non-dominant in the national long distance field at the
time and that the contracts at issue involved national long distance services."
The Court also addressed what would be the consequences of a finding that the
WorldCom Graphnet contracts are covered by the filing requirements of subsection
211(a), and are not exempted by subsection 2119b) and FCC regulations.
The Appeals Court wrote that "the district court held that if a
party fails to file a contract under section 211, it will suffer a complete and
total forfeiture. It erroneously relied on the inapposite ``filed rate
doctrine创 in reaching this conclusion. We find nothing in either the FCA, the
decisions of the Common Carrier Bureau or in the caselaw from the federal courts
that would support such an extreme penalty for failing to file a contract. In
fact, relevant authority is to the contrary."
The Court reasoned that "section 211 says nothing about
any penalty for failing to file a
contract. Other sections of the FCA, however, specifically lay out penalties for
violation of their provisions. ... If Congress intended the extraordinary
penalty that Graphnet advocates, we would expect it to say so explicitly."
Hence, the Court concluded that "Absent an express statutory
statement to the contrary, we conclude that a violation of section 211抯 filing
requirement does not require that Worldcom forfeit any right to be compensated
for services and equipment provided to Graphnet pursuant to an unfiled
contract."
Finally, the Appeals Court held that the filed rate doctrine
does not apply to this situation. "The filed rate doctrine forbids charging or
collecting rates for services that vary with the rates scheduled for those
services in a filed tariff", wrote the Court. "Here, however, no filed tariff
appears to have covered the services provided pursuant to the contracts at
issue. The doctrine is therefore inapposite because there is no filed tariff
with which the contracts conflict."
The Court added that "If Worldcom was required to file the
contracts at issue, its failure to do so would not by itself preclude Worldcom
from recovering under those contracts. If the contracts are not enforceable for
some other reason, Worldcom could still recover the value of its services under
a theory of unjust enrichment. The district court erred by concluding
otherwise."
This case is WorldCom, Inc. v. GraphNet, Inc., an appeal from the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey, D.C. No. 00-cv-05255, Judge William Walls
presiding.
|
|
|
People and Appointments |
9/18. President Bush nominated Kenneth Karas to be a Judge of the
U.S. District Court (SDNY). See,
White House
release. Karas has been an Assistant U.S. Attorney since 1992. He handles
terrorism related cases.
9/17. The Senate confirmed Stephen Robinson to be a Judge of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. See, Congressional Record, September 17, 2003, at
S11623.
9/17. The Senate confirmed Kevin Castel to be a Judge of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. See, Congressional Record, September 17, 2003, at
S11623.
9/17. The Senate confirmed Richard Howell to be a Judge of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. See, Congressional Record, September 17, 2003, at
S11623.
|
|
|
|
Notice |
There was no issue of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert on Friday,
September 19. |
|
|
Monday, September 22 |
The House will meet at 12:00 NOON.
The Senate will meet at 2:00 PM. It is schedule to resume consideration of
HR 2691,
the Department of the Interior Appropriations Act of 2004.
1:00 -3:00 PM. The Federal Communications
Commission's (FCC) Office of Engineering
and Technology (OET) will sponsor a tutorial titled "Technical
Challenges Associated with the Evolution to VoIP". The speakers will
include Susan Spradley (Wireline Networks) and Alan Stoddard (Nortel Networks).
The tutorial will cover (1) an overview of IP telephony, (2) the routing of
information through the packet network, (3) provision of
voice and IP communication services on a single data network, (4) network
engineering rules and parameters, (5) various transition models to IP telephony,
and (6) business models for service providers and end users. See, FCC
release
[PDF]. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room (TW-C305), 445th 12th Street
SW., Washington, D.C.
6:00 - 9:15 PM. The Intellectual Property Law Section of the D.C. Bar
Association will host a CLE course titled "Patent Damages: Discovery,
Pre-trial and Litigation Strategies". Prices vary. For more information,
call 202 626-3488. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street, NW,
B-1 level.
Day one of a two day meeting hosted by the
International Trademark Association (INTA) titled "Trademarks in
Cyberspace". See,
conference web site. Location:
The Ritz-Carlton, Pentagon City, Arlington, VA.
DEADLINE EXTENDED TO OCTOBER 6. Deadline to
submit comments to the
Executive Office of the President's (EOP)
Office of Science and Technology Policy's (OSTP)
National Science and
Technology Council's (NSTC) Subcommittee on Research Business Models
regarding the relationship between federal agencies and researchers. The NSTC
published its original
notice in the Federal Register on August 6 stating that it "is undertaking a review of
policies, procedures, and plans relating to the business relationship between
federal agencies and research performers with the goal of improving the
performance and management of federally sponsored basic and applied scientific
and engineering research." See, Federal Register, August 6, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 151, at Pages
46631 - 46632. See also,
notice of extension in the Federal Register, September 16, 2003, Vol. 68,
No. 179, at Pages 54226 - 54227.
Deadline to submit comments to the
Copyright Office (CO) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
regarding rates and terms for the use of sound recordings in eligible
nonsubscription transmissions made by noncommercial licensees, and for the
making of related ephemeral recordings. See,
notice in the Federal Register, August 21, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 162, at
Pages 50493 - 50495.
|
|
|
Tuesday, September 23 |
9:30 AM. John
Muleta, Bureau Chief of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC)
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB),
will hold a "briefing for members of the media". RSVP to Marybeth McCarrick
at 202 418-0654. Location: FCC, 445 12th St., SW, Room TW A-402/A-442.
9:30 AM. The Senate Committee on Aging will hold a hearing on
"to examine HIPAA medical privacy and transaction rules". Location: Room
628, Dirksen Building.
12:00 NOON - 12:00 PM. The Computer & Telecommunications Law Section, and
the Antitrust Section, of the D.C. Bar Association will host a brown bag
lunch. The topic will be "Telecommunications Access". Location: D.C.
Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 level.
12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar
Association's (FCBA) Cable Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch
on "current cable issues". For more information, contact Frank Buono at
fbuono@willkie.com. RSVP to
wendy@fcba.org Location: Willkie Farr &
Gallagher, 1875 K Street, NW.
1:00 PM. The
House Commerce Committee's
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet will meet to mark up
HR 2898,
the "E-911 Implementation Act of 2003". Press contact: Ken Johnson or Vikki
Riley at 202 225-5735. Location: Room 2322, Rayburn
Building. This meeting was previously scheduled for September 18.
2:00 PM. The Senate Banking
Committee will hold a meeting to mark up several bills, including the
"National Consumer Credit Reporting System Improvement Act of 2003" and the
"Defense Production Reauthorization Act of 2003". See,
notice.
Location: Room 538, Dirksen Building.
4:00 PM. House Commerce
Committee's Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection and
the House Judiciary Committee's
(HJC) Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property will hold
a hearing on HR __, the "Database and Collections of Information
Misappropriation Act of 2003". Press contact: Ken Johnson or Vikki Ehrlich
at 202 225-5735. Location: Room 2141 (HJC hearing room), Rayburn Building.
4:00 PM. Douglas
Lichtman (University of Chicago Law School) will speak on "Prosecution
History Estoppel: Empirical Evidence from Patent Prosecution". For more
information, contact Robert Brauneis at 202 994-6138 or
rbrauneis@law.gwu.edu. Location:
George Washington University Law School, Faculty Conference Center, 5th Floor,
Burns Building, 716 20th Street, NW.
Day two of a two day meeting hosted by the
International Trademark Association (INTA) titled "Trademarks in
Cyberspace". See,
conference web site. Location:
The Ritz-Carlton, Pentagon City, Arlington, VA.
Deadline to submit comments to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) regarding its notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) pertaining to its rules governing the provision of air
ground telecommunications services on commercial airplanes in order to enhance
the options available to the public. The FCC adopted this NPRM on April 17,
2003, and released it on April 28, 2003. This is WT Docket No. 03-103. See,
notice in the Federal Register, July 25, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 143, at Pages
44003 - 44011.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) regarding making more spectrum available for unlicensed
devices, including WiFi, in the 5 GHz band.
See, stories titled "FCC Adopts NPRM to Increase Unlicensed Spectrum" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 663, May 16, 2003; "FCC Releases NPRM Regarding Increasing Amount
of Unlicensed Spectrum" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 674, June 5, 2003, and "Delegates Discuss World
Radiocommunications Conference" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 703, July 22,
2003. See also,
notice
in the Federal Register, July 25, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 143, at Pages 44011 - 44020.
This is ET Docket No. 03-122. The FCC adopted this NPRM on May 15, 2003, and
released June 4, 2003.
|
|
|
Wednesday, September 24 |
9:30 AM. The Senate
Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on several pending judicial nominations,
including those of Claude Allen to be a Judge of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit, and Dale Fischer to be a Judge of the
U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California. See,
notice. Press contact: Margarita Tapia
(Hatch) at 202 224-5225 or David Carle (Leahy) at 202 224-4242. Location: Room
226, Dirksen Building.
11:00 AM. The Cato Institute
will host a panel discussion titled "Telecom & Broadband Outlook After the
FCC's UNE Triennial Review Decision". The speakers will be Tom Tauke (Verizon), John Windhausen (Association for Local Telecommunications Services),
Ray Gifford (Progress & Freedom Foundation),
and John Malone (Eastern Management Group). To register, contact Krystal Brand
at kbrand@cato.org or use the online
registration page. Lunch
will follow the program. Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW.
1:00 PM. The House Commerce
Committee will hold a hearing titled "The Future of Universal Service".
The event will be webcast. Press contact: Ken Johnson or Jon Tripp at 202
225-5735. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.
6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Computer & Telecommunications Law Section of the D.C.
Bar Association will host a CLE seminar titled "Ethics and the Internet".
Prices vary. For more information, call 202 626-3488. Location: D.C. Bar
Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 level.
The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) will hold a narrowband PCS spectrum auction. This is
Auction No. 50. See,
notice in the Federal Register, March 28, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 60, at Pages
15174 - 15188, for procedures, minimum opening bids, and revised inventory and
start date, and other information. See also, FCC
notice.
The National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) and
The Instrumentation and Measurement Society of the Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) will host an event titled "Workshop on
IEEE-1588 Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization Protocol for
Networked Measurement and Control Systems". See, NIST's
notice
and IEEE-1588 pages. Location: NIST,
Gaithersburg, MD.
Day one of a three day course hosted by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), and offered by MIS Training Institute, titled "Securing and Auditing
Virtual Office Networks". The price to attend is $435. See,
notice.
Location: NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.
Deadline to submit comments to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) regarding telecommunication relay services (TRS) and
speech-to-speech services for individuals with hearing and speech
disabilities. This is CG Docket No. 03-123. See,
notice
in the Federal Register, August 25, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 164, at Pages 50993 -
50998.
|
|
|
Thursday, September 25 |
9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Day one of a two day conference pubic workshop by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) on building secure configurations, security settings, and security
checklists for information technology products widely used in the federal
government. See,
notice in the Federal Register, July 11, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 133, at Pages
41313 - 41314. Location: NIST, Lecture Room B, Bldg 101, Gaithersburg, MD.
9:00 AM. The Federal Communications
Commission's (FCC) North American Numbering Council (NANC) will meet. See,
notice in the Federal Register, September 2, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 169, at
Page 52210.
9:30 AM. The U.S. District Court
(DC) will hold a status conference in Genentech v. Rogan, D.C. No.
03-0050. Location: Courtroom 2, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.
Day two of a three day course hosted by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), and offered by MIS Training Institute, titled "Securing and Auditing
Virtual Office Networks". The price to attend is $435. See,
notice.
Location: NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.
|
|
|
Friday, September 26 |
9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Day two of a two day conference pubic workshop by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) on building secure configurations, security settings, and security
checklists for information technology products widely used in the federal
government. See,
notice in the Federal Register, July 11, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 133, at Pages
41313 - 41314. Location: NIST, Lecture Room B, Bldg 101, Gaithersburg, MD.
Day three of a three day course hosted by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), and offered by MIS Training Institute, titled "Securing and Auditing
Virtual Office Networks". The price to attend is $435. See,
notice.
Location: NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the
Federal Communications Commission's (FCC)
Notice of Inquiry (NOI) that solicits "data and information on the status
of competition in the market for the delivery of video programming for our
tenth annual report".
|
|
|
More News |
9/17. The Department of Commerce (DOC) and the
Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN) entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that extends for three years the DOC's
agreement with the ICANN. The current agreement was scheduled to expire on September 30, 2003.
9/15. The U.S. Court of
Appeals (9thCir) issued its
opinion [14 pages in PDF] in Albingia Versicherungs A.G. and Siemens
Components Pte. Ltd. v. Schenker International, Inc., a case involving
procedural issues regarding supplemental jurisdiction after removal to federal
court and choice of law. The underlying dispute involves liability in a waybill
for shipping computer chips made by Siemens, which were stolen.
This case is Albingia Versicherungs A.G. and
Siemens Components Pte. Ltd. v. Schenker International, Inc., No. 01-16558,
an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Judge Marilyn Patel presiding, D.C. No. CV-99-02989-MHP.
9/18. The National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) Computer Security Division
(CSD) released its "Pre-Publication Final" draft of its
document [13 pages in PDF] titled "Standards for Security
Categorization of Federal Information and Information Systems". The
E-Government Act of 2002 (Public Law
107-347) tasked the NIST with preparing this set of standards to be used by
federal agencies to categorize all information and information systems collected
or maintained by or on behalf of each agency based on the objectives of
providing appropriate levels of information security according to a range of
risk levels. This is Federal
Information Processing Standards (FIPS) Publication 199. This document
states that public comments are welcome. However, it sets no deadlines.
9/17. The House Government
Reform Committee's Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental
Relations and the Census held a hearing titled "Should the Common
Criteria be Applied to ALL Government Software Purchases?" See,
prepared testimony [PDF] of Edward Roback, Chief of the
Computer Security Division (CSD) at the
National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST).
9/16. The Executive Office of the President's (OEP)
Office of Science and Technology Policy's (OSTP)
National Science and
Technology Council's (NSTC) Committee on Science's Subcommittee on Research
Business Models published a
notice in the Federal Register announcing a series of public meetings around
the U.S. regarding the policies, procedures, and plans relating to the
business relationship between federal agencies and research performers. The
subcommittee will meet on October 27 at the Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory in Berkeley, California, on November 12 at the University of Minnesota in
Minneapolis, Minnesota, on November 17 at the University of North Carolina in
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and on December 9-10 at the Department of
Agriculture in Washington DC. The subcommittee requests public presentations at
these meetings, and written comments. For more information contact Michael
Holland at 202 456-6130. See, Federal Register, September 16, 2003, Vol. 68, No.
179, at Pages 54225 - 54226. The subcommittee also published a second notice in
the Federal Register extending until October 6 its deadline to submitting written
comments. See, original
notice in the Federal Register, August 6, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 151, at Pages 46631
- 46632, and
notice of extension in the Federal Register, September 16, 2003, Vol. 68,
No. 179, at Pages 54226 - 54227.
|
|
|
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 subscribers with multiple recipients. Free one
month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free
subscriptions are available for journalists,
federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and
executive branch. The TLJ web site is
free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert 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 - 2003 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All
rights reserved. |
|
|