The IETF & The new Telecommunications ACT

Joel Halpern <jhalpern@us.newbridge.com> Tue, 19 March 1996 22:47 UTC

Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25820; 19 Mar 96 17:47 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25816; 19 Mar 96 17:47 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13996; 19 Mar 96 17:47 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25807; 19 Mar 96 17:47 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25803; 19 Mar 96 17:47 EST
Received: from ns.newbridge.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13991; 19 Mar 96 17:47 EST
Received: (from adm@localhost) by ns.newbridge.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA10713 for <iesg@cnri.reston.va.us>; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 17:47:09 -0500
Received: from portero(192.75.23.66) by ns via smap (V1.3) id sma010665; Tue Mar 19 17:46:55 1996
Received: from mako.us.Newbridge.com (mako.us.newbridge.com [138.120.85.99]) by kanmaster (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA13784 for <iesg@cnri.reston.va.us>; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 17:46:54 -0500
Received: from lobster.newbridge by mako.us.Newbridge.com (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA10282; Tue, 19 Mar 96 17:38:11 EST
Received: by lobster.newbridge (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA08229; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 17:45:15 +0500
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 17:45:15 +0500
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Joel Halpern <jhalpern@us.newbridge.com>
Message-Id: <9603192245.AA08229@lobster.newbridge>
To: iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Subject: The IETF & The new Telecommunications ACT
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1127

I was speaking to George Dobrowski (ATM Forum TC Chair).  He is down here
because the ATM Forum lawyers informed him that there is language in the
new Telecommunications bell (yes, the same one with the "decency" provisions)
which could relate to the ATM Forum activities.
From his description to me, it could also relate to the IETF.

1) There is a section (242 or 243 according to George's memory) of the
   bill which specifically applies to non-sanctioned standards groups.
   There apparently also is language about standards groups whose members
    "control" more than 30% of the "access lines".  Whether either category
   includes the IETF I do not know.
2) From what he said, the bill gives participants in such groups the right
   to appeal "standards" decisions to the FCC.
3) Apparently, the FCC is engaged in rule-making right now to comply with
   the requirements of the bill.  The public comment period ends April 2.

It seems to me that we should find out if this relates to us.
Scott, is there some lawyer you can ask about this?

Thank you,
Joel M. Halpern				jhalpern@newbridge.com
Newbridge Networks Inc.