1/12. The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its fractured en banc opinion [99 pages in PDF] in Yahoo v. LICRA, a case regarding whether Yahoo can obtain from the U.S. District Court a declaratory judgment that a French court order censoring internet speech on its servers in the U.S. is violative of the First Amendment. The panel issued a short, two paragraph, per curiam opinion that, like the three judge panel, reversed the District Court's judgment in favor of Yahoo. This outcome is a defeat for internet service providers such as Yahoo, internet speakers, and freedom of speech online.

Five members of the eleven member panel wrote separate opinions offering differing legal analyses. Although, the en banc panel essentially broke down into three groups. Two groups of three each supported dismissal of Yahoo's action, and one group of five supported affirming the District Court's judgment in favor of Yahoo.

The District Court held that there is personal jurisdiction over the French defendants, and a violation of the First Amendment. The three judge panel held that the District Court lacks personal jurisdiction. Eight judges of the en banc opined that the District Court has specific personal jurisdiction. Three opined that it does not. However, three of the eight member majority also opined that the case lacks ripeness. Only five of eleven judges opined that there is both specific personal jurisdiction and ripeness. The Court reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the action without prejudice.

That is, French entities went to a French court and obtained an order imposing a prior restraint on speech on Yahoo servers located in the U.S. Yahoo sought a declaratory judgment in the U.S. District Court that the French order is unenforceable in the U.S. for violation of the First Amendment's free speech clause. The Court of Appeals' collection of conflicting opinions now orders the dismissal of Yahoo's action.

Procedural History. In a previous action, in the nation of France, two entities titled La Ligue Contre La Racisme et L'Antisemitisme (LICRA) and L'Union Des Etudiants Juifs de France (UEJF) sued Yahoo. They obtained a judgment ordering Yahoo to stop publishing certain material in its web site located in the U.S.

In the present action, Yahoo filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (NDCal) against the LICRA and UEJF seeking a declaratory judgment that the French judgment is unenforceable in the U.S. because it violates the First Amendment. The French entities' legal strategy throughout the U.S. proceedings has been to seek dismissal on procedural grounds, rather than to argue the merits of their case.

The French entities argued that the U.S. Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them, notwithstanding the circumstances that their actions are directed at the censoring and fining of a business located in the Northern District of California.

On June 7, 2001, the District Court issued its Order Denying Motion to Dismiss [PDF] in which it rejected the French defendants' argument the Court lacks personal jurisdiction. See, story titled "U.S. Has Jurisdiction over French Defendants in Yahoo v. LICRA" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 205, June 11, 2001.

On November 7, 2001, the District Court issued its Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment [PDF] in favor of Yahoo. It held that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution precludes enforcement within the U.S. of a foreign court order intended to regulate the content of speech over the Internet. See, story titled "NDCal: French Court Order Restricting Internet Speech is Unenforceable in U.S." in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 305, November 9, 2001.

The French entities brought the present appeal. They argued that the District Court lacked personal jurisdiction, that the case is not ripe (because they have not yet sought to enforce the French judgment in the U.S.), and that the abstention doctrine applies.

On August 23, 2004, a three judge panel of the Appeals Court issued its split opinion [34 pages in PDF] reversing the District Court. It held that the District Court lacks personal jurisdiction because the French defendants have not purposely availed themselves of the benefits of the forum. The majority did not decide the issues of ripeness or the abstention doctrine. See, story titled "9th Circuit Reverses in Yahoo v. LICRA" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 965, August 24, 2004. Yahoo sought en banc review.

On February 10, 2005, the Court of Appeals granted a motion for rehearing en banc. See, story titled "9th Circuit Grants Rehearing En Banc in Yahoo v. LICRA" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,075, January 11, 2005.

En Banc Order and Opinions. On January 12, 2006, an eleven member en banc panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, and remanded with instructions that the case be dismissed without prejudice.

The slip opinion is paginated as pages 403 through 506. It is a 99 page PDF document. (There are no pages numbered 405, 406, 407, or 408.)

The per curiam opinion is at 408-409, and PDF pages 3-4.

Judges Fletcher, Schroeder and Gould. Three Judges supported dismissing the case for lack of ripeness.

Judge William Fletcher wrote an opinion (beginning at 411/5). Part I (beginning at 411/5) is a recitation of facts and procedural history. Part II (beginning at 418/12) pertains to personal jurisdiction. It concludes that there is specific personal jurisdiction.

Part III (beginning at 429/23) pertains to ripeness. It concludes that the case lacks ripeness. Fletcher wrote that "First Amendment issues arising out of international Internet use are new, important and difficult. We should not rush to decide such issues based on an inadequate, incomplete or unclear record. We should proceed carefully, with awareness of the limitations of our judicial competence, in this undeveloped area of the law. Precisely because of the novelty, importance and difficulty of the First Amendment issues Yahoo! seeks to litigate, we should scrupulously observe the prudential limitations on the exercise of our power."

However, while seven other Judges concurred in the conclusion that there is specific personal jurisdiction, only two concurred that ripeness is lacking (Schroeder and Gould).

Judges Ferguson, O'Scannlain and Tashima. Three Judges supported dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction.

Judge Ferguson's opinion (beginning at 452/46) concurred with only Part I (regarding the facts of the case) of Judge Fletcher's opinion. He dissented as to Parts II (personal jurisdiction) and Part III (ripeness).

Judge Ferguson concluded that "I do not believe that lack of ripeness is the proper ground to dismiss Yahoo!'s suit. Instead, I believe that the District Court did not properly exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants and also should have abstained from deciding Yahoo!’s claims." He was joined by Judges O'Scannlain and Tashima.

Judge O'Scannlain also wrote an opinion (beginning at 462/55) in which Judges Ferguson and Tashima joined. And, Judge Tashima's wrote an opinion (beginning at 468/61) in which Judges Ferguson and O'Scannlain joined.

Judges Fisher, Hawkins, Paez, Clifton and Bea. Judge Fisher's opinion (beginning at 471/64) concludes that there is both specific personal jurisdiction and ripeness, that the District Court must be affirmed, and that Yahoo thus must obtain declaratory relief that the French order violates the First Amendment. Judges Hawkins, Paez, Clifton and Bea joined.

Fisher wrote that "the issue before us is whether a United States Internet service provider, whose published content has been restricted by a foreign court injunction, may look to the United States federal courts to determine the enforceability of those restrictions under the United States Constitution’s First Amendment. The French injunctive orders -- backed by substantial, retroactive monetary penalties for noncompliance -- require Yahoo! to block access from French territory to Nazi-related material on its <yahoo.com> website. Some prohibited content is readily identifiable, such as Nazi artifacts or copies of Mein Kampf. Much, however, is not."

He continued that ""In traditional First Amendment terms, this injunctive mandate is a prior restraint on what Yahoo! may post (or control access to) on its U.S.-located server -- imposed under principles of French law and in such facially vague and overbroad terms that even the majority does not know ``whether further restrictions on access by French, and possibly American, users are required´´ to comply with the French orders. (Op. at 451.) Yahoo! can either hope to comply with what the French court (and the defendants here) deems to be inappropriate content by attempting to block access to material Yahoo! thinks the orders cover or by simply removing any questionable content altogether. Or Yahoo! can ignore the French court’s mandate in whole or in part and accept the risk of substantial accruing fines. The majority, however, is unmoved. For it, Yahoo!’s proper recourse is to take its case back to France. We cannot agree."

Judge Fisher concluded that "We should not allow a foreign court order to be used as leverage to quash constitutionally protected speech by denying the United States-based target an adjudication of its constitutional rights in federal court. By invoking the doctrine of prudential ripeness — notwithstanding having found both personal jurisdiction over the two foreign defendants and a constitutional case or controversy — the majority does just that, denying Yahoo! the only forum in which it can free itself of a facially unconstitutional injunction. Moreover, in doing so the majority creates a new and troubling precedent for U.S.- based Internet service providers who may be confronted with foreign court orders that require them to police the content accessible to Internet users from another country."

Judge Ferguson offered this explanation of what is essentially a 6-5 split. "An eight-judge majority of the en banc panel holds, as explained in Part II of this opinion, that the district court properly exercised specific personal jurisdiction over defendants LICRA and UEJF under the criteria of Calder. A three-judge plurality of the panel concludes, as explained in Part III of this opinion, that the suit is unripe for decision under the criteria of Abbott Laboratories. When the votes of the three judges who conclude that the suit is unripe are combined with the votes of the three dissenting judges who conclude that there is no personal jurisdiction over LICRA and UEJF, there are six votes to dismiss Yahoo!’s suit. We therefore REVERSE and REMAND to the district court with instructions to dismiss without prejudice."

This case is Yahoo, Inc. v. La Ligue Contre La Racisme et L'Antisemitisme and L'Union Des Etudiants Juifs de France, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, App. Ct. No. No. 01-17424, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, D.C. No. CV-00-21275-JF, Judge Jeremy Fogel presiding. Judge Warren Ferguson wrote the opinion of the three judge panel, in which Judge Wallace Tashima joined. Judge Melvin Brunetti wrote a dissent. The members of the en banc panel are Mary Schroeder, Warren Ferguson, Diarmuid O’Scannlain, Michael Daly Hawkins, Wallace Tashima, William Fletcher, Raymond Fisher, Ronald Gould, Richard Paez, Richard Clifton, and Carlos Bea.

1/12. The Business Software Alliance released a report [PDF] titled "Online Holiday Shopping and Consumer Confidence Project", which contains a summary of data collected in a poll of U.S. consumers. It states that 21% of all holiday shopping was done online. The report also summarizes responses to questions regarding identity theft, spyware, viruses, and credit card fraud. For example, respondents were asked "This holiday season, how confident were you when you shopped online that you were protected from spyware". 13% responded extremely confident, 28% responded very confident, 36% responded somewhat confident, 19% responded not very confident, and 1% responded not confident at all. This report is not based upon a random sample of consumers. The pollster, Harris Interactive, sent a large number of surveys by e-mail, and then tabulated responses.

1/12. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Kevin Martin appointed twenty-five persons to the FCC's Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks. See, FCC release [PDF]. He appointed no representatives from any VOIP service provider, ISP, or information technology company or group.

1/12. Susan Wyderko was named acting Director of the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Division of Investment Management. She has worked at the SEC for twenty years. See, SEC release.

1/12. Karen Knutson was named Vice President, Government Relations of the Business Software Alliance (BSA). She will surpervise the BSA government relations staff in both Washington DC and Brussels, Belgium. She was previously VP of Government Relations at ML Strategies, a Washington DC based lobbying and public affairs firm affiliated with the law firm of Mintz Levin. See, BSA release.

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.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998 - 2005 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.

The House will not meet. It will convene for the 2nd Session of the 109th Congress on Tuesday, January 31, 2006.. See, Majority Whip's calendar.

The Senate will not meet. It will convene for the 2nd Session of the 109th Congress on Wednesday, January 18, 2006. See, 2006 Senate calendar.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation v. FCC, No. 04-1384, a case regarding Instructional Fixed Television Service ((ITFS). See, FCC's brief [50 pages in PDF]. Judges Ginsburg, Sentelle and Williams will preside. Location: Prettyman Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Sandisk v. STMicroelectronics, No. 05-1300. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Legislation and IP-Based Communications Practice Committees will host a brown bag lunch titled "Legislative Reform Affecting IP-Based Services". The speakers will be Howard Waltzman (Majority Chief Telecommunications Counsel for the House Commerce Committee), Amy Levine (Legislative Counsel to Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA)), Melissa Newman (VP Regulatory Affairs at Qwest), and Chris Putala (EVP of EarthLink). RSVP to Wendy Parish at wendy at fcba dot org. Location: Verizon Wireless, 1300 Eye Street, NW, Suite 400 West.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a panel discussion titled "Scientific Talent and U.S. Economic Leadership". The speakers will be Richard Freeman (Harvard), Steven Davis (AEI), David Weinstein (Columbia), and Kevin Hassett (AEI). Freeman will discuss his paper titled "Does Globalization of the Scientific/Engineering Workforce Threaten U.S. Economic Leadership?". See, notice. For more information, contact Chris Pope at cpope at aei dot org or Veronique Rodman (reporters) at vrodman at aei dot org. Location: 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

Day two of a two day conference hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Intelligent Systems Division and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) titled "Evaluating Cognitive Systems Workshop". This conference is closed to the public. See, notice. Location: NIST, Building 101, Lecture Room A, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD.

5:00 PM. Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding the NIST Draft Special Publication 800-76, titled "Biometric Data Specification for Personal Identity Verification".

Deadline to submit comments to the Antitrust Modernization Commission (AMC) on international antitrust issues. The AMC seeks comments in response to the following: "The adoption of competition or antitrust laws by over 100 jurisdictions around the world, as well as the globalization of commerce and markets, has given rise to the potential for conflict between the United States and foreign jurisdictions with respect to enforcement actions taken and remedies sought. Are there multilateral procedures that should be implemented, or other actions taken, to enhance international antitrust comity? In commenting, please address the significance of the issue, what solutions might reduce that problem, and how such solutions could be implemented by the United States." See, notice in the Federal Register, November 16, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 220, at Pages 69510 - 69511.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to a petition for declaratory ruling [34 pages in PDF] filed by the Fax Ban Coalition that asks the FCC to find that the FCC has exclusive authority to regulate interstate commercial fax messages, and that § 17538.43 of the California Business and Professions Code, and all other State laws that purport to regulate interstate facsimile transmissions, are preempted by the TCPA, which is codified at 47 U.S.C. § 541.

Martin Luther King's birthday.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and other federal offices will be closed. See, Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) list of federal holidays.

12:00 NOON. Former Vice President Al Gore will give a speech regarding the National Security Agency's (NSA) domestic electronic surveillance program. See, notice. Location: DAR Constitution Hall, 1776 D St NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the Executive Office of the President's (EOP) Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) regarding its "Proposed Principles for Federal Support of Graduate and Postdoctoral Education and Training in Science and Engineering". See, notice in the Federal Register, November 16, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 220, at Pages 69563 - 69565.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Cable Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch titled "The Top Ten Technological Trends Everybody Should Know About". The speakers will be John Wong and the staff of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Media Bureau's Engineering Division. RSVP to Ben Golant at ben dot golant at fcc dot gov. Location: Willkie Farr & Gallagher, 1875 K St., NW.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) portion of its Report and Order (R&O) and NPRM of August 5, 2005 regarding regulation of information services. The R&O classified wireline broadband internet access services as information services. The NPRM proposes to impose new regulatory burdens on information services. This item is FCC 05-150 in WC Docket No. 05-271, CC Docket No. 02-33, CC Docket No. 01-337, CC Docket Nos. 95-20 and 98-10, and WC Docket No. 04-242. See, story titled "FCC Classifies DSL as Information Service" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,190, August 8, 2005. The FCC released the text [133 pages in PDF] of this item on September 23, 2005. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 17, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 199, at Pages 60259 - 60271.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking regarding its rules affecting Wireless Radio Services. This item is FCC 05-144 in WT Docket Nos. 03-264. The FCC adopted this item on July 22, 2005. It released the text [67 pages in PDF] on August 9, 2005. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 19, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 201, at Pages 60770 - 60781.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding a petition for rulemaking of 13 hearing impairment related entities. Their petition requests that the FCC initiate a rulemaking proceeding to mandate captioned telephone relay service and to approve internet protocol captioned telephone relay service. The FCC's Public Notice [PDF] states that "Captioned telephone service is a form of telecommunications relay service (TRS) that permits persons to simultaneously both listen to what the other party is saying and read captions of what the other party is saying on the same device. Presently the service is eligible for compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund (Fund), but is not mandatory. The petition asks the Commission to initiate a rulemaking for the purpose of making captioned telephone service a mandatory form of TRS and approving Internet Protocol (IP) captioned telephone service as eligible for compensation from the Fund." (Footnotes omitted). This notice is DA 05-2961 in CG Docket No. 03-123. See also, notice in the November 30, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 229, at Pages 71849 - 71850.

The Senate will convene for the 2nd Session of the 109th Congress. See, 2006 Senate calendar.

8:30 AM - 5:30 PM. The Cyber Security Industry Alliance (CSIA) will host a conference titled "The Legal Implications of Data Integrity". See, agenda. The price to attend ranges from $95 to $195. Location: Jack Morton Auditorium, Media and Public Affairs Building, George Washington University, 805 21st St., NW.

12:00 NOON - 1:15 PM. The DC Bar Association's Intellectual Property Law Section and Patent Section will host a panel discussion titled "Current Topics in Patent Law: Patent Pools and Standards Bodies". The speakers will include James Kulbaski (Oblon Spivak). The price to attend ranges from $10-$30. For more information, call 202 626-3463. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The Department of State's International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will hold the second in a series of weekly meetings to prepare for the International Telecommunications Union's (ITU) 2006 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference, to be held November 6-24, 2006, in Antalya, Turkey. See, notice in the Federal Register, December 21, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 244, at Page 75854. This notice incorrectly states that these meetings will be held on Tuesdays; they are on Wednesdays. For more information, contact Julian Minard at 202 647-2593 or minardje at state dot gov. Location: AT&T, 1120 20th St., NW.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "50 Tips For Ethical and Effective Web Sites for Lawyers and Law Firms". The speakers will include Walter Effross (American University law school). The price to attend ranges from $70-$125. For more information, call 202 626-3488. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [24 pages in PDF] regarding amendments to its unsolicited facsimile advertising rules and the established business relationship (EBR) exception to the rules. This NPRM was adopted by the FCC on December 9, 2005, and released on December 9, 2005. It is FCC 05-206 in CG Docket No. 02-278. See, notice in the Federal Register, December 19, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 242, at Pages 75102 - 75110.

8:00 - 9:30 AM. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will host an event titled "Policy Insiders with FBI Director Robert Mueller". See, notice. The price to attend ranges from $55 to $75. For more information, contact Matt Haller at mhaller at uschamber dot com or 202 463-3176. Location: U.S. Chamber 1615 H St., NW.

9:00 AM - 4:30 PM. The Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) will host an event titled "Base Realignment and Closure: Moving Forward with Information Technology". See, notice. Location: Ritz Carlton, Pentagon City, VA.

10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing titled "Decency". Press contact: Melanie Alvord (Stevens) at 202 224-8456, Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at 202 224-3991, or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202 224-4546. The hearing will be webcast by the SCC. Location: __.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The DC Bar Association's Intellectual Property Law Section and Trademark Committee will host a panel discussion titled "Trademark Policing And Enforcement". The speakers will include Melise Blakeslee (McDermott Will & Emery) and Alan Cooper (Howery & Simon). The price to attend ranges from $20-$40. For more information, call 202 626-3463. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

1:00 - 4:00 PM. The Antitrust Modernization Commission (AMC) will hold a hearing titled "Economists' Roundtable on U.S. Merger Enforcement". See, notice in the Federal Register, December 29, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 249, at Page 77121. Location: Federal Trade Commission, Conference Center, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW.

2:30 PM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing titled "Internet Decency". The scheduled witnesses are Jack Valenti (MPAA), Charles Ergen (EchoStar), David Cohen (Comcast), Bruce Reese (National Association of Broadcasters), Brent Bozell (Parents Television Council), Martin Franks (CBS), Alan Rosenberg (Screen Actors Guild), and Jeff McIntyre (American Psychological Association). Press contact: Melanie Alvord (Stevens) at 202 224-8456, Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at 202 224-3991, or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202 224-4546. The hearing will be webcast by the SCC. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building.

7:30 - 10:30 AM. The National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) will host an event titled "Personal Liability of Private Company Directors & Officers: How to Protect Yourself in Today's Environment". The NVCA notice states that "Attendance at this event is by invitation only". Location: Ritz Carlton, 1700 Tysons Blvd., McLean, VA.

Deadline to submit oppositions to the U.S. Telecom Association's petition [PDF] seeking reconsideration and clarification of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) CALEA order. This is the FCC's order that provides that facilities based broadband service providers and interconnected VOIP providers are subject to requirements under the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). The FCC adopted, but did not release, this item at its August 5, 2005, meeting. See, story titled "FCC Amends CALEA Statute" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,191, August 9, 2005. The FCC released the text [59 pages in PDF] of this item on September 23, 2005. It is FCC 05-153 in ET Docket No. 04-295 and RM-10865. The USTelecom argues that the FCC "should reconsider its decision to start the 18-month CALEA compliance clock on November 14, 2005, and instead should start that clock on the effective date of its forthcoming order on CALEA capability requirements for broadband and VoIP providers". It also argues that the FCC should "clarify and delineate the specific broadband access services that qualify as ``newly covered services´´ under the CALEA Applicability Order." See, notice in the Federal Register.January 4, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 2, at Pages 345 - 346.

9:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a meeting. The event will be webcast by the FCC. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C05 (Commission Meeting Room).

9:30 - 11:00 AM. The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) will host an event titled "Investing in Innovation -- The UK Model". The speaker will be Jonathan Kestenbaum, CEO of the U.K.'s National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA). For more information, contact Austin Bonner at 202 547-0001 or abonner at dlc dot org. Location: PPI, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, Suite 400.

TIME? The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host an luncheon titled "70th Anniversary Luncheon: Looking Forward, Looking Back". The speakers will be former Chairmen of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), including William Kennard, Michael Powell, James Quello, Alfred Sikes, and Richard Wiley. Location: J.W. Marriott Hotel.

Advanced effective date of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) rule requiring certain new television receivers and other TV receiving devices such as VCRs and digital video recorders to be capable of receiving digital television signals. See, FCC's Second Report and Order adopted on November 3, 2005, and released on November 8, 2005. It is FCC 05-190 in ET Docket No. 05-24. See also, notice in the Federal Register, December 21, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 244, at Pages 75739 - 75743.