Source: http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2002/06/17.asp
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 09:53:13+00:00

Document:
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 452, June 17, 2002.
June 17, 2002, 9:00 AM ET, Alert No. 452.
6/14. On Friday, June 14, both the U.S. Court of Appeals (4thCir) and the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) issued opinions which contain lengthy analyses of the Due Process requirements for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over out of state companies whose only connection with the state in which the Court sits is Internet activities. Both cases extend the minimum contacts analysis of International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), to corporations doing business on the Internet.
The District of Columbia Circuit stopped just short of holding that the District of Columbia has jurisdiction over a Nebraska based online brokerage firm. (It did not actually hold that jurisdiction exists because the District Court had not yet established a factual record, and because it affirmed the District Court's dismissal on other grounds.) The Court mocked the legal arguments of counsel for the brokerage, which fought jurisdiction. The Court wrote that cyberspace "is not some mystical incantation capable of warding off the jurisdiction of courts built from bricks and mortar."
In contrast, the Fourth Circuit identified limits to finding jurisdiction over out of state companies that are on the Internet. It held that the District Court in Maryland cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over a Georgia based ISP in a copyright infringement case on the sole basis that it provided web hosting services to the alleged infringers.
The two cases contain consistent applications of the minimum contacts analysis. In the DC case, the online brokerage conducted a wide range of transactions electronically with its customers in the District of Columbia. In the Fourth Circuit case the ISP had no customers in Maryland.
6/14. The U.S. Court of Appeals (4thCir) issued its opinion in ALS Scan v. Digital Service Consultants, a case holding that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over an out of state Internet service provider that provides web hosting services to an alleged copyright infringer in a copyright infringement suit.
Background. ALS Scan is a Maryland corporation with its place of business in Columbia, a Maryland suburb situated between Washington DC and Baltimore. ALS Scan is in the business of taking girly pictures, which it then markets over the Internet. ALS Scan alleges that Alternative Products and Robert Wilkins copied some of its photographs, and published them in their web sites for commercial gain. Digital Service Consultants is an ISP in Georgia that provides web hosting services to Alternative Products and Wilkins.
District Court. ALS filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (DMd) against Digital, Alternative, and Wilkins alleging copyright infringement. Digital filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over it. Digital alleged that it has no office or customers in Maryland, that it derives no revenues from Maryland, and that it does not advertise in Maryland, except by having a web site. The District Court granted Digital's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. ALS filed this interlocutory appeal.
Appeals Court: Review of Supreme Court Precedent. The Appeals Court affirmed. The Court noted first that historically in personam jurisdiction depended upon personal presence in the state. The Court continued that this changed with International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945): "Over time, however, and with the introduction of personal service of summons or other forms of notice, the Supreme Court recognized that ``due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ``traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.��"
The Court added that "Although the courts have recognized that the standards used to determine the proper exercise of personal jurisdiction may evolve as technological progress occurs, it nonetheless has remained clear that technology cannot eviscerate the constitutional limits on a State's power to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant."
The Court also reviewed the standards for specific and general jurisdiction. "Determining the extent of a State's judicial power over persons outside of its borders under the International Shoe standard can be undertaken through two different approaches -- by finding specific jurisdiction based on conduct connected to the suit or by finding general jurisdiction." It cited Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984).
It elaborated that "If the defendant's contacts with the State are also the basis for the suit, those contacts may establish specific jurisdiction. In deter mining specific jurisdiction, we consider (1) the extent to which the defendant ``purposefully avail[ed]�� itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the State; (2) whether the plaintiffs' claims arise out of those activities directed at the State; and (3) whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction would be constitutionally ``reasonable.��"
"On the other hand, if the defendant's contacts with the State are not also the basis for suit, then jurisdiction over the defendant must arise from the defendant's general, more persistent, but unrelated contacts with the State. To establish general jurisdiction over the defendant, the defendant's activities in the State must have been ``continuous and systematic,�� a more demanding standard than is necessary for establishing specific jurisdiction."
Appeals Court: Analysis of Internet Contacts. The Court then applied this Supreme Court precedent to Internet based activities. It wrote that "because the Internet is omnipresent" "when a person places information on the Internet, he can communicate with persons in virtually every jurisdiction. If we were to conclude as a general principle that a person's act of placing information on the Internet subjects that person to personal jurisdiction in each State in which the information is accessed, then the defense of personal jurisdiction, in the sense that a State has geographically limited judicial power, would no longer exist. The person placing information on the Internet would be subject to personal jurisdiction in every State. But under current Supreme Court jurisprudence, despite advances in technology, State judicial power over persons appears to remain limited to persons within the State's boundaries and to those persons outside of the State who have minimum contacts ..."
The Court also considered that "the argument could still be made that the Internet's electronic signals are surrogates for the person and that Internet users conceptually enter a State to the extent that they send their electronic signals into the State, establishing those minimum contacts sufficient to subject the sending person to personal jurisdiction in the State where the signals are received." Moreover, the Court noted that "if that broad interpretation of minimum contacts were adopted, State jurisdiction over persons would be universal, and notions of limited State sovereignty and personal jurisdiction would be eviscerated."
The Court added that "it would be difficult to accept a structural arrangement in which each State has unlimited judicial power over every citizen in each other State who uses the Internet."
The Court suggested that "The convergence of commerce and technology thus tends to push the analysis to include a ``stream of commerce�� concept, under which each person who puts an article into commerce is held to anticipate suit in any jurisdiction where the stream takes the article." However, the Court added that this approach "has never been adopted by the Supreme Court as the controlling principle for defining the reach of a State's judicial power."
Appeals Court: Holding. The Court concluded that "a State may, consistent with due process, exercise judicial power over a person outside of the State when that person (1) directs electronic activity into the State, (2) with the manifested intent of engaging in business or other interactions within the State, and (3) that activity creates, in a person within the State, a potential cause of action cognizable in the State's courts. Under this standard, a person who simply places information on the Internet does not subject himself to jurisdiction in each State into which the electronic signal is transmitted and received. Such passive Internet activity does not generally include directing electronic activity into the State with the manifested intent of engaging business or other interactions in the State thus creating in a person within the State a potential cause of action cognizable in courts located in the State."
Then, the Court applied this standard to the facts of the present case. It wrote that "Digi tal's activity was, at most, passive and therefore does not subject it to the judicial power of a Maryland court even though electronic signals from Digital's facility were concededly received in Maryland. Digital functioned from Georgia as an ISP, and in that role provided bandwidth to Alternative Products, also located in Georgia, to enable Alternative Products to create a website and send information over the Internet. It did not select or knowingly transmit infringing photographs specifically to Maryland with the intent of engaging in business or any other transaction in Maryland. Rather, its role as an ISP was at most passive."
The Court hinted that this area of law may be appropriate for Supreme Court review. The Appeals Court inserted the following phrase: "Until the due process concepts of personal jurisdiction are reconceived and rearticulated by the Supreme Court in light of advances in technology ...".
6/14. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) issued its opinion in Gorman v. Ameritrade, a case regarding personal jurisdiction over an out of state online brokerage firm. The Appeals Court found that personal jurisdiction over Ameritrade could exist.
Background. David Gorman is the sole proprietor of a business called Cashbackrealty.com. He is based in McLean, a suburb of Washington DC located in northern Virginia. Ameritrade is an online stock brokerage company based in Omaha, Nebraska, that conducts electronic transactions with residents of the District of Columbia (DC). Gorman entered into a contract with Freetrade.com, an Omaha business, under which Freetrade.com agreed to place a hyperlink on the home page of its web site to the Cashbackrealty.com web site. Ameritrade acquired Freetrade.com. Gorman demanded that Ameritrade's home page link to his web site. Ameritrade refused.
District Court. Gorman filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (DC) against Ameritrade alleging breach of contract. Subject matter jurisdiction is based upon diversity of citizenship. DC has a long arm jurisdiction statute that provides for jurisdiction over foreign corporations doing business in DC. The District Court dismissed the case, without allowing discovery, for lack of personal jurisdiction over Ameritrade, and for insufficiency of service of process. The Court held that operating a web site used by DC residents is not enough to establish the "miminum contacts" required by International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), and its progeny. Gorman appealed.
The Court then applied the "continuous and systematic" contacts test announced in GTE New Media Services v. BellSouth, 199 F.3d 1343 (D.C. Cir. 2000). In that case the Court held that defendants who operated "Yellow Pages" websites accessible to DC residents had insufficient contacts to permit the exercise specific jurisdiction under the DC long arm statute.
The Court distinguished the facts in GTE from those in the present case. It wrote that this case "is substantially different from GTE. Ameritrade's contact with the District is not limited to an ``essentially passive�� website through which customers merely access information about the financial markets. ... To the contrary, Ameritrade concedes that District residents use its website to engage in electronic transactions with the firm. ... The firm's customers can open Ameritrade brokerage accounts online; transmit funds to their accounts electronically; and use those accounts to buy and sell securities, to borrow from Ameritrade on margin, and to pay Ameritrade brokerage commissions and interest. Using e-mail and web-posting, Ameritrade transmits electronic confirmations, monthly account statements, and both financial and product information back to its customers. As a result of their electronic interactions, Ameritrade and its District of Columbia customers enter into binding contracts, the customers become the owners of valuable securities, and Ameritrade obtains valuable revenue."
However, since there was no discovery, and no factual record, in the District Court, the Appeals Court merely held that jurisdiction could exist. It did not hold that personal jurisdiction does exist. Although, given the reasoning of the Appeals Court, this would appear to be the inevitable conclusion to be reached eventually by the District Court. Also, since the Appeals Court held that service of process by mail upon the Securities Director of the District of Columbia was insufficient, it affirmed the dismissal of the case.
Notable and Quotable. Judge Merrick Garland, writing for the three judge panel of the Appeals Court, also wrote that "Ameritrade is quite wrong in treating ``cyberspace�� as if it were a kingdom floating in the mysterious ether, immune from the jurisdiction of earthly courts."
6/14. William Kolasky, a Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, gave a speech in New York City titled "Mergers & Acquisitions: Getting Your Deal Through in the New Antitrust Climate".
This speech followed Kolasky's speech of March 18 in Cape Town, South Africa, titled "Comparative Merger Control Analysis: Six Guiding Principles for Antitrust Agencies -- the New and Old". In that speech the six principles which he advocated were: Protect competition not competitors, recognize the central role of efficiencies, base decisions on sound economics and hard evidence, realize that our predictive capabilities are limited, impose no unnecessary bureaucratic roadblocks, and be flexible and forward looking.
His June 14 speech expands on the third principle: base decisions on sound economics and hard evidence. He added that he hopes this speech will be part of an ongoing series.
He stated that "First, we need a sound analytical framework that is firmly grounded in economic science. Second, we need an infrastructure in which lawyers and economists can work together in evaluating the likely competitive effects of proposed transactions, each bringing their comparative advantage to bear in reaching a sound outcome. Third, we need strong investigative tools, fair procedures, and effective checks and balances."
Economic Science. He emphasized that he used the term "economic science" rather than "economic theory". He elaborated that "the minds of economists are extremely fertile. It is very easy to come up with theories of competitive harm. The difference between theory and science is that science requires that hypotheses be testable empirically. By economic science, I refer to those economic theories that have been tested empirically and not yet disproven. This is the case, for example, with Stigler's theory of oligopoly ..." He then reviewed how the DOJ's 1982 merger guidelines first incorporated economic science into DOJ policy.
Infrastructure. He described at length how the DOJ's 85 person Economic Analysis Group is organized and integrates into the Antitrust Division. He concluded at the end of the speech that "we are now working with other competition authorities around the world, especially those created in just the last few years, to help them do likewise".
Procedure. Finally, he advocated certain investigative tools, fair procedures, and effective checks and balances. On this topic, he first stated that investigations should be thorough, and involve testimony under oath. He said that "we have learned that we cannot rely on the representations of parties to a transaction or of complainants seeking to block it without thoroughly investigating the underlying factual basis for those representations. This requires that we obtain and carefully review underlying business documents, as well as that we interview third parties with a more objective view of the transaction. We often find it helpful also to question employees of the merging parties and complainants under oath ..."
Second, he said that fair procedure includes giving "the parties and complainants an opportunity to present their cases, not just to our staffs but also to senior decision makers".
He also addressed checks and balances. He said that "Under our system, the principal check on our decision making is that we cannot block a transaction without going to court to obtain an injunction. This means that throughout our investigation we must constantly ask ourselves whether we have sufficient evidence to persuade an independent judge, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the merger may substantially lessen competition and thereby harm consumer welfare. It means also that we know that any witnesses or other evidence we present will be subject to searching cross examination by the lawyers for the parties to the transaction."
The prepared text of his speech does not reference the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). However, it advocates procedures that are not in place in the FCC's merger review process.
Kolasky closed with two case studies: Suiza Dean and Comdisco Sungard.
6/14. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) issued its opinion in AT&T v. FCC, granting AT&T's petition for review of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Declaratory Ruling holding that long distance carriers have an obligation to purchase interstate switched access services provided by competitive local exchange carriers. The Appeals Court vacated the Declaratory Ruling.
AT&T is an interexchange carrier (IXC), or long distance carrier. It generally carries phones calls that originate with, and terminate with, customers of local exchange carriers (LECs). IXCs charge the caller for the telephone call, and pay originating access charges, and terminating access charges, to the LECs. Since passage of the 1996 Telecom Act, LECs have included both incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) and competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs).
The Appeals Court noted that "CLECs possess a ``series of bottleneck monopolies over access to each individual end user.��... If an IXC wants to provide long distance service to customers of a CLEC's local service, the IXC must utilize access services from that particular CLEC." Consequently, the Court wrote, "some CLECs began charging access rates that were well above the rates ILECs charged for similar services."
AT&T then determined not to purchase access services from certain CLECs, and began taking steps to cut off its ties with these CLECs. However, some CLECs continued to send long distance calls to AT&T and then billed AT&T. The Court wrote that "They were able to do so without AT&T's agreement because the CLECs first routed their traffic to a tandem switch operated by the ILEC in their area. By the time the call reached AT&T's network, it was intermingled with the traffic of other carriers, and AT&T was unable to identify and block the traffic on a CLEC specific basis."
AT&T filed a petition for a declaratory ruling with the FCC in 1999. In October 2001 the FCC issued its declaratory ruling, in which it stated that "an IXC cannot refuse to exchange originating or terminating [access] traffic with the CLEC."
The FCC relied upon 47 U.S.C. � 201(a) which provides: "It shall be the duty of every common carrier engaged in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio to furnish such communication service upon reasonable request therefor; and, in accordance with the orders of the Commission, in cases where the Commission, after opportunity for hearing, finds such action necessary or desirable in the public interest, to establish physical connections with other carriers, to establish through routes and charges applicable thereto and the divisions of such charges, and to establish and provide facilities and regulations for operating such through routes."
AT&T filed the present Petition for Review of this declaratory ruling. The Appeals Court granted the petition and vacated the declaratory ruling. Judge Raymond Randolph wrote the opinion of the three judge panel.
The Court reasoned that "The first clause of � 201(a) -- the clause preceding the semicolon -- establishes the duty of every common carrier to furnish communication service upon ``reasonable request.�� The second clause -- after the semicolon -- provides that the FCC may order a carrier to establish a through route only after opportunity for a hearing."
The Court continued that "The language of � 201(a) is clear: if the FCC wants to compel AT&T to establish a through route with another carrier, then the FCC must follow the procedures specified in the second clause of � 201(a). In ruling that AT&T was obligated to purchase access services from CLECs, the FCC sought -- without first having followed the procedures specified in the second clause of � 201(a) -- to compel AT&T to establish a through route. It cannot be that a CLEC's demand to an IXC for a physical connection or a through route is a request by the CLEC's customer for such service under the first clause of � 201(a). This would allow the first clause in � 201(a) to render the second clause meaningless."
6/14. The City of Fairfax, in Northern Virginia, submitted a comment [PDF] to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its proceeding regarding the appropriate regulatory classification of cable modem services.
The FCC released its 75 page Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [PDF] back in March instituting this proceeding. The FCC concluded "that cable modem service, as it is currently offered, is properly classified as an interstate information service, not as a cable service, and that there is no separate offering of telecommunications service. In addition, we initiate a rulemaking proceeding to determine the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction to regulate cable modem service and whether (and, if so, how) cable modem service should be regulated under the law ..." This is CS Docket No. 02-52.
Numerous local governmental entities have submitted comments opposing the classification of cable modem services as an information service. The City of Fairfax wrote that "The FCC's ruling that cable modem service is an interstate information service, as opposed to a cable service, is in contravention of the Cable Act, ignores the constitutional limitations on its authority to regulate cable modem service1, and, quite simply, is lacking in common sense protection for American consumers. By promulgating this Ruling, the FCC challenges the authority of local governments to recover franchise fees related to cable modem service and to provide consumer protection and right of way management with respect to such service."
Fairfax asserted that "It is imperative that local franchising authorities retain the ability to regulate customer service standards for cable modem service." It also argued that "The Ruling will have a significant impact on franchise fee revenues for municipalities across the country."
6/14. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), the Chairman of the House Science Committee, gave a speech to the National Society of Professional Engineers in which he stated that the relative levels of funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) are "out of whack". The NIH, which does medical research, receives far more funding that the NSF, which funds research and education for information technology, nanotechnology, the physical sciences and engineering.
"But the Congress has come to recognize that our national security and our future economic success rest on the investments in research and development (R&D) we make today. And there's a growing recognition that our R&D investments of late have excessively favored the biomedical field," said Rep. Boehlert. "But improving health care is not the only challenge the nation faces, and even health research depends on advances in other fields. Yet just the proposed increase in the NIH budget for next year is larger than the entire proposed research budget of the National Science Foundation. That indicates things may have gotten a little out of whack. We have to ensure that the physical sciences and engineering are also moving forward."
For FY 2002, the NSF has $4.6 Billion in funding. See, OMB document. NIH has $23.6 Billion. See, NIH document.
Rep. Boehlert was speaking about HR 4664, the Investing in America's Future Act, a bill to authorize appropriations for the National Science Foundation. The House passed it by a vote of 397-25 on June 5. See, Roll Call No. 212. It has yet to pass the Senate. The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on proposed legislation authorizing funds for the NSF. Moreover, the Appropriations Committees would still need to appropriate the funds authorized by HR 4664.
HR 4664 would authorize the appropriation of $5.5 Billion for FY 2003 for the NSF. Included in the funding authorization is $704 Million for networking and information technology research, $238 Million for the Nanoscale Science and Engineering Priority Area, and $60 Million for the Mathematical Sciences Priority Area.
He also repeated words from his speech in the House on June 5. "When we look at the new fields of science and engineering that will boost our economy in this new century, fields like nanotechnology, where do we turn to ensure that our nation�s researchers stay at the cutting edge? NSF. When we look at the field of information technology, which facilitates every activity in today's economy, where do we turn to ensure that the U.S. remains at the cutting edge? NSF. When we consider our ever more urgent need for a highly skilled, technologically literate workforce, where do we turn to ensure that our education system from kindergarten through post graduate work is preparing the people we need? NSF."
Rep. Boehlert also spoke about a second bill pending in the Congress, HR 3130, the Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education Improvement Act, which was approved by the House Science Committee on May 22.
He stated that "To counter the various forces that conspire to turn students away from math, science and engineering, we've put together a bill to encourage colleges and universities to put more of their resources into undergraduate education. The bill is called the Tech Talent Act, and I've introduced it in the House, and Joe Lieberman has introduced it in the Senate."
He added that "The bill has been strongly endorsed by high tech companies, which are struggling to find well trained Americans to work in their businesses."
He explained that "Under the bill, NSF would award grants to colleges and universities that propose ways to improve their undergraduate education programs in math, the physical sciences or engineering, and in return the institution must increase the number of graduating majors in those fields by a specified number that they select."
6/13. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, named Everett Eissenstat Chief International Trade Counsel. He has been International Trade Counsel since March 2001. The Senate Finance Committee's jurisdiction includes trade promotion authority, trade agreements, and oversight of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). Eissenstat was previously Legislative Director for Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ). Before that, he was a Special Assistant in the Office of the Western Hemisphere at the USTR. And before that, he was an attorney in the law firm of Dixon and Dixon in Dallas, Texas.
6/14. President Bush designated Deanna Okun as Chairman of the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) for a two year term. Okun has been Vice Chairman since 1999. Before that, she was counsel for international affairs to Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-AK). President Bush designated Jennifer Hillman as Vice Chairman of the USITC. Hillman has been a Commissioner of the USITC since 1998. Before that, she was General Counsel for the U.S. Trade Representative. See, White House release.
6/12. America Online named John Buckley Executive Vice President for Corporate Communications, effective July 8. He replaces Ann Brackbill, who was named Vice President, AOL Time Warner, reporting to Executive Vice President Kenneth Lerer. See, AOL release.
The House will meet at 12:30 PM for morning hour, and at 2:00 PM for legislative business. No votes are expected before 6:30 PM. The House will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules.
The Senate will meet at 2:00 PM to resume consideration of the S 2600, the Terrorism Insurance Bill.
2:00 - 3:30 PM. The FCC's International Bureau will hold a public forum to discuss issues and policies pertaining to the international satellite network coordination process and the domestic regulatory aspects of the International Telecom. Union's satellite network filing process. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C305.
The House will meet at 10:30 PM for morning hour, and at 12:00 NOON for legislative business.
8:30 - 10:00 AM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a press breakfast titled "Telecommunications and Media Issues" with former FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott Roth and other AEI scholars. RSVP to Veronique Rodman at 202 862-4871 or vrodman @aei.org. Location: AEI, 1150 17th Street, NW, 11th Floor Conference Room.
9:00 AM - 4:00 PM. The Global Internet Project (GIP) will host a conference titled Spam: Can It Be Stopped? FTC Commissioner Orson Swindle will give the opening keynote address at 9:20 AM. See, agenda. Location: Crystal Gateway Marriott, Arlington, VA.
2:30 - 4:30 PM. The Department of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC-D) will hold a meeting. This Committee advises the Department on policy, technical and operational issues with respect to the International Telecom. Union (ITU). For more information, and security restrictions, see notice in Federal Register. Location: Room 1406, DOS.
The FCC has scheduled Auction 44, pertaining to spectrum in the 700 megahertz band. On May 24, 2002, the FCC announced that Auction 31 is postponed until January 14, 2003, but that Auction 44 will proceed on June 19, 2002. See, FCC notice of postponement.
10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Science, and Transportation Communications will hold a hearing to examine future sufficiency and stability of the Universal Service Fund. Location: Room 253, Russell Building.
12:30 PM. The Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers will hold a luncheon meeting. For reservations or more information, contact Noel Luddy at luddyen @aol.com or 301 299-2270. The price to attend is $35. Location: Wyndham City Center Hotel, 1143 New Hampshire Ave., NW.
1:45 PM. The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee will hold a hearing on proposed legislation authorizing funds for the National Science Foundation, focusing on math and science research, development, and education. Location: Room 430, Dirksen Building.
6:00 - 8:00 PM. The FCBA will host a Continuing Legal Education (CLE) program titled TELRIC at the Crossroads: The Supreme Court Decision in Verizon v. FCC. The scheduled panelists are Bradford Ramsay (General Counsel of the NARUC), Lawrence Sarjeant (SVP/GC of the USTA), and John Windhausen (President of the ALTS). Location: Capitol Hilton, 1001 16th St., NW.
7:00 - 8:00 PM. The National Press Club CyberCocktail Lecture Series will host an panel discussion titled The State of ePR. It will be followed by a cocktail reception at 8:00 - 9:30 PM. The participants will be Rod Kuckro (Bandwith), Lori Barnes (Public Relations Society of America), Mike Fulton (Golin Harris), Steve Ginsberg (Reuters), Mike McMearty (WTOP), Rick Rudman (Vocus), and Danny Selnick (PR Newswire). The price to attend for non members is $10. To make reservations, call 202 662-7501 or email lauraf @press.org. Location: Ballroom, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.
8:00 AM - 4:00 PM. The NIST will host an event titled NIST Nanotechnology Open House. Location: NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.
9:30 AM. The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee will hold a hearing to examine the President's proposal to create a Department of Homeland Security.
Day three of a four day conference titled "INET 2002: Internet Crossroads: Where Technology and Policy Intersect". See, conference information page. Location: Crystal Gateway Marriott, Arlington, VA.
The FCC's Technological Advisory Council will hold a meeting. Location: FCC, 445 12th St., SW., Room TW-C305.
8:30 - 9:30 AM. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will host a breakfast. The speaker will be Nick Calio, Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs. Webcast. Location: 1615 H Street, NW.
1:00 PM. The FCC will hold a meeting to receive input from industry and other affected parties on proposals to reform the FCC's universal service contribution methodology. See, notice [PDF]. Location: FCC, Room TW-C305, 445 12th Street, SW.
1:30 - 3:30 PM. The U.S. International Telecommunication Advisory Committee Telecommunication Advisory Committee Radiocommunication Sector (ITAC-R) will hold a meeting. The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Department of State on policy and technical issues with respect to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). This meeting will address activities of the Study Groups of the ITAC-R, preparations for the upcoming WRC-03 and guidelines for ITAC-R participation. See, notice in Federal Register. Location: Department of State, Room 1408.
Day four of a four day conference titled "INET 2002: Internet Crossroads: Where Technology and Policy Intersect". See, conference information page. Location: Crystal Gateway Marriott, Arlington, VA.
10:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and others will host an event titled "The Public Voice in Internet Policy Making". At 10:10, Paul Margie, Legal Advisor to FCC Commissioner Michael Copps will speak on "Privacy Challenges for Internet Users in Europe". Following Margie, Erika Mann, a Member of the European Parliament, will speak. See, agenda. RSVP to publicvoice02 @epic.org. For more information contact Sarah Andrews at andrews @epic.org. Location: Crystal Gateway Marriott, 1700 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
6/14. President Bush gave a speech at a Rick Perry for Governor of Texas reception in Houston, Texas. He stated that "This Congress needs to give me a trade bill so I can open up markets for Texas agricultural products, for high tech products. Listen, if you're good at something -- and we're good at a lot of things when it comes to our economy -- we ought to be selling them to people around the world. This country ought to be feeding the people of the world. I need trade promotion authority from the United States Congress for the good of the job creation."
6/14. The Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), which was formerly known as the Bureau of Export Adminstration (BXA), published a notice in the Federal Register "red flagging" nine companies located in the People's Republic of China, and one each in Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates. The unverified list includes several electronics and communications companies.
The BIS conducts pre-license checks (PLC) and post shipment verifications (PSV) on certain export transactions. The notice in the Federal Register lists 11 companies that were parties to past transactions where PLCs or PSVs could not be conducted for reasons outside the control of the U.S. The notice "advises exporters that the involvement of a listed person as a party to a proposed transaction constitutes a ``red flag�� as described in the guidance set forth in Supplement No. 3 to 15 CFR part 732. Under that guidance, the ``red flag�� requires heightened scrutiny by the exporter before proceeding with a transaction in which a listed person is a party."
The notice is effective as of June 14, 2002. See, Federal Register, June 14, 2002, Vol. 67, No. 115, at Pages 40910 - 40911. See also, BIS release.
6/14. President Bush signed S 1372, the Export Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2002, a bill that extends the operations of the Export Import Bank through September 2006. See, White House release and release of House Financial Services Committee.
6/14. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published the June 2002 issue of the USPTO Pulse in its web site.
6/14. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announced that it has added the one millionth DNA profile to the National DNA Index System (NDIS). See, FBI release.
6/12. The Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC), the Small Business Administration (SBA), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced that they signed an agreement to provide assistance to small businesses pertaining to computer and information security. This assistance includes workshops in Washington DC (July 11), San Francisco (August 2), and Chicago (September 26). See, NIPC release.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.