Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 1995 / Notices 10359

with and is subject to parts 217-222 of

Title 50 CFR, the NMFS regulations

governing listed species permits.

The application, permit, and

supporting documentation are available

for review by interested persons in the

following offices, by appointment:

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,

1335 East-West Highway, Silver Spring,

MD 20910–3226 (301–713–1401); and

Southeast Region, NMFS, NOAA,

9721 Executive Center Drive, St.

Petersburg, FL 33702–2432 (813-893-

3141).

Dated: February 17, 1995.

Patricia A. Montanio,

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 95–4622 Filed 2–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

National Telecommunications and

Information Administration

[Docket No. 950217053–5053–01]

The Global Information Infrastructure:

Agenda for Cooperation

AGENCY: National Telecommunications

and Information Administration.

ACTION: Administration policy

statement.

SUMMARY: On February 15, 1995, the

Administration released an ‘‘Agenda for

Cooperation’’ for the Global Information

Infrastructure. The Agenda for

Cooperation sets forth the

Administration’s vision for developing a

GII that meets the needs of the people

around the world. The Global

Information Infrastructure: Agenda for

Cooperation incorporates and expands

upon five principles Vice President

Gore presented last year to the first

World Telecommunication

Development Conference: Encourage

private investment; promote

competition; provide open access to the

network for all formation providers and

users; create a flexible regulatory

environment that can keep pace with

rapid technological and market changes;

and ensure universal service.

The report addresses the policy issues

critical to encouraging the use of the

Global Information Infrastructure (GII),

including information policy and

content issues and measures by

governments and industry to

demonstrate the benefits of the GII. The

report also is intended to serve as the

basis for engaging other governments in

a consultative, constructive, and

cooperative process that will ensure the

productive development of the GII.

DATES: Comments may be filed at any

time.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to:

IITF Secretariat, NTIA, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 4898, 14th Street

and Constitution Avenue NW.,

Washington, DC. 20230.

Comments may also be sent

electronically by Internet e-mail to

‘‘nii@ntia.doc.gov’’. The GII: Agenda for

Cooperation will be available over the

Internet via ftp, telnet (login = gopher),

gopher, or World-Wide Web at the

Internet address iitf.doc.gov or dialup

via modem (202) 501–1920. It will be

located in the Documents and Papers

directory. For hard copies, please write

or call Openness Program, 1617 HCHB,

14th and Constitution Avenue NW.,

Washington, DC. 20230, (202) 482–3999

(voice) or (202) 501–6198 (fax).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

NTIA Office of International Affairs,

(202) 482–1304.

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 901 et seq.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Global Information Infrastructure

Agenda for Cooperation

Table of Contents:

Preface

I. Introduction

A. Technological Convergence and the New

Information Age

B. New World Vision through

Communications: The GII as a Product of

Technological Convergence and

Competition

C. Cornerstone of the GII: A Community of

Global Interest

II. Building a Foundation for the GII—Five

Basic Principles

A. Encouraging Private Investment

B. Promoting Competition

C. Providing Open Access

D. Creating a Flexible Regulatory

Environment

E. Ensuring Universal Service

III. Encouraging the Use of the GII

A. Information Policy & Content Issues

B. Applications: Delivering the Benefits of

the GII

IV. Implementing the GII

V. Conclusion

Preface

Let us build a global community in

which the people of neighboring

countries view each other not as

potential enemies, but as potential

partners, as members of the same family

in the vast, increasingly interconnected

human family.

With these words, Vice President Al

Gore introduced the U.S. vision for the

Global Information Infrastructure (GII)

at the first World Telecommunication

Development Conference in March

1994. The Conference, held in Buenos

Aires, Argentina, signalled a new

undertaking by the International

Telecommunication Union (ITU). Vice

President Gore called upon every nation

to establish an ambitious agenda to

build the GII, using the following five

principles as the foundation:

• Encouraging private sector

investment;

• Promoting competition;

• Providing open access to the

network for all information providers

and users;

• Creating a flexible regulatory

environment that can keep pace with

rapid technological and market changes;

and

• Ensuring universal service.

Leaders from the world

telecommunications community

incorporated these five principles into

the ITU’s ‘‘Buenos Aires Declaration on

Global Telecommunication

Development for the 21st Century.’’

The purpose of this ‘‘GII: Agenda for

Cooperation’’ is to amplify these five

principles and to identify the steps the

United States, in concert with other

nations, can take to make the vision of

the GII a reality. We hope that it will

also serve as the basis for engaging other

governments in a consultative,

constructive, and cooperative process

that will ensure the development of the

GII for the mutual benefit of all

countries.

In proposing this initiative, we

recognize that market forces and

technological advances have already

begun to expand existing

interconnections among our respective

nations:

• Current state-of-the-art fiber optic

systems can now transmit the

equivalent of 80,000 simultaneous

telephone conversations over a single

optical fiber and will soon carry 320,000

conversations over a fiber pair;

• Advances in digital compression

have vastly improved the performance

and capacity of existing networks by

allowing more volume, including data

and video, to be transmitted;

• Advances in computer technology

will soon offer storage capacity so great

that an individual using a hand-held

device will be able to carry the

informational equivalent of a small

library and remotely access many times

this amount; and

• New digital wireless systems and

proposed constellations of

telecommunications satellites have the

potential to provide telephone and data

services to any point on the planet.

A nascent GII already exists. What we

seek is a superior GII, one that has

higher capacity, is fully interactive,
10360 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 1995 / Notices

1 In general throughout this report, references to

‘‘information services’’ are meant to be broad and

to include all services, content, and applications to

be provided over the networks of the GII. However,

for specific statistics cited from other sources, the

definitions from those sources apply.

faster, and more versatile. One that is

less expensive to use than existing

systems, and more accessible to all the

people of the world. But our goal is not

merely technological advancement—

more bandwidth, faster switching, more

powerful processing capability, and

greater compression and storage

capacity. We view technology not as an

end in itself but as the means through

which the GII can realize its potential to

improve the well-being of all people on

this planet.

This ‘‘Agenda for Cooperation’’ sets

forth the U.S. Government’s vision for

developing a GII that can yield the

benefits described above and more. It

identifies specific areas where

intergovernmental, as well as

government-private sector, cooperative

efforts are needed. Also identified are

proposals for concrete actions that the

United States can take, by itself or with

other nations, to accelerate the pace of

development of the GII. While we

believe the private sector will build,

own, and operate the GII, governments

have the power to take actions that can

either accelerate or retard its

development. We believe that a

concerted and coordinated international

effort can achieve the former and avoid

the latter, and we invite other countries

to join us in this cooperative venture.

I. Introduction

A. Technological Convergence and the

New Information Age

As we approach the end of the

twentieth century, information is a

critical force shaping the world’s

economic system. In the next century,

the speed with which information is

created, its accessibility, and its myriad

uses will cause even more fundamental

changes in each nation’s economy.

These changes will be the result of

technological convergence of the

previously distinct telecommunications,

information, and mass media industries.

Boundaries that once separated the

types of networks used to deliver voice,

data, and video services are increasingly

blurred. In a digital world, these

services can be combined and offered

over the same transmission system.

Multiple networks composed of

different transmission media, such as

fiber optic cable, coaxial cable,

satellites, radio, and copper wire, will

carry a broad range of

telecommunications and information

services and information technology

applications into homes, businesses,

schools, and hospitals. These networks

will form the basis of evolving national

and global information infrastructures,

in turn creating a seamless web uniting

the world in the emergent Information

Age. The result will be a new

information marketplace, providing

opportunities and challenges for

individuals, industry, and governments.

B. New World Vision Through

Communications: The GII as a Product

of Technological Convergence and

Competition

The Clinton Administration has made

the development of an advanced

National Information Infrastructure (NII)

and the GII top U.S. priorities. A major

goal of the NII is to give our citizens

access to a broad range of information

and information services. Using

innovative telecommunications and

information technologies, the NII—

through a partnership of business, labor,

academia, consumers, and all levels of

government—will help the United

States achieve a broad range of

economic and social goals.

Similarly, other governments have

come to recognize that the

telecommunications, information

services, and information technology

sectors are not only dynamic growth

sectors themselves, but are also engines

of development and economic growth

throughout the economy. With this

realization, governments have sharply

focused their public policy debates and

initiatives on the capabilities of their

underlying information infrastructures.

The United States is but one of many

countries currently pursuing national

initiatives to capture the promise of the

‘‘Information Revolution.’’ Our initiative

shares with others an important,

common objective: to ensure that the

full potential benefit of advances in

information and telecommunications

technologies are realized for all citizens.

The GII is an outgrowth of that

perspective, a vehicle for expanding the

scope of these benefits on a global scale.

By interconnecting local, national,

regional, and global networks, the GII

can increase economic growth, create

jobs, and improve infrastructures. Taken

as a whole, this worldwide ‘‘network of

networks’’ will create a global

information marketplace, encouraging

broad-based social discourse within and

among all countries.

The GII will depend upon an everexpanding range of technology and

products, including telephones, fax

machines, computers, switches,

compact discs, video and audio tape,

coaxial cable, wire, satellites, optical

fiber transmission lines, microwave

networks, televisions, scanners,

cameras, and printers—as well as

advances in computing, information,

and networking technologies not yet

envisioned.

But the GII extends beyond hardware

and software; it is also a system of

applications, activities, and

relationships. There is the information

itself, whatever its purpose or form, e.g.,

video programming, scientific or

business databases, images, sound

recordings, library archives, or other

media. There are also standards,

interfaces, and transmission codes that

facilitate interoperability between

networks and ensure the privacy and

security of the information carried over

them, as well as the security and

reliability of the networks themselves.

Most importantly, the GII includes the

people involved in the creation and use

of information, development of

applications and services, construction

of the facilities, and training necessary

to realize the potential of the GII. These

individuals are primarily in the private

sector, and include vendors, operators,

service providers, and users.

The GII will both stimulate and

respond to global demand for new

information technologies and services.1

The GII can offer consumers in each

country unprecedented access to

information from a variety of sources on

a global basis. With appropriate changes

in regulatory structure, the GII can also

help usher in an environment more

responsive to user demands by

providing companies opportunities to

offer any information or

telecommunications product or service

to any customer, rendering obsolete past

regulatory labels or technological

niches.

The business community has become

the principal force for the procompetitive restructuring of

telecommunications and information

markets. Business users, whose

commercial activities are becoming

increasingly global, require access to

advanced services at higher speeds and

capabilities, and at lower costs, to

manage their global operations

effectively. When the national carriers

cannot provide the unified international

networks and services that companies

need to conduct business and research,

frustrated users develop their own

international ‘‘private’’ networks, often

leasing private lines from different

national carriers. However, these private

networks—even the most

sophisticated—still suffer from the high

cost of leased lines in most countries

and the difficulties inherent in

attempting to create global networks
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 1995 / Notices 10361

based on a patchwork of services subject

to widely varying capabilities and

regulation.

The scientific and academic

communities also have stringent

demands for access to information

resources and powerful computing

capacity around the world. The

international research and academic

community was instrumental in

developing the Internet, an already

global mass of interconnected computer

networks. The astonishing growth rate

of the Internet network—over ten per

cent per month for more than five

years—is just one indication of the

growing demand for and supply of

digital information.

C. Cornerstone of the GII: A Community

of Global Interest

The nations of the world are diverse

in size, levels of economic development,

political, economic and social

structures, and language and culture.

We believe, however, that despite these

differences a broad community of

interest exists among countries to better

the lives of the citizens of the world—

all citizens. Regardless of a country’s

overall level of technological

development, active participation in the

evolving GII can provide the tools to

improve the quality of life.

For example, the GII can facilitate

health care delivery through

telemedicine, linking rural physicians to

major medical facilities for off-site

consultations on difficult diagnoses. If

only a computer and a wireless link are

available, they can provide a data base

search and on-line questioning of a

consulting expert. If fiber optic

networks are available, telemedicine

services can include remote visual

examination. Such services are a boon

to rural physicians. Similarly, the GII

can quicken response time for disaster

relief. It can transform education with

computer-based multimedia systems

that teach with both sight and sound,

greatly increasing retention rates and

providing children access to greater

educational opportunities. It can

provide new tools to assist persons with

disabilities. The GII can also make

factories more efficient, speed the

creation of new and better goods and

services, cut the cost of business by

improving efficiency, develop new jobs

and markets, increase trade, and

facilitate flows of information across

borders.

That is not all. A well-developed GII

can enhance democratic principles and

limit the spread of totalitarian forms of

government. Representative democracy

is founded on the premise that the best

political processes are those in which

each citizen has the knowledge to make

an informed choice and the power to

express his or her view. The GII will

allow wider and greater citizen

participation in decision-making by

providing the additional means for

individuals to keep informed, as well as

to express their opinions. Through the

GII, the world’s citizens will have the

opportunity to share information and

cultural values, fostering a greater sense

of global community. By encouraging

exchanges of ideas, goods, and services

among all countries, the GII can

contribute to a framework for lasting

peace.

Realizing these benefits will not be

easy—our vision of the GII presents a

challenge that cannot be undertaken by

a single country, nor overcome by

government fiat. Rather, its success will

depend in large measure on innovation

and investment by the private sector. As

the principal source of expertise and

capital, the private sector should, in

response to marketplace demands,

determine what technologies to pursue,

set the pace of development, establish

the appropriate standards, and develop

new services and applications. For their

part, governments can facilitate these

activities by creating a legal and

regulatory environment that supports

efficient investment and innovation,

and promotes full and fair competition.

Governments can also provide

leadership by supporting testbeds for

new technologies, fostering the transfer

of resulting technologies to the private

sector, promoting the assimilation and

use of applications and technology

through government procurement, and

developing applications that support

government operations and

dissemination of government

information.

II. Building a Foundation for the GII—

Five Basic Principles

The United States believes that five

basic principles—encouraging private

investment, promoting competition,

providing open access to networks and

services for providers and users,

creating a flexible regulatory

environment to keep pace with

technological and market developments,

and ensuring universal service—should

serve as the foundation for the

development of the GII. In our view, this

foundation will facilitate information

infrastructure development in

individual countries and the

interconnection of networks on a global

basis. It will also accelerate

development of useful applications, and

increase sharing of information among

people around the world. We believe

these principles apply equally to the

telecommunications, information

technology, and information services

industries. In partnership with the

private sector and all users, we believe

that governments should take action to

adopt, apply, and advance these

principles at national, regional, and

global levels.

A. Encouraging Private Investment

Given the facts that the worldwide

market for information technology,

products, and services is currently

valued at $853 billion, and that

worldwide investment in

telecommunications infrastructure alone

is expected to exceed $200 billion by

2004, both developed and developing

countries need to find ways to share in

this growth and prosperity. Attracting

private sector investment is the most

effective way for countries to do so—as

well as to improve their networks and

services, promote technological

innovation, and succeed within the

competitive global economy. The

reasons extend beyond the purely

financial: In addition to providing

inflows of capital, private investment

also stimulates development of new

technologies, equipment, services, new

sources of information, and managerial

skills—all of which help speed

infrastructure growth and

improvements, increase efficiency in the

provision of services, and permit greater

responsiveness to consumer needs.

To attract greater investment from

both domestic and foreign sources into

their telecommunications sectors,

nations are adopting a variety of

approaches, ranging from revenue

sharing initiatives and joint ventures to

direct foreign investment, licensing of

privately-owned competitors, buildoperate-own or -transfer schemes, and

privatization of government-owned

public telecommunications operators.

Countries as diverse as Chile, India,

Jamaica, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand,

the United Kingdom, the United States,

and Venezuela have encouraged

multiple private companies to provide

telecommunications services, drawing

in private investment to varying degrees

and leading to lower service prices and

improved communication.

In other countries where privatization

is not currently considered a politically

viable option, governments have taken

steps to attract foreign investment in the

form of joint ventures for the provision

of new services, such as cellular

telephone and Very Small Aperture

Terminal (VSAT)-based overlay

networks for business users. Some

countries have permitted lease and

franchise arrangements that include

private expansion of part of the
10362 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 1995 / Notices

2 International Trade Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce, ‘‘U.S. Industrial Outlook

1994’’, at 25–1, January 1994.

3U.S. Department of Commerce, International

Trade Administration, Office of Service Industries,

1994.

telecommunications infrastructure,

often allowing the private equity share

in the network operation to build up

over time. Although providing fewer

benefits than full privatization might,

these approaches can also be attractive

to private investors, and they provide

quantifiable benefits—new lines,

upgraded switching capabilities, new

services and sources of information, and

lower costs to consumers.

The need for capital investment is

particularly acute in countries with

underdeveloped telecommunications

infrastructures, where limited

government resources often make

private financing a necessary

complement. To attract private capital,

many countries that seek to improve

their information infrastructures, which

will improve interconnection to the

evolving GII, are taking concrete steps

to:

• Create a stable operating

environment supported by transparent

regulation;

• Establish fair and open bidding

practices for all communications and

information infrastructure projects;

• Recognize the return on capital that

potential investors require;

• Establish sound repatriation

policies; and

• Demonstrate a political

commitment to private investment

through appropriate modifications in

the legal framework.

The information services sector,

traditionally privately-owned, has

experienced tremendous growth due to

the largely open investment and

competitive market environments in

most countries around the world. In the

United States, for example, the largely

unregulated information services market

is projected to have reached $135.9

billion in revenues in 1994.2

Removing barriers to private

investment—and providing incentives

for the creation and dissemination of

information services through effective

protection of intellectual property

rights—is the best means of sustaining

this worldwide growth.

Recommended Action

From the wide range of available

options, governments can develop a

strategy best suited to their particular

needs. At the same time, they must

institute the appropriate regulatory,

legislative, and market reforms to create

the conditions necessary to attract

private investment in their

telecommunications, information

technology, and information services

markets. To facilitate this process, the

United States will join with other

governments to:

• Identify and seek to remove barriers

to private investment, and develop

policies and regulations that improve

investment incentives in both growing

and mature telecommunications and

information markets;

• Ensure that applicable laws,

regulations, and other legal rules

governing the provision of

telecommunications and information

services and equipment are reasonable,

nondiscriminatory, and publicly

available;

• Engage in bilateral, regional, and

multilateral discussions to exchange

information on the various options that

have been successfully pursued to

attract private investment, including,

but not limited to, privatization,

liberalization, and market reforms;

• Work with major international

lending institutions, such as the World

Bank and the regional development

banks, and major private financial

institutions to determine the best means

of attracting both private and public

capital, and establish workshops to train

officials in the different liberalization

approaches; and

• Encourage international lending

institutions to recognize the ways in

which funded social projects, such as

the delivery of education and health

care services, can be advanced through

improved information infrastructures.

B. Promoting Competition

Nationally and internationally, the

information technology and information

services markets have flourished in the

past decade. The highly competitive

computer equipment, software and

networking industries are among the

most dynamic in global markets,

providing users with steadily increasing

computing power and functionality and

stimulating further demand for more

advanced, integrated capabilities.

Similarly, the information services

industry has expanded as barriers to

cross-border trade and investment have

been removed. In many countries there

are few or no restraints on the services

provided. In other markets there are

varying, but fairly light, degrees of

regulation. As a result, the world market

for information services is expected to

grow from $275 billion in 1993 to $465

billion in 1998, a growth rate of 11

percent annually.3

One important exception has been a

tendency in a few countries to erect

barriers to foreign competition in

entertainment programming services.

There is no body of evidence that

limiting foreign competition has been

successful in achieving the desired

effect of stimulating local entertainment

programming industries. The effects of

such measures in retarding the

development of private investment in

infrastructure also deserves greater

attention.

In contrast to the liberal market and

regulatory environment for information

technology and information services,

the pace and scope of liberalization and

privatization in the telecommunication

sector is varied, ranging from

competition in particular market

segments to full liberalization. For

example, there has been a discernable

trend over the past decade toward

increased competition in the provision

of both value-added services and

telecommunications terminal

equipment. Some countries have

liberalized further, taking steps to open

their long distance, local fixed

telephony, cellular, communications

satellite, cable, and broadcast markets.

Evidence of positive results from such

increased competition is mounting:

Networks have steadily incorporated

innovative technologies, producing

greater efficiencies; both residential and

business users enjoy lower prices and

greater choices in equipment and

services; service providers are more

responsive to user needs; and lower

costs of service have stimulated

increased network usage.

However, in the largest and most

profitable market segments—basic

public voice telephone services and the

underlying network infrastructure—

both competition and foreign

investment have been restricted.

Maintaining barriers against potential

new entrants in these markets will

inhibit infrastructure deployment.

Moreover, these barriers will retard the

introduction of new information and

telecommunications services that

require competitive access to underlying

networks in order to flourish.

Competition in basic

telecommunications services has been

growing, however, in a number of key

markets around the globe. In countries

such as Australia, Canada, Chile, Japan,

New Zealand, Sweden, the United

Kingdom, and the United States, the

introduction of alternative service

providers and networks, which often

deploy advanced technologies at lower

costs, has reduced bottleneck control by

the dominant facilities-based providers.

These results have spurred other

countries to reconsider their policies.

The member countries of the European
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 1995 / Notices 10363

4 ‘‘The Benefits of Telecommunications

Infrastructure Competition,’’ (DSTI/ICCP, TISP(93)/

Rev 1), p. 23, February, 1994.

Union (EU), for example, have agreed to

introduce competition in the provision

of basic telecommunications services

and infrastructure by 1998. The EU

considers these steps to be critical to

advancing the goals of their action plan

to create a European Information

Society.

Increasingly, countries with national

monopoly operators have begun to

question whether they can compete

effectively in the dynamic international

telecommunications market. Difficulties

in raising capital and in meeting users’

demands for low cost, sophisticated

network capabilities and services are

forcing a reconsideration of the

monopoly approach to

telecommunications. A recent

Organization for Economic Cooperation

and Development (OECD) study

comparing the relative cost of providing

international service among OECD

members found that the performance of

countries with competitive international

markets was superior to the average of

all OECD members. Furthermore, the

OECD study revealed that the quality of

service had improved simultaneously

with the implementation of

competition.4

Competition within the

communications satellite market has

also burgeoned. The intergovernmental

International Telecommunications

Satellite (Intelsat) and International

Mobile Satellite (Inmarsat) organizations

now face competition from several

separate satellite systems, including

Astra, Columbia, AsiaSat, Orion, and

PanAmSat. Due in part to competitive

pressures from these separate satellite

systems and from alternative

technologies, serious consideration is

being given to restructuring both Intelsat

and Inmarsat. Each of these

organizations is engaged in an internal

effort to review a range of options for

reorganization, from reform of the

cooperative model, to corporatization, to

full privatization.

As governments liberalize particular

market segments, regulators, operators,

and new market entrants must grapple

with evolving definitions of the

boundary between those networks and

services reserved to the monopoly

operator and those open to competition.

During the transition from monopolistic

to competitive telecommunications

markets, incumbent operators still play

a dominant role as network

infrastructure providers. Incumbent

operators not only control underlying

facilities and services that new entrants

often need to deliver their services, but

frequently compete directly with these

new service providers in particular

market segments. In these

circumstances, effective competition

cannot emerge and flourish unless

incumbents are subject to competitive

safeguards while they maintain market

power over critical bottleneck facilities

and services.

Competitive safeguards serve two

main purposes. Some are intended to

eliminate or reduce barriers to entry for

new service providers that are seeking

to challenge the incumbent operator.

Other safeguards serve to ensure that

incumbent firms with market power do

not employ anticompetitive means to

prevent or hinder the development of

truly competitive markets. Market entry

opportunities are effective only if the

incumbent service provider is required

to compete fairly. For this reason, some

administrations have required

incumbent carriers to permit resale of

their networks and services. Resale

provides an important source of

competition in markets in which

telecommunications infrastructure costs

are high. Similarly, market entrants that

choose to provide facilities-based

services in competition with the

incumbent service provider typically

will need to interconnect their facilities

with a dominant service provider’s

network. In a pro-competitive

environment, the terms and condition of

interconnection would be reflected in

published rates that include

nondiscriminatory cost-based access

charges and technological ‘‘equal

access’’ to bottleneck facilities.

Incumbent carriers may also be

required to ‘‘unbundle’’ network

facilities and services so that

telecommunications and information

service providers can order only those

elements of the dominant provider’s

network they need to provide a service.

Finally, establishment of a transparent

regulatory scheme open to all interested

parties, and administered by a

regulatory authority independent of the

incumbent service provider, helps

ensure that rules governing competition

are fair and that private investment is

given a reasonable degree of security.

While the political challenges posed

by attempting to restructure the

telecommunications market are

significant, the increased opportunities

provided by introducing competition far

outweigh the potential difficulties of

pro-competitive market reform. Further,

the interconnection of competitive

national information infrastructures can

increase the pace of development of the

GII. The more competitive an

information and telecommunications

market, the more productive will be its

interaction with other markets

participating in the development of the

GII.

Recommended Action

The most effective means of

promoting a GII that delivers advanced

products and services to all countries is

through increased competition at local,

national, regional, and global levels. To

that end, the United States will join

with other governments to:

• Assess, through information

exchanges and existing multilateral

organizations, the positive experiences

of different countries in introducing

competition and progressively

liberalizing their telecommunications,

information technology, and

information services markets;

• Work constructively to remove

barriers to competition in

telecommunications, information

technology, and information services

markets;

• Include timetables for increased

competition in basic

telecommunications infrastructure and

services in national information

infrastructure development plans, and,

as an interim step, increase the pace of

liberalization through the expansion of

resale;

• Encourage new entrants by

adopting competitive safeguards to

protect against anticompetitive behavior

by firms with market power, including

measures designed to prevent

discrimination and cross-subsidization;

• Implement specific regulations to

facilitate competitive entry in the

telecommunications sector, including

the following essential elements: (1)

Interconnection among competing

network and service providers; (2)

‘‘unbundling’’ of bottleneck facilities of

dominant network providers; (3)

transparency of regulations and charges;

and (4) nondiscrimination among

network facilities operators and between

facilities operators and potential users,

including resellers;

• Ensure that government-sponsored

technical training activities incorporate

programs specifically related to the

development of pro-competitive markets

and regulations (including such issues

as competitive safeguards and

interconnection);

• Pursue a successful conclusion to

the General Agreement on Trade in

Services (GATS) discussions on basic

telecommunications to obtain the

opening of markets for basic

telecommunications services through

facilities-based competition and the

resale of services on existing networks
10364 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 1995 / Notices

on nondiscriminatory terms and

conditions; and

• Consider the full range of options

for promoting competition in Intelsat

and Inmarsat, including: (1) Pursuing

changes designed to increase the

operational efficiency of Intelsat and

Inmarsat, retaining their fundamental

intergovernmental character, but

substantially reducing the scope of the

current intergovernmental agreements

by removing provisions that convey

unfair advantage and inhibit efficient

functioning; (2) transforming the

organizations into private corporations;

and (3) transforming the organizations

into multiple private service providers

that compete with one another, as well

as with others.

In selecting among these options, the

goal must be to enhance competition

and not diminish it.

C. Providing Open Access

Achieving the goal of a global

information market will require

government action to ensure that all

information service providers have

access to facilities, networks, and

network services on a

nondiscriminatory and low cost basis.

By ensuring open access to facilities and

networks, and thus promoting

competition, governments can

dramatically increase the availability of

information services to all consumers.

Maximizing consumer choice among

diverse sources of information should

be the primary objective. As the

information needs among consumers

will vary, both within and among

nations, attempts to predict the

information resource requirements of

citizens should be avoided. Rather,

governments should foster market and

regulatory climates conducive to the

broadest possible access to and

distribution of information. As countries

accelerate the development of their

respective information infrastructures,

more and more consumers will seek

access to networks and services that

cross national and international

boundaries. Improving consumer access

to diverse sources of information has

direct social and economic benefits. The

ability to generate, exchange, and use

information, technology, and ideas is

central to economic growth and

development, increased competitiveness

in a range of industries, and to the

improvement of the quality of life.

An essential technical element of the

open access concept is interoperability,

i.e., the ability to connect applications,

services, and/or network components so

that they can be used together to

accomplish tasks. As the GII will be

based on many different existing and

emerging components at local, national,

and global levels, it is imperative that

these components be interoperable. The

key to interoperability is the

development of global standards. We

believe such standards should be

voluntary and developed through a

process that is largely market-driven

and that takes into account the views of

both the large and well established and

the smaller, newer market players.

Three principal international

standards organizations involved in the

development of information technology

and telecommunications standards are

the International Organization for

Standards (ISO), the International

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), and

the International Telecommunication

Union (ITU). The ISO and IEC develop

information technology standards

through the ISO/IEC Joint Technical

Committee 1, while the ITU

concentrates on telecommunications

standards. Further, there has long been

coordination and collaboration between

the ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee

1 and the ITU, which has helped

minimize the duplication of standards

development work and the possibility of

conflicting information technology and

telecommunication standards.

The vast majority of countries adhere

to the processes of developing

international standards and the

resulting recommendations from all

three organizations. In the U.S., and

increasingly in other countries, the

private sector plays an essential role in

these international standards

development processes by providing the

technical expertise and resources to

develop standards at national and

international levels.

It may also be constructive to consider

encouraging greater collaboration and

cooperation both domestically and

internationally among the different

standards bodies, including less formal

organizations. In recent years in the

United States, a significant number of

new standards consortia, whose

principal focus is in the standards

implementing arena, have been

established outside of the traditional

national standards development

organizations. These new consortia have

often sped up the widespread adoption

of internationally generated standards,

and their memberships have included

small and medium-sized companies.

Given the convergence of technologies

and the rapid changes in national and

international market structures, the

development and acceptance of

voluntary, international standards are

critical to the development of the GII.

The international standards

organizations and their memberships

must redouble their efforts to ensure

that standards are developed that assist

the rapid delivery of information.

Moreover, the pace of the work in

international bodies must continue to

increase to better reflect marketplace

needs for technological development, so

as not to impede the realization of the

GII. In the absence of timely

development and implementation of

standards on a global basis, the benefits

of improved interoperability will be

delayed.

Recommended Action

In partnership with the private sector,

governments can take action to improve

access to facilities and networks, and

promote the availability of a wide range

of diverse services and information,

including strong support for the

development of international standards

that promote interoperability. To

achieve these goals, the United States

will join with other governments to:

• Develop appropriate policies that

encourage increased access by citizens

to diverse sources of information;

• Provide unrestricted and equitable

access to networks for providers and

consumers of services and content,

based on sound commercial practices;

• Hold regular bilateral and

multilateral dialogues on ways of

increasing the flow of information

across borders to facilitate greater access

to content by consumers;

• Encourage an open, voluntary

standards-setting process that does not

denigrate intellectual property rights

and which includes the participation of

a broad group of interests, including the

private sector, consumers, and, as

appropriate, government agencies;

• Work through regional and

international bodies to increase the pace

of consensus-based, voluntary, and

transparent standards development and

adoption, and to promote the broad

dissemination of standards-related

information;

• Work together and with national,

regional, and international standards

bodies to identify priority areas for

increased coordination among different

private national and international

bodies in support of interoperability of

networks and services on the GII.

D. Creating a Flexible Regulatory

Environment

Policymakers worldwide face a

daunting challenge: Creating an

appropriate regulatory regime that

minimizes regulation and fosters

competition through transparent rules

and processes and is sufficiently flexible

to be responsive to changing

technologies and markets. As the pace
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 1995 / Notices 10365

of technological innovation quickens,

this will become increasingly difficult

and yet increasingly necessary.

With the U.S. experience as our guide,

we offer the following observations

about the characteristics of

telecommunications legislation that are

necessary to respond to changes in this

dynamic sector. The optimal regulatory

and legislative frameworks will:

• Identify the goals and objectives of

the law, including the promotion of

competition;

• Be sufficiently flexible to permit the

introduction of new services and

technologies without requiring

amendments to the legislation;

• Delegate broad powers to a

regulatory authority independent of a

national operator and charge that

independent authority with keeping

abreast of technological and market

developments;

• Establish a transparent and open

process whereby the public and

interested parties are informed and can

participate in rulemaking and

adjudicatory proceedings; and

• Aim towards open market access

based on nondiscrimination principles.

We recognize that regulatory reform

can take many paths. Some countries

have established a regulatory entity

responsible for both formulating and

implementing telecommunications and

mass media policy, as well as

overseeing the activities of these sectors.

Others have relied on the separation of

operational and regulatory functions of

the government-owned and/or

franchised national operator, with

government bodies assuming

responsibility for regulatory decisions.

Still others rely more heavily on

national competition law and policy for

oversight.

Regardless of the regulatory model

that countries adopt, regulations should

clarify the respective rights and

obligations of incumbent operators and

new entrants. New market entrants need

assurances that incumbent operators

will not be allowed to use their

dominant market positions to hinder the

evolution of successful competition.

Similarly, public and transparent

regulatory processes create stable

commercial environments, which are

necessary to attract private investment.

As such, rules and regulations should

clearly indicate:

• The scope of permissible

competition, e.g., the particular market

segments open to new entrants;

• The means by which new entrants

can gain market access, e.g., private

investment, licensing requirements, and

cross-border services;

• The nondiscriminatory terms and

conditions of interconnection to an

incumbent operator’s network and of

supplying information services over the

network; and

• The procedures by which new

entrants and users can bring complaints

and obtain redress from the regulator,

e.g., enforcement mechanisms.

Additionally, it is critical that a procompetitive regulatory regime ensure:

• The establishment of other

structural or nonstructural safeguards to

protect against the anticompetitive

exploitation of market power by the

incumbent service provider to the

detriment of the new entrants;

• The appropriate balancing of public

service obligations among operators/

carriers;

• Charging and pricing policies that

are based on the costs of providing

service; and

• The efficient, effective, and procompetitive management of scarce

resources, especially the radio

frequency spectrum.

In light of the increasing demands on

the radio spectrum for the introduction

of new wireless communications

systems and services, the last point

merits particular emphasis. Among

these new technologies, none better

embodies the need for an open

regulatory model embracing

competition and careful management of

the spectrum than the nascent handheld mobile satellite services. If these

services are to achieve their global

potential, cooperation among national

spectrum regulators will be required, as

will a willingness to permit multiple

market entrants to ensure that new

satellite services do not become the

exclusive property of a sole provider.

Governments should avoid

burdensome regulation that stifles

innovation and new service offerings.

Governments must guard against the

expansion of regulation into market

segments that have not traditionally

been subject to regulations and that

have functioned extremely well on an

unregulated basis. The examples of

Australia, Canada, and the United States

in computer and business information

services are illustrative. They are among

the leading nations in personal

computer penetration rates among

consumers. Not coincidentally, they

also provide an open, dynamic, and

almost totally unregulated market for

information technology and services.

Equally important, while some

government regulation is necessary as a

marketplace transitions from a

monopoly to a competitive structure,

once competition is achieved, continued

regulation can be unnecessary or even

counterproductive in promoting

efficiency, innovation, and customer

responsiveness. In short, governments

must be prepared, and must invest their

regulatory agencies with the authority,

to adjust regulatory structures as the

demands of the marketplace and

technology require.

Just as national regulatory

environments need to be responsive to

emerging market and technological

developments, so too must the

overarching international environment

continually adapt to new developments.

The successful efforts of governments

and industry to improve global

interconnectivity and liberalize

international telecommunications

demonstrate the value of working

together in various international fora to

promote progressive and flexible

national regulations. These efforts must

continue.

Recommended Action

Although national regulatory

environments necessarily reflect the

specific social, economic, and political

needs of each individual country, the

essentially global nature of the markets

for telecommunications, information

technologies, and information services

require that national regulations be

responsive to global developments. The

United States will join with other

governments to:

• Re-examine and adapt regulations

and legislation to accommodate market

and technological developments at

national and global levels in support of

the five GII principles;

• Create, through regulatory and/or

legislative reform, a pro-competitive,

technology-neutral regulatory

environment to maximize consumer

choice, to provide fair access to

networks, and to stimulate

infrastructure development, the

introduction of new services, and the

wider dissemination of information;

• Exchange views and information on

national regulatory and legislative

initiatives and seek to identify common

challenges and options for developing

flexible and transparent regulations in

support of the development of the GII;

• Work collectively in regional and

international organizations to convene

meetings devoted specifically to

encouraging the adoption of regulatory

policies that will promote the GII; and

• Encourage creation of independent

national regulatory authorities for

telecommunications separate from the

operator that shall promote the interest

of consumers and ensure effective and

efficient competition. Such authorities

should have sufficient powers to carry

out their missions and should operate
10366 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 1995 / Notices

5 Ibid, p.3.

with transparent decisionmaking

processes that are open to all interested

parties.

E. Ensuring Universal Service

The goal of providing access and

affordable service to all members of

society is fundamental to the

development of the GII. The definition

of universal service, however,

necessarily varies from country to

country—ranging from the provision of

high quality telephone service to every

home and business in most

industrialized countries to access to a

public telephone in many developing

countries.

The ability to provide universal

service on a national basis depends

upon a number of factors, including the

level of infrastructure development, the

reach and technological capabilities of

national networks, and the cost of

access to the network and services.

Other factors to be considered include

the availability and use of advanced

methods of network planning and

maintenance, and explicit performance

and service quality goals.

The definition of universal service is

also being expanded by the advent of

digital technologies. In many countries,

including the United States,

policymakers face increasing pressure to

expand universal service beyond ‘‘plain

old telephone service’’ to include a

broader array of new

telecommunications and information

services. In fact, universal service has

always been an evolutionary concept,

expanding as the capabilities of the

network and the types of service

demanded by the great majority of users

have increased. For example, in the

United States fifty years ago, a party-line

was deemed sufficient for universal

service purposes; now an individual

line for each subscriber is generally

viewed as a component of universal

service, together with such features as

direct dialing for long distance calls and

911 emergency service.

In both developed and less developed

countries, wireless technologies can

help meet the needs for both basic and

more advanced services. For example,

by augmenting terrestrial-based facilities

with satellite facilities and services,

national networks can maximize their

potential. The point-to-multipoint and

mobile communications capabilities of

satellites, which are global in reach,

permit the extension of services to even

the most remote regions.

Moreover, in helping meet universal

service goals, one option for

governments to consider is the

establishment of community ‘‘access

points.’’ For example, institutions such

as schools, libraries, or hospitals could

be equipped with basic and advanced

information and communications

technologies for use by members of the

public. Such community access points

would facilitate the efficient provision

of broader public access to a core set of

services.

Although several countries have

raised concerns that competition diverts

revenues from the public operator and

undermines its ability to provide

universal service, experience shows that

access to the telephone has been

improved in the most liberal national

markets. In the United Kingdom, for

example, many customers are ordering a

telephone for the first time largely

because increased competition—cable

television companies are now offering

telephone service—has made it more

affordable. In the United States,

concerns were raised a decade ago that

increased competition in the provision

of long distance services, which had

traditionally subsidized basic local

rates, would threaten universal service.

These concerns abated as competition

spurred innovation and price

reductions, which in turn have

expanded universal service. Further,

studies by the OECD indicate that

telephone penetration has not been

eroded in any member country that has

introduced infrastructure competition.

The OECD concluded, ‘‘Universal

service has not been impaired by market

liberalization; (rather) facilities

competition can be applied to

complement and enhance universal

service.’’ 5 Indeed, many now argue that

full and open facilities-based

competition, by reducing prices, is the

most effective way to promote universal

service.

As together we strive to expand the

worldwide telecommunications

infrastructure and build the GII, we

must all keep the goal of universal

service constantly in mind. With

significant decreases in the costs of

information transmission and

processing, the creation of the

Information Society has the potential to

improve the quality of life of all

citizens. Recognizing that information

leads to empowerment, the nations of

the world must work together to ensure

that as many citizens as possible in all

societies have access to the resources of

the Information Age.

Recommended Action

Although the provision of universal

service varies from country to country,

the goal of providing all people with

greater access to both basic and

advanced services is a crucial element

of the GII. The United States will join

with other governments to:

• Consider, at the local and national

levels, the benefits afforded by the

introduction of competition and private

investment in meeting and expanding

universal service;

• Exchange information at the

bilateral and multilateral level to

address the range of available options to

meet universal service goals; and

• Consider, at the national and

international levels, ways to promote

universal access as a means of providing

service to currently underserved and

geographically remote areas.

III. Encouraging the Use of the GII

While we believe that the adoption,

application, and advancement of the

five core principles are necessary to

create an environment in which the GII

can realize its full potential, such

actions alone are insufficient to

guarantee it. Regardless of the

sophistication of the technology or

services being offered, users must be

assured that they can allow the GII entry

into their homes, offices, and lives to

access and share information safely and

without forfeiting any of their rights.

Governments, companies, and publicinterest groups, by working together on

information policy and content issues,

must address these concerns.

An equally important task for

governments and private sectors is to

demonstrate the potential benefits of the

GII to citizens. It is only when people

see tangible results of applications that

they will begin to appreciate how it can

be used to improve their lives. This

appreciation is the key to stimulating

demand for the services and content of

the GII, which in turn will provide the

impetus to remove institutional and

regulatory barriers to its full utilization.

A. Information Policy and Content

Issues

Developing an effective information

policy will provide governments with

perhaps their greatest challenge. The

central objectives of information policy

include ensuring that: (1) The privacy of

individuals and organizations using the

GII is protected; (2) the security and

reliability of the networks and the

information that passes over them are

preserved; and (3) the intellectual

property rights of those who create the

information, education, and

entertainment content are protected. To

assure the growth of an information

infrastructure accessible and

accountable to the citizens of the world,

governments must develop and

implement these objectives in close
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 1995 / Notices 10367

partnerships with each other and with

representatives from business, labor,

academia, and the public.

1. Privacy Protection

By bringing news and information to

people on a global basis, and thereby

allowing them to communicate more

freely with each other, communications

technologies serve a democratizing

function. These same technologies also

permit both governments and the

private sector to transmit, process, and

store vast amounts of information about

individuals. While these capabilities are

increasingly essential for governments

to function effectively and for

businesses to operate efficiently,

questions continue to grow about an

individual’s right to privacy and the

accompanying responsibilities of

holders and transmitters of this

information to safeguard this right.

In many nations, the past two decades

have seen the primary gatherers and

users of personal data shift from

government entities to private sector

firms. In the 1970’s and 1980’s,

businesses were quick to exploit the

explosive growth in low cost, high

performance computers, adapting this

technology to a wide range of economic,

financial, and marketing applications.

As electronic commerce spread during

the 1980’s, there was growing

recognition that the electronic transfer

of data across national boundaries

required an international consensus on

individual privacy protection.

In 1980, the OECD developed and

adopted a set of voluntary privacy

guidelines that were accepted by its 24

member countries. In 1981, the Council

of Europe, whose membership consists

of the European Union Member States

and other European countries, adopted

‘‘fair information practices’’ similar to

those of the OECD to regulate the

collection, storage, and automated

processing of personal data, and

transborder data flow. Both the OECD

and Council of Europe privacy

guidelines, which generally recognize

that the free flow of information is

critical to transborder economic activity,

provide a framework for domestic

legislation that has been used by both

member and non-member nations. They

also recognize diverse means of

protecting information privacy,

including self-regulation and industry

codes of conduct. The North American

Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the

General Agreement on Trade in Services

(GATS) Annex on Telecommunications

also contain provisions that recognize

national privacy protection regulations.

The United States and other countries

around the world are re-examining

existing privacy policies to ensure that

they apply comprehensively to the

transfer of personal data over global

networks. A balanced privacy policy—

preserving the individual’s right to

privacy while maintaining the free flow

of information across national borders—

is important to the development of

global networks and services. Working

together, nations should ensure that the

transport of personal data adequately

takes into account the following agreedupon international privacy principles:

• Personal data should be collected

only for specified, legitimate purposes;

• The dissemination, sharing, and

reuse of information should be

compatible with the purposes for which

it was originally collected;

• Personal data should be accurate,

relevant, and up-to-date;

• Individuals should be informed

how personal data will be used and

should be allowed to examine and

correct this information; and

• Transmission of personal data

should not be unduly restricted or

subject to burdensome authorization

procedures.

Recommended Action

In order to foster consumer

confidence in the GII and to encourage

the growth of interconnected global

networks, users must feel that they are

afforded adequate privacy protection.

To this end, the United States will join

with other governments to:

• Identify key privacy issues that

need to be addressed in relation to the

development of national and global

information infrastructures;

• Work with both the public and

private sectors to achieve consensus on

a set of fair information principles for

the collection, transfer, storage, and

subsequent use of data over national

and global information infrastructures;

• Ensure that privacy protection does

not unduly impede the free flow of

information across national borders;

• Share information on new privacy

protection policy developments and on

new technologies and standards for

privacy protection; and

• Encourage the use of voluntary

guidelines developed by international

bodies, such as the OECD, as the best

means of ensuring the protection of

privacy on an international basis.

2. Security and Reliability

A network as vast and complex as the

GII will pose difficult security

challenges for all nations. The same

modern technology that makes

communication faster and easier also

makes communications systems

vulnerable to ever greater security risks.

These risks are not new—most are wellknown among security managers. What

is new is that these risks are much more

widespread, are potentially much more

serious, and affect a population of users

who do not have the information or

training to deal with them.

The anonymous and impersonal

nature of computer crime, for example,

makes this problem particularly

unsettling, for legal systems depend

upon their ability to identify the

malfeasors. Yet serious violation of

privacy or property rights can be

accomplished by destruction or

alteration of information by anonymous

individuals in remote locations, with

not a fingerprint in sight. The technical

challenges of protecting the privacy and

integrity of information stored in

computer systems are even greater than

those that apply to information

transmitted by telephone. And as was

true with the telephone, legal as well as

technological solutions are needed.

Security includes the integrity,

confidentiality, and reliability of the

networks and of the information they

carry. If users do not believe that an

information infrastructure is a

trustworthy, reliable system, they will

be reluctant to use it, thereby

diminishing its value. To gain

maximum benefit from global networks,

users must be confident that the

messages they receive are authentic, that

sensitive information is available only

for authorized use, and that

unauthorized users cannot access, alter,

or destroy information.

In addition to protecting the security

of information that is transported over

the GII, governments and industry must

guarantee the reliability of the network

itself. In the event of breakage or service

interruption, network operators must

work quickly and cooperatively to

repair damage and provide backup

systems to minimize the duration of any

such interruptions. To have a truly

global infrastructure, greater emphasis

must be placed on resolving reliability

concerns, including such issues as

network performance, network

connections and interoperability, the

development of new technology, and

regional and demographic differences in

reliability.

Recommended Action

To promote the development of a

secure and reliable GII, the United

States will join with other countries to:

• Work collectively to increase the

reliability and security of national and

international information

infrastructures;

• Initiate a broad international

dialogue among users, providers, and all
10368 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 1995 / Notices

6Administered by the National

Telecommunications and Information

Administration, the basic objective of the

Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure

Assistance Program (TIIAP) is to provide clear and

visible demonstrations to people at the local level

of the advantages that can be accrued in their daily

lives as a result of having access to a modern,

interactive information infrastructure.

7Additional information on how information

infrastructure applications can benefit people can

be found in two reports from the U.S. Information

Infrastructure Task Force’s Committee on

Applications and Technology: ‘‘Putting the

Information Infrastructure to Work,’’ National

Institute of Standards and Technology Special

Publication 857, Gaithersburg, MD., 1994; and ‘‘The

Information Infrastructure: Reaching Society’s

Goals,’’ National Institute of Standards and

Technology Special Publication 868, Gaithersburg,

MD., 1994.

other participants in the GII on issues

related to protecting the confidentiality

and integrity of information transmitted

and stored on global networks;

• Exchange information and

encourage further cooperation within

regional and international organizations

such as the ITU and the OECD on

measures to ensure network security

and reliability, including the sharing of

outage information;

• Share information regarding the

best means available to advance security

goals while not impeding progress on

other GII principles, such as the

promotion of competition and open

access; and

• Exchange information about, and

accelerate efforts to develop new

technologies needed to improve the

security of the GII (e.g., encryption,

digital signatures, and firewalls.)

3. Intellectual Property Protection

Protection of intellectual property

rights is essential to the development of

a successful GII. In order to promote

creativity and provide the broadest

possible access to the world’s media and

information sectors under viable

commercial conditions, countries will

need to protect the creative content of

the GII—text, images, computer

programs, databases, video and sound

recordings, as well as multimedia

products.

Providing for adequate and effective

protection of intellectual property in the

digital environment requires complex

legal and technical solutions. Some of

these solutions may be viewed as

controversial by some users of the

system. However, the cost to society of

inadequate intellectual property

protection far outweighs these concerns.

Inadequate protection of intellectual

property discourages the creation of

copyrighted works, creates barriers to

innovation, stifles the use of new

applications, and diminishes foreign

investment. It jeopardizes the work of

researchers, creative artists, and a wide

variety of entrepreneurs.

It goes without saying that if creative

works are not adequately protected,

their creators will be reluctant to permit

them to be distributed over the GII. For

this reason, rightsholders must not be

compelled to license rights to their

works. Instead, GII participants should

cooperate to find legal, market-based

alternatives to compulsory licensing.

Reliable and efficient means of

transferring intellectual property rights

must also be assured. They might, for

example, adopt various licensing

arrangements, such as on-line and offline licensing, direct licensing, and

voluntary collective licensing. More

sensitive issues, however, may have to

be addressed on an individual basis. For

example, licensing of rights may be

done on a per-use, per-work, or other

basis. Licensing of rights for multimedia

works, which involve a number of

copyrights—not all of them with

obvious attributions—could be

facilitated by special licensing

arrangements.

Recommended Action

The GII cannot achieve its promise if

authors, producers, and other content

creators are not guaranteed adequate

protection of their intellectual property

rights. To achieve this protection, the

United States will join with other

governments to:

• Cooperate in national, bilateral,

regional and international fora (such as

the World Intellectual Property

Organization) to achieve high levels of

intellectual property and technical

protection in order to guarantee to

rightsholders the technical and legal

means to control the use of their

property over the GII;

• Ensure that voluntary licensing

regimes provide rightsholders and

potential users of copyrighted works

maximum flexibility in negotiating the

conditions governing the use of

copyrighted works, eliminate

compulsory licensing, and guard against

the imposition of standards that would

impede the free-flow of information;

• Provide effective enforcement

against the unauthorized use of a

copyrighted work (infringement),

including severe legal penalties and

vigilant monitoring. Enforcement is

particularly critical as technological

innovations jeopardize the existing

ability of rights holders to protect their

works;

• Encourage the development and use

of technological capabilities and

safeguards, such as software envelopes,

headers, assurances of authenticity, and

encryption methods to complement

existing copyright management

techniques and prevent infringement at

all levels. Cooperative efforts to develop

testbeds, define standards, and

construct infrastructure components for

these safeguards should be encouraged,

as should measures to prevent or render

illegal the use of devices to overcome

these safeguards; and

• Work in collaboration with

intellectual property-based industries

towards greater efforts to educate others

about the importance of intellectual

property protection.

B. Applications: Delivering the Benefits

of the GII

Given that the value of the GII will be

determined by how people benefit from

it, governments must cultivate active

participation by consumers and

businesses in the application of new

technologies. By working together in

creative partnerships, the public and

private sectors can apply information

and telecommunications technology to a

variety of critical and complex issues:

improving productivity and economic

growth in an increasingly competitive

and interdependent global economy;

providing adequate health care;

ensuring the development of workforce

skills through education and training;

providing equitable access to

information through public institutions,

such as libraries; enhancing leisure-time

activities; protecting natural resources

and the environment; and ensuring the

delivery of government services and

information.

Many governments are already

examining ways to promote the

development of the information

infrastructure and to demonstrate,

through pilot projects and testbeds, the

myriad benefits of new technologies. In

the United States, the National

Information Infrastructure (NII)

initiative includes a Federal matching

grant program that provides support for

planning and demonstration projects

initiated by state and local governments

and non-profit entities in such fields as

health care and education.6 The U.S. NII

initiative also includes a number of

other federally supported applications

in the areas of environmental

monitoring, digital libraries,

international transportation and trade,

and the electronic dissemination of

government information.7

The reach of applications being

developed around the world can be

expanded internationally through

collaborative projects among
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 1995 / Notices 10369

commercial entities, academic

institutions, and private, voluntary, and

multilateral organizations. International

applications have the unique potential

to permit countries not only to bring

diverse global resources to bear upon

local problems and needs, but also to

find solutions to needs that transcend

national boundaries, such as

environmental monitoring and global

trade and commerce.

These applications can transform the

possibilities of the GII into realities for

citizens around the world. What follows

is an illustrative, but not exhaustive, list

of examples that demonstrate the value

of expanding collaborative efforts in the

development of international

applications:

• Distance learning projects can make

available a wealth of educational

resources to improve local educational

and training capabilities, offering costsaving, effective alternatives to overseas

studies;

• Computer networks linking medical

school libraries and remote sites can

improve the delivery of health care

services, particularly to rural

communities, by expanding access to

demographic, epidemiological, and

medical reference materials. In Zambia,

district hospitals are being linked for

clinical consultation, distance learning,

health literature dissemination, and

epidemiological data exchange. African

medical libraries are linking up with

libraries overseas for research and

document delivery services;

• Satellite and radio-based systems

that collect and disseminate health

statistics can be used to identify

underserved segments of the population

and to target those areas for expanded

delivery of family health services;

• Remote sensing can be used to

identify and protect important

ecological systems. The Administration

is promoting an international

partnership, known as Global Learning

and Observation to Benefit the

Environment (GLOBE), that will allow

children all over the world to collect

and share environmental data. Students

will work with teachers and

environmental scientists to expand

knowledge about weather, air and water

chemistry and quality, biodiversity, and

other ‘‘vital signs’’ of the Earth. The

combined data will be transformed into

striking ‘‘pictures’’ of the entire planet,

allowing each student to see how their

school’s observation is an important

part of the global environment;

• Computer and satellite networks

can provide monitoring and, in some

cases, early warning of natural disasters,

allowing for better coordination of

humanitarian assistance efforts between

host and donor countries, speeding the

delivery of aid and assistance. In the

South Pacific, the PEACESAT satellite

network has been used to coordinate

emergency assistance after typhoons

and earthquakes, and to summon

medical teams during outbreaks of

cholera and dengue fever;

• Computerized market price data for

agricultural and horticultural products

can provide new agribusiness

opportunities and can facilitate direct

links between exporters and clients;

• Access to international markets,

particularly for small and medium sized

businesses, can be created by providing

electronic access to information such as

transportation schedules and costs,

insurance and customs data. The United

Nations Conference on Trade and

Development (UNCTAD) trade points

system uses electronic data interchange

and other technologies to establish a

network of trade points around the

globe. In Algeria, for example, the

introduction of a computer-mediated

trade point has stimulated an increase

in the number of companies involved in

international trade from twenty to 2,500;

• Electronic data interchange

technologies, which can reduce the

administrative cost of international

trade transactions by as much as twenty

per cent, can help companies increase

productivity by streamlining

manufacturing and service delivery.

Through industry-led consortia such as

CommerceNet, companies can explore

collaborative engineering, on-line

catalogs of products and services, and

mechanisms for electronic payments;

• Scientists can continue to explore

the use of ‘‘collaboratories,’’ tools and

virtual environments that allow

scientists to work together without

regard to space or time. Scientists need

the ability to share data and the tools for

data analysis, visualization, and

modeling, to control remote

instruments, and to communicate with

their colleagues;

• Using the World Wide Web,

individuals and institutions all over the

globe have begun to create distributed

‘‘virtual libraries’’ on specific subjects.

As these opportunities continue to

grow, tools for information discovery

and retrieval and protection of

intellectual property rights will become

increasingly important.

In our view, public-private

sponsorship of GII pilot projects and

testbeds is worthwhile. It will help

identify and address a number of

technical, policy, and regulatory barriers

to the realization of the GII. These

include issues of privacy, security,

interoperability, and intellectual

property protection, as well as

artificially high prices for

telecommunications services and

outdated rules and regulations designed

for paper-based transactions. A strategy

that concentrates on ‘‘learning by

doing’’ is far more likely to resolve these

barriers.

The roles played by governments, the

private sector, academic institutions,

and non-profit organizations will vary

depending on the nature of the

application. In some cases, such as

global electronic commerce and

entertainment services, the private

sector should take the lead, while in

other areas, such as international public

health, cooperation between public

health agencies, hospitals, clinics, and

universities would be appropriate.

Whatever the application, governments

must recognize that while they can play

an important catalytic role in fostering

international collaboration, they should

not attempt ‘‘top-down’’ management of

this process. The Administration hopes

and expects that many of the best ideas

for global cooperation will bubble up

from the grassroots with little or no

government involvement.

Successful applications will set in

motion a continuous cycle of demand

that will encourage future development

of the GII. Demonstrating the power of

the GII to successfully address pressing

problems will stimulate consumer

demand for a variety of products and

services at affordable prices. This

demand will provide the necessary

incentive for the private sector to

broaden the reach and expand the

capabilities of the GII, enhancing its

ability to deliver benefits to people and

again increasing demand. As a ‘‘network

of networks’’ linking people and

information, the GII can leverage the

collaborative potential of existing efforts

and provide real solutions to existing

and emerging global issues.

Recommended Action

International applications are the best

way to demonstrate the potential power

of the GII to affect lives all over the

world. The United States will join with

other countries to:

• Support, along with the private

sector, the initiation of pilot projects

and testbeds that demonstrate the

benefits of the GII, in areas such as

electronic commerce, health care, digital

libraries, environmental monitoring,

and life-long learning, with

opportunities for participation by both

developed and developing countries;

• Cooperate in the facilitation of

electronic information exchanges in

support of global trade and commerce;

• Facilitate the sharing of information

in the public domain with other
10370 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 1995 / Notices

8 A report of the Conference on Breaking the

Barriers to the National Information Infrastructure

can be obtained from the Council on

Competitiveness in Washington, D.C. The

conference was co-sponsored by the Council and

the Clinton Administration’s Information

Infrastructure Task Force.

countries on government-funded and

private sector applications projects to

promote a broader understanding of the

diversity of technology that can be

applied to meet various public needs;

• Encourage the assignment of a

higher priority for innovative

applications of information technology,

which will encourage increased use of

the GII;

• Encourage private sector-led efforts

to develop application-level standards

(e.g. data interchange formats,

application program interfaces) to

ensure interoperability at the

application level; and

• Work constructively to assess and

eliminate the barriers to the

development and deployment of GII

applications.8

IV. Implementing the GII

The various approaches governments

have taken in response to the

technological convergence of

telecommunications and information

industries have resulted in the

development of asymmetric markets and

regulatory environments around the

world. These asymmetries often impede

the cross-border transfer of services and

information among business users,

entertainment providers, and

consumers. The United States believes

that these differences can be overcome,

in part through the work of market

forces and technological developments,

but also in part through collective

agreement among all countries to adopt,

advance, and apply the core principles

of the GII. By working through existing

international and regional organizations,

and engaging in bilateral efforts,

government and industry can remove

obstacles blocking the effective

development of the GII.

Multilateral organizations will play a

vital role in this effort. In particular, the

International Telecommunication Union

(ITU), the Organization for Economic

Cooperation and Development (OECD),

the International Organization for

Standardization (ISO), and the World

Intellectual Property Organization

(WIPO) are uniquely able to contribute

practical solutions to problems affecting

the development of the GII.

As the preeminent international

organization dealing with

telecommunications issues, the United

Nations’ ITU was the first multilateral

forum in which the GII was discussed.

With its broad membership of 185

developed and developing countries,

the consensus-based ITU serves as a

global forum for technical discussions

ranging from voluntary standards

development and frequency allocation

activities to network development.

Accomplishments already achieved

under ITU auspices in technical

telecommunications and development

issues suggest that the ITU can play a

significant role in the GII development

process.

The OECD, an international think

tank which undertakes economic

research on various aspects of its

members’ economies and policy

concerns, has been constructively

addressing telecommunications and

information policy issues for several

years. Its policy and statistical analyses

have contributed to a broader

understanding of the economic benefits

of liberalization in the information and

telecommunications sectors.

Organizations such as the ISO and the

WIPO, which deal with specific crosssectoral issues, can serve as important

fora to discuss and advance issues of

open access and information policy. For

example, any changes made to bilateral

or regional intellectual property regimes

may ultimately become issues in the

WIPO.

In addition, both Intelsat and

Inmarsat, the treaty-based satellite

communications organizations that have

played a significant role in advancing

global telecommunications, are now

contemplating options for restructuring.

Because of these organizations’ broad

international memberships, they could

serve as useful fora for review of

commercialization alternatives.

The General Agreement on Tariffs and

Trade (GATT) is a multilateral

agreement setting out the rules and

principles by which countries trade,

primarily in the area of goods. The

Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations

led to the establishment of the World

Trade Organization (WTO), which deals

with services, investment, and

intellectual property—areas that

substantively affect telecommunications

trade. The General Agreement on Trade

in Services (GATS), under the new

WTO, includes an Annex on—access to

and use of—the telecommunications

networks of WTO members, and

includes substantive commitments from

a number of parties on value-added

telecommunications services. More

generally, the GATS—access to and use

of—telecommunications annex applies

to all services for which countries have

scheduled market access commitments.

Now that it is in effect for the U.S. and

most of its major trading partners, the

GATS can substantially reinforce the

principles of the GII. In addition, there

are on-going negotiations, to be

concluded by April 1996, to liberalize

basic telecommunications services

through the Negotiating Group on Basic

Telecommunications.

Regional organizations also have

important roles in achieving regional

consensus on issues pertaining to

telecommunications and information

markets. Organizations such as the

Inter-American Telecommunication

Commission (CITEL) of the Organization

of American States (OAS), the Asia

Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC),

the Southern Africa Transportation and

Communications Commission (SATCC)

and the European Conference on Postal

and Telecommunications

Administration (CEPT), among others,

frequently serve as fora for the exchange

of valuable information and as test sites

for implementation of the most

expedient and beneficial policies. These

bodies also serve as effective vehicles

for improving and enhancing network

development and technical cooperation

among participants on a regional basis.

Finally, plurilateral and bilateral

dialogues can be arranged among and

between nations to focus on particular

issues. In addition to the deliberations

in regional and international

organizations, these discussions can

become building blocks for cooperation

as together we seek to construct a truly

global GII. For example, the G–7

Ministerial Conference scheduled for

February 1995 is one of several such

opportunities for focused, high-level

discussion of the Global Information

Infrastructure.

As important as these international

governmental organizations are, perhaps

even more important are the numerous

formal and informal groups within the

private sector. These groups, which

range from international trade

organizations to professional

associations to advocacy groups to

industry-led standard-setting bodies,

provide communication channels

between the people who will actually

build and use the GII. Such private

sector groups facilitate the international

teaming and strategic alliances that will

ensure the development of a truly

seamless ‘‘network of networks,’’ rather

than a patchwork of incompatible

systems and services.

V. Conclusion

As Vice President Gore noted in

Buenos Aires, it is possible to create a

global information network that

transmits messages and images with the

speed of light from the largest city to the

smallest village. Through the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 1995 / Notices 10371

interconnection of disparate but

interoperable networks, these

information highways will allow us to

communicate as a global

community—giving individuals,

businesses, and economies greater

access to each other and to a wider

range of information. Equally important,

the GII will offer governments an

unprecedented opportunity to equalize

global disparity in telecommunications

and maximize the economic and social

benefits of the Information Age for their

citizens.

Harnessing the global potential of

information and communications

technologies to this end will require

collaboration among the industries that

will build, operate, provide, and use

services and information available over

the evolving national networks. It will

also require cooperative efforts among

countries, working together bilaterally,

regionally, and through multilateral

organizations, to facilitate the

interconnection of their respective

networks and the sharing of information

among nations.

In our interdependent world,

technological and regulatory choices

made in one country can affect those

made in neighboring countries, creating

a multiplier effect for the GII’s

development. To help guide this

development, the Administration

proposes five core principles—private

investment, competition, open access, a

flexible regulatory environment, and

universal service. These principles, we

believe, along with effective information

policies, will provide a foundation upon

which the GII can be built.

The overarching goal of the ‘‘Agenda

for Cooperation’’ is to foster the

cooperation that will be needed to spur

the transformation of a thousand

discrete networks into a connected,

interoperable global information

infrastructure. As all nations take steps

to develop and upgrade national

information infrastructures, we invite

you to join with us in ensuring that the

benefits of the GII will be available

throughout the world.

Larry Irving,

Assistant Secretary for Communications and

Information.

[FR Doc. 95–4546 Filed 2–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–60–P

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM

PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR

SEVERELY DISABLED

Procurement List Addition

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From

People Who Are Blind or Severely

Disabled.

ACTION: Addition to the Procurement

List.

SUMMARY: This action adds to the

Procurement List tabulating machine

paper to be furnished by nonprofit

agencies employing persons who are

blind or have other severe disabilities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 27, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase

From People Who Are Blind or Severely

Disabled, Crystal Square 3, Suite 403,

1735 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, Virginia 22202–3461.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Beverly Milkman (703) 603–7740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July

29, 1994, the Committee for Purchase

From People Who Are Blind or Severely

Disabled published notice (59 FR 38586)

of proposed addition to the Procurement

List.

Comments were received from a

contractor for this type of paper and two

trade associations. One of the trade

associations objected to the proposal

because it is concerned about the impact

of taxpayer-sponsored printing

operations, largely in the Federal Prison

Industries, on an industry which it

claims has very small profit margins.

The other trade association reiterated its

earlier objections to the Committee’s

1991 addition of this paper to the

Procurement List, which centered on

the action’s substantial adverse impact

on the entire business forms industry.

The association stated, without

providing specific details, that the

industry’s experience since that

supported its earlier contentions.

Neither trade association provided

any data that would support a

contention that the Committee’s action

in adding a portion of the Government

requirement for this particular type of

paper to the Procurement List would

have a severe adverse impact on the

entire business forms industry. The

Committee believes that what it is

adding to the Procurement List is only

a small part of the total demand for this

paper, as the Government version is

identical to what is widely used in the

private sector and the private market is

considerably larger than the

Government market. Moreover, other

types of business forms are purchased in

both the Government and commercial

markets. Consequently, the Committee

does not believe that its action with

respect to one particular type of paper

purchased by the Government will have

a severe impact on the entire business

forms industry.

The contractor submitted information

on several firms in the industry which

had suffered from declining

Government sales, including itself, and

claimed that the 1991 addition of this

paper to the Procurement List had

caused these impacts, as it indicated

Government sales had declined but

commercial sales had not. The

contractor also attempted to incorporate

in its comments by reference all

materials submitted by all parties to the

1991 addition of the paper to the

Procurement List, the Committee’s

subsequent reconsideration of its

addition decision, and resulting

litigation, including all court opinions

filed by the trial and appellate courts.

The Committee rejected the attempted

incorporation by reference as

unreasonably burdensome on the

Committee’s resources, and asked the

contractor to provide the documents

which it considered relevant to its

present arguments. While it provided an

extensive collection of documents in

response, the contractor indicated that

the Committee should not consider the

contractor’s contentions to be limited to

what appeared in those specific

documents. The contractor also

indicated that all the materials

supported its contention that the

Committee is required to make four

determinations, which the contractor

enumerated, before it can decide in

accordance with its regulations that a

commodity or service may be added to

the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the Committee believes

that its duty to explain its conclusion

that the paper may be properly added to

the Procurement List will be met by

addressing these four determination

requirements and the contractor’s

industry impact contentions.

These determinations are that: (1) The

nonprofit agencies have the capacity to

produce the paper; (2) the level of blind

employment claimed by the nonprofit

agencies will be used in producing the

paper; (3) the nonprofit agencies can

produce the paper at the fair market

price established by the Committee; and

(4) there will not be a severe adverse

impact on current suppliers. These

determinations are the contractor’s

summation of the Committee’s

regulatory criteria for adding a

commodity or service to the

Procurement List.

The Committee’s determinations that

the nonprofit agencies have the capacity