6/16. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) issued its opinion [41 pages in PDF] in Covad v. FCC, denying all petitions for review of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) December 2004 order [185 pages in PDF] regarding incumbent local exchange carriers' (ILECs) obligations under 47 U.S.C. § 251 to make available unbundled network elements (UNEs) to competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs). The Court of Appeals or Supreme Court overturned parts of the FCC's previous three orders. The Court of Appeals wrote that the "fourth try is a charm".

Introduction. This case is a consolidation of numerous petitions for review filed by ILECs, CLECs, and others. Basically, ILECs do not like unbundling requirements, and argued that the FCC order should have imposed less unbundling requirements on them. In contrast, the petitioning CLECs favor unbundling requirements, and argued that the FCC order should have imposed more requirements on the ILECs. The Court of Appeals denied all petitions.

Section 251 requires the ILECs, such as Verizon, to make available to CLECs, such as Covad, UNEs at regulated rates. It further requires the FCC to write implementing rules.

The Court of Appeals offered this summary of the concept of unbundling: "Suppose a CLEC (such as Covad) wants to serve customers in Washington, D.C. One way of doing so is for Covad to purchase its own switches, trunks, and loops, which it can then use to offer service to its new customers. However, given that the local ILEC (e.g., Verizon) has already deployed switches, trunks, and loops to serve the market, it might be economically impossible for Covad to duplicate competitively Verizon’s infrastructure. Through regulatory unbundling, however, Covad might be able to lease Verizon’s switches, trunks, and loops as UNEs. Covad could then use combinations of UNEs to cobble together a network and compete against Verizon in Washington." (Parentheses in original.)

The Court added that "The ILECs unsurprisingly dislike seeing their own networks wielded as competitive weapons by CLECs -- especially when the CLECs enjoy access to UNEs at TELRIC rates", or "Total Element Long-Run Incremental Cost". Similarly, "Given the lower cost of UNEs, the CLECs favor widespread unbundling, while ILECs favor fewer UNEs and the greater availability of higher-priced TSASs", tariffed special access services.

The Court commented that "This tug-of-war -- between CLECs advocating more unbundling and ILECs advocating less -- has been the nub of an ongoing, decade-long dispute between incumbents and their would-be competitors."

An explanation of this case, and the Court's opinion, requires an understanding of the statute, the history of the FCC's prior implementing orders, the Courts' prior opinions, as well as the Court's analysis of the FCC's most recent order. The Court of Appeals opinion is 41 pages, single spaced, and still refers the reader back to prior items. The following is an incomplete overview.

Statute. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3) provides that ILECs have "The duty to provide, to any requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision of a telecommunications service, nondiscriminatory access to network elements on an unbundled basis at any technically feasible point on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement and the requirements of this section and section 252 of this title. An incumbent local exchange carrier shall provide such unbundled network elements in a manner that allows requesting carriers to combine such elements in order to provide such telecommunications service."

Section 251(d)(2) requires the FCC, in establishing unbundling requirements, to "consider, at a minimum, whether ... the failure to provide access to such network elements would impair the ability of the telecommunications carrier seeking access to provide the services that it seeks to offer." The interpretation of the work "impair" has been central the FCC's unbundling orders, and the Court opinions overturning them.

These Section 251 unbundling requirements were created by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. 47 U.S.C. § 251(d)(1) requires that "Within 6 months after February 8, 1996, the Commission shall complete all actions necessary to establish regulations to implement the requirements of this section."

History of FCC Attempts to Implement § 251 UNE Obligations. In the following years, the FCC wrote four orders containing implementing rules. Parts of the previous three were overturned by the Courts. The Supreme Court rejected the FCC's first attempt in AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999). The Court of Appeals (DCCir) rejected the FCC's second attempt in U.S. Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 290 F.3d 415 (2002).

The FCC announced its third set of rules on February 20, 2003, but did not release the text of this triennial review order [576 pages in PDF] until August 21, 2003, six months later. See, story titled "Summary of FCC Triennial Review Order" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 725, August 25, 2003. See also, stories titled "FCC Announces UNE Report and Order", "FCC Order Offers Broadband Regulatory Relief", "FCC Announces Decision on Switching", "Commentary: Republicans Split On FCC UNE Order", and "Congressional Reaction To FCC UNE Order" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 609, February 21, 2003.

On March 2, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) issued its opinion [62 pages in PDF] in USTA v. FCC, overturning parts of the FCC's triennial review order (TRO), and remanding the proceeding to the FCC. See also, story titled "Appeals Court Overturns Key Provisions of FCC Triennial Review Order" and story titled "Reaction to the Appeals Court Opinion in USTA v. FCC" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 848, March 3, 2004.

The FCC adopted its fourth order on December 15, 2005. It is also sometimes referred to as the triennial review remand order. It amended the existing unbundling rules to bring them into compliance with the March 2, 2004, opinion.

See, stories titled "FCC Adopts Unbundling Order" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,039, December 16, 2004, and "Reaction to FCC Unbundling Order" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,041, December 20, 2005. The FCC released this order [185 pages in PDF] on February 4, 2005. See, story titled "FCC Releases Unbundling Order" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,071, February 7, 2005. This order is FCC 04-290 in WC Docket No. 04-313 and CC Docket No. 01-338. This is the order upheld by the just released opinion.

December 2004 Order. The Court of Appeals summarized the four substantive sections of the FCC's order, titled "Unbundling Framework" (FCC order, at Section IV, Paragraphs 20-65), "Dedicated Interoffice Transport" (§ V, ¶¶ 66-145), "High Capacity Loops" (§ VI, ¶¶ 146-198), and "Mass Market Local Circuit Switching" (§ VII, ¶¶ 199-228).

First, the Court wrote that the FCC "altered its unbundling framework. The FCC clarified that it would find ``impairment´´ where it would be ``uneconomic´´ for a ``reasonably efficient´´ CLEC to compete without UNEs."

Second, the Court wrote that the FCC "amended its impairment findings for dedicated interoffice transport. ``Dedicated transport facilities´´ refer to facilities that are dedicated to a particular carrier used for transmission between or among ILEC wire centers. For purposes of this opinion, transport comes in two varieties: ``DS1´´ (which can carry 24 voice calls simultaneously) and ``DS3´´ (which has 28 times the capacity of DS1 facilities and can therefore carry 672 voice calls simultaneously)." (Citations to the order omitted. Parentheses in original.)

Third, the Court wrote that the FCC "amended its impairment findings for DS1 and DS3 loops. The Commission noted it is often not economical for a CLEC to deploy its own DS1 loops, given their capacity limitations. However, the FCC explained that to offer DS1 or DS3 service, CLECs ``install high-capacity fiber-optic cables [including DS3 loops and ``optical carrier level n,´´ or ``OCn,´´ facilities] and then use electronics to light the fiber at specific capacity levels, often `channelizing´ these higher-capacity offerings into multiple lower-capacity streams.´´ Thus, the FCC concluded, CLECs are not impaired without DS1/DS3 UNEs in markets where CLECs have deployed -- or could economically deploy -- higher-capacity facilities that can be ``channelized´´ to provide service at lower levels." (Footnote and citations to the order omitted. Brackets in original.)

Third, the Court wrote that the FCC "concluded that ILECs no longer need to provide CLECs with unbundled access to mass market local circuit switching (``MMLS´´). The FCC adopted transitional rules to wean CLECs off the local circuit switching UNEs that are currently in use. Specifically, the Commission afforded CLECs 12 months to eliminate their reliance on unbundled MMLS, and it increased the rates at which ILECs are compensated for unbundled local switching during the transitional period ..." (Parentheses in original.)

Holding of the Court. The Court characterized the ILECs' arguments thus: "the ILECs argue that the FCC unlawfully failed to consider the relevance of TSASs in its unbundling analysis. Second, the ILECs argue that the Commission imposed impossibly high thresholds for assessing the state of competition in the market for DS1/DS3 loops and transport."

It characterized the CLECs' arguments thus: "the CLECs argue that they are universally impaired without unbundled access to DS1 loops, DS3 loops, and DS1 transport. Second, the CLECs argue that they are universally impaired without unbundled access to mass market local switching. Third, the CLECs argue that the Commission’s transitional rules for implementing the Order are arbitrary and capricious."

The Court rejected all petitions for review.

This case is Covad Communications Company, et al. v. FCC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, App. Ct. Nos. 05-1095, 05-1100, 05-1101, 05-1108, 05-1110, 05-1122, 05-1130, 05-1133, 05-1137, 05-1224, petitions for review of a final order of the FCC. Judge Sentelle wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Ginsburg and Griffith joined.

6/16. The U.S. Court of Appeals (2ndCir) issued its opinion [23 pages in PDF] in Dow Jones v. International Securities Exchange, a case regarding misappropriation of intellectual property under New York state law.

Dow Jones and McGraw-Hill created and maintain stock market indexes. Dow Jones is the creator of the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA). McGraw-Hill is the creator of the Standard & Poor 500 Index (S&P 500). The creation and maintenance of these indices requires great effort, expertise, creativity, and expense.

Dow Jones and McGraw-Hill both license their products to financial institutions, and for use in financial products that utilize their indexes.

Dow Jones and McGraw-Hill have each licensed the creation of an exchange traded fund (ETF) that tracks the performance of their index, and provides a vehicle for public investment in a pool of securities that reflects the performance of their index. Dow Jones has licensed DIAMONDS, and McGraw-Hill has licensed SPDR.

International Securities Exchange, Inc. (ISE) is an options exchange. Options Clearing Corporation (OCC) is an options clearing agency. ISE announced its intent to offer options trading on shares of DIAMONDS and SPDR. OCC announced that it would clear these trades.

ISE and OCC did not obtain a license from either Dow Jones or McGraw-Hill.

Dow Jones and McGraw-Hill then filed complaints in U.S. District Court (SDNY) against ISE and OCC alleging that the announced plans would misappropriate their intellectual property interest in the underlying indexes, and constitute unfair competition, under New York law. They also alleged that ISE and OCC would infringe and dilute their trademarks.

The District Court dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim. This appeal followed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that an options exchange, by creating, listing, and facilitating the trading of options on shares in an ETF designed to track a proprietary market index, does not misappropriate the intellectual property rights of the creator of that index.

The Court wrote that "Plaintiffs intentionally disseminate their index values to inform the public. They cannot complain when the defendants do nothing more than draw information from that publication of the index values."

The misappropriation and unfair competition claims both involve questions New York state law. The Court's opinion is not binding on courts that interpret the laws of other states. Moreover, there is no federal statutory or common law cause of action for misappropriation. In addition, this is a federal court rending an opinion on a matter of state law. It is not binding on the courts of the state of New York. However, while an opinion with these characteristics would usually have little impact, given the rarity of opinions on misappropriation of market index IP rights, and the Court which rendered it, this opinion may have an unusual impact.

Perhaps it should also be noted that in recent years when Congressional Committees have considered general legislation that would create a federal statutory intellectual property right in collections of data, opponents have argued that such legislation is unnecessary, in part because creators of collections of data can rely on state law actions based upon the doctrine of misappropriation. However, Dow Jones and McGraw-Hill were unsuccessful in asserting misappropriation in this case.

See for example, story titled "House Judiciary Committee Approves Database Protection Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 822, January 23, 2004.

This case is Dow Jones & Company, Inc. v. International Securities Exchange, Inc. and Options Clearing Corporation, and McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. v. International Securities Exchange, Inc., U.S.Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. 05-4812-cv and 05-4972-cv, appeals from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Harold Baer presiding.

6/16. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released its 7th report [55 pages in PDF] to the Congress on satellite competition. This report is required by Section 646 of the Open-Market Reorganization for the Betterment of International Telecommunications Act (ORBIT Act). The report concludes that "U.S. policy goals regarding the promotion of a fully competitive global market for satellite communications services are being met in accordance with the ORBIT Act."

6/16. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released an order [PDF] regarding telecommunications relay services (TRS) and speech to speech services for individuals with hearing and speech disabilities.

6/16. The Heritage Foundation released a short paper titled "Health Care Information Technology: Getting the Policy Right". The author is Edmund Haislmaier.

6/18. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) removed the multicast must carry item from the agenda [PDF] of its event titled "Open Meeting", scheduled for June 21, 2006. See also, story titled "FCC Announces Agenda for June 21 Meeting" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,392, June 15, 2006.

An FCC spokesman stated in a release on June 18, 2006, that "There did not appear to be consensus for moving forward at this time".

The FCC declined to impose multicast must carry obligations on cable operators in its last order. See, story titled "FCC Adopts Digital Multicasting Must Carry Order" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,075, February 11, 2005.

Kyle McSlarrow, head of the National Cable Telecommunications Association (NCTA), stated in a release on June 19, 2006, that "We're pleased the Commission has reconsidered its intention to impose multicast must-carry rules. The FCC correctly decided this matter on the two previous instances in which it determined that multicasting mandates would be unwise. We believe multicasting mandates are harmful to consumers. And we believe that marketplace and consumer demand -- not the government -- should determine what programming services are carried."

This is CS Docket No. 98-120.

The House will meet at 12:30 PM for morning hour, and at 2:00 PM for legislative business. It will consider several non-technology related items under suspension of the rules. Votes will be postponed until 5:00 PM. See, Republican Whip Notice.

The Senate will meet at 2:00 PM. It will resume consideration of S 2766, the defense authorization bill.

10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee's (SCC) Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation, and Competitiveness will hold a hearing titled "High-Performance Computing". Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) will preside. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building.

12:15 - 1:45 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will host a brown bag lunch titled "Copyright Overview and Hot Topics for Communications Lawyers". The speakers will be Rob Kasunic (Copyright Office), Michael Petricone (Consumer Electronics Association), and Fritz Attaway (Motion Picture Association of America). Ryan Wallach (Willkie Farr & Gallagher) will moderate. For more information, contact Tarah Grant at tsgrant at hhlaw dot com or 703-610-6155 or Brendan Carr at bcarr at wrf dot com or 202-719-7305. RSVP to Brendan Carr. Location: Wiley Rein & Fielding, 1776 K Street, NW.

6:00 PM. The filing window closes for the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Auction 66. This is the auction of Advance Wireless Services (AWS) licenses in the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz (AWS-1) bands. See also, notice in the Federal Register, June 2, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 106, at Pages 32089-32091.

The House will meet at 9:30 AM for morning hour, and at 11:00 AM for legislative business. It will consider several non-technology related items under suspension of the rules. The House will also consider HR 5631, the "Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007", subject to a rules. See, Republican Whip Notice.

10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee (HCC) will meet to mark up several bills, including HR __, a bill that has not yet been introduced that regarding studying and promoting the use of energy efficient computer servers. The meeting will be webcast by the HCC. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

POSTPONED TO JUNE 22. 10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will meet to mark up S 2686, the "Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006". See, notice. Press contact: Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at 202-224-3991 or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202-224-4546. The meeting will be webcast by the SCC. Location: __.

12:30 - 2:00 PM. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will host an event titled "Intellectual Property Forum Featuring Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez". See, notice and registration page. Location: Chamber, 1615 H Street, NW.

2:00 PM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection will hold a hearing titled "Privacy in the Commercial World II". See, notice. The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Press contact: Larry Neal (Barton) at 202-225-5735 or Paul Flusche (Stearns) at 202-225-5744. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will hold the first of three hearings on single firm conduct. The speakers will be Deborah Majoras (FTC Chairman), Thomas Barnett (Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division), Dennis Carlton (University of Chicago Graduate School of Business), and Herbert Hovenkamp (University of Iowa College of Law). See, notice. Location: FTC, Room 432, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Judicial Practice Committee will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "The Judicial Year in Review". See, registration form [PDF]. Prices vary. The deadline to register is 5:00 PM on June 16. Location: Wiley Rein & Fielding, 1776 K Stree, NW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the transfer of licenses associated with the AT&T, BellSouth, and Cingular transaction. This is nominally a license transfer proceeding, but is also in the nature of an antitrust merger review. This proceeding will be governed by "permit but disclose" ex parte communications procedures under Section 1.1206 of the FCC's rules. See, FCC notice [10 pages in PDF] and FCC web page for its AT&T/SBC/Cingular merger review. This proceeding is WC Docket No. 06-74.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM legislative business. It will consider several non-technology related items under suspension of the rules. The House may also consider HR 9, a voting rights bill, and HR 4890, the "Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006", subject to rules. See, Republican Whip Notice.

8:30 AM - 2:30 PM. The American Antitrust Institute (AAI) will host a one day conference titled "The IP Grab -- The Struggle Between Intellectual Property Rights & Antitrust". See, conference agenda. Location: National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.

9:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a meeting. See, agenda [PDF] and story titled "FCC Announces Agenda for June 21 Meeting" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,392, June 15, 2006. The event will be webcast by the FCC. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C05 (Commission Meeting Room).

10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold the first of two hearings titled "Internet Data Brokers and Pretexting: Who has Access to Your Private Records?". See, notice. The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Press contact: Larry Neal (Barton) at 202-225-5735 or Terry Lane (Barton) at 202-225-5735. Location: Room 2322, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee (HJC) will meet to mark up several bills, including HR 1956, the "Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2005", HR 5520, the "Veterans Identity Protection Act", HRes 819, "Requesting the President and directing the Attorney General to submit to the House of Representatives all documents in the possession of the President and the Attorney General relating to requests made by the National Security Agency and other Federal agencies to telephone service providers requesting access to telephone communications records of persons in the United States and communications originating and terminating within the United States without a warrant", and HRes 845, "Requesting the President and directing the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General to transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution, documents relating to the termination of the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility's investigation of the involvement of Department of Justice personnel in the creation and administration of the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program, including documents relating to Office of Professional Responsibility's request for and denial of security clearances". See, notice. The meeting will be webcast by the HCC. Location: Room 2154, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The House Armed Services Committee's (HASC) Subcommittee on Strategic Forces will hold a hearing on space. The witnesses will include David Cavossa of the Satellite Industry Association (SIA). Location: Room 2212, Rayburn Building.

11:00 AM. The Cato Institute will host a panel discussion titled "U.S. Trade Policy in the Wake of Doha: Why Unilateral Liberalization Makes Sense". The speakers will include Jagdish Bhagwati, (Columbia University) and Daniel Ikenson (Cato). Cato will also webcast the event. Lunch will follow the program. See, notice and registration page. Location: Cato, 1000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

2:00 PM. TheHouse Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet will hold a hearing titled "Universal Service: What Are We Subsidizing and Why? Part 1: The High-Cost Fund". See, notice. The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Press contact: Larry Neal (Barton) at 202-225-5735, Terry Lane (Barton) at 202-225-5735 or Sean Bonyun (Upton) at 202-225-3761. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

2:30 PM. The Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation, and Competitiveness will hold a hearing titled "Accelerating the Adoption of Health Information Technology". The witnesses will be Carolyn Clancy (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality), Newt Gingrich (Center for Health Transformation), John Halamka (Healthcare Information Technology Standards Panel), Mark Leavitt (Certification Commission for Health Information Technology), Michael Raymer (GE Healthcare), Kevin Hutchinson (SureScripts), Phillip Ragon (InterSystems Corporation). See, notice. Press contact: Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at 202-224-3991 or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202-224-4546. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM legislative business. It will consider several non-technology related items under suspension of the rules. The House may also consider HR 9, a voting rights bill, and HR 4890, the "Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006", subject to rules. See, Republican Whip Notice.

9:30 - 11:30 AM. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will hold the second of three hearings on single firm conduct. This hearing will address selling. The speakers will be Patrick Bolton (Columbia University Business School), Kenneth Elzinga (University of Virginia), Douglas Melamed (Wilmer Hale), and Janusz Ordover (New York University). See, notice. Location: FTC, Room 432, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will meet to mark up S 2686, the "Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006". See, notice. Press contact: Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at 202-224-3991 or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202-224-4546. The meeting will be webcast by the SCC. Location: __.

RESCHEDULED FROM MAY 23. 10:30 AM. The House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures will hold a hearing titled "Hearing on the Impact of International Tax Reform on U.S. Competitiveness". See, notice. Location: Room 1100, Longworth Building.

1:00 - 4:00 PM. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will hold the third of three hearings on single firm conduct. This hearing will address buying. The speakers will be Tim Brennan (University of Maryland), John Kirkwood (Seattle University School of Law), Janet McDavid (Hogan & Hartson), Steven Salop (Georgetown University Law Center), and Frederick Warren-Boulton (Microeconomic Consulting & Research Associates, Inc.). See, notice. Location: FTC, Room 432, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

2:00 PM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold the second of two hearings titled "Internet Data Brokers and Pretexting: Who has Access to Your Private Records?". See, notice. The witnesses will include Paul Kilcoyne (DHS/ICE). The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Press contact: Larry Neal (Barton) at 202-225-5735 or Terry Lane (Barton) at 202-225-5735. Location: Room 2322, Rayburn Building.

2:00 PM. The House International Relations Committee's (HIRC) Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations will meet to mark up several bills, including HR 4780, the "Global Online Freedom Act of 2006". See, notice. Location: Room 2172, Rayburn Building.

5:00 PM. Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding its Draft Special Publication 800-85B [149 pages in PDF] titled "PIV Data Model Test Guidelines". PIV is an acronym for Personal Identity Verification.

The Republican Whip Notice states that "there are no votes expected in the House".

8:30 AM - 4:00 PM. The Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) will hold a mostly closed meeting. The open portion will be from 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 9, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 111, at Pages 33477-33478. Location: U.S. Secret Service HQ (closed portions), and St. Regis Hotel, 923 16th & K Streets, NW (open portion).

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 - 2006 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.