UNITED STATES ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE NATIONAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE December 6, 1994 The meeting was convened, pursuant to notice, MESSRS. ED MC CRACKEN and DELANO LEWIS, CO-CHAIRS, presiding. APPEARANCES: MR. ED McCRACKEN President and Chief Executive Officer Silicon Graphics, Inc. MR. DELANO E. LEWIS President and Chief Executive Officer National Public Radio DR. TONI CARBO BEARMAN Dean and Professor School of Library and Information Science University of Pittsburgh MS. MARILYN BERGMAN President ASCAP MS. BONNIE L. BRACEY Teacher Ashlawn Elementary School Arlington County Public Schools MR. JOHN F. COOKE President The Disney Channel MS. ESTHER DYSON President EDventure Holdings, Inc. MR. WILLIAM C. FERGUSON Chairman and Chief Executive Officer NYNEX Corporation DR. CRAIG I. FIELDS MR. JACK FISHMAN Publisher, Citizen-Tribune MS. LYNN FORESTER President and Chief Executive Officer FirstMark Holdings, Inc. HONORABLE CAROL FUKUNAGA Senator State of Hawaii MR. JACK GOLODNER President Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO MR. EDUARDO L. GOMEZ President and General Manager KABQ Radio MR. HAYNES G. GRIFFIN President and Chief Executive Officer Bellcore MS. LA DONNA HARRIS President American for Indian Opportunity MS. SUSAN HERMAN General Manager Department of Telecommunications City of Los Angeles MR. JAMES R. HOUGHTON Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Corning Incorporated MR. STANLEY S. HUBBARD Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Hubbard Broadcasting MR. ROBERT L. JOHNSON President Black Entertainment Television DR. ROBERT E. KAHN President Corporation for National Research Initiatives MS. DEBORAH KAPLAN Vice President World Institute on Disability MR. ALEX J. MANDL Executive Vice President, AT&T and Chief Executive Officer, Communications Service Group DR. NATHAN P. MYHRVOLD Senior Vice President, Advanced Technology Microsoft Corporation MR. N. M. (Mac) NORTON, JR. Attorney-at-Law Wright, Lindsey & Jennings MR. VANCE K. OPPERMAN President West Publishing Company MS. JANE SMITH PATTERSON Advisor to the Governor of North Carolina for Policy, Budget and Technology State of North Carolina MS. FRANCES W. PRESTON President and Chief Executive Officer Broadcast Music Incorporated MR. BERT C. ROBERTS, JR. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer MCI Communications Corp. MR. JOHN SCULLEY Former Chairman Apple Computers, Inc. MS. JOAN H. SMITH Chairman Oregon Public Utility Commission MR. JACK VALENTI Chief Executive Officer and President Motion Picture Association of America P R O C E E D I N G S CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Good morning. Why don't we all take our seats so we can begin our meeting. (Pause) CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Good morning. Welcome to our Advisory Council National Information Infrastructure, our December 6, 1994 meeting. First of all, we have almost a full compliment of our advisory council. So it's great to see everyone. I'm sorry that we're a little crowded and some are on the fringes, but we're all together and I'm pleased to see everyone. First of all, before we begin and my opening remarks, I'd just like to mention thank you for last night. Thanks to all those folks who worked on our dinner at the National Archives and our host, the national archivist. It was a wonderful evening. And to Jim Fallows, our speaker, who challenged us, as a council to do some things reasonably for the future. And it was a great evening. So thank you for all your participation. I would just like to cover, as we begin a very important agenda today, some meeting procedures, but before I do, Ed might like to have some opening remarks. Ed? CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: I'd just like to add my welcome to everyone and thanks for making it a priority to be here. I know it's a busy time in all of our lives right, and it's great to see so many of us actively working. Also, thanks for the tremendous staff contribution that you people have made between this meeting and the last meeting. I think it's been really nice to see the involvement. Thanks. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Thank you, Ed. And I will also add my thanks to the staff. Each of us has a staff person or two working, and they're really coming together, and I think helped our mega projects iron out some things and really make us more efficient. So thank you so much. And to the mega project co-chairs and to the mega project committees, thank you very much for a lot of hard work between our meetings. I think it will be evident today, as we go through the agenda, that there has been a great deal of work and a great deal of consensus building and compromises and coming through with a final product. So thank you very much. In that light, I'd just like to highlight some meeting procedures, since I think it's important that we understand and agree on how we ought to proceed, because there has been some feedback to us that I'm not about votes, or not sure about procedure, or just how things should go. So bear with me as I run down some of these. And if you have any questions, just raise your hand and let me hear from you. Unless specifically requested by the council co-chair, no other person other than a council member may address the council, and some of these we've covered before. To the greatest extent possible, council approval or disapproval should be by consensus, and that's been the co-chair's strong recommendation, that this group is bonding together and making decisions together. And where appropriate, we'll take votes, and I'll cover that in a minute. But most of our decisions, we hope, will be by consensus. When consensus cannot be achieved, the council co-chairs may conduct a vote of the members on the issue or item. A simple majority will determine the outcome of each vote. No member may vote by proxy. So you have to be here and present. Voting will be by a show of hands, and the designated federal officer will record the vote. So we won't be as formal as secret ballots, unless someone protests. It will be by a show of hands. Items adopted by the council become council matters. Revision or reconsideration of a council approved matter will be by the council, acting through the council co-chairs. The council's adoption of an item does not give the council co-chairs authority over related matters not considered by the council. So if you delegate us, once it's a council matter, to move it forward, we will not move on things that you have not had for consideration. And just quickly, two more items. If there are additional language changes -- first of all, if we have a discussion of an item, and we agree on it on principle, but we haven't really dealt with the specific language change, we hope that you could delegate this task to the council co-chairs, for the sake of time. And it may require, however, if it's substantive, subsequent council consideration approval of the language. So what we're asking for here, say we've agreed on principle, there's been a consensus, but if there's language changes that have not been set out, then you would delegate that to the co-chairs, and we'll move it forward. However, if it's more substantive, we'll bring it back. So this ninth point is, to the greatest extent possible, specific language revision should be agreed upon at the council meetings, and I think we've done that. We've done that in our mega projects, and we've done that outside this group. And if there are additional language changes, I hope you will bring those specific language changes to the council, and that will save us some time. The last point, if a council approved document is revised to achieve stylistic uniformity or to include contextual material, and this is a more futuristic issue, the document will be circulated by the full council for approval. There's some discussion that we're going to need a writer and editor to put all these pieces together, and that's more for style and for context, but if there's any substantive change, it will be back before the council. But generally, we're talking about how we're going to edit and put it together. The last point, to the greatest extent possible, council members should reflect a consensus of the council, rather than majority or minority views. We've talked about that. If the articulation of minority views is necessary to reflect the sense of the council, the council co-chairs might invite members in the minority, on a specific matter, to draft a statement of their views on the matter. But generally speaking, we'll try to move by consensus, but if there's a minority view, we'll ask you to help draft that minority view. Any questions? Comments, say on something that's liveable and workable? (No response.) CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Thank you very much. That was easy. Thanks. Ed? CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: The next thing we'd like to do today is to spend some time on our response to the request from Secretary Brown, who assessed the Administration's progress on the National Information Infrastructure, and he offered suggestions to carry the agenda forward in the future. I had a chance to discuss that briefly at the last meeting, we've had a chance to discuss it, with a lot of staff work in between the last meeting and this meeting. We just passed out the latest draft of a document here that we'd like to move toward approval today. This is draft number seven. Do you all have this draft that was just handed out to you this morning? If not, we'll make sure that you have one. Do you all have it, draft number seven? Before we discuss it in general, I wanted to talk about a change that I requested yesterday on it. Del and I had a meeting yesterday afternoon, and we looked at this document, and we thought the work on it was very good. As you know here, we bring out the fact that the Administration's efforts have been positive and noteworthy in many ways, and then we talk about a number of new directions and priorities. And with all the work involved, the new direction and priorities is a very long list. And in the end, it seemed to me like we were a little bit in danger of having it appear that this council felt that the Administration was not doing the right things on the National Information Infrastructure in total, and I know that all of you agree with me that the NII is an important priority of the country. The Administration is to be commended, I think, for turning it into a major priority. So I ask that the conclusion be rewritten last night to make it a little more positive, in terms of -- to balance a little bit the -- all those issues we brought out, all of which are good, and all of which, I think, I agree with. So the main rewrite between draft six, and I think most of you have seen draft seven, is the conclusion, which again, just says, as you see here: "We hope these observations and objections are taking into context of our strong endorsement of the Administration's outstanding record on the NII. Your national and international leadership envision have been an outstanding contribution to the progress of the NII to improve a quality of life at home, work and in our schools. We're glad to be given the opportunity to offer our comments to you as you formulate your NII priorities for 1995." "In summation, we applaud you in your track record in moving the NII forward. We're available to elaborate on any of these items in more detail. We commend you for the noteworthy progress you've made to date and look forward to working with you in the months ahead. We hope you call upon us." I hope that's not -- that's okay with the council. Other than, there are just a few minor word changes. Any comments on the document in total? Yes? JACK: Yeah, Ed. Good morning. Thank you very much. Ed, I note in the mega project one principles, which will be coming before us later, there's reference to a need to a need for work training, education, adaptation mechanisms for existing workers and those who will be brought into the work force because of the major changes that will be occurring as a result of the NII. And I must say I'm surprised I don't see any reference to that here because I think it's been mentioned in the press about the need to address the questions of displacement, as well as employment, and I think there's a need for the government to take a look at both sides of the equation. Yes, there will be jobs created, but there also will be many jobs eliminated. There's a story in the Washington Post just recently, which I'll quote it briefly. It says, "It comes as a surprise to many who believe in endless opportunities in anything remotely connected with cyberspace," that jobs will decline in professional and especially occupations, by 122,000 for computer and peripheral equipment operators. This is a news story reporting on a recent Bureau of Labor statistics analysis. I think more has to be done, and I think we ought to call attention to that, as to where the human resources are going to come from in supporting this NII, how they will be trained, how they will be re-trained, when necessary, and how they will be taken care of if they're displaced. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Your proposal would be that we -- JACK: Just add a paragraph. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: -- if we add a paragraph or a bullet plan under our new directions and priorities talking about the need for work training, adaption to the -- to re-training to relate to the displacement issues associated -- JACK: A social study as to the needs for it where they exist. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Is there any comment from others on the council on that particular point? Bonnie? MS. BRACEY: I'm sure that everybody in the council and mega project one have heard me often speak of the fact that in education, training is the thing that causes most people not to be involved and use the technology. So I agree with Jack. If we have political permission to go ahead with training and kind of a drive, then that will let people know that we're really serious about teachers and people in education getting involved in the information highway. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Any other comments on Jack's point? Yes, Esther? MS. DYSON: Yes. I guess I'd just like to stress the issue is much broader and vaguer than that. It's not an issue of training to people to use computers, but the issue of dislocation of employees and training people for entirely new kinds of careers, and it doesn't mean a government training program. It means assessing the need for other forms of lifelong learning, to use a buzz word. MS. BRACEY: I agree with that, sir, but I have a concern that if we don't address the training, lifelong learning may not take place. A lot of you know that in education, the first time we got technology, we did not address the training part. And yes, I do know it's part of the bigger picture, but the bigger picture has to start somewhere, and we'd like it to start in the schools. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Any other comments on Jack's point? VOICE: Mr. Chairman, could we ask people to speak right into the microphone, because we can't hear them very well. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: It is a hearing issue, so let's use the microphones if we can. Other issues on Jack's point? JACK: If I can elaborate. I think, at this point, a recommendation that the Administration conduct some studies as to the human resource affects of the NII that would be sufficient because we can't prejudge yet what kind of programs are necessary until we've sized up the problem. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: The proposal is to add a bullet point, which would be to ask the Administration or propose to the Administration that they conduct a study of the human resources impacts of the National Information Infrastructure and take appropriate action. Are there any disagreement with that? VOICE: I want to see the language on that. That's awfully loaded. So let's see how it's worded before we arbitrarily say yes. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Please use the microphone. VOICE: I would like to see somebody take a crack at the language and either read or distribute it, if we're going to do -- if we're going to work on this letter. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: How about we recommend that the Administration undertake a study to determine the human resources impacts of the National Information Infrastructure, period? Want me to repeat that? We recommend that the Administration undertake a study to determine the human resources impacts of the National Information Infrastructure. VOICE: Ed, I agree with the principle. I think that's so broad. I would think that we need some language to go along with it or some thoughts to go along with it if -- and education can be such a broad issue. And in our mega group, mega project two, where we talked about extending -- including in the network early on, schools, libraries, public institutions, etcetera, we've talked about the need to not just do the wiring, but to educate those who will be using, who can train, who can help, who can facilitate. And so, in addition to job displacement, re- training of workers, all of that kind of thing -- and by the way, I do think Secretary Reisch has spoken out on that, and I think has done a pretty good job of speaking out on it. So it's not all a brand new issue for the Administration. So if we're concerned about giving them some credit for something, I think, properly, the Secretary should get some credit there. I'm in agreement with the issue. It's just very broad. And I think to put just a single sentence in, it needs some supporting words and language with it. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Other comments? (No response.) CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Yeah. One attempt at additional words would be something like: "We recommend that the Administration undertake a study to determine the human resources impact of the NII, determine the degree of which worker training and lifelong learning will be needed to support its development." Any comments? Is that still just as broad? VOICE: It's broad, but it's better. VOICE: Could you read that again? CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: "We recommend that the Administration undertake a study to determine the human resources impact of the NII, and determine the degree of which worker training and lifelong learning will be needed to support its development." Yes, Esther? MS. DYSON: I know we're trying to get through this this morning, but in order to make it parallel and to do the polite thing and so forth, we might, in fact, want to mention, you know, "Secretary Reisch has noted the issue of changing style of work that's going to be necessary. We recommend that...and then continue with -- just put a little preamble to recognize that this has already been addressed, but to support a specific study of the NII's impact on it. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Ed, we also must keep in mind -- Ed? We also must keep in mind that this has to be in context with the rest of the letter, and the rest of the letter has bullet points of some significance, but it's not really elaborated upon. They are very succinct kind of bullet points in the letter, and I would think that the one or two paragraph sentences that we've talked about ought to do it. I don't know if we can -- to make it consistent with the rest of the letter, I'm not so sure we want to get so specific that it doesn't fit with the letter. That's all I'm saying. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: It seems like we could put something in here that's kind of parallel on evaluating costs and financing. "The council feels strongly that the Administration needs to place a much higher priority on the real cost of various aspects of the NII proposals. In addition, it must place more emphasis on developing appropriate proposals for funding." That's a pretty short, succinct general statement here that I think we all agree with. VOICE: Two sentences, I think, can do it. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Pardon? VOICE: It's two sentences, and I agree. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Right. Can we try those two sentences again. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: "We recommend that the Administration undertake a study to determine the human resources impacts of the NII, determine the degree of which worker training and lifelong learning will be needed to support its development." CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Mr. Chairman, this might be an instance where if we have this agreement in principle, they might delegate it to us to round it, and we could go. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Yes. VOICE: Probably two sentences there that could be used. "Included within the study" should be. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: I think I'd recognize some of the sensitivities involved, however. Burt asked us earlier to really pay attention to the words here. Do you have any additional comments, Bert? MR. ROBERTS: The only thing I was hesitating on, I like the broader thing a little bit better, I think, because it may mean more flexibility. But I would hate to see this council recommend to the government that they do a study on anything. (Laughter) VOICE: What did he say? MR. ROBERTS: There's a lot of other effort -- VOICE: We can't hear what you're saying. Bert, we can't hear what you're saying. VOICE: Use the microphone. They didn't hear you on the other end. MR. ROBERTS: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm saying that it ought to be recognized that there is a lot of other activity going on with respect to job training and impact on work force, which will overlap this. I mean, Jamie is involved in a piece of it, the National Alliance of Business, and I guess if you use the word "conduct a study" broadly, meaning going to other sources, I suppose that's okay. VOICE: How about place the priority instead of do a study? MR. ROBERTS: Nowhere else in this letter are we making, unless I missed something -- we are giving them in guidance, but I think nowhere else in this letter are we making a specific recommendation to "to do something." VOICE: How about the phrase "place a priority" rather do a study? VOICE: Yeah, that's fine. VOICE: But you could give us -- I think we have the idea there. We'll try to draft something up that fits that. VOICE: Do you want to take one more pass at it? CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: "We recommend that the Administration place a high priority on the human resources impacts of the NII. We also hope the Administration will explore the degree to which worker training and lifelong learning will be needed to support its development." VOICE: Good. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: So with that, are there other comments on other issues associated with the document? (No response.) CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: If not -- VOICE: The one issue that's not addressed by this is the question of minority participation in the economic aspects of the NII, and I think it would be appropriate, particularly with this Administration and this Secretary of Commerce, that we ask that the Administration seek to implement, to the best extent possible, procurement programs that will increase economic opportunities for minorities to participate in the economic development of the NII. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Any comments on Bob's suggestion here? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: I was saying to Ed that maybe this could fit, Bob, but with a sort of an extended people section of the letter, which would include the training, re-training, lifelong learning and minority participation in the NII. It really gets to the human resource issue question. BOB: Well, Del, I'm looking at it more on a economic issue of -- VOICE: Jobs. BOB: -- entrepreneurship, ownership, wealth generation kind of an issue, rather than human resources. It's more -- as they're doing now with the upcoming PCS auction, you know, creating spectrum opportunities where minorities are given an incentive to bidding credits to acquire the technology. I think this is the approach I'm talking about, something specifically designed to see that perhaps in the new technologies. Minorities will be owners of technology, as well as users of technology. VOICE: I would just say, if that is added, I think it should also be women in minorities, in the same way that the Administration does. VOICE: I would concur with that, too. VOICE: I wouldn't object. VOICE: I'm unclear, when we talk about procurement for the NII, what we're talking about, because I wasn't under the assumption that government was going to build the NII. VOICE: Well, the government probably will not build it, but the government will acquire significant technology for its own usage. VOICE: Well, if we're talking about what the government purchases for its own use, then certainly there should be minority representation, as well as others. I agree with that. VOICE: Well, that, and I think also in the awarding of spectrum that will be used by various private companies in the new technology. I think there are number of ways that -- and also requiring that companies that get benefits from the spectrum have a minority procurement obligation at some level to utilize minority firms in the construction of the NII component. It's a pretty broad emphasis on minority participation. VOICE: The mega project two, I believe, has as one of its principles a very strong statement here that supports your point. "Commercial and competitive forces should be the driving force behind the NII. The Federal, State and local government's role is to insure access, regardless of geography, to assure minimal levels of service, to insure inner-operability of the NII and to encourage women and minority owned business, as well as small business to participate in the NII. Individuals with disabilities should have access to the NII." The issue, I think, on the table is whether we bring that from the mega project two principles up into this letter to Secretary Brown, in terms of our assessing their progress on the NII to date. MS. DYSON: I think it's fine to mention it, but in the same way we mentioned human resources. I think it should be a priority. I really don't want to get into suggestions about procurement and this kind of thing and the other kind of thing for women or minorities. But simply noting that participation of women and minorities is a good thing, and the government should pay attention to it, I think it's fine. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Other comments? Bert? MR. ROBERTS: I would recommend that we not use this letter to Secretary Brown to be the complete draft report that we're turning in. We've got another year's work, and at least with reference to the item on the table, I do look at it as something that our mega group is going to have to bring out in some detail. We did put the time in principle number two, but I would hate -- I mean, give the panel a chance or give the advisory council a chance to work through some of these issues and make more specific recommendations and leave the Secretary Brown response to what he asked be, I think, in the same general form that we have would be my recommendation. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Other comments? Yes? VOICE: I think I agree with Bert. It seems like, as several people have mentioned, the Administration has really already taken a lot of these things into account -- started this yesterday. And if anything, rather than putting that in the things that they ought to do, that would have belonged in the things that they have done. But despite that, I'm not sure that it really is necessary to add it to this letter because it is -- it does seem to be part of the fabric of the job that we're doing with the final report. MS. DYSON: Although I think it would fit in the noteworthy progress. I mean, it is an initiative that the Administration has gone ahead with, and they have pursued pretty diligently. And I think if we're talking about progress in the area of telecommunications, I think a sentence or a reference is not a bad idea. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yeah. I would concur, and I would suggest that maybe we put it in the section for one liner on those things that the government is already doing, and we could encourage them to do more. Under government and technology use, "Your Administration has found innovative ways to use NII technology to improve the function of government." That may not be the section. We've listed some things that they've done, the visions they've had. Maybe we can add one line on minority and women participation and ask that they continue. I think that Bob's point, and I think Bert's point and others are also valuable, but I'd hate for us to be remiss by it not being there. If it be an omission that is a signal, that's a concern. So I agree that maybe we shouldn't go too far because mega project two is going to add more, but an omission of this might be a mistake. MR. GROSS: Ed, I hesitate to enter into this issue, but some of us feel strongly about it. When you start any language which is group specific, you raise some other difficulties. For example, many people would say that if you want to specify communities by gender or minority status, you should also specify communities by effectual preference. Others will argue that you should also specify communities by religious background, and there are a variety of difficulties with doing that. It seems to me what we're really talking about -- and there's a philosophical difference between these approaches. But it seems to me what we're talking about is to put an emphasis on inclusion of all Americans, and to make sure that whatever programs are adopted, procurement or development or spectrum allocation, that no group of Americans is left out or is somehow mistreated. The use of the phrase "all Americans" is much more inclusive, and I'm going to raise this again when we talk about item three in the report from mega project two, and I have some deep philosophical views on it. But it strikes me, frankly, when I read that language, as jarring because when you start to specify groups of necessity, you don't mention other groups, and that raises the exclusion issue rather than the inclusion issue. So at least I prefer language that specifies and underlies the inclusion of all Americans. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Let me suggest something that -- if you go to the bullet point on stimulating competition and speed deregulation, what if we just simply said, "The Administration should continue its efforts to get domestic telecommunications competition into regulation and legislation through Congress. In that context, the Administration should work closely with Congress to achieve the objective and increase competition." And what if we just stuck in the word "and diversity of ownership or participation, the establishment of regulatory parody, open access and continued deployment to advance the infrastructure." This is something that Congress and just about every telecommunication bill that I've seen come before, has addressed the issue of diversity of ownership and diversity of participation, and I think sticking it in there should work closely. Increase competition, diversity of ownership would go and solve the problem. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: So the -- on page three, the top of the fifth line, the sentence would read: "In that context, the Administration should work closely with Congress to achieve the objectives of increase competition, diversity of ownership, the establishment of regulatory parody, open access and continued deployment of an advanced infrastructure." Comments? (No response.) CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Any other comments on the document in total? (No response.) CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: If not, -- VOICE: Ed, I have one question. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Yes. VOICE: I thought the process for getting this letter out was extremely good. Everyone got advanced notice, we had many drafts that went back and forth, everybody had the chance to make comments. The draft was specific enough so the comments could be useful; it was done in a fairly short period of time. I'm not sure who deserves all the credit for that, but whatever that process was, I'd like you to keep it and replicate it. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Thank you. I think we can all take credit for it, all celebrate it. Why don't we assume that we approve it as is, unless there are other objections, by consensus, and we'll try to type of the final document and get it out to your for your information. So let's -- Del and I will get this off to the Secretary. Comments? (No response.) CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Great. Let's go on to the next agenda item. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Thank you. Just one comment, Vance. I think a lot of the credit goes to the staff of all of our offices. There are now to over 20 people working, they've had regular staff meetings--that's really facilitated the process--and I think it's going a long way to make us much more efficient. The next item has to do with discussion and adoption of the G-7 letter. And just a little prelude. I think that you all had a chance to participate in this as well. There was some discussion some time ago about global information infrastructure and what role this council would play in global issues, and it was the consensus of this group that there was a natural flow from what we're doing here with global issues. Obviously it's not all analogous, but there was certainly a nexus, and that this council wanted to be helpful as the global issues were being discussed. And as you know, there's a G-7 conference coming up in Brussels, and I think our participation could be helpful in shaping the issues. So we have another letter to the Secretary, which outlines some specific ideas about global infrastructure issues. Some of them relate -- obviously, many of them relate to the issues we're covering here, and there accessabilty, or whatever, to global issues. So what I'd like to do is, if you've had a chance to look at it, just to set the stage here without going over it paragraph-by-paragraph, but to find if you have any major disagreements or concerns or issues or even additions that you would like to add at this time. So the floor is open for discussion. VOICE: Del, I thought the letter was excellent, but I had one concern, and that's on page four, on the harmonization of legal regimes. It would seem to me we're speaking directly here with the G-7. The regime in Europe has a lot of residence with it across the different countries, and I would think the harmonizational laws and regulations would be more consistent with what we're trying to say. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: I don't think you'll get much debate on that. Excellent point. (Laughter) JACK: In our mega group, -- CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Before you move on, -- JACK: Oh, I'm sorry. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: -- can we just -- you said -- where would we make the change? Specifically to harmonization of laws and regulations? VOICE: And regulations. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Does that sound like it's worth the change? VOICE: What page? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Page four. It's underlined. Yeah. It says, "The harmonization of legal regimes consistent with United States nationals is an essential assessment development of the GII," and the point was that has connotations far beyond what we mean probably. VOICE: Good idea. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Is there a consensus? Thank you, Jack. Yes, Jack? JACK: In our mega project yesterday, there was a question raised about some word on page two, the second paragraph next to the last line. The subject -- the line begins subject, and t says, "Subject to the beliefs, resources and priorities -- we question the word "beliefs being -- CO-CHAIR LEWIS: I'm sorry. Where are you again, Jack? JACK: Page two, second paragraph. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Page two, second paragraph. JACK: The last sentence says, "Finally, while we recognize that universal service may be a desirable long term goal, it's obtainment must remain subject to the beliefs, resources and priorities of each country." I don't know what beliefs mean, and I think I expressed this sentiment in our mega group yesterday, too. We were puzzled by what we mean by the beliefs of people. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Jack's comment is -- if you read this, page two, second paragraph, the final sentence: "Finally, while we recognize that universal service may be a desirable long term goal, its obtainment must remain subject to the beliefs, resources and priorities of each country." And his question is what do we mean by beliefs. I'm going to ask, Jack, what would you substitute? Do you have any specific language? JACK: Cultures. VOICE: Cultures. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Are you just trying to find out what we mean? JACK: Again, why do we have to put anything. And I think I can see the relationship to resources and priorities. In other words, the ability of a country having -- does it have the resources to assure universal service. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: I think what we meant there was culture and tradition. In other words, consistent with culture, traditions of that country. That would, you know, affect their view of universal service. I think that's what the talk was. Yes, Esther? MS. DYSON: Which basically means that if a country has a cast system, and they don't think lower cast people should have access, we don't support that goal. And I'm not sure that that's what we mean to say. Or if they think women should be kept at home and not use computers or so forth. VOICE: Why don't we just leave it out. VOICE: Yeah. VOICE: Leave it out. VOICE: Yeah. Delete the word and don't replace it. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Which one? Beliefs? HEARING OFFICER: Beliefs. Yes. MS. DYSON: This is a goal. This is not saying that we're going to go legislate for other people. But I think as a goal, we don't -- in this case, we think maybe they should change their beliefs, but we're not going to say that. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: The proposal on the table is that we just drop that particular phrase. Just beliefs? MS. DYSON: The word. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: And say, "Subject to resources and priorities of each country?" Drop the word beliefs? VOICE: I think you need something in there, if not beliefs, that ties it to the word culture or something. I mean, we have sovereign nations around here. We've got issues that reflect -- VOICE: Well, couldn't it be those are priorities (INAUDIBLE). CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Say that again, Mac? MAC: The priorities could be a sufficient identification of its own. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Right. MAC: I think we've got it. VOICE: Right. I'll go along with that. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yes, Jack? JACK: Well, I think this letter is very fine, even as we discuss how we're going to frame it. The communique is being decided in Brussels right now, and many of you are as equally knowledgeable about what's going on as I am. But two countries, particularly, are fighting very strenuously to be allowed to put up barricades, battlement, restrictions, hedgerows of all kinds, in order to restrict the entry of American intellectual property into their countries. I think that we ought to make it absolutely clear and underline, and in capital letters if we have to, that we ought not cave in when that communique is written to make it soft and flaccid and even feckless, the result to achieve "harmonization" of a meeting. And some of our colleagues in that meeting are going to hang tough and play it very rough around the edges, and I hope that we don't, in an effort to be conciliatory, crater at the last minute. I would like to see this thing even stronger. I think it's fine, but it's -- you're asking too many things. I think the main goal we ought to be attending to here is the free flow of ideas and art around the world. And I can tell you, from first experience, we are fighting barbed wire, wire that's going up in Europe right now, and that's going to be one of the singular sensitive, combustible issues in this G-7 summit, and sometimes I'm not sure the U.S. has any stomach for that kind of fight. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Thank you very much, Jack. Two points. One is that on page three, which is the second paragraph, the staff -- your staff, Jack, offered some language, on your behalf, which to get at that issue. To extent there are limitations on market assets derived and (INAUDIBLE) -- VOICE: You said page two? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Three, the second paragraph, beginning with "to the extent." To the extent there are limitations on market access derived from cultural or other domestic public interest considerations, the G-7 member countries should pursue ways to accommodate their concerns without merely denying or barring access to national markets. For instance, because of substantial transmission capacities that the GI is expected to offer, a country might reserve a portion of capacity -- VOICE: That's a sensitive sentence? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Right. VOICE: A portion? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Uh-huh. VOICE: In France, they believe 60 percent is a portion, and they knock out news and sports, and a variety of programs and talk shows, and what ends up, or the 60 percent applies to in a 24 hour day, is a minuscule amount of maybe 10 hours. It applies to American programs. VOICE: Right. VOICE: So the 60 percent becomes a de facto 80 percent, but the French believe that's a portion. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: The only other part of that I'll add, and I'm not argue, is that the last part of that sentence says, "Without effectively denying access to their markets or foreign programs." VOICE: We say we give you access and have (INAUDIBLE) 20 percent of the time. So it's wrong. It's a portion. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Your points are well taken. The question becomes how strong or stronger we want to make this language, given the impact here. We're not the G-7 council. We are NII giving some direction to the Administration on the global initiative. So the question is how far do we go. VOICE: Mr. Chairman, the future of American trade abroad is hanging on just such things. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Oh, I have no doubt it's -- VOICE: And I can certify to you that it cuts across the board at music, computer software, home video, television, books and film. And I think that if we don't take a stand here, that -- the NII is a delivery system. It's like a flatbed truck. It just carries merchandise, but the merchandise is what we create in this country. And so you may have the most wonderful NII the world has ever seen and globally established, but if you're pockmarked with detours and you're not welcome signs and a portion amounting to 80 to 90 percent of the time, what the hell is the good of a GII if you can't get it. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: I understand that. I have a question to you, Jack, and that is whether you want -- you have any specific language you want to add to this at this given time to make stronger. JACK: I will offer that before noon time. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: All right. And then I want to hear from others as to this issue? Vance? MR. OPPERMAN: I want to support Jack in his efforts to make the language much stronger for two reasons. In my industry, most of my industry is now owned by foreign companies. I don't enjoy, however, that same access overseas. Second, it seems to me the world was made finer by the developments in Eastern Europe. I don't think those developments were the result of money invested in Star Wars. I think they were caused by the Beatles and Led Zeppelin. I think they were caused by jeans, by the fax machine. I think that will -- (End side A tape 1.) VOICE: -- to flow freely. That's the most powerful force in the world. So I would be very pleased to encourage Jack on the strongest possible language? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Any other comments? Yes, Esther. And then Bob. MS. DYSON: We went over this at substantial length, I think, a couple of times, and we are not part of the negotiating team in the G-7. I think it's appropriate maybe to add some sentence of that, the importance of freedom or what have you, but I don't see this as the place where we directly attack the French. It's just not appropriate in this particular -- this letter. JACK: This should be (INAUDIBLE). CO-CHAIR LEWIS: All right. Let's talk to Bob. We'll come back to Jack. BOB: I won't attack the French. I'll attack the Canadians. The Canadians routinely deny access to cable programming services that they believe are threatening to their own particular programming content, and as a result of this, you have a country where you simply cannot deliver programs that we believe the audience is interested in to that market place, and neither NAFTA nor GATT has changed that particular position. So I concur absolutely with Jack, that if we're going to have this fantastic infrastructure that can reach international boundaries, it makes no sense to have it if you are -- if the product is stripped out in the process. People seldom buy infrastructure, they buy the product. So we're simply saying that the message should be loud and cleared that the technology should also be married with the opportunity to deliver the product and without government restriction. I mean, if you don't limit government restrictions, that will not take place. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Thank you, Bob. John Sculley. MR. SCULLEY: I agree strongly with what Jack and Vance Opperman have said. I think we shouldn't underestimate the impact that this advisory council can have, in terms of the negotiating position of our government, and I would like to see us take strong positions, otherwise, why are we an advisory council. So I would support the very well articulated position that Jack has outlined. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Thank you, John. Al? AL: Not to belabor it, but I also agree very strongly with both Jack and John. We have to be very cautious in the interest of consensus, that as we pursue the interest of consensus in trying to articulate a common vision that we don't water down, first principles to the point that it comes back to haunt us later. Jack is absolutely correct. We are in for an enormously difficult struggle trying to seek common ground on these issues, and if we don't come out of the starting gate with a very clear and ringing articulation of our belief, fundamentally in this issue, I think our task is hopeless. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Thank you, Al. Jack? JACK: Yes. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of Vance and Bob and John and Al, with regard to this issue. There are countries in the world, and France, of course, is important, but also because it plays such an important part in the developing European union, and they are influencing the entire European community with regard to this matter. Under the guise of cultural Germany, they're, in effect, raising trade barriers, which are empowerable and a violation, in fact, of the Declaration of Human Rights, which says that every person of the public has a right to read, hear, see whatever they wish from whatever source, regardless of boundaries. So these countries are moving directly in the face of a very basic humans right document. Not only with quotas, as Jack has mentioned, and various levies and tariffs, but also in manipulating their intellectual property laws so as to discriminate against American rights holders in their refusal to repatriate royalties and other money due Americans. It's a very important issue, it's very important in a number of fronts, and I would suggest that -- I hope that Jack can come up with some stronger language that we can all agree, but also that this council continue to monitor these negotiations. And perhaps we could -- at a future date, get a report back from Mickey Cantor and his people, after they come back from Brussels, and put them on the agenda of this council so we can hear their views. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: On those two points, one, Jack has agreed to work with our staff and to come up with some stronger language, and I think there seems to be a consensus that we consider that before we leave today. And it's important we get this out today. VOICE: Let me just add one thing, without trying to dominate. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Sure. VOICE: I think there ought to be some second context. The reason why this is important is we have two excursions end in futility. In the (INAUDIBLE), in the Canadian/U.S. Free Trade Agreement, at the very last minute, the Canadians hung tough and said, "We will not sign an agreement unless you exempt 'culture' from this agreement." And guess what? Under a Republican Administration we cave. Now, to show you how bipartisan this is, now we come to Geneva last December and the French said, "We're not going to sign this agreement. We will torpedo eight years of the Uruguay Round unless you expunge from this agreement any relationship to intellectual property of culture." And guess what? We caved again. So I'm saying to you, at some point, we've got to screw our (INAUDIBLE) to the sticky place and say this and no more, because if we don't, we're going to build the most wonderful global highway, except we won't -- we'll be traveling the back roads. And I believe this is crucial, I believe it is sensitive, I believe it is combustible, and we've got to take a stand and let our government understand we cannot allow this to happen a third time. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Thank you. Esther? MS. DYSON: I just want to say, one more time, I feel uncomfortable with the notion that we should become a lobbying organization for the interest of American intellectual property providers. I certainly understand these interests and concur with them. I don't think it's the job of a council to sound like their mouth piece. And so whatever language we come up with, I hope it also points out the importance of open and free discourse, access. It's not so much the access of us to sell them our stuff, but access, for example, of French citizens to get our stuff. And if we could catch it in those terms, I'd feel much more comfortable with it, both in terms of what I believe, in terms of what I think will be effective, in terms of what I think the proper role of this counsel is. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Thank you, Esther. Craig Fields? DR. FIELDS: Thank you. Esther, I think you ended on the right note. This is not, in my view, a matter of selling things. It's a matter of having the opportunity to sell things. And the fact is we have about a 4,000 year history of trying to promote free trade with a local transportation infrastructure, and with a series of compromises, we are not where we'd like to be. We're just at the very beginning of trying to promote trade of services, information services and information over a global information infrastructure, and if we start things wrong, it's going to be really much harder to fix later. So to me, the right way to revise this letter isn't to needle the French or needle the Canadians, but to simply, absolutely, strongly develop free trade and information services and information in the global information infrastructure without any compromise, without naming countries and without suggesting compromises. And then, if our negotiating team can't accomplish that goal, well, too bad. But at least we'll have stated the position as strongly as possible. VOICE: And Del, Esther made a very good point at the end, that the interest here is the public's right to access to information. It's not the provider's and information necessary to their right to sell and to communicate, but it's the right of the public to receive this information. DR. FIELDS: Jack, that wasn't the point I was seeking to make, nor the one I heard, but actually it doesn't matter, because they're both useful things. VOICE: I disagree. DR. FIELDS: I think that all countries -- the producers in all countries should have the right to sell globally in a free trade sense, just like we try to promote that for products, and independently and separately is the issue of public access to information. Both of those are worthy goals, and I don't think they should be confused. Incidentally, intellectual property protection is yet a third issue, but quite a separate one. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Any other comments? There's some language here that we might want to try at the end of the paragraph that Jack has said, you know, doesn't go far enough, the paragraph that I read, but we might add a phrase. "In the end, the Administration must work diligently to bring down barriers to foreign goods and services." We're looking for a sentence that states clearly that we want to bring down barriers and establish free trade, we can add a sentence. If that's not the sentence, maybe we can polish it up. VOICE: I'd like to have a chance to offer some language. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Sounds good. Sounds fine with me. VOICE: Del, bring down barriers to what? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: To foreign goods and services. VOICE: Foreign goods and services. VOICE: Is that the -- VOICE: We'll have to play with it first. Yes. MS. DYSON: When you're drafting the language, would you please make sure that we separate the idea of reserving a portion of capacity for the endogenous programming from the notion of providing a portion for public interest programming. I think those two should not be mixed up within that concept. They're very important, very different issues. And may I move on to another topic of intellectual property? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Let's make sure we complete this one first. Any other points of view here? There seems to be a consensus for stronger language on bringing down barriers and free trade. It was not strong enough for a number of you here. There's also some thought about balance here and not making this -- we're not the G-7 negotiators, but giving some guidance to the Administration and some balance here about our role. That has been expressed. But seemingly, to sum it up, some language might be added to make that position stronger from the beginning, which will certainly set the stage for the future. That seems to be the consensus, doesn't it? MS. DYSON: Yes. VOICE: I don't understand what your language is adding that's not already there on page three, the last sentence of the first paragraph. That sentence was intended -- Jack, I appreciate your comments, but -- VOICE: Excuse me. Where are you? VOICE: The top of the page three, last sentence. If you're talking about trade barriers, that sentence was meant to take into consideration those issues. If you're talking about intellectual property and issues involved there, then I think we're talking about something different. But trade barriers, we were talking about procurement decisions should be open, transparent, pro- competitive, non-discriminatory, based solely (INAUDIBLE). it was a positive way of saying to break through those trade barriers. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: There's a point of view expressed that some language is here, Jack, at least to get to the trade barrier issue. VOICE: Are we talking here about a global -- we're talking about a global computer optic fibre, some kind of a network. It's not going to deliver automobiles, and it's not going to deliver washing machines. It's going to deliver intellectual property. It's going to deliver information, education, entertainment, news, etcetera, etcetera. Is that right? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Correct. VOICE: Okay. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yes, Craig? DR. FIELDS: I think the effect can be accomplished by completing the second paragraph, because that's the dilution. The first one just states the principle sort of in a clear and straightforward manner, -- VOICE: Right. DR. FIELDS: -- an then we suddenly put on the hat we shouldn't be wearing as negotiator and suggest ways to compromise the principle, and that would be my (INAUDIBLE) suggestion. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Your suggestion is that the paragraph leading -- starting out "to the extent there are limitations?" DR. FIELDS: Yes. That's a dilution of the principle, and it's our acting as a negotiator, both of which I think are wrong. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: And you think the first paragraph does what should be done? DR. FIELDS: It does it for me. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Well, Jack feels he wants to add some language. JACK: Well, I -- rather than try to -- I don't know about anybody else, I've never been able to see a letter written by a committee in my life -- CO-CHAIR LEWIS: We're trying. JACK: -- as you've done here. I just want to submit you some language, and then you can decide whether you like or not. That's all. VOICE: Well, weren't you on the conference call, Jack? I mean, it's not like we're looking at this for the first time. This thing has been reiterated about five or six times. The intellectual property issue came to, I think, a head. Is there something on the last conference call that we all agreed to on this? Was there language that was rejected? I'm missing some point here. This is an issue that's been aired, it's been talked through. If we're talking about the need for the Administration to take a stronger position with intellectual property, maybe we need to get a sentence in there to that effect. But this has got to be a balanced letter, crossing a myriad of topics, and we can't overstate certain issues. The point was, I thought, at the end of the last conference call -- I thought the staff did an excellent job of putting in the comments that came up during the conference call. Now, was something rejected? Or we've got new content here? Or what? We can word smith this stuff forever. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yes, Marilyn? MS. BERGMAN: May I suggest that we just wait and see what language Mr. Valenti has to present to us? I think the issue goes to the heart of the matter, and we can accept or reject or modify the language. But I personally would like to hear what -- MR. VALENTI: I think -- I think -- Marilyn, thank you for your point, but I don't intend to restructure this thing. I'm talking about some minor -- well, very small changes. I think Mr. Fields' point is absolutely correct, and that is that paragraph two, the extent to me is watery, and it just opens a big gate to what the Canadians and the French are doing. As a matter of fact, since that conference call, events have overtaken us. We are now being to understand what the French and Canadian position is on the communique. VOICE: Since Friday? MR. VALENTI: I beg your pardon? VOICE: Since Friday? MR. VALENTI: Absolutely. VOICE: Yes. MR. VALENTI: In the last three days. VOICE: Things move fast, Jack. MR. VALENTI: In the last three days. Our information is coming right from the Canadians and from the French, from Europe and Brussels, and the Canadians are hanging very tough and so are the French, and therefore, I think we ought to make sure that this letter is as strong as we possibly can make it without trying to be negotiator. Somebody used the word "first principles," and that to me is what we ought -- that's the rostrum on which we should stand. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Let me make a suggestion. I think I've heard the comments and understand them. I am concerned about our role, I'm concerned about how we position ourselves as an advisory council, and I'm also concerned the fact that we do have some authority here, and we can make a difference. I think that's why we all signed up. But at the same time, I think this letter has been gone over many times by many people, and we do want to strike a balance. I've heard, and I think Jack Valenti, who's made strong points here, concurs. Why don't you leave it to us to come back to you before the end of the day with Jack's language. And Ed and I and the staff will take a look at it in relationship to the paragraphs that we have, whether we drop paragraph two that says, "to the extent." There seems to be some consensus to do that, and maybe add a sentence or two, given Jack's language, to the first paragraph. But somehow, with Jack's language, I think we can -- and the staff and Ed and myself, we'll come up with an approach. I think I've heard you loud and clear, that we do have an opportunity to state a position, but we want to maintain some balance. So we'll get Jack's language and take a look at it and see how we can relate, because the letter has a balance to it, and many of you have worked hard on it, and we'll try to make it consistent. Ed? CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: One of the strong suggestions is to drop paragraph two here. I wanted to get a feeling from the group of the opposite point of view relevant to paragraph two. There's some reason why it's there. Are there any comments from anyone on the council on that? VOICE: It was there specifically -- and again, this isn't my axe to grind on this, but at least I was listening to the calls and reading the letters. it was there specifically to support what Jack is saying. VOICE: That's correct. VOICE: That's what I don't understand. I mean, Jack, it was there for you. We've got to have interactions on these things prior to these meetings, and this thing was really worked. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: I think Bert is absolutely correct. It's my understanding that it's Jack's staff that introduced paragraph two, and it was to reflect his strong views, and so that point is well taken. VOICE: Del, I think thought that's all the more reason why. Obviously we were trying to accommodate Jack's views, and we didn't succeed. So I think it's consistent to say, "Okay. Jack, what did we do wrong," and maybe he can suggest something better. I don't think anything to be lost by that. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: I agree. I mean, but we have to keep in mind our timing, we have to keep in mind our process here, and if we continue to keep drafting and redrafting, we're not going to make decisions. So we're going to be as sensible and reasonable as we can in response to our council members, and we have to keep our time in mind. So I think -- Ed, do you have anything else? CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: In looking through the very comments here, I think they're all at the right level basically, and the text that goes along with the intellectual property rights one, I have no problem either, but the title of it, it seems to me, is restrictive. And it seems to me that you really want to protect intellectual property rights, period, whether they're the ones that are transmitted or the ones that are used. There are a variety of things that you can do, and transmitting them is only one thing that you can do. So I would like to see the title, not the text, just be broadened to say intellectual property rights in the GII must be assured and not -- CO-CHAIR LEWIS: What would you do with the language? Just drop transmit it? Or -- VOICE: Just delete the transmitted. Or if people wanted that thing, including those transmitted. But I think that's the subset of what you want to protect. VOICE: And then change the word to (INAUDIBLE). CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Insured? We could just say, "Intellectual property rights, via the GII, must be assured -- insured." VOICE: Insured. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: I think we can do that. And again, I wanted to add that when you talk about discussion, intellectual property is in this paragraph and very specifically done with that purpose. And you're fine with that? We'll just take out transmitted. VOICE: It's in two places. It's in the (INAUDIBLE). CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Okay. Now, Toni wanted to go to another item. DR. BEARMAN: I think it's been taken over. I wanted to thank the committee for doing such a super job on getting in the comments from all of us, and you had to deal with many conflicting comments. Mine was simply a question, and perhaps maybe somebody could just enlighten me. I had also proposed, in the intellectual property section, that we recommend a statement that says it is essential to provide mechanisms for appropriate compensation to copyright holders as part of the GII, and that was not included, and I just wondered if somebody would explain why. I mean, it's perfectly okay. Not every single comment should be included. I really appreciate your inclusion of insuring adequate access to and appropriate privileges of use of those works, but what about the mechanisms for compensation, because I think this is something we will very much need in a global information infrastructure? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Does anyone have any -- an answer for her? Toni on that? Do any of our staff members remember? VOICE: I don't recall exactly, but I guess we assumed that meaningful incentives and encompassed that, and it didn't deal with implementation, as opposed to result. But that's my assumption here. DR. BEARMAN: Okay. If you feel it's adequately addressed, that's fine. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: It sounds as if there -- Jamie? JAMIE: I just want to go back to the previous thing for one second. I just want to back up what Bert said, and I, for one--there hasn't been much discussion-- would be violently opposed to dropping paragraph three. I mean, we went through this. I mean, I'm -- on paragraph two, up above it. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Right. JAMIE: And whether you can come up with some language that talks about balancing your indigenous stuff with your free access to the market and make it a little stronger, fine. But I, for one, would be very opposed to dropping that. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Thank you, Jamie. We have our work cut out for us on that, but we'll figure it out. Any other comments on the letter itself? VOICE: Yeah, Del. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yes? VOICE: I'm unclear as to the meaning of the last sentence of the second full paragraph on page four. We already said on page three that we just discussed that we must insure the protection of intellectual property rights in the GII. I'm not sure what the specificity, in terms of elevating intellectual property rights, goes into inter-operability, and that second paragraph, the last sentence on page four, really adds to the letter. I think there's potential controversy. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: This sentence reads: "Thus, for instance, the goal of inter-operability should not be achieved through means that violate intellectual property rights? VOICE: The next paragraph, page four, the last sentence. And it also raises some questions in my mind of which intellectual property rights, whose intellectual property rights, what country's intellectual property laws. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Any other comments on that? Yes, Jack? JACK: I can't find it. Where is it? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: You don't know where it is? Page four, the second full paragraph that begins, "And it should promote the goal of inter-operability among the National Information Infrastructure." It's the last sentence. And Mac's point is does it add anything? Or does it raise questions or even raise more questions, that, for instance, the goal of inter-operability should not be achieved through means that violate intellectual property rights. My judgment is -- and those of who are closer to it then I, my judgment is that it is just an example of protection of intellectual property rights as they relate to inter-operability. In other words, the section deals with inter-operability and the fact that we'd like to promote that goal, but we don't want to do it in violation of intellectual property rights. That sounds like what it says in there, Mac, and you're saying -- MR. NORTON: Are we taking the position as a council (INAUDIBLE) United States (INAUDIBLE) position as a sovereign nation that our intellectual property rights, of all kinds, everywhere, no matter how minor or insubstantial, no matter how substantial or greater importance, are paramount to the goals of inter- operability on the GII? Is that the way it was to be? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: (INAUDIBLE) one more time. MR. NORTON: Well, Del, the way it reads is we're taking the position and telling the United States that it should take the position, diplomatically, that the goal of inter-operability on the GII is, in every case, under every country's laws, should be subordinate to intellectual property rights of all kinds. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Anybody else -- VOICE: Well, that's the way it stated. Whether or not that would (INAUDIBLE). That is clearly the way it reads. MR. NORTON: Well, if I can, I don't -- I think Jack might better address this, but there is an attitude afoot in the world that other countries want inter- operability in order to access our market, but they don't want our products, our software, our programs, our intellectual property. VOICE: I don't think I -- I'm going to have to -- MR. NORTON: So there's that linkage between -- VOICE: I don't think I'm going to have any problem with whatever stronger language, within reason, that you all want to come up with to add to address that problem. It just struck me as odd that in the inter- operability paragraph we threw in another reference to intellectual property rights, which seems to have -- (INAUDIBLE). Otherwise, it says (INAUDIBLE) bounds at all. MR. NORTON: Well, I'm just trying to explain what I recall was the reason. We're so eager to get inter-operability, and we do, too. We want it as well as other countries. But other countries are not willing to link to protection of our intellectual property. VOICE: This is, I think, largely an issue -- not largely, but some of this issue comes from the software industry, whether it's a question of something called reverse engineering, where under the guise of inter-operability, various governments have attempted to advantage their own software industries by saying it's okay to reverse engineer or clone products made typically outside that country. Now, some reverse engineering is allowed by intellectual property laws. I think the reason that this was phrased in terms of intellectual property rights rather than using reverse engineering in that was that that was sort of a euphemism for that. It's not an issue of sovereignty that we're, you know, suggesting. Within the context of the reverse engineering issue, I think this makes more sense than it does perhaps the way it's worded right now. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: And I understand that that was the reason that it was put in, on the reverse engineering issue. VOICE: Right. VOICE: If that's what we want to say, why don't we say it? Why resort to the euphemism? VOICE: It's not only a euphemism. There may be other issues, other ways of achieving inter- operability that would violate intellectual property rights and declaring standards of private property, and I -- I mean, it just seems to me that this sentence addresses the concern you raised. I don't really get it. VOICE: I don't know. It seems -- I don't know what the intellectual property laws in France are or in Japan or in other G-7 member countries. But it seems to be the expressed position here that whatever they are, that they should, among the G-7 members, trump to the goal of inter-operability. VOICE: Yes. The protection of them should trump the goal of inter-operability. VOICE: Without knowing what they are in those other countries, I would love this to go on record as saying that protectionism should trump inter-operability. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Let me try this, Mac, for the sake of consensus here. "Thus, for instance, the goal of inter-operability should not be achieved through improper meanings, such as reverse engineering, that violates intellectual property right." VOICE: The problem with that is that there are existing laws where reverse engineering, with certain limited circumstances, is okay. So you don't want to brand all forms of reverse engineering as being verboten because that's a very difficult position to defend. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: I got you. Yes. What if we took -- well, Vance? MR. OPPERMAN: Well, I think the position, Mac, that you're raising is would it be answered by saying, at the very minimum, the goal of inter-operability should not violate United States intellectual property rights? And that, at least under the (INAUDIBLE) convention principles and hopefully some expansion of that, will at least give you a floor, and it would not be an inappropriate floor for an American delegation, for example, to take in international meetings. VOICE: Or you could say, "Basic intellectual property rights, such as those expressed in United States laws" or whatever. MR. OPPERMAN: Because I don't know what the laws are in Japan either. They may be terrific, but I know that I have a better understanding of the ones in the United States. It isn't just reverse engineering, by the way, on software. It's also the appropriation by a promulgation of standard of content, and we see that in some countries, too. But I, for one, if we were going to make it more specific, would like to see it tied to at least the basic levels provided by United States intellectual property laws. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Nathan, would that be a problem for you? And, Mac, does that solves it? VOICE: I'm sorry? I was getting advice. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: I was saying with adding of United States? VOICE: Yeah. I think that solves it for me because I know what goes on. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Right. Would that -- Nathan, would that be a problem with what was intended here? MR. MYHRVOLD: I'm an a little uncomfortable with how it would be received to say we should base this on U.S. law. I mean, the -- as negotiating points to our government, perhaps that's okay. As a message to other countries and say we're attempting -- if it wasn't so bold as to say we want our standards in every way everywhere, that wasn't the intent. And under the lawful -- and currently, limited means of reverse engineering is allowed. We weren't saying that they had to take that back either. I don't want to make it sound too much like we're just saying, "Hey, the U.S. is the one that figured this out, and everybody else has just got to bend over and do it our way." CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Would it be an answer to take it out entirely at this point? Would that -- VOICE: I don't think so. MR. MYHRVOLD: Unfortunately, this is one of those issues this council pushes. Just as Jack was saying earlier, I think it's even more poignant than some of the cultural, less emotionally charged perhaps, for these countries from this. But all over the world there are people who want to use as an excuse some means of weakening intellectual property laws,a nd they'll think that's appropriate, and that's what this is supposed to be. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: We have a couple of comments. This may be an issue where we have to vote and move it forward, because it sounds like this was put in for a reason, it has good reason, and it's clear as it stands, and there's another view point here by Mac and others. But I'm going to hear from Al, and then we'll hear from -- VOICE: Yeah. Del, I think it's very important that this point be kept in because under the guise of achieving inter-operability among countries, intellectual property laws and protections can be weakened so severely as to render them virtually ineffective. I think it's very important to maintain it. Perhaps just the -- in an attempt to be helpful, in that last line, instead of saying "violate intellectual property rights," how about denigrate U.S. intellectual property rights? So the sentence would read: "Thus, for instance, the goal of inter-operability should not be achieved through means that denigrate U.S. intellectual property rights." Again, speaking from the perspective that all we can speak to is from our perspective and not speak on behalf of every other nation. VOICE: I would support that. Yes. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: You support that? Denigrates U.S. intellectual property rights. Okay. VOICE: I just want to make a comment for the record here and maybe get a sense of the group. I think here, inter-operability, is actually very sensitively worded, probably extremely carefully worded, and it deals with an issue that is actually far more complex than I think most of us realize. It gets into all kinds of issues of law and procedure. But the one thing that this particular position does not do, and I want to be sure that this committee is happy with that, it does not take the position that the GII be an open network, that it be an open system. What it does say is that voluntary standard setting for prophecies should be used, but it implies of other means, including ones that are proprietary. Now, I'm okay with that, but I want to be sure that we understand that this is a -- the position that's going to be taken, because at the G-7 meeting, the issue could very well come are we articulating an open data network position or not. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Right. VOICE: And I think it's worth making sure that we're in agreement that that's what the position is. It's well written, but that's the position. The National Academy, I might add, recently came out with a report recommending an open data architecture, which would fly in the face of some of these recommendations. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yes. Let's take one step at a time. It appears that there's a consensus. Mac, does that make sense to you? MR. NORTON: (INAUDIBLE). CO-CHAIR LEWIS: And Nathan? MR. MYHRVOLD: Right. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Which would say, "Thus, for instance, the goal of inter-operability should not be achieved through means that denigrate United States intellectual property rights." Okay? MR. NORTON: Good. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: That's clear. Now, back to Bob's point on the open architectural question. Is the council okay with the fact that we're not taking a hard line or at least making a clear statement on open architecture? We struck a balance between what we think might happen as this thing progresses. I see people shaking their head. I think they understand where we're headed. VOICE: Okay. I just want to be sure that that's what we know we're doing. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Right. Okay. Any other general comments about the letter? John? MR. SCULLEY: On page three, at the end, at the second paragraph where it says "without effectively drawing access to their market to foreign program producers," I would either just strike producers and add foreign program providers or producers and providers. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: We're now on page three, the second paragraph. The last sentence, Bob? "For instance, because of the substantial transmission capacity the GII is expected to offer, a country might reserve a portion of capacity for indigenous or other public interest programming without effectively denying access to their market to foreign program producers." And you want to add? VOICE: Providers. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Providers instead of producers? VOICE: Right. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Which would read "access to their market to foreign program providers. VOICE: Well, wouldn't it be both producers and providers? VOICE: Yeah. He could do both. There may be different people. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Do both? Why don't we add it -- VOICE: That's fine. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: -- which would not do harm to the document. So we'll add producers and providers to the end of that. VOICE: Where is that, Del? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: This is page three. We'll come back to you on this because there was some question as to whether this paragraph was going to stay in or out. But there was, you know, consensus it should go, some saying it should stay. Anyway, the last line, Bert, was program producers, and we're adding providers, and we'll come back to you. Any other comments? Yes, Bill? MR. FERGUSON: A small point, or maybe I don't understand. The same page, the last paragraph that starts with the underlining. "By participating nations and that explore pre-competitive," we probably mean pro- competitive. VOICE: Yeah. Pre. MR. FERGUSON: We mean pre? VOICE: Yes. MR. FERGUSON: Well, then what does that mean, pre-competitive? VOICE: Not yet commercial. VOICE: Basic research. MR. FERGUSON: Oh, basic research that explore -- that explore technologies that are still in research, but not in the market place? Is that what that means? Well, then why don't we say that? (Laughter) MR. FERGUSON: I mean, pre-competitive? Does pre-competitive mean -- CO-CHAIR LEWIS: That's confusing, definitely confusing. MR. FERGUSON: I think of -- yeah. I think of electro-mechanical as pre-competitive. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: We'll take a look. Maybe we should have a glossary at the end of the letter. (Laughter) CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Here's a definition. No. I'm not making light of your comment, Bill. But we will take a look at that, and maybe, without doing violence to it, we may revise it. MR. FERGUSON: I have no problem with now the intent though. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yes, Vance? MR. OPPERMAN: You might -- if you're taking a look at that, we've had that extensive discussion, electronic commerce principles. We share the difficulty of capturing the idea in a simple phrase. You might talk to some of the staff that went through the various statutory definitions and efforts to say basic, but it's not basic because people will tell the basic is different. It's not applied certainly, and it's not applied pre-competitively, and it's not in competition with, and for all those reasons, you get -- we got beaten back to using the phrase pre-competitive. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Right. MR. OPPERMAN: But in the process of looking at that, you might talk to some of the staff that worked on that portion of the electronic commerce principles. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: That's a good idea. We'll do that. Any other comments? (No response.) CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Well, I would say that we are close to the letter on G-7 to the Secretary. Jack is going to prepare some language, and we will come back to you with that language in relationship to the paragraphs on three, and also the corrections we've made, the consensus we've come to on some of the other corrections. Let me just make two comments. One is, I think this is a good process. Ideally, many of us, in our own jobs and organizations, do not draft letters by committee, however, given the circumstances and challenges that we have in front of us, this is probably the only way to get it done, and I think our staffs working with you behind the scenes with the mega projects and other topics have done a tremendous job in helping us move it forward. And we have to take this time because it has to be a consensus document, and if not, we're going to take votes to make it happen. So I don't see any other way. And all of us have strong views, some stronger than others, and we have to make it work. Secondly, Ed and I will get our heads together and come back with you as to our role going forward with the G-7. We haven't come to a consensus about what our next step should be. We knew first that this letter was necessary because things were moving fast and Brussels was upon us in February. But what position and how we position this council, in relationship to global, is certainly something that we will work on. We decided that if we put something together, Ed and I would share it, but obviously there have been some others who have come to me privately and want to volunteer to move this forward. So we haven't discussed exactly how that's going to happen. But thank you for your work on this. We'll back with you at the end of the day to get it finally approved. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: I think it really is important that we do approve this document or a document much like it by the end of the day. We've had comments about the timeliness of this, and it is time sensitive. VOICE: So we'll have comments before the end of the day to specifically look at? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yes. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Yes. Absolutely. VOICE: Otherwise, you might as well put this off until January. Nobody will pay attention to it in between time, and we can all talk about it in January. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: No. We're not going to do that. We're going to see what Mr. Valenti has to offer, we're going to try to work it in, and we will have it before you. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: We've had a couple of suggestions here to have a break now rather than 11:00. I concur with that. Let's take a break. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Fifteen minutes. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Fifteen minutes. (Whereupon, the meeting was recessed.) AFTER RECESS CO-CHAIR LEWIS: We will get started. One of the things that I'd like to do before we move on to the next agenda item, I'll go through the recommended changes to the G-7 letter to Secretary Brown and see if we can get a consensus before we can move on. And I have some language from Jack, and I'm going to go through it, and then I'm going to ask Jack Valenti to explain the language. I think once you hear it, it does make sense. But I'm going to run through the corrections. If you go to page two, the first change is to drop the word beliefs. It will say, "it's obtainment must remain subject to resources and priorities of each country." Jack had one stronger piece on national markets in the next paragraph. It starts with "in your discussions with the leaders of the other G-7 member countries, the advisory council must also believe that the following specific matters warrant special interest," leaving in "national markets should be internally competitive and open to foreign competition." He would like to add "This is a first principle which all global markets should honor." It makes it stronger, clearer using first principle. Second, "Intellectual property rights," strike in works transmitted, via the GII must be ensured, e-n-s- u-r-e-d. So it would read, "Intellectual property rights via the GII must be ensured." VOICE: On instead of via. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: On. Okay. VOICE: What was the other one? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: "Intellectual property rights on the GII must be ensured." I think for the sake of consensus and discussion, Bill, that we're going to go with pre- competitive. It's just not -- it's more difficult to explain it, it has ramifications that go beyond this letter. Maybe some way, as we do our outreach proposal, we might start a glossary. I did that in jest, but it might be something worth doing. So we're going to leave in pre-competitive. MR. FERGUSON: I don't disagree with the point, now that I understand what it's about to mean. But I would have flunked the test, had you given me the test on what it means. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Understandable. So if you'd flunk it in your position, there are a lot of other folks out there that would flunk it. So we figured we'd have some glossary later on. VOICE: Where are you? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: We are on page two, and the first time the word "pre-competitive" was used. We're now, Jack, in the section that says, "In your discussions with the leaders of the other G-7 member countries." Do you have that? JACK: I've got that. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: The first one was national market internally competitive, and we added your point. Got that? JACK: Good. I got that. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: The next one was "intellectual property rights, strike in works transmitted and via, and it should read, "Intellectual property rights on the GII must be ensured," e-n-s-u-r-e-d. And we were just discussing the word pre-competitive that Bill Ferguson brought up, that it wasn't really clear as to what it meant, but it has so many ramifications, we're going to leave it in. But maybe at some other time we will explain that in other terms. So pre-competitive stays in. That section is unchanged. MS. DYSON: In those bullets, we should also change in bullet four, the legal regimes to laws and regulations, as we did on a later page. VOICE: We're getting feedback here now. VOICE: Yeah. We couldn't hear you. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: I heard you. I heard you. VOICE: We used legal regimes on page two as well. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yeah. I think it's another page, and she's caught it again. It should be laws and regulations instead of legal regimes. VOICE: Right. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Thank you. On page three, we're going to leave the paragraph "to the extent there are limitations on market access, etcetera" in, but there are certain changes. It's the last sentence that is wrong, starting with "for instance." "For instance, because of the substantial transmission capacity that the GII is expected to offer, a country might reserve a portion -- I'm sorry. A country might reserve a reasonable portion," we put in the word reasonable before portion, "of its overall total capacity." That should read: "For instance, because of the substantial transmission capacity that the GII is expected to offer, a country might reserve a reasonable portion of its overall total capacity for indigenous or other public interest programs, comma." Here is the addition: "But not constrict access -- but not constrict access by applying these restrictions to individual channels." So that last phrase would be after comma or programming. "But not constrict access by applying these restrictions to individual channels." And I'll let Jack explain what that means. JACK: You know, every day we must be vigilant about protecting intellectual property because like virtue, it is every day besieged and never is that more illuminated that -- in France and in Canada. What they do, for example, and just last week, Ted Turner's Cartoon Network was denied access to the European Union because the French had said that it violated their quota laws, individual channel, because it did not provide for 50 percent minimum of European union originated programming. So what we're suggesting here, and I think is in our long (INAUDIBLE) to do it, if you assume that countries have authority to "protect and nourish" their culture, however they may define, then they ought to do it on an overall total capacity basis. For example, if you have a cable system that has 10 channels operating 24 hours a day, that's 240 hours. So would say 50 percent of those 240 hours will be indigenous, French or EC. The other 120 hours will be open to whomever can have programs that have audience appeal. That means then that Bob Johnson's channel going into Canada would come under the overall restriction and not be judged on that individual 24 hour a day channel. The same way with Turner's Cartoon Network. The Disney Channel is under great attack in Europe because it is obviously 100 percent American. Unless we put that in there, we will be avalanched, overwhelmed by these restrictions. The French even go farther. They not only apply the 60 percent overall, they apply 60 percent quota in prime time. So it's the double whammy. As a result, we are almost excluded from those hours when French people are watching, even though our programs are quite popular. This is a contagion that is growing, and once we accede to this, it will be like an epidemic. The rest of the world will say, "Well, why don't we do it, too." And so, I'm saying to you that I think this is necessary, that we make it clear what we mean about a reasonable portion of your time. Under what we have now, it says a country might reserve a portion of capacity for indigenous or other public interest programs, without effectively denying access." The French could say, "We're not denying you access. Hey, you've got access. And we're reserving a portion of our capacity." So if you allow that language to stand, in my judgment, it is a -- it's a free pass to those who want to apply Draconian measures. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Thank you, Jack. Let me go ahead and finish, and then we'll come back for a discussion. The next paragraph, right after that addition, "Intellectual property rights, via the GII must be ensured." You want to say on the GII again? Okay. Intellectual property rights, take out the word "in works transmitted" on the GII must be ensured, e-n-s-u-r-e-d. That's all for page three. Page four, again, the harmonization of laws and regulations, instead of legal regime. And then, the next paragraph, starting with "the United States should promote the goal of inter-operability," the last sentence, "Thus, for instance, the goal of inter- operability should not be achieved through means that denigrate United States intellectual property rights." And that is the, I think, the total sum of the recommendations. The floor is open for discussion. Yes, Jack. JACK: Del, just a question. You had one on page two about national markets where there was an addition there. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yes. JACK: I didn't get it. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: You didn't get it? It reads: "National markets should be internally competitive and open to foreign competition." No change there. Jack made a suggestion on his plea to be stronger. This is a "first principle" which all global markets should honor. Any other comments? (No response.) CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Can I have a motion to -- VOICE: Del? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yes. VOICE: I, for one, disagree with the language that Jack added on page three. It is far too specific for the purposes of this letter, if we were going to get to that level of specificity in other areas. For example, we have members of this council that represent companies that ship equipment to these counties, and it would indicate that we ought to put in some very specific language about what, in this case, France, is not allowing in terms of equipment producing. I don't think it added anything to the overall general concept, and further, I'm not even sure it's going to be correct looking forward to what the GII is. What is a channel? When you're shoving digital bits down a pipe and you start looking at other applications, such as information services, software and multimedia kinds of applications, the concept of a channel, as we know it today, may change radically and entirely, which means that all this is doing is pointing toward a very specific point of controversy right now. I think we ought to give our government the opportunity, under more general guidelines, to negotiate the specific. I would recommend that maybe we recommend to Secretary Brown that he takes Jack with him so we get this point negotiated. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Jack, do you have a response? JACK: My response is that this a complicated and complex enterprise. The tragedy of GATT was that a lot of people negotiating in GATT didn't understand the businesses that they were negotiating, and I'm saying to you that this is an advising letter. This has no authority of any kind. It is making suggestions to Secretary Brown. And rather than make vague suggestions to Secretary Brown, general in nature, I think it's reasonable and sensible that wherever we can we make specific suggestions to him or else we're not good counselors. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Thank you. Any other comments? Marilyn, did you -- no? Stan? MR. HUBBARD: I think we should move the question. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: All right. We will move the question. Can I have a motion. MR. HUBBARD: I'll move it. VOICE: Can I get a point of clarification? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yes. VOICE: Is the last part of that sentence in or no longer in, the one that says "without effectively denying access to their market to foreign program producers?" If that is in, then this could be an example, to take Jack's point. If it's not in, then it seems that you've narrowed it. I just didn't know which was which. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: You're saying that if we add the word -- I'm sorry. I missed the point. VOICE: I'm asking whether in Jack's wording -- JACK: What paragraph are you on? VOICE: The one that you amended, page three, the second full paragraph. The last part of the last paragraph, "without effectively denying access to their market to foreign program producers" is still in or is out. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: I guess it's out. VOICE: It's out. VOICE: I think produced. Could you read it once more? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Okay. It's the last sentence on paragraph two. "For instance, because of the substantial transmission capacity that the GII is expected to offer, a country must reserve a reasonable portion," that's the first addition, -- VOICE: Might. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Might. I'm sorry. "Might reserve a reasonable portion of its overall total capacity for indigenous or other public interest programming, but not constrict access by applying these restrictions to individual channels." And so, if that's the addition, then that last sentence is out, Bob. VOICE: I have a motion. The last sentence is out, from which on? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: "Without effectively denying access to their markets to foreign program producers" is out. Is that right, Jack? That phrase would be out. VOICE: We were talking about effectively constricting. You're talking about something other than indigenous or public interest programs, which somebody else from outside France of Luxembourg or Portugal or Spain or whatever. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Before Ed talks, there is a way to handle that. If you left that last sentence in, you could use a for instance. VOICE: For instance. VOICE: I have no problem with that. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yes. VOICE: For instance would be, but not constrict. JACK: Anything that says we can't deny access to the market, I'm for. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Jack, I think I agree with your overall point. (INAUDIBLE) is tough on line. When I first read that point that you added there, I assumed that it meant that we couldn't have any channel that had any restrictions on it, and I know in this country we have a lot of channels that have restrictions. We have public service channels of various kinds, and I assume that this, the way it was written, actually would eliminate those. I don't think that's your objective. JACK: No. It's not at all. I'm saying that you could -- you might reserve a reasonable portion of your total overall capacity. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: I understand that. JACK: If TF1 may not play 24 hours a day. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: I understand your point. I'm saying (INAUDIBLE) rules to any individual channel if now in the U.S. we do that. We do -- we do allow ourselves to have individual channels that -- where you can't put programming down them because they're available to local communities and other types of things. I'm just suggesting (INAUDIBLE) confusion problem. VOICE: I think, Ed, though that to context in what we are talking about, that's not a relevant connection because we don't apply quotas in America. We have a public access channel, but they don't tell you which -- you could have 27 foreigners get on that public access program and talk about Tibet or Bosnia or whatever they wanted to talk about. You're not restricting the origin of those people on that program. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Okay. Jack? JACK: Ed, I think that's why some people want to leave in that last phrase, "without effectively denying access to the market for foreign program producers," which, you know, for example, by constricting it, so that it places it (INAUDIBLE). CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Okay. Now, -- VOICE: Could you repeat that? We couldn't hear it. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Okay. The point that Jack Golodner was making, that leaving the last paragraph in puts it in some context and hopefully it would not be confusing as Ed has questioned. But this is the way it's going to read, and then I'll entertain a motion: "For instance, because of substantial transmission capacity the GII is expected to offer, a country might reserve a reasonable portion of its overall total capacity for indigenous or other public interest programming, without effectively denying access to their markets or market to foreign program producers and providers, but not constrict access by applying these restrictions to individual channels." That's the addition. There was a position that it's too specific; it is not in keeping with what we wanted to say to the Secretary. That was the position stated, and was being opposed. One person possibly opposed to adding some language. I think, at this point, to move this forward and to be timely, we probably should put it to a vote. Moved. VOICE: Seconded. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: It's been moved and seconded to add the additions. (INAUDIBLE) the language that Mr. Valenti has suggested has been moved and seconded that we adopt for the G-7 letter, as well as the other parts of the letter. Any further discussion? (No response.) CO-CHAIR LEWIS: All in favor, raise your hands. (Showing of hands.) CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Opposed? (Showing of hands.) CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Twenty-five to three. Twenty- five in favor and three against. The motion passed, and the G-7 letter to the Secretary, with these corrections, will be on its way. Thank you. (Pause) CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Let's move on. The next item for discussion is a familiar one to all of us. (INAUDIBLE) of our response to the green paper on intellectual property, something that's particularly timely, again at this council meeting. We had a long discussion of this at the last council meeting, and since that time, we've had tremendous work done by the subcommittee and the staff and John Cooke leading this program to -- with a lot of time to take input, hear input, and to, I think, propose today a green paper response that is inclusive of the views of the council. I'm really excited about the work that's been done. I'll turn it over to John in just a second. I did just wanted to indicate before I did that, the document is obviously written with the term mega project in it. Of course, as we respond to the green paper, we'll change those words from the mega project to the council in total. The document comes from the council. For example, in the first paragraph, "The members of the National Information Infrastructure Advisory Council commend" etcetera, etcetera, and that kind of language will be used throughout the entire document. But again, thanks to -- thank to you and all of you for your inputs. I think we have a document here that really is much more indicative of the views of the entire council. Let me turn it over to you, John. MR. COOKE: Thank you very much, Ed. I just want to say -- CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Do you want to use the mike there? MR. COOKE: I just want to say, in responding to Ed's comments, that the mega project felt that it was a bit presumptuous for it to say in its first draft that this represented the entire council. So we said that it represented the mega project with input from a number of council members who were on conference calls with us and who talked to us, sent materials into us and gave their comments. Obviously this will get changed after the council approves this to read and reflect the entire council's point of view. I want to make one other comment about the past. You'll recall in the October meeting that we had a discussion about this, and in that discussion, there were a variety of issues that came up, including performance rights. And you'll remember that I, as co-chair of the mega project, took it off the table for the day, hoping that we could all come back in better spirits another day. And as a consequence, we have worked very carefully with all those members of the council that expressed points of view about this. We have had numerous conference calls, and we'll say that over 100 hours of conference calls and meeting with the members, various members, to try to come to where we are today. We believe that the document is a balanced one now and reflects the points of views of all those we've heard on the council, and I just want to make that point by giving you several examples of that as you look at the document that's before you. There are, in essence, six different kinds of changes that went into the document you saw in October, and I want to just point those out so you'll have a clear understanding that we were listening to everyone who talked to us. The first example I want to give you is that if you'll look at the bottom of page one, here is -- we had the addition of a paragraph at the very beginning of the document on page one, I guess I should start with that, which addresses the broad, fundamental, philosophical differences between the green paper suggested changes to existing property law expressed by two council members. And so, the first paragraph right there does address some concern. It's something you should look at. It just gives you a concern that was voiced. I want to read a paragraph to you that was added, too. "The majority of the mega project found the green paper to reflect a good faith effort to promote the public interest, however, two members of the advisory council expressed the view to the mega project that the green paper's proposal tips the balance of interest between proprietors and the public interest, so as to disfavor the latter." Also, if you'll look down under B, the last sentence in the second paragraph, here's a new sentence: "Such modifications, however, must not undermine existing rights or establish limitations on those rights, such as fair use and the first sale doctrine." Now, rather than take you through page-by-page, there are a number of references I had, if you wanted me to do it, where you can see differences between the document in October and the document today that give clear indication that there have been a substantial number of changes. I will just, for the purposes of belaboring this point one more time, at the top of page three, the first paragraph, the last line--if you will, the last phrase in that paragraph--and we say, "And how existing limitations on rights will be incorporated within the digital regime." That was added. Also, new language in the next paragraph, which really says that we have worked very hard to solve the problem of performance rights. You'll remember that this was a debate in the last meeting and what happened is we put the parties on both sides of the performance rights issue in a room, locked the door and let them out at 11:00 p.m., and we let them out after they had resolved their differences in language that would represent both points of view. And I believe that everyone that had a point of view on this has come back to us and said they feel that this paragraph on page three is acceptable to them and that it represented both sides of the issue. Rather than going on, and I have this underlined on a number of points where there was a search for balance and a look at the issues that users have, as well as those that have intellectual property interests, I will just say that I will not go further on this, except to say that we would love to hear any further comments that any council member might have on this document as it sits today. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: John, I want to just commend you and the mega project team for a job well done. As the President of National Public Radio, I had some very strong views about the balancing between intellectual property rights and the -- also the owners and users of that, and that we are both owners and users in that at Public Radio and very concerned about the balance. And I appreciate the work that has been done, and I'm satisfied that, yes, I could ask for stronger language here or there. But in the spirit of compromise, I felt the balance has been struck very, very well. So I just want to say thank you for a job well done. I would only add that where we have reference to two members or one member or three, that that probably should be changed to a few or some so that it will become a council document and not a mega project document. MR. COOKE: I agree, and I talked to Ed about this. And we apologize for being a little bit paddock. We were seeking, within the group that we had before us, to be specific, and we will make those corrections. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Some example of that would be the last paragraph on the first page, which might read something like, "The majority of the advisory council found the green paper to reflect a good faith effort to promote the public interest, however, a few members of the advisory council expressed the view that the green paper's proposal tipped the balance of interest between proprietors and the public interest." So with that as a preamble, let's see if -- how we can reach a conclusion on this. Again, it's one of the timely issues that we have to get done today. Bob? BOB: Yeah. John, as you know, I've been on that panel, but I was not one of the ones in that enclosed, locked word. So that's actually a new wording for me. Can you just briefly what was agreed to or what was intended by the term conventional broadcasting, because it was singled out here, and I just was not clear as to -- VOICE: We can't hear you, Bob. BOB: What I said was that I was not one of the people in that room, and therefore, the wording is rather new. And I was just curious if you could say a word or two as to what the intention was in using the term conventual broadcasting? What is intended to be included in that term and what not? MR. COOKE: Okay. I think it would be appropriate if I asked maybe Stan to comment on that, since he represented one point of view, and I don't know whether Marilyn or Frances, or somebody else would like to talk. But there are certainly members here who know clearly what they were trying to accomplish and what they did accomplish. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: So the question was about on the second paragraph on page three, I believe, -- MR. COOKE: That's right. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: -- where we use the word "conventional broadcasting." The question was a question of clarification as to what conventional broadcasting means. VOICE: Like, for example, broadcasting over the Internet is conventional broadcasting. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: And it was a specific clarification on the question about what is broadcasting over the Internet conventional broadcasting. MR. HUBBARD: The business of broadcasting, as it is today, as long as it's the same kind of a business, whether it's over the Internet or whatever it is, it's the same business and be treated the same way. That's all that was about. We didn't want this document to be used to change existing practices. They argue about that in Congress every year, and if they're going to change it, the Congress will change it. MR. COOKE: If I could paraphrase, I think that Stanley and others were concerned about the existing broadcasting business as it sits today. MR. HUBBARD: Right. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Other questions? Comments? MS. BRACEY: I would like to have you look at number eight, and I'd like to suggest, only because when schools are not spelled out specifically sometimes -- I applaud the work that's been done, but I would just like specifically to suggest perhaps that instead of -- MR. COOKE: I think the problem -- you may be looking at the principles. Are you looking at the principles? MS. BRACEY: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. COOKE: We're going to talk about the principles a little bit later. MS. BRACEY: Okay. I'm sorry. MS. BEARMAN: Having submitted eight pages of comments on the earlier draft, I think I was probably the hardest one for you to have to deal with on some of these instances, and I really want to thank you and the all the staff and the committee for doing an outstanding job of incorporating the very serious concerns that many of us had. I think you've really done an incredible job, and I wonder if we might be able to send you to some of the hot spots around the world to resolve some international differences. (Laughter) VOICE: Gee, thanks. MR. COOKE: I guess I should tell you that my company sent me to its hottest spot, Virginia, and I solved that one. (Laughter) VOICE: I'd like to follow up on Toni's point. I think one of the things about working in a committee like this is that there are some divergent points and views, and the way you handled this was incredible, and I appreciate the continued consultation of communication. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Other comments on the response of the green paper? (No response.) CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: If not, can I assume that we have consensus on this being the response of the council to the green paper on intellectual property? Nods? Anybody violently opposed? (No response.) CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Great. Then we will -- CO-CHAIR LEWIS: And a round of applause. (Applause) CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: You know, I think that we had a hard job to do here, partly because we hadn't done the principles yet. So we were asked to give some very specific advice to the Administration before we had a set of principles to operate on, and it's really amazing, I think, that we were able to do that on such a hot and important issue. I really do appreciate the work. Nathan, do you have a comment before we move on? MR. MYHYRVOLD: I just think that as long as we're in a mood of thanking people, we should thank the co-chairs for doing an incredible amount of work, and the staff as well. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Del, do you have a point? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yes. Before we break for lunch, I have another item that's being passed around to you. Again, thank you for a job well done on the first part of our agenda. And this has to do with a preliminary -- VOICE: Would you -- I don't know. We were thinking, would you like to do the principles before lunch? VOICE: Yes. VOICE: Let's do that. VOICE: But Del, can I also have something read (INAUDIBLE)? CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: All right. Yeah. Let me -- let me -- so the next thing on the agenda is to work through the intellectual property principles. We had some overview of those last time. Again, there's been some work being done. Do we all have a copy of the latest draft of the intellectual property principles? MR. COOKE: You should. Everyone should have one in the book. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Does everyone have it? MR. COOKE: If someone did not bring their book, we'll pass out the final draft. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: It says, "The final draft, 11/23, 1994," is the latest copy. MR. COOKE: That's correct. That's correct. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: I was just checking. MR. COOKE: That's correct. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: And, John, do you have a comment on that? MR. COOKE: Yes. I just want to make two comments. One about methodology and say that the same methodology was applied to this as was applied to the mega project response to the green paper. We consulted all council members who had a point of view and opinion on this. We did our best as a subcommittee and mega project to incorporate those points of view, and to make sure, again, that the document was balanced and gave a proper inference on fair use and an insured balance for all parties. Now, again, not wanting to belabor all the points here, but let me just say that principle number one was really changed in order to reflect the points of view of Mitch Kapor. And so the first sentence in that was altered to help accommodate his points of view. Principle number two, in an attempt to express our concerns and interests in satisfying Toni and Del, that principle number two was altered to say "that while encouraging the interchange of ideas and information." Principle number seven was altered such as to say "should not diminish or weaken the ability to make fair use of copyrighted work." Principle number eight to address the expressed need of several council members to recognize other limitations or exemptions besides fair use. Principle number nine, we added a language about how technological means could help users, as well as owners. And a reference to fair use was added in principle number 11, which speaks to the importance of public education. And principle 13, we added at the end that it's important for users to have adequate access to works on the GII. Now, that is not to say that those are the only changes that were made. It's just a sampling of changes that were made, as you go along those principles, to reflect the concerns of various council members. I hope that all of you, since this was in your book, have had a chance to look at them. Again, we're hopeful that we have done an adequate job of reflecting your concerns. And I'll turn it back over to the chairman. Ed? CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Any comments? VOICE: I'd like to ask a question of number eight. In the education field, sometimes we have to have things spelled out. We're on page two, number eight. I wanted to ask if this one might be better. I apologize for not being a part of your consensus. Exemptions and limitations on copyright laws, such as those under current laws for the benefit of non- profit and education uses, should also be preserved to maintain access by educational institutions, teachers, students, instead of just educational uses. I have a concern that if we don't spell out specifically education institutions, teachers, students, that it will get lost. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: So the proposal was that we replace educational uses with education institutions, teachers and students. MS. BRACEY: Yes. In the involving -- in an environment. My reason for that is there are some particular use justifications that we have now. And when you say educational institutions, that's a very broad and general term. It does not specifically speak to the school system, to the schools and the teachers (INAUDIBLE). CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Bob, do you have a comment on this? BOB: Yeah. On the point. Bonnie, I certainly don't disagree with the intent of what you're trying to do, but I would point out that, again, in keeping with trying not to single out individual groups, if you were to try and do the same thing for non-profit groups, you would have an endless list of possible causes to have to cite out. So I actually think it's better kept more concise, in the interest of not singling out individual groups, despite the fact that I think the one you point out is important. MS. BRACEY: Okay. I just wanted to point out that this was a document passed to you earlier -- CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Bonnie, would you use the microphone, please? MS. BRACEY: Yes. I'm not representing specifically my point of view. There was a document passed to you by the National Information Infrastructure, Requirements for Education and Training, and this was prepared by a national coordinating committee for technology and education and training. I also represent the viewpoint of the NEA, and these people have been talking to me on line. I think, as glibly as people say to me, "Well, you don't need a telephone," I think sometimes if you're not in the educational environment, you don't understand what the differences are when walls are applied to us as well, and I really think that this is one exception that should be made. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: I think we all agree that we should definitely spell out educational uses. That's one of the reasons, I'm sure, that John's team pulled education out of the non-profit institutions, to specifically target education. Vance, did you -- MR. OPPERMAN: Well, I share Bonnie's concern that we make sure that the target groups and groups understand that they're included, but I don't think this is the place to do it. The copyright law and copyright approach is to specify on the base of use, not on the bases of users. So, for example, anyone who uses copyrighted material for education purposes or educational uses, be they a student or member of that organization or a person involved in lifelong learning, or just an NIIAC member or whatever, would enjoy the protections under the copyright law. Students, on the other hand, who, for example, decide to make a copy for commercial reuse of Jurassic Park, by the fact that they are students, do not enjoy protection for that activity, such as the MIT student recently that was in the news a few weeks ago. But my point is that in this area, it is the uses of the material we're talking about, not the status or condition of the person making the use. And I agree with Bonnie's position that we should be in the broader position, which is these principles ought to be worded in as clearly understandable language that even Bill Ferguson can understand them. (Laughter) MR. OPPERMAN: Bill, I'm picking on you because if you don't understand them, I don't understand them. And they ought to be clear and consistent, and they ought to clearly tell people what we mean, and I agree with that. But I don't think this is a place to make the educational point. MS. BRACEY: Okay. It may be -- I'm just suspect right now because I'm a teacher. I'm not lawyer. I generally don't always understand each of those types of broad -- I'm checking to understand if the current use that we have now will continue. I'm sorry. I -- VOICE: Yes. We understand. MS. BRACEY: Thank you. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Yes, John? MR. COOKE: Toni can go first, then I'll go. MS. BEARMAN: Yes. Bonnie, you and I almost always agree. I think that from the way I read this, and the way I understand this, we don't want to change the language, now that I have a better understanding of this. For example, if you lists institutions, teachers and students, we're not listing libraries. It is the non-profit and educational uses -- MS. BRACEY: Okay. MS. BEARMAN: -- and I think we really do want to stay with the language that's here. MS. BRACEY: Thank you. VOICE: I would just say that -- I probably should not belabor this point, but both the comments that were made, Bonnie, are relevant. The variety of users were taken into account by the mega project and the rules that are accorded to those body of users, and we thought this was going to get you what you needed. MS. BRACEY: Okay. Well, I appreciate the effort, and I appreciate also your allowing me to understand what we're talking about. Thank you. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Thank you both. Bert? MR. ROBERTS: This is a real minor point. On item 14, we made a specific point in G-7 letter to say laws and regulations. Maybe it should be consistent. VOICE: I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you, Bert. MR. ROBERTS: On item 14, where we say intellectual property laws, in the G-7 letter we just approved, we made a specific point of saying laws and regulations. It may be worth it to keep the two -- VOICE: I can't hear him. VOICE: We can't hear you. MR. COOKE: He's making a suggestion that it say laws and regulations to be consistent with the letter we just endorsed. I personally have no problem with that, and I defer to the Chairman. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: So the proposal is that we change item 14, the second line, property laws and regulations, applicable to the GII environment. VOICE: Of course, that presumes there's regulations -- (End side A tape 2.) VOICE: Well, there are letters somewhere. VOICE: I want to hear everything Ms. Preston said, every syllable. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: So a suggestion was that during lunch time we try to adjust the sound system a little bit to get better sound. VOICE: I couldn't hear that either. Say that again, Ed, what you just said. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Okay. The suggestion was that at lunch time the sound team try to adjust the sound so that we can hear. VOICE: The most reasonable suggestion I've heard today. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: I don't know if it sounds better to be closer or further away from the mikes. VOICE: Further away. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: I thought further away. Any other comments on the 14 principles for intellectual property? (No response.) CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: If not, can I assume we have a consensus to support these principles? Any objections on that? (No response.) CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Well, again congratulations. (Applause.) VOICE: I make the motion that we canonize Mr. Cooke. (Laughter) CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: I think it's really great that we, as a team of 37 people, have been able to reach agreement first on intellectual property where there was so much issue within the council. I really, again, would like to thank that entire group, and the entire council for participating in a very productive discussion. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: I would also add my thanks to a job well done. It's great to see us move along on time. It's very important to have those principles approved, and it's very important to have all of our principles to establish a foundation for what we're about. So thank you very much. Before lunch, I have a couple of things to cover. I just passed out to you some preliminary outreach considerations. And if you recall, we have talked about this particular in our work program, which I think was at phase four, where we would begin to talk about and make real outreach to constituency groups. And just for the onset, it was separate from public education, and when it goes to this document, we spell that out. Public education really are the themes that the Commerce Department is going to the lead on in educating the American public and others about the National Information Infrastructure. Outreach is an effort to solicit ideas and opinions and views of varying constituency groups to help us with our work, and also to ask and solicit their opinions as to consequences of what we're about. So outreach is a little bit different, and I'd like to take you through a preliminary draft of how we'd like to see this work. On the first page, we talk about the purpose that I began to just outline for you, to provide individuals and constituency groups around the country with an opportunity to participate in the decision making process of the NIIAC, and we will provide information, request and encourage comment and dialogue and suggest involvement with NII issues in the future. So that's our purpose. Now, one of the things that we talked about in the second paragraph was that the principles that we just passed, in a sense, today, will give and form the basis and foundation for outreach dialogue. In other words, we're not asking people just to comment in a vacuum, but they'll begin to comment based on the principles that we've set forth for our work. The next area is participants. While it is certain there will be many players involved in accomplishing the outreach strategy, the primary participants necessary to insure successful implementation are NIIAC members and staff, Department of Commerce, and individual constituency groups around the country. Now, many of you have already had some input on communities of interest, and I won't go through them. You see them before you. There may be others that we've omitted, and I know that some of the mega project groups may even go back, after they review this document, and come up with some possible other communities of interest to add to this list. The ways to contact individuals--I'm on the following page now--in groups should be discussed by the outreach task force. So it would include public relation efforts, such as public service announcements, news stories or maybe even paid advertising. The Internet and other on line services could be utilized to the fullest extent. We're talking about how we can communicate to get this dialogue coming through. Now, when we talk about an outreach task force, we're talking about initially out staffs again helping us with this task, and then we will, thanks to the Department of Commerce, have a detailee, which I cover later on in here, which will dedicated to the outreach effort provided for from the budget of the Department of Commerce. Organization and implementation. When considering ways to implement the NIIAC outreach strategy, two concepts would serve as buzz words; coordination and creativity. There should be an ongoing effort to coordinate among the council staff--outreach liaisons is different then existing staff--and we think that we'll probably call all of us the outreach liaisons to begin with, the Department of Commerce representative, and there will be one detailed for this effort, and the constituency groups. The ways the strategies are achieved can be created and need to can serve a broad base of people. Strategies (INAUDIBLE) both old and new mediums can effective in reaching a broad base, and we give some examples: Public forums, distribution of educational materials, application demonstrations, facilitated workshops. I just talked to a couple of our council members in North Carolina, and we're going to North Carolina in January, and there was some discussion of having some applications from North Carolina for us to see. And maybe if we do that early on in our program, and we'll talk about that agenda later, so we can take advantage of seeing some demonstration from certain constituency groups. The same kind of things relates to in here. The next page, relationships between outreach strategy and the public education campaign, I've already covered that. We will be working with the Department of Commerce on the education piece. This is the outreach piece that, if you approve, we'll begin moving very, very soon. We did say at the end of this paragraph that as we look at outreach, we will probably take in education ideas along the way, but we hope that Commerce would take the lead. Claimants for participation. This is a thought for you to consider. It's not an end all, be all, but again, a little bit of hoopla here, a little bit of flair might help with interest and visibility. So we might offer some buttons and t-shirts or some other ways to get our message across, at least get our visibility across, and that's yet to be considered by the task force, but it is possible. Staff and budget I've already covered. That area really gets to the fact that we'll be doing most of the work initially, but working with the detailee from the Department of Commerce. On the last page, publicity is very key that we must begin to develop a publicity side to what we're doing in order to get people to understand us and to begin to talk with us and give us their views. I said when Ed and I met with Secretary Brown several months back, as we discussed the work plan, he agreed with us that if we did not reach out to constituency groups and bring in their views and opinions and establish a dialogue as to how the real world reacts to what we do, we won't be credible at the end of '95. So this effort is extremely important to add credibility to what we do. So the last paragraph is talking about evaluation and future use of the outreach activity and emphasis should be placed on obtaining information from constituent groups about how the information superhighway could improve their lives, as well as what obstacles exist for their participation and what they're prepared to do to insure the successful development and implementation of the highway. So it's not just a dialogue, but we're feeding to them what we're about it. We want to hear from them as to their views and opinions, and the consequences of what we do and encourage them to work with us. The last paragraph, we have, on the interim, a person from audience development at National Public Radio, Judy Reece, and she's in the audience, and you can see her at lunch. Judy was working with us to help put this together, and she'll be working with the detailee from the Department of Commerce. A great deal of this work comes from Judy Reece and from Mary Joseph of NPR to get us going. So I wanted to make sure that we brought this before the council, as we said we would in the December meeting. That outreach is extremely important, and I'd like you to review this and give us your views. Contact Judy directly, gives your views and opinions on how we can improve it, and more so, work with us as we develop this. So the floor is open for discussion if you want to add some things or comment. VOICE: Yesterday, our mega project talked about this a little bit, as we spent the whole day going over our principles and so forth. One of the comments you made early on in the first part of the document was it would include discussion of the principles. Is that correct? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yes. VOICE: Because I noticed on the last page it talked about getting input on how people plan to use the NII, etcetera. But I think getting real feedback on what we see are principles would be also very helpful to us so that the real world give us, in advance, a preview on our principles prior to our coming up with a final report. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Right. That's a very good point. It may not have been explicit in this first draft, but it's certainly something I believe, and we can make that clear, that the principles that we're talking about are the foundations for what we're doing, and we want some feedback. You're absolutely correct. Is there a consensus that we move ahead? Very good. Thank you very much. One other item, Esther Dyson wants to talk about process on privacy for us to think about over lunch. MS. DYSON: Okay. And this is sort of a surprise to my co-chair John Cooke. We were told to come to you, Del, and Ed during lunch to go over what I'm about to do right now. But in the spirit of openness and in the desire to share our wonderful process with the other mega projects, I decided to do it right here. The issue is simply we are not -- or we don't believe that it's appropriate to ask the full council to vote on our privacy principles, since we just finished them yesterday, and there is also a second part of our work product and so forth and so on. What we would like to do is hand out our draft today before lunch so that you at least have a chance to look at it. Secondly, we'd like to give it out to the public, because rather than get the comments at the end, which we saw an example of this morning, we'd like to get the comments before we produce the final document for the full council. And so what we're trying to do is be as open as we can, both with the rest of the council and with the public, and we have a number of conference calls and so forth scheduled before the January meeting. VOICE: So the proposal was that we -- before lunch you pass out the latest draft of -- MS. DYSON: Yes. It's not fairly controversial approval I hope. VOICE: And then this afternoon -- I'd like to leave it on the agenda this afternoon because I think a discussion is very important. MS. DYSON: Absolutely. No. I'm not suggesting we close the discussion. I just want you to look at it, rather than read it during the discussion of electronic commerce. VOICE: But the proposal was that we might find that it's best to postpone the actual vote, consensus, whatever, until the January meeting, and I think that's appropriate. MR. COOKE: And really, the motive, as you can tell, is to get more input before we have more constituencies tell us what they think. MS. DYSON: We've gotten some public content, and frankly, that raised the question of are we semi- public because what we're doing is not really secret, but it's not quite public, and we just figured we'd rather get everybody commenting before, rather than after the fact. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Great. MS. DYSON: Okay. So I will hand these to you as you walk out. Thank you very much. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: One other item before we break for lunch. We want to recognize the presence of the Minister from Poland, Mr. Maric Soloff. He's Prime Minister of Commission for IT, Council of Ministries in Poland. Would you stand if you interested in our GII discussion. (Applause) CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Thank you very much for being with us. VOICE: Mr. Chairman, I have one thing I'd like to add. I did note that we began passing out some of our little gifts of sunshine from Hawaii to the members of the council, and we have not completely completed that by the time that we had reconvened. But for those of you who have not yet received our "Visit Hawaii" CDs, we do have them both in the Windows versions and in the Macintosh versions. So if you'll put your hands up if you have not yet received one of these, we'll have the staff distribute them to you before we break for lunch. Thank you. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: A couple of hands. Yes, Vance? MR. OPPERMAN: Del, in arranging the rest of the schedule for next year, I certainly hope a space has been reserved for us to go to Hawaii for a meeting. And I say that in part to the obvious, but also because the Senator makes the trip to all of our meetings from Hawaii, not an easy eight hour trip, and it seems to me that we ought to be willing to do the same in return, and particularly in the colder months of the year. (Laughter) CO-CHAIR LEWIS: It's a little bit cheaper for the Senator to do it than for us to do it, but I think your point is well taken. VOICE: And remember when we talked about groups. We don't want to make the geographically distant feel that they're not a part of our world. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: We are considering that schedule, and it has been talked about, without question. Anything else? CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: No. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: We have lunch at the Occidental Restaurant, and you go through Persian Square. WE'll probably have some folks guide us. It's walking distance. You go through Persian Square. It's next to the Willard Hotel. It's on the second floor, as I understand it, of the Occidental Restaurant,a nd we'll have lunch. And Ed and I think that if we work this right, we ought to be back here at 1:00, and that way we can move this agenda and get out as soon as possible. Thank you very much. We'll break for lunch. (Whereupon, the meeting was recessed for lunch.) AFTER RECESS (1:00 p.m.) CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Fellow council members, let's give Bob Kahn and his organization a round of applause, because he paid for -- (Applause) CO-CHAIR LEWIS: I'm very relieved, because it was my staff who made the recommendation. And I walked in and they said, "NPR?" And then I sat down, and Bill, for instance, said, "Are you paying for this?" I said, "I'm usually the last to know." But I'm so glad that -- MR. KAHN: I felt the quick pro quo was that we're now going to have a program called "all NII things considered." (Laughter) CO-CHAIR LEWIS: It sounds good. Thank you very much. It was a very good lunch, good comradery. And I heard that we had such a good morning there was some thought of our cutting a losses and not having afternoon session. But we've got work to do, and we have to forge ahead. But it was a great morning session. Progress was made, decisions were made, and I think we're well on our way. We have discussion and adoption of electronic commerce principles. Before I ask the co-chairs to speak, let me say just a little bit of background because this was some time ago that we framed the mega project. And if you recall, we spent some time -- some of you may not have been on the council--we had some members that came in later--that it was the thought that we wanted to get at substantive areas that would drive our work, and we knew we wouldn't cover them all. The first mega project dealt with visions and goals, as driven by four application. And since we've gotten so deep into those, I just wanted to remind you that was the purpose, the purpose was to look at the applications of electronic commerce, criminal justice of public safety, health care and education. Those were the applications we thought were real to people and very important to people. Not the end all be all, but very important. How would those applications drive our visions and our goals as a task force. So that's the thought here. And we're now looking at principles which will give us, again, underlying fundamental direction. But the whole idea is, once we sort this out in some fashion, it should give us some sense of how our visions and goals should be shaped. So I just remind you that's the focus of this mega project one. So I'll turn it over to the co-chairs. VOICE: By clever prearrangement, I will take part of that discussion on mega project one that deals with electronic commerce. Let me respond just a little bit to one of the comments that Del made. We decided yesterday -- and by we, I should say that in the interest of having a consensus, I missed the morning meeting in mega project one where consensus was achieved. To be forewarned. We decided on a plan of action to also start work on the health and human service component, public safety and government information component, and we've made some preliminary assignments of people from mega project one to continue in somewhat the same way we had done electronic commerce and education. So we're mindful of those areas, and we'll be working on those, along with the overall vision statement. Let me turn to the principles for electronic commerce. We have had these out to the entire council, I think, for the last two meetings. There have been additional changes and redraft. You should have in front of you, for our discussion, something where it says "December 6, 1994" in parenthesis. What I'd first like to do is to go in and tell you what changes have been made from the draft that was circulated earlier on November 29th. And for those of you that are in mega project one, these will be the changes that were made yesterday. So addressing your attention to that document, which is dated December 6th, in principle number four, we have added the phrase "and providers," which is underlined on your draft. We added -- and you'll note the derivation of this. On principle number five, we added the underlying phrase, "and harmonization of laws and regulations." And on number seven, we added, again, the underlying phrase you see there, "research and." And lastly in eight, and again, you'll recognize the discussion, we added the underlying phrase "global standards for inter-operability." I think that's all the changes that we made on the document in front of you. Did we miss the plurals? Yes. To be absolutely precise, we added "s" to the word government in principle number five. So it reads: "The primary roles of governments," and that's obviously to imply local, state and federal. Those are the changes that have been made. They're open for discussion. I believe it's fair to say that mega project one has adopted this and the previous draft with these changes, I think, by consensus, and if I misstated that, I'll be corrected very quickly. But we've had a lot of productive discussion and a lot of productive work. A lot of this came with this in different directions, but this represents, at least, our effort at consensus building. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Thank you very much. We will proceed, as we did -- does the other co-chair have anything? Or is that -- Jane? MS. PATTERSON: I'm going to discuss education, but I'm going to let Vance (INAUDIBLE). CO-CHAIR LEWIS: She's with you all the way. (Laughter) VOICE: I have a question, Del. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yes. Let me make one other comment before we start, that we'll proceed as we proceeded this morning, that if you have any major disagreements or comments or concerns, voice those, and then we'll move forward. VOICE: Vance, maybe you can answer. In paragraph four you mentioned privacy as one of the -- as a subject for a principle. MR. OPPERMAN: Right. VOICE: But in five, you again -- you repeat some of these things, like intellectual property, vigorous protection, civil protection, as being a subject of concern for the government, but you don't mention the protection of privacy there, and I think the consistency of privacy should be added in paragraph five. MR. OPPERMAN: Well, I think we put that in a separate sentence at the end of number five, and my recollection -- VOICE: Oh, okay. Okay. I see that. Yes. I'm sorry. MR. OPPERMAN: And that was meant, in part, of course, to address the issue of security, but that was as much consensus as we could get on that topic. So we put that way. MS. DYSON: And frankly, the thing I liked about it was that it sort of made the point that the private sector also has a role in those privacy and security standards. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Any other comments? Yes, Craig? DR. FIELDS: I actually have a question, following a comment. The comment being this is a very good job, and I have no suggestions for changes. But I do have a question about how you got to this point. And if you had to pick out one area of contention that you worked through in the group where some helped one way, some helped another way, and then you came on this side, and as I repeat, it's a very good position, could you identify one or two that were really discussion points where there were different views? MR. OPPERMAN: Well, I think the other members of mega project one ought to respond to that, Craig. My view of that was that the most difficult question that cropped up, the most commonly or at least the thread, was how to balance the role of government and the role of the private sector, and it comes up in almost every discussion in a myriad of different ways. Privacy, security, intellectual property, the whole research, pre- competitive. All of those become words that imply that kind of discussion, and from my vantage point, that was the most difficult thing to try to state in some -- at least generally enough that we could get agreement, but specifically enough so that we said something. But I think the other members of the mega project may have many different views of that, and we had different views. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Any other comments on that, other members who would like to comment? Susan, anything? MS. HERMAN: No. Masterful leadership, too, I might point out with Vance really shepherding us through. MR. OPPERMAN: But by now being there tomorrow morning, I want to clearly point out (INAUDIBLE). VOICE: Vance, we might want to point out that we did have considerable discussion on number two and how that was drafted, and particularly, concern for stating it was very important to address worker training, education and re-education, but not in mandating that the private sector had to, you know, have enrollment levels of employees or, you know, agree that they would, in fact, maintain everyone at the same level employment or any other kinds of mandates. So that was the way we were able to come to that point of view. MR. OPPERMAN: Yeah. I agree with that. And not only did that become an issue, I think Mort Bahr was the first to raise that, probably at the Chicago meeting that we had. But it also then -- I thought that whole discussion informed a great deal of our discussion in the lifelong learning principles because when you start talking about re-training and you start talking about the way that our economy has been changing and will continue to change, you then, I think inevitably and necessarily, discuss lifelong learning principles, which is the way we then later addressed and started to address education. The other point that I wanted to make that Deborah Kaplan had raised at the September meeting, and we wrestled with that in a variety of ways, and that's to address making sure that the NII, at the very beginning, at the hardware stage, the planning stage, is accessible to all peoples. We did not -- we did not specifically put in that kind of language in the principles. It's not because we don't have that thought very high in our minds. What we thought was more appropriate -- when you see the document that will follow this, you'll see the guideposts and the viewpoints, and you'll see that issue dealt with there, and I think fairly and appropriately dealt with. Also, in the vision statement, we'll be coming back. And we have drafted -- because we thought it was important enough that it ought to be a special principle that goes to the entire vision statement. And we have drafted language, which I can't put my hands on at the moment. We drafted language for inclusion in the overall vision statement that addresses a specific principle to that issue. And so we will be bringing back to the entire council, when we bring back the overall vision statement, a variety of different statements, but one of them will address the question of people's access, regardless of how they come to the NII, and that is an important overall principle. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Very good. Did that answer your question, Craig? DR. FIELDS: I think so. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: It was a very instructive question because it helps us think through the process and how we come together for a consensus. Any other comments? (No response.) CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Any other comments from the mega project team on the principles for electronic commerce? (No response.) CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Well, hearing none, would we consider this work of art here a consensus? Done. And congratulations to mega project one. We have principles for electronic commerce. MR. OPPERMAN: Thank you very much. And really, the people who participated in this, our mega project one, spent just an inordinate amount of time, and we really thank you. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Thank you. Thank you for your leadership. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Let's turn our attention to the education arena. VOICE: Okay. I'd like to start out with just a couple of brief comments as well, as Vance, and just to identify the members, for everyone again, of our mega project. And that is Morton Bahr, Toni Bearman, Bonnie Bracey, George Heilmeier, Susan Herman, Bob Johnson, Alex Mandl and John Sculley. We've had really excellent attendance at our meetings. And as Vance said, that yesterday we did, in fact, agree to sort of an ambitious schedule of coming back to you, to ourselves, in January to look at the criminal justice and public safety, government information, as well as health and human services areas and providing principles and guideposts and issues there as well. The education of our people is critical to the development of a competitive work force in the U.S., as well as to enhancing the quality of life for all of us. Our mega project team and staff interviewed more than 25 experts in the field of lifelong learning. We have through these principles two or three times, and as well, we have concurred that we should take these out to a group of additional practitioners in the area of lifelong learning, and we spent a weekend in the rolling hillsides of Virginia that John Cooke, at least, has so far not been able to take on for his company. (Laughter) VOICE: But we spent a weekend -- MR. COOKE: I feel that I need to respond that company exited those hills some months ago. VOICE: Oh, okay. But we took your place and provided not quite the economic input that your company would have, but we were there for a weekend. We had practitioners, we had curriculum developers, we had university researchers, teachers, we had librarians, principals, superintendents, industry software developers and people from the non-profit community as well who were with us during that weekend. You have seen, I would hope -- we sent out to, at least under mega project one, for your review, some of the key things that actually came out of that conference over the weekend. We handed out the principles as draft. We told everyone that we wanted their input, but it was very important for them to understand that even after we factored their input into our principles, that these were still subject to the review of the members of the council and would still be draft, and we would be, indeed as all the council was doing, taking principles back out, once they've been signed off, to the American people to have a chance to have input as well. Behind each principle, we pointed out, were points of view of many people. They had been refined through vigorous debate within our own mega projects, and that issues have been identified and guideposts that we could, in fact, say were measurable. After we are through today, both with electronic commerce and with education, we go back with our guideposts and our issues so that we can come back to you in the future. We do feel also that in the report that we would like to have on education, we want to continue to have some costing and the build out of the network, addressing the issues of teacher training and staff development. The issue of virtual library is an application that is critical to the NII. What are the gaps in the teaching of technology in the classroom, and also, what are some financial alternatives for the deployment of the NII for schools, libraries, community colleges, universities, community centers. So we spent a lot of time working on this. Before I go any further, I wanted to give you a test, and that was to give you a chance to at least have one aspect under educational literacy, and that is writing. If you would take the lifelong principles out and write the word D-R-A-F-T, draft, on the top to make certain that this does not get passed out to anyone other than those of us without the word draft appearing on it, we'd appreciate it. Let me ask you to go with me through the principles. This is our first time in really discussing this to any degree with those of us who are on the council who are not part of our effort on this first go around. Our principles, we felt that provide -- by providing access to geographically distribute the information sources and to remote sources of instruction, the NII can enhance the quality or education of teachers and libraries. We also believe that the greatest promise of this technology lies enabling more fundamental change in formal education systems and empower new models of lifelong learning. Mega project one has been examining how we can -- NII can be used to improve the quality and accessibility of learning throughout life, as well as defining steps policy makers could take to facilitate rapid innovation. In our principle number one, some of our points of view that we have raised have been that libraries and educational institutions are crucial public institutions to insure convenient universal access to the NII and that educational institutions and libraries should create community based opportunities for collaborative learning that provide people of all ages a very wide array of lifelong educational resources, including ongoing vocational re-training, and this will require major shifts in the current function of libraries, educational institutions and other community organizations. And you will note that the phrasing of the lifelong principle, by providing people of all ages with opportunities for lifelong learning and work place skills development, information infrastructure should enhance each individual's ability to create and share knowledge and to participate in the electronic communities of learning. Our second principle, we had a number of points of view in this area, and that is that, number one, without resources or funding, that educational institutions and libraries cannot both create new lifelong learning services available over the NII and continue to simultaneously provide a full range of conventional educational offerings. In the long run, we think that as technology advances that the price performance of telecommunications and computer technology will dramatically improve and that services in schools, universities, libraries and other educational institutions, the limit for dollars spent on education should rise. But there's some illustrative issues that we're going to address by action items in this area, but our principle would read, "By the year 2000, all communities and all people should have convenient access to information and learning resources, available through the NII in their schools, colleges, universities, libraries and other community centered institutions." And number three starts off the education, training and lifelong learning resources available through information infrastructure should be of world class quality, and the diversity of these resources should be broad enough to meet the full spectrum of society's interests. There are some questions that we will be looking into further in this respect. You know, what differential roles should public and private institutions play in creating educational information content for lifelong learning; how can the critical mass of schools, universities, libraries and other types of community centers needed to sustain various types of educational services. The whole issue here of changes in U.S. copyright laws is a question, and how can the development of diverse types of lifelong services be encouraged and how can the quality of educational offerings on the NII be assessed. Number four, the capabilities of the NII, should be used as a tool by all participants to enhance education, training and lifelong learning, and that this will facilitate the reconstruction of our educational institutions and the redefinition of the roles of everyone involved, educators, administrators, librarians, parents, students, employers and other members of society. If, in fact, we're going to use the NII to automate our traditional educational processes and techniques, then relatively little leverage in improving educational outcome will actually take place. Beyond developing computer communication infrastructures and high quality content, we have to have more systemic changes and organizational structures and goals and incentive systems if we read the full potential of the NII in lifelong learning. We are addressing a number of illustrative issues there that we will hopefully be discussing with you and some guideposts in the future. Our fifth principle, individuals and their communities should be empowered to help shape the evolution of information infrastructure and to decide how information resources available through the NII can best meet their learning needs. Number six, a knowledge based global economy will stimulate the creation of jobs that demand new information intended for work place skills. Learning resources available on the NII should equip individuals of all ages with these skills and enable them to thrive and contribute in this new information society. When I spoke to you about taking these principles before the group, actually at Westfield, I hope that you will have time to go back and look at themes that they saw central to the evolution of lifelong learning on the NII. And we specifically asked them to address a number of questions about -- during the weekend, and we actually defined it around fostering communities of learning, what types of instructional resources best facilitate learned centered education; access and finance, asking them how can the technical design of the NII be configured to enhance the delivery of high quality of portable service; what types of communications and computer infrastructures are needed in schools, etcetera; what is their cost and what will universal access and usage of lifelong service cost. We also asked them to go into content and applications, which they were quite willing to do. And we talked with them further about reconstructing the entire educational system in the United States and how critical that was, and the continuum of education as we look forward in K through 12, community colleges and universities in realizing that the large percentage -- the largest percentage at least of our universities now are people over the age of 24, and also, of the fastest growing percentage within the community in technological colleges are individuals with bachelor's degrees coming back for additional training. And again, the whole issue of keeping in mind, from the financing aspects, numbers that some of us aren't quite aware of, which Toni calls out to us regularly and that libraries are central to this whole issue of lifelong learning, and that the Federal Government only provides--is it 5.7%--of the actual funding of libraries in this country. So we have spent a lot of time with members of the group discussing this, looking at government's role, the private sector's role, and the various principles that we think are critical to the whole question of lifelong learning, and these are the principles in our first opportunity to bring them before you today for your comments. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Very good. I think I've had the same experience that many of you have had in going around the country giving talks about various subjects. Whenever we talk about the NII, and the subject of education comes up, everybody wakes up. It's an important issue for I think a lot of us, and I think discussion is really valuable. Since this is the first time, I would expect a good deal of discussion because I think it is important. Esther? MS. DYSON: If I were to ask Craig Fields this question, I could guess at least one answer, and if it wasn't, I'm surprised, which is -- and this applies in a lot of places. But when you say people should have convenient access, does that mean free? I'm sure there was some discussion. You seem to evade the question of what happens to intellectual property. How convenient exactly should it be? When you talk about a virtual library, what are you -- what's your notion of fair use? We wrestled with these problems a lot, too. So I'm just -- VOICE: That was quite an issue for us. Fortunately, our members of the mega council are quite articulate, and so I'm going to throw this to Toni to answer. MS. BEARMAN: We did discuss that at great lengths. I think one of the reasons that we were able to agree to the principles is that we did maybe sidestep some issues. We very carefully did not put in the word "free." We are talking about convenient. I think it's important for people to remember that libraries, museums, archives, historical societies, all of the cultural institutions, are very much a part of building the NII and are very accustomed to buying materials for the libraries, to paying for software, etcetera. Nobody is saying that things should be done without charge, and libraries are very strong supporters of the protection of intellectual property. I was the one who asked earlier why we weren't including mechanisms for people to pay for the use of intellectual property. So I don't think that we really have a disagreement about that. I think we are, of course, very concerned to make sure that we not widen the gap between the information haves and information have nots. But the wording that we did come to agreement on, I think, is very fair and reasonable wording, and it did take lots and lots of time to come to that. VOICE: Yeah. But then, in that case, why was there no wording to the effect that we acknowledge the notion that intellectual property should be paid for. I mean, maybe it's implicit, but it does seem to be left out almost. I mean, convenient -- MS. BEARMAN: Well, remember we were working, at the same time, on two separate (INAUDIBLE). We are also working on the third set, which Vance referred to, which is what we see as the over arching principle, and we do have some in that. I think what we on the mega project one, and please correct me if I'm wrong, see that we will eventually have the vision and over arching principles and then these series of principles as part of that. VOICE: And the applications. MS. BEARMAN: And the applications. And under each of our principles, we have specific questions to be addressed, action items, and also milestone, or I forget what we call them. VOICE: Guideposts. MS. BEARMAN: Guideposts. So that we'll know what we have done. But we didn't put them in this particular set because I don't think that they're needed in this particular set. VOICE: I think it's really important to understand that we went to the educators because we wanted a diverse group of opinions. We are in touch with them, and we'll have a list serve that we're putting up to share with them and to get their feedback. The one thing that usually happens in education in the United States is that when we find out about it, we're just told to do it. This is one time we're involving educators from the ground up. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Stanley? MR. HUBBARD: I have a comment and two points. Congratulations. I think it's very well done job. My points are these: By the year 2000, I don't know what my friend here would say, I think if we had a plan today and we went -- I don't think we'd ever make it by the year 2000, and I would hate to have us be embarrassed 2000. I'm wondering if it wouldn't make sense to say as soon as practical or something. VOICE: Well, our council felt very strongly -- VOICE: Or just scratch it out. (INAUDIBLE). MR. HUBBARD: Yeah. Or just say all communities and all people, and take out the year 2000. I think we're setting a goal that isn't going to be reached, and I -- MS. BRACEY: Stanley, in education, if you don't put the goal immediately and then it's always left until, if you say 2005, that's when they'll start to think about it. MR. HUBBARD: I don't know if I agree with that. MS. BRACEY: I have a document here from the NCETET, which is a listing of over 2000 groups of teacher education groups who say that the year 2000 is -- now, we're not talking about a telephone in every classroom, but we mean just the beginning of the ideational scaffolding that will allow education to join the rest of the world. MR. HUBBARD: Then, Bonnie, we should say that, because if we don't mean a full system, we should say it. MS. BRACEY: No. MR. HUBBARD: It should be in part be in place by the year 2000. Right? I think you started (INAUDIBLE). MS. BRACEY: I agree with you. MR. HUBBARD: All right. VOICE: We were also trying to respond to the whole goals 2000 effort as well in our discussion, and we felt that it would be important to state this up front. And we have members of our group that will tell you the NII already exist and that it just exists, you know, maybe not with the depth and the broadness of the bandwidth of this point that could get to everyone, but there is an NII out there. And so it's important to begin to realize that we -- if we didn't set a date, it would be 2005, and we're fudging on what's getting there in 2000. VOICE: I must say to you then, the Internet is already in place. MS. BRACEY: Yeah. But it's not in every school, and some of the people in this council are getting tired of me saying that we don't have a phone, but -- MR. HUBBARD: I can tell you right now you're not going to make the date. You can do what you want. There is no way to make it. I was just with U.S. West people talking about the interactive world last Friday for two and a half hours, and they said there ain't no way it's going to happen 30 years. I said, "Well, it's going to happen in 30 years because we have to make it happen." So there is a difference. The second point I had was this, is I think we have to talk about removing artificial barriers that states put in the way of this, kind of an educational infrastructure, and I'll give you two examples. I was on a (INAUDIBLE) panel two weeks ago, and I was hearing about -- I don't know who it -- I can't remember who it was, whether it was children's television or -- (End Side B tape 2.) MR. HUBBARD: -- state board of education in the State of Minnesota. These are artificial barriers which I think we have to break down or we're not going to have a very effective system. I just point that out for what it's worth. VOICE: I might add, Stanley, that that was part in parcel of our entire discussion of reconstructing our educational institution, and the redefinition of the roles of everyone involved. That was a big issue, and the actual rules and procedures are out there that prevent the NII right now. And the issues such as the training of teachers and certification in more than one state, when you might be teaching across state lines, questions of articulation and credit, all of these were issues that we are talking about in reconstructing the schools, and we would concur that your issues fit right in there. MR. HUBBARD: Well, I just -- I didn't get that out of it. Maybe I'm not clever enough to figure out, but I just wanted to point that out. VOICE: Stanley, you're very clever. And the thing that you like the most is that you understand the issues. We in teaching also understand that there are many barriers, and in the "Breaking the Barrier" conference, some of those things were eluded to. Like even in telemedicine, there are a lot of new applications that we have to work our way through. But we're concerned, if we give a later date, that the later we give the date, the later people get concerned about getting it done. So we didn't want to delay it all, because our schools need help. Now, there are a lot of different, new types of schooling that people are thinking about. We could lose the whole public school system. We can't afford to do that. Children are not political footballs. This is our future we're talking about. VOICE: Can I just add just one last thought on the issue of the 2000 reference? CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: I don't think it will be the last one. VOICE: All right. One more then. We discussed the fact of -- about these principles in general, what's their purpose and speaking for myself, but I think for the entire group, that we really believe that our job was not to be good predictors of the future, to be the new amazing Kreskins, but instead to really try to inspire and promote and push envelopes, if you will. As John Sculley, I think, said earlier today on another issue, you know, we need to take a stand and take some aggressive stands. I agree with you. Probably by the year 2000, if you were to look at every school, library, community center that does extended learning, you won't find the NII in full blossom in each of those. But if these principles help to promote that, help to challenge that, help to push that envelope, I think we will have done a major good and a made a difference. And so I would -- despite the sort of mixed metaphor between a principle and a goal, and I would suppose setting the year 2000 is more like a goal than a principle, that aside, I think that it's useful to set some kind of horizon in which we encourage people to reach. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: You know, I think the other interesting thing here is something we'll talk about later when we talk about access, which is this point, of course, is the idea that the NII isn't just one thing. VOICE: Right. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: And I think the access mega project has broken it up into two things, a shorter term thing and a longer term thing, and that may be useful to think about in this context as well. MS. BRACEY: And, Stanley, the people who are in school boards, the communities, the PTAs, when we give them something that they can use to address what the problem is, then they'll help us solve those problems that you and I are talking about. MR. HUBBARD: I'm not hung up on it. MS. BRACEy; Yeah. I know you're not hung up on it. I'm just saying that you help us to frame the thinking for these types of things. The kinds of things that you're finding, teachers have found a long time. This is a time when we're getting some help from the government and from people who are advising us in ways that will allow us to deploy that. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: We have Deborah Kaplan and then Bob Kahn. MS. KAPLAN: I was going to say, I think like minds think in like ways. Mega project two has struggled with this question, and if you turn to our principles, number two looks very similar to this one. We put it as a goal and had a lot of discussion about what year we should be talking about. Many of us felt we should even have it be sooner. Not that we all think it's the most realistic goal in the world, but I think we have very strong feelings that we really have a need for leadership here. We need to push. We need to set some goals that push all of the constituencies involved to really move ahead aggressively in this because it's a very, very important issue. My second point, to drift away from the year 2000 a little, is in the way offering, I guess, resources. I am very pleased with these principles. I think they're excellent. I can see many places where, as these get developed, there will be ways to insert issues around universal design and access for people with disabilities. Let me just say, an issue that at some point will need to be taken into account, if you haven't already, is one that was brought to my attention by the Assistant Secretary in the Department of Education for Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, who is very concerned that as schools in states and communities around the country are already gearing up to make large purchases of infrastructure and technologies for schools, there tends to be an assumption that the special education funds and special education systems will take care of the needs of disabled students and that their needs are different the mainstream needs for infrastructure and software and hardware for students. And I think she's very concerned that that's probably the most inefficient and expensive way to go about looking at the future of all students. And as you move ahead, I'd be happy to provide you with specific resources for expanding on that particular problem. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Thank you. Bob? MR. KAHN: Yes. I think for all the principles and virtually everything we say, the issue of priorities is going to have to be addressed, and it seems to me that the topic separate to and orthogonal to the statement of the principles themselves, I might point out that the one that talks about by the year 2000 may be the only principle that's actually got a date associated with it. It seems that we ought to be pretty consistent. I don't see that we should put timeliness and milestones with most of the principles, and I don't see why this one should be separated out. So I would either start it with all communities or as soon as practical, or something like that. But to actually put a date in there seems out of place with everything else. Now, that's a retrospective comment. If I could, I'd like to just talk about the other principles that are listed here because while I not only have no objection to the intent of the principles, I actually think they could be better worded along a number of dimensions. Let me give you some examples. This is not an attempt to try and argue with the principles. It's just to tighten up the wording a bit. For example, number one, "By providing people of all ages with opportunities for lifelong learning." I understand the intent of that, but I think everybody here would agree that we would probably choose to leave out prenatal and postanance from all ages. But I wonder if we really mean all ages. I think what we really mean is anybody who is able to. I don't think we want to address the four month old in the crib and the terminally ill who can't learn. But this one says we've got to provide it to them, too, and I just wonder if we couldn't tighten this up to be a little more specific. Let me just go through each of them, and then we can come back, if you'd like. This particular set of wording talks about information infrastructures. The first time the plural version shows up in anything. So either we're talking about the National Information Infrastructure, which includes all of these things, or we're talking about multiple national information infrastructures, and I think we ought to be clear on for the singular here. And I have thought that education training and lifelong resources were part of the information infrastructure, and point three talks about getting them through it. So it's like it's something that's different, as opposed to part of it. I think we ought to be clear on that. And number four, it seems to me that we don't really want to require that all participants use the capabilities of the NII as a tool, because if they may not want to, who's going to force them. It seems to me either we ought to say they should be available as a tool to all participants, or that the capability should be used to facilitate the reconstruction of our institutions. But I think the way it's now written it sounds like we want to coerce everybody to use these tools for that purpose, and that's not what I think we meant. On point number five, the issue of individuals in the community, and even how states play into this, is very important. But the issue of deciding how to empower anybody to help shape things, it seems to me there's a whole decision process that needs to be addressed, that you'd be better off how to put the decision process in place, than just simply saying people should be empowered, because who's going to do the empowerment. It's a complex, multi-party social function. And then again, the issue of all ages shows up in the global based economy. I really don't think we mean that the four month old in the crib should be part of the global economy, although maybe that was the intent. So I do have that set of questions about exactly how it's written because I think it's not saying precisely what we mean. I'm not objecting to the general tenor or the thrust here, just to the specific tightness of the wording. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: (INAUDIBLE)? VOICE: Yes. And maybe this responds a little bit to Bob's point. With respect to the setting of dates, you know, mega project two has grappled with issue fairly aggressively and perhaps some of the things that mega project two has come up with, in looking at both short term as well as long term goals, will give us some way of beginning to set some actual milestones. I think mega project's two deliberations did give us a sense that it was important to set out some specific tangible goals, and perhaps if we could defer portions of this discussion, you know, until we get into mega project two, we do have a lot of to cover that addresses this very point. Thank you. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Vance? MR. OPPERMAN: Bob, I find myself almost always in total agreement with what you say, but I don't think I agree with you on the specificity of date. I agree with Stanley that the year 2000 will come and go and we won't have accomplished this, but we are writing a part of a political document, and we're writing a document that's intended to be understood by wide areas of various communities, and a document that also stresses the importance, and the singular importance of some of these developments. When in the past this country has decided to do that, such as going to the moon, or when Vice President Gore kicked this effort off, they both used specific dates. And the use of a specific date was a way to avoid the problem of all deliberate speed, which is a phrase that came to us out of the educational community, and I think that in this case, and I would tend to agree with you in almost every other instance, but i think in this case it is so important. Some of us feel that education is the most important thing we're going to be involved, and for that reason, it is just critically important that we set an ambitious goal that have the specificity of a date, that it resonates with the history and culture of setting important goals, which you do by setting important dates. And I tend to agree with you on your other comments, and I generally agree that one should not set dates. It's the apocalyptic problem. If you're going to predict the end of the world, do it 100 years from now, not next week. But in this case, I think it's so important, and I think the setting of a date signals the importance and gives us an important signal to be led by, and that's the reason I was glad to see the date in here. MR. KAHN: Can I respond to that briefly? CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Sure, Bob. MR. KAHN: I really think this is a matter of priorities, and if this particular council feels that this particular one is the most important priority, then I could see doing that kind of thing. But I could easily imagine other people arguing that other principles are equally high priority, and therefore, we either ought to put dates on every principle, or say everything should be done expeditiously or most expeditiously. I be happy to, you know, have the chairs entertain this discussion of priorities of all the principles, and then if we then decide this one is absolutely the highest priority to put it a day on it or single it out that way. But it seems to me, absent that consensus in the group that this is the priority one, I think we ought to be consistent and just leave off the dates. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Let me add to that. I'm not so sure we're prepared to discuss priorities, in light of the principles. But I would say, let's keep in mind that this task force, mega project one, was visions and goals as driven by four applications, and I see nothing wrong with having a vision of the year 2000. It's not very -- sure, it's a very short time frame, but it is an application that we feel strongly about, as it relates to a vision of NII. And would be one, if you had a vote, to say that it is important. I'm not so sure I'm one to say let's judge that in relationship to other priority principles. But if I'm thinking about a vision for the NII, to be as specific on one that seems to attract all of us, which is education, I'm prepared to say it make sense from a vision point of view and a push point of view, a stretch point of view, that's important. So that's where I would come out. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Craig and then Bill. DR. FIELDS: I think this is generally a good piece of work, and while there's no doubt that there's room for improvement in everything, including the words on the page, I have a question about the next steps, which I'm more concerned about. In particular, the following: In our letters to Ron Brown, we congratulated him and the Administration on some things and made some suggestions for doing even better on some other things. And one of the areas for doing even better was to cost some things out. And at this stage, having some constructive ambiguity is okay, but I'd like to get a sense of the group's views and what's going to happen in the next year or so. Are we going -- because money is the fuel for many of these, regrettably or not. Are we going to, you know, sort of have kind of a model of what might happen, how much it might cost, where the money might come from, to make sure we're just getting into the ballpark of reality in making these suggestions, and is that part of the plan. VOICE: I'd be glad to address that, if you want me to? Yes. That's correct. As I stated in my introductory remarks, we are working with an outside group that is working with us to actually look at costing out different models that are ongoing in the country, right now in different states, so that we can then also extrapolate from that to look at the actual cost that we might be talking about to carry through with number two. It's a fairly expensive project and one that we think will not be complete until around May, at which time we would bring that back to this body for full discussion, Craig. And so we were cognizant of that being very critical. Let me just point out one other thing also, and that is the issue of all ages. We had, at our session -- lifelong learning is lifelong learning. Clearly, when one begins to learn, whether it's the beginning of -- at birth or, you know, prior to death, and we had some real issues involved. Representatives of Seniornet were with us at the conference at Westfield and were very, very concerned that we were leaving out a large majority of over age 65 in the lifelong learning process, in pointing out that in the year 2010 or 2020 what percentage of us would be over that age. And in discussing this, it got so intense at one time, Bob, that one of our groups started referring to eternal service and the wiring of -- (Laughter) VOICE: What we would actually do is that late in the evening, and we were quite concerned, and so we felt it was really important to look at all ages. It was very important, and we sort of compromised, rather than beginning to pull out the various age groups. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: I want to add one comment on Craig's point about cost. This question has come up to all of us as we plowed through the principles, and I think your point is well taken for the next steps. The principles really give us the ground floor, as we've said all day today. In some cases, we may have gone too far. In some cases, maybe not far enough, and that's been the chore of the council, to get that balance. But the basic point here is principles should give us the basic foundation, and we can't solve it all in principles. Now, the next steps are extremely important. I think when we hear from mega project two, they've wrestled with some of the same questions and cost are certainly very, very key with this group, as well as others, and I think we'll wrestle with those. So the point is, yes, that's going to happen. What form? We're still dealing with. We also have -- at the end of this meeting today, I'm going to make some comments that Ed and I have talked about about next steps. So we'll give a little more clarity to the next steps. VOICE: And I add also that when we talked about our principles, we see our specificity as getting into the actual illustrative issues and guideposts, which you'll be getting from us, as you will from all of our areas and applications. And we also thought, Del and Ed, that in our discussions that we recommended that our report and, you know, our efforts in the costing out, that there be a presentation given to the Governors at their -- the National Governors Association meeting in Vermont this -- in late July, and that we have you bring before them where we are in this area of education. We think this is very critical, and it's putting them on the mark about moving ahead in the financing of education, as well, in the NII. VOICE: When we talk about accessing schools, colleges, etcetera, etcetera, I assume we're talking about public, not privately funded, privately owned, for profit, etcetera, etcetera. And if so, I would suggest adding public in here. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Esther, you seem to want to make a comment? MS. DYSON: I would hope that we're considering all kinds of institutions of learning, especially since we didn't say this should be free. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Well, but the implication, and I guess in project two we'll get into this somewhat too, and we -- am I right in saying we have the word public institution in there? VOICE: Right. VOICE: Okay. And so we're going to have to deal with consistency here. I would argue hard for public. If Chris Whittle puts some schools together, sets up some private networks, etcetera, etcetera, do we want to -- and I think there will be some subsidies and there will be some funding. Do we want any of that to flow that way? I would argue no, because what we're -- and particularly here when we talk about by 2000. We're talking about how to have -- how people can have broad access, and it's through public institutions. VOICE: We were quite concerned, Bill, about the issue of public and private. We talked about that a great deal. One of the reasons why, frankly, we left it out was the whole issue of community centers, that there are community centers that are publicly funded, and there are some that are actually very viable and vibrant institutions that are church funded, as well as those that are funded by other organizations. And our concern was access for people to the NII and not -- and we bagged the question on public and private, and I admit that. VOICE: But -- VOICE: Let me -- VOICE: So then we do run up against the issue of some funding and subsidies then flowing private, public, etcetera? VOICE: Not yet. VOICE: Well, not yet, but we will get there. We really will. VOICE: We will. But I'd actually like to twist this around. If Christ Whittle wants to have a school, a private for a profit school, I think this applies to him. He should provide access to the NII through his school. This doesn't say that government should do it, but it says that all communities and people should have convenient access through schools, including private schools, such as Chris Whittle's. VOICE: And so therefore, who -- VOICE: If he wants to pay for NII access for his customers, God bless him. VOICE: Right. I agree with that. But the way I read this, and I think the way we have intended it, is this is the way to jump start broad access through the NII to all kinds of information and teaching resources. VOICE: Yeah. I mean, fundamentally, I agree with you, and I'm trying to flush out this issue of yeah, this stuff has to be paid for, and we can't really sidestep it. But there's a big difference between it should be paid for directly and educational institutions should use their funds to provide it and should be directed to do so. I mean, the discussion isn't over, and I don't want to prolong here. VOICE: But there is going to be a consistency issue. VOICE: Well, there should be. VOICE: Yes. VOICE: Well, I'm not sure that there is really going to be a consistency issue when you compare what's here with the second mega project two, universal access and service principles. As we stated, if I understand it, it's the same ambitious deadline of the year 2000 in them. The significant difference that leaps out at me between the lifelong learning principles number two, and the access principles number two, is that the access principles refer to public institutions. This one, by not referring to public institutions, is not necessarily inconsistent, but it simply addresses the issue more generally, less specifically. It allows a wide latitude for interpretation than the other. It's not necessarily an inconsistency at all. VOICE: I'd just add that I think there's a difference between setting a goal of where you want to go, where you want to have access and how you fund it. And as Jane was eluding to earlier, our mega project is, in fact, going to be taking a look at how it has been financed. And I think, in some instances, you're going to find public funding, and I think in some instances you're going to find private funding, and I think in some cases you're going to a hybrid. I think that the principle is intended to do -- state a principle, a goal that we want to achieve, and I think the how tos, the who gets financing, if there is a major part of money, who should qualify for it, is not something that changes necessarily the principle, but just is one way to deliver the principle. But I don't seem them as contradictory. I see them very much as one complimenting the other. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: I think it -- go ahead. VOICE: One of the concerns that I hear -- I keep hearing repeated, the comments about consistency of principles and of wording, etcetera, is something that's going to have to be addressed by everything. I mean, by you, in writing your reports. We'll all have to come to some agreement about whether it reads NII or information infrastructure, or for that matter, you know, whether we -- all American citizens or Americans or people or communities. I mean, we have to come to an agreement about that. So we gave you our best ideas on how this should be done, and we all have to agree on those. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Vance, and then I had a couple of comments. MR. OPPERMAN: Sue expressed my views. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Okay. You know, I think we really have two directions to go here. One would be to, you know, finalize this next time, or we can do just a little bit of wordsmithing here. I think we should be able to do the second because I think that we're close enough, that if we spent just a little bit of time here doing some very specific wordsmithing, point by point perhaps, that we could drive through to a conclusion, and I would suggest that we try that. We've had a lot of general discussion now, we've gotten a lot of things from the table. Let's try to perhaps take it point by point and see if we can reach something we can agree on. Maybe we can start with point one. I think one comment was infrastructure rather than infrastructures. I would certainly agree with that. Any other comments on point one that you -- VOICE: (INAUDIBLE). CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Oh, right. We should start with the preamble. VOICE: Yeah. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: the preamble sound okay to point one. VOICE: I'd like to speak to the issue and explain what the reasoning was for information infrastructures. There are those of us who believe that the local information infrastructure, the LII, as I keep trying to insert into the vocabulary, has a very real and very vital part of making the NII real. If you have a beautiful 50 mile ribbon of highway, but the first of last mile have been destroyed by, oh, let's say an earthquake, that ribbon of highway isn't going to mean anything, no matter how great it is. And so, again, I think it's -- we're talking about communities here. We're talking about learning and education, which essentially happens in communities, and then one rides the NII, if you will, maybe to distinct locations as well in distant learning applications. But the reason for the reference, Bob, was because of the fact that there was a recognition that there really is -- there are some infrastructures that are out there, and those linking up with one another is the thing that really makes this whole network. So it was intentionally in its drafting. Now, if it's the consensus of the group that you don't agree with that principle, then it can be redrafted. But there was an intent in the way it was drafted. VOICE: I think we all probably agree with the principle. The question -- we're talking more probably about the use of the word in English, and probably either one is appropriate, infrastructure or infrastructures. VOICE: (INAUDIBLE). (Laughter) CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Are there any more (INAUDIBLE)? VOICE: And we'll take infrastructure and infrastructures in the final (INAUDIBLE). VOICE: I really think we should tighten up this issue of all ages because I don't think we mean it literally, but I think we ought to get the essence of that point across. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: The question is all ages. We have a couple of people that have comments. VOICE: Okay. I didn't disagree because I didn't think it was going to go anywhere, but with the exception of six month old infants, I mean, there are very young children who can sit in front of the screen and look at things. VOICE: I agree. VOICE: I just -- we're not saying that it needs to be imposed on everybody, but I think we are talking about all ages. I mean, otherwise we get into the when does life start. You know, is it at two months or -- VOICE: If you said just provide participants with opportunities, it seems to me that covers everybody who is a participant. VOICE: But the point here is we're not writing legislation. This is a goal, and we really do want people of all ages to be included, and I think it's good to say so explicitly. VOICE: And our reason for including it was that we found that in the literature, people now, sometimes six times, change their jobs. And training, a lot of the training that they get may be from specifically something like the Internet, or something like that. So we included it to allow people to retrain for the next job or whatever the next application that they would need to be able to continue to be useful members of society. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: So the issue that's on the table right now is the all ages thing, and we're -- VOICE: But (INAUDIBLE). I think everybody knows what it means when it says all ages. VOICE: Yes. VOICE: I don't think anybody is thinking it's a baby in the womb or a one month old. If I'm selling a commercial product to all ages, it means anybody that's capable of taking part. I think that's -- VOICE: If the panel is comfortable with that, knowing that it can be misinterpreted, I'm willing to go along. (Laughter) CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Well, I'm one of those who believe that it should be all ages because I think there is learning going on in the womb. I mean, there's body of thought there so I'm on the other side of that one. I think it is -- VOICE: It's life start now. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yeah. Life start. (Discussion among council members.) VOICE: Living people of all ages. How about that. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Only alive people. (Laughter) CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Okay. Okay. Let's get back to the issue, and I think that we're in agreement that the wording all ages does work here. Anything else on the first point? Second point? (No response.) CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: I would recommend myself that we consider leaving this in, this by the year 2000. If we, as we visit mega project two a little later on, if we change that for some reason, then we come back and do this over. But I think setting some real goals is very important, and I think spurring the country into action in this area is very important. And I think if we just kind of say it should happen as soon as possible, it will happen eventually. VOICE: (INAUDIBLE). VOICE: Again, public. I'd like to see public inserted there. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: And private schools? VOICE: Yes. VOICE: No. I think -- may I speak to that? One of the reasons we did not do that is we are not talking about who will pay for this. We do think the access should be provided, whether it is private or public. And by the way, we should make clear, somewhere at the very beginning of all of this, that private does not mean only large for profit corporations. It means, for example, MIT, it means not for profit institutions, basically other than government. But we are talking about the access, and we would not want to restrict the access. It is very clear that the access will be paid for in different ways, for different types of organizations and for different types of information. VOICE: I have no disagreement with that. I -- you know, I agree along those lines. I agree exactly with what you've said. My concern is that by setting a vision or a goal out here, where clearly some of it is going to have to be subsidized and aided, in one way or another in order to have it happen, that the overhang is going to be that it happens for every school, every whatever. I'm concerned about downstream. So where do we -- where will we, in this whole process, start drawing that distinction then? VOICE: When we get into discussing cost and who will pay. VOICE: Well, fine. And maybe I leave it to the chairs to say at one some point. I can agree with this as a vision, and I can agree with it the way it's been described. That's fine. And I'm willing to, you know, agree. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: It seems to me, Bill, that we have two kind of places to do that. One is that we discuss the work of mega project two on access before we deal with this directly believe. and then other -- as we get into actual plans is when we really need to start talking (INAUDIBLE). VOICE: Okay. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: But I think it's an appropriate vision for our country that we provide access -- VOICE: I don't disagree with that. I don't disagree. Just one last point because I think it will pop up in a number of other places. As Ed just said, we are trying to articulate vision, vision for the nation, not necessarily vision for the government as a whole in the implementation of the vision. So much of what vision is about goes far beyond what particular role, be it from a legislative perspective or from a funding perspective, is the government going to play here. I mean, communities, private citizens, private enterprises is part of the overall vision statements that we're, as a group, trying to articulate. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Okay. Any other comments on point two? Point three? (No response.) CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Point four? VOICE: Basically Bob's point so that should be available as a tool for all. VOICE: Just a thought -- CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Just a second. Before we -- could we describe that again so we all understand it. VOICE: Number four. VOICE: Yeah. I just didn't want to mandate that all participants have to use the capabilities. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: The actual words (INAUDIBLE). VOICE: You could change it to may as opposed to should. VOICE: Or should be available as a tool for. VOICE: Yeah. Or you could say should be used to facilitate the reconstruction of our educational institutions and then say also be made available as a tool or (INAUDIBLE) should be available as a tool and say that would facilitate. But I think you want to mandate that they use it. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: So the proposal is to replace use with available. VOICE: Should be available. VOICE: Yes. That would be one alternative. VOICE: Should be available? VOICE: Yes. That's four instead of five. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Yes. Should be available. VOICE: As a tool for all participants. VOICE: Well, excuse me. On that one, if -- and again, to get back to funding, I would suggest that if there's going to be some subsidies or funding into certain institutions, the word should be used may, in fact, be an applicable set of words. Again, I read this as okay in the sense that if we're going to spend millions of dollars, we're going try to subsidize, fund it or something, some sort of a mandate that it be used ought to hand in hand. It encompasses and a whole lot of things that go into those words, but it didn't seem all that bad the way it was stated. (INAUDIBLE) but I thought, for the purposes of what we were trying to do here, mainly make sure that the NII was (INAUDIBLE). VOICE: And I think it was the sense of our group that it was "should, that should be used." VOICE: And then are we talking by all participants -- really all ages? Or are we talking about -- CO-CHAIR LEWIS: I withdraw. (Laughter) VOICE: Well, it sounds really funny, but, you know, the last time technology came to the schools, it was in the closets and no one trained anyone and no one cared to see if anyone knew ways of using the models so that they were effective ways, and some of those computers are still in the closet. So we may have made a mistake in wording, but our mistake was not in intent. Our intent is to change and somehow allow people in education to know that there are people who care about the concerns, who care about the fact that when technology was given to them before, there was no training, there was no applications, there were no models set forth, there were tests. VOICE: My concern here was not about what we're trying to say, just trying to say it better. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Not to be (INAUDIBLE), but in that sentence, it's causing some difficulty--and where is Jack now that we need him--in paragraph four. Bert, that was coming to you. Paragraph four, the capabilities of the NII should be used as a tool by all participants. What is the antecedent of participants? Who are the participants we're talking about? If they're participants in the NII, then while it's technological, I think all participants is entirely correct. If participants -- if the antecedent for participants is educational community or all people involved in higher education, then I think Bob raises a pretty good point. VOICE: Or just take out (INAUDIBLE) say the capabilities of the NII should be available as a tool to enhance education -- lifelong learning. VOICE: Yeah. That's great. Is that better, Bob. BOB: Well, I actually thought there was a broader point being made here, you know, that the community at large, in particular, older and retired citizens, get help by providing their expertise -- (Laughter) BOB: No. That was a serious point. But if it's not what was meant here, then we ought to clarify it. VOICE: I think you're right. It's very -- BOB: I certainly don't think originally this was intended to be just for people in schools. MS. BRACEY: No. It's not. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: But to me it's a lot clearer when we do change it to your proposal, "The capabilities of the NII should be available as a tool to enhance education, training and lifelong learning." It's kind of inclusive. VOICE: Read that again. VOICE: "The capabilities of the NII should be available as a tool to enhance education, training and lifelong learning." This will facilitate the reconstructions of -- VOICE: I'm okay with that. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Is that generally okay? VOICE: Yeah. VOICE: Yeah. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Great. Other comments on four? (No response.) CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Five? The issue on five brought up earlier was the empowered issue, a word, and what does that mean. And, Bob, do you want to comment on that again? BOB: Are you talking to me, Ed? CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Yes. BOB: Yeah. I -- it seems to me this is a very complex decision making process that goes on here, and I think that the recommendation ought to be that there be a process by which individuals in their communities, as well as other parties, maybe the Federal Government, whoever is involved, can help shape the evolution of these infrastructures. But the issue of who does that empowerment, it seems to me, we're not going to decide here. But if we talk about putting together something that can formulate that process that may be -- and continue that, that may be a good principle. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: I didn't participate in the wording of this, but it sounds okay to me because I think empowered means you can empower yourself, Bob. You don't need to have an institution or an organization to empower you. You can empower. BOB: Self empowerment? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Sure. Individuals and communities are empowered to do x, y and z. This is happening in state and local government. We've had some discussions with them. They are now becoming very empowered, and we're not having to direct them. So it says individuals in their communities should be empowered. And that is, you take it upon yourself to participate. VOICE: Well, if that's the point you were trying to make -- CO-CHAIR LEWIS: I don't know. That's what it says to me. VOICE: But, Del, the way it reads, you can interpret as if someone -- some external body is -- has the responsibility to do the empowerment of the individuals and the local communities. What you're saying is it should be a proactive push on their part. VOICE: If you took the word being empowered and just replaced with like "be able," I would have no problem because that would get into the self empowerment issue. VOICE: Bob, this was brought about, and for everyone else, this came directly from input at our retreat with all the various people that came, and they felt individuals and communities should be involved in shaking the evolution. VOICE: Fine. It stays in. I'm okay with that, too. The empowered part that assumes somebody is going to do the empowerment. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: If I could -- If I could just -- do you have a proposal here? VOICE: That individuals and their communities should help shape the evolution of the information infrastructure and to decide how information resources available through the NII can best meet their learning needs. VOICE: Yeah. That's fine. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Okay. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: I think that's a shame (INAUDIBLE). I really do. I think it (INAUDIBLE). You may want to reshape it, but I think it has merit. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Deborah and then me. MS. KAPLAN: I agree with Del. As I read this, it did say to me that there are steps that will need to be taken to make it easier for people to participate, to give people permission to participate, to train people, the outreach stuff that we're talking about. And I would just remind people this was a principle and how we're going to implement it. What we're going to recommend to the Federal Government about how it is implemented will be the work of the next year's mega project one, as well as the rest of us. I like this one a lot, and I don't think it should be watered down. VOICE: Well, I agree completely. I was going to make the point, also, that these are principles. You know, there's a lot of ways that you can empower people and some of it explicitly granting someone power, but the ability to communicate on these networks, the ability to share community information, have bulletin boards and sources of information. Really it's the grassroots organizations to get together and bootstrap themselves into a critical mass so they can get something to happen is all part of the phenomena. This word empowerment does cover all of those aspects, so I'm in favor of it. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: (INAUDIBLE). (Laughter). CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Do you want to vote or do you want to have consensus? (Laughter) VOICE: In a sense of compromise, how about saying, "Individuals and their communities should feel empowered?" VOICE: (INAUDIBLE). (Laughter) CO-CHAIR LEWIS: No. No. VOICE: You can keep that. VOICE: And also, use the sense, perhaps, that they should feel that way whether they are or not. (Laughter) CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Con them into it. (Laughter) CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: It sounds like a suggestion that we keep it as it is. Are people generally comfortable with that? VOICE: Yes. VOICE: Yes. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: You did good. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Finally, point six. And then maybe we should -- are there any comments on the document in total before we agree to it or vote on it? VOICE: I'd like to ask (INAUDIBLE) before she introduced the principles (INAUDIBLE). VOICE: I'll be glad to. I'll be glad to. It's scribbled down, so I can -- so if she can read it, that's another test of illiteracy. Am I right? (Laughter) CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Very good. VOICE: And did we resolve the issue of whether education, training and lifelong learning resources are part of the information infrastructure? Or something you obtain through them? That was in part three. (Pause) VOICE: I think the content that you obtain through it. That was our feeling. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Why don't we leave it the way it is, unless there's a big disagreement. And if there's a stylistic issue, we approach this thing -- VOICE: I'm just trying to get consensus on what believe here. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: If you believe the issue, let's talk about it. VOICE: (INAUDIBLE). The content comes through the entry, the information infrastructure. VOICE: But I would think the resources -- I would say the resources is a part of the infrastructure. VOICE: Well, we would agree as well, that the information resources are part of the information infrastructure. But also, the content does come through. So we drafted it the way you see it because we thought it meant the same. If it doesn't, we need to change the words for you. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: So then let's -- VOICE: But I -- nowhere does it say the content comes through. It really is talking about the resources. So I would be inclined to make that part of rather than -- (End side A tape 3.) VOICE: -- and also should have the kind of diversity that was needed. Could we say education, training and lifelong resources, important parts of the information infrastructure should be of, etcetera? Put it in as a parenthetical phrase. VOICE: Sure that would do it. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: So the sentence would read "Education, training and lifelong learning resources, important parts of the information infrastructure, should be of world class quality, and the diversity of these resources should be broad enough to meet the full spectrum of society's interests?" Okay. Any other comments on the document in total? Can we reach consensus on it representing on principles of education, the goals and visions (INAUDIBLE)? Any objections? (No response.) CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Then we have some education principles. Thank you very much. (Applause) CO-CHAIR LEWIS: A job well done for the committee and for the chairs. VOICE: Ed and Del, can I say one other thing? I think it's real important for me to say that our staff on this did an incredible amount of work. They are such a part and parcel of how we come to conclusion in helping us, busy people both themselves and ourselves, work through this. I just wanted -- our mega project members wanted to give them a big hand. (Applause.) CO-CHAIR LEWIS: We're going to move forward. If you noticed, we're right about on schedule. There's no scheduled break. If you find the urge, you will just have to take advantage and do it, but we won't schedule a break and move forward. The access principle are next on the agenda, and Carol Fukunaga and Bert Roberts were the co-chairs. As you probably noticed, there's some overlap between some of the issues, but I think they've done an outstanding job. I have read over it. I think they've done an outstanding job of taking comments from all of us about the access, which is absolutely probably one of the critical issues facing us. So I'll turn it over to the co-chairs. MR. ROBERTS: Okay. I think I'm taking this blunt on this. VOICE: And, Bert, could you try to start by making sure we all have the latest copy? MR. ROBERTS: Yes. I was going to point out which was which. Okay? We distributed, the last couple of weeks, to the entire council a volume that was Denoted "Mega Project Two, Access To The NII Draft Report," and in it was a set of principles. We have since distributed a revised set, which I will comment on item-by-item. The use of the word report here was a bit of a misnomer. I wouldn't want it in any way to be taken that this is going to be the format-wise or content-wise what we would intend to come up with up from our group. But what is included in here is a set of draft principles. We also put in a second section that, for lack of some better word, is a type of a legislative history. It is not, by any sense, all encompassing, but we were trying to document a few of the ideas that went into the development of the principles to give the advisory committee some sense of some of the points that we discussed. Again, not all encompassing, but to try to give some indication as to why some of the principles were developed. The third section of this document is the draft first cut of the environmental scans, which, as you recall from our previous reports, was put together to give us some understanding of a starting point of where things stood across a spectrum of both technology, regulatory and other. I would be the first to point out, on behalf of the committee, that once something like this is printed, it is obsolete, and I think it should be taken into that stead, in terms of extrapolation of trends and things kind of thing. What happened after we distributed this report and our original set of principles, there was a staff meeting, an all day staff meeting, in which various staff members, supporting the advisory council members, and one of the things on their agenda was to review the various principles, but at least one of which were the access principles. And from that, there were a number of comments that through a conference call of our mega two group, we took into consideration and we made changes to some of the principles, hoping that those changes would, in fact, take care of some of the issues that were raised presumably by the staff, presumably on the part of the members themselves. It would help shorten the length of some the deliberation that we have had here. And distributed in the packet that Celia handed out yesterday was the revised set of principles, and what I would like to do now is basically talk about each one of these of those, perhaps mention what the staff comments were, and whether or not we, in fact, made a change, and if not, why not or what the change was. Looking at, first of all, principles one and two, the comment was made that these are more goals than principles. That is exactly right. They are more goals than principles. We have carefully gotten around that point by retitling this page to be "goals and principles." I would suggest -- the suggestion was made to restate these as principles, but it is the feeling of our mega group that stating them as goals is important. I think -- although I understand the charter was to identify principles, I think identifying in an advisory capacity to the Commerce Department, to the government, that goals should be set and what are recommendations of goals are in with respect to the National Information Infrastructure, at least our task force believed was important. Looking at number one -- if it's okay, I will run through them all, and then we can back for comments. Looking at number one, in the original paraphrasing in number one, we had the word citizen. It was recommended we change that to individual. We agreed and did. Secondly, there was concern that in the original set of principles, which is in the blue book, we used the words two-way, broadband. That felt that was, to some degree, tied to specific technologies and we ought not to make this technology specific. In an effort to try to come up with some different words, we've changed that interactive multimedia infrastructure. We used the word singular, which could be (INAUDIBLE). The third question that was raised is perhaps we shouldn't comment on deployment at all, namely the second part of that sentence, and we in the mega group felt we should talk about deployment. I think that is an important part of the goal. Moving to number two, the original document that was distributed had 1997 in it, and I might add that 1997 was a compromise on my part. We originally started with 1996. There was some heated debate that that was unrealistic and a few other things. I'm going to come back to that in a minute. But for the purpose of consistency, both with the principles we just went through and Secretary Brown's letter, we have changed that to the year 2000. And if I could, I would like to come back with a specific recommendation with respect to short term, but the principle, as stated, was changed only in one way. Principle number three, in what was distributed in the blue document, used the word "fair access," and there was question -- in the second sentence, and there was question with respect to what do we mean by fair and was that going to be confusing since we hadn't tendered the definitions of what we meant by universal access and universal service. And during our discussions, fair has a lot of broad implications, but specifically, we were trying to get into this principle some concept of geography. Many times, in the rural areas and other areas, it has been noted that we have not always achieved the penetration of certain types of things and so we have changed that. The government's role is to assure access, regardless of geography, and the rest reads the same. Principle four is as it was originally stated. No change. Principle five is as it was originally stated. No change. And I must highlight on this one that there was -- I think it is fair to characterize, at the staff meeting, there was broad disagreement with respect to whether we should, as a group, identify a specific principle which focused on individuals with disabilities; why have we singled them out. Our mega group believes that that, in fact, should be singled out as a principle, simply -- not simply, but because this issue involved architecture within the structure of the NII itself. And again, we can comment more on that in a little, but the net of this is we felt that that should be left in as a principle and not, in fact, deleted or lumped in with something else. Items six was changed by adding the modifying phrase, "from all levels of government." That's the way that it originally read. It was felt that that might imply Federal Government, and we agreed that it was important that when we are talking about government information, that, in fact, we are talking about government information from all levels. So we put in the modifiers such that it would insure that it included federal, state and local. Items seven, principle seven, there was no change suggested, no change made. Item eight we left as is. The suggestion that came out of the staff group was that we add something into that principle that clearly identified that any subsidies would go to the end users, and we discussed that, and we specifically that that should not be the case, that we should not constrain the flow of subsidies as part of this principle, certainly at this time. So what that said, and perhaps before I get into a specific proposal on -- number two, maybe we should take these however you would want, Mr. Chairman, but to go through them or hit specific points that are still at issue. CO-CHAIR MC LEWIS: Thank you very much, Bert and Carol. I think we ought to go through them one-by- one. Hopefully we can arrive at a consensus and move forward and hear the rest of your report. VOICE: I have a question about the environmental scan, which I think is very, very helpful. Would you like additional information? There are some other documents that might be helpful, some other data that would be helpful. I noted one, what I believe is a typographical error, which is in the section on libraries. Just so that people do understand, in the section on libraries, it's not a numbered page, but it says the percentage of public schools with Internet connection, and it's really the percentage of public libraries with Internet connection. That's 20.9. But I found this compilation to be very, very helpful. What do you want us to do if we have questions or comments or additional information? MR. ROBERTS: Well, if you could, Toni, as a matter of fact, I think that's an excellent suggestion, we will be, if you will, the repository and the collector of information to be reissued, and I would hope, at some point, would be the appendix to the overall advisory council report. And if you will send those specifically to Colleen, we will see that they are reformatted, put into the right sections, added inappropriately and perhaps three sessions from now maybe we could again redistribute this in a draft so we can see how it has been developed. I think it's fair to point out, and I should have done this before, but with respect to the environmental scans particularly, a lot of people did work on those, but we had some significant report from a couple of individuals at the Commerce Department that labored to put that into the -- research information and put it together. But yes. Please send if there's gaping holes or something that's obviously incorrect. I mean, let's try to do that, and I think the existence of (INAUDIBLE), which we really looked at as step one. MS. BEARMAN: Can we make these available more widely because I know many people would like to see them? MR. ROBERTS: I don't have a problem with that. I mean, again, the issue was if I restamp the draft, and you notice there's a little disclaimer in here as well, was the -- I was trying to avoid getting into an argument at the advisory council level as to whether it's 20.9 or 20.832 or whatever the number is. But if it's okay with the Chairman, now that this is now public, I don't care if it's distributed widely. And if people want to provide input, we can modify and (INAUDIBLE). CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: No. I think we can certainly use the data. You know, it's for our use, I think, primarily, and it's not the work of the advisory council. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yeah. I feel the same. If you want to share it, you'll be free to it. But from the council's perspective, we just chatted two second, I agree with Ed that this is not council work. This is good work, however, and it's very, very helpful, and it's a super job. It gives us a view of the universe a shot at the universe, and I think that's well done. I just think it's like Ed said, a reference, and I wouldn't want to say that this is a public document that we're now issuing from the advisory council and this is x, y, z. I think this is our own reference material, and I think we owe your committee a debt of thanks. It's terrific. But, Toni, I think that's where we come out. MS. BEARMAN: Okay. Thanks. Because I know many people would find this helpful. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: And I don't think anyone would quarrel with you sharing it. MS. BEARMAN: Thank you. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yes. VOICE: Yes. First of all, I think this is a terrific job that the committee did. I have no problem with the intent of any of these. I have a few very minor comments, very stylistic ones, which I think would just tighten it up a bit, which I -- CO-CHAIR LEWIS: That's what you said last time, Bob, and that took 25 minutes. (Laughter) CO-CHAIR LEWIS: I'm sorry. Go ahead. BOB: We can leave them alone if you'd like. I don't think -- I take no -- CO-CHAIR LEWIS: We'll start at number one. Can we go with one? BOB: But I have a question first I'd like to ask. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Okay. BOB: I am sure that there must have been discussion in this group about the issue of basic levels of service or later you talked about minimum or minimal levels of service and whether or not to define them as to what they were. I presume that they're not in here because the committee took a conscious decision not to try and get into that, but I'm curious as to what the reasoning was, why it shouldn't try and define them here, because I think, you know, that's exactly what an advisory committee might be doing, is giving advice about what those -- the base of our minimum levels ought to be. MR. ROBERTS: I think the quick answer to that is, and I should have said this as well, we look at this as the beginning of an effort. There's going to be a series of issues that we will come up with, a series of definitions. That is our charter. BOB: So you plan to do that at some point in the future? VOICE: (INAUDIBLE). BOB: Okay. Great. MR. ROBERTS: And I will tell you what we hope to come up with. BOB: I would also be okay if the answer was not to, but I was just curious as to why it wasn't here. Okay. Just minor comments. One and two you described as goals, but, in fact, I think they're actually directives. So either they ought to say the national goal should be to enable every individual and the short term goal should be to deploy NII access to services, or we should retitle the thing as "goal setting" and then the goal should be the set. But it's either a goal or a directive, and it's -- the way it's stated it's more a set this goal rather than here's the goal. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Let me make a comment on that one. I think that -- Ed and I just chatted a bit about that, in terms of style. This is going to be an effort, in terms of a writing editor that we're talking about hiring, or pro bono, or whichever, that will help us put this together from a stylistic point of view. And from what Bert said, the committee came out strongly that it should be goals and principles; we started out with principles. We ought to figure out some way to put this together to make sense as a document. So it's much more of an editing job that we'll do. BOB: Okay. That's fine. Number three, -- CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Hold on, Bob. You're part of the group. So let's look at number one first. BOB: Okay. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: You've given me your views on one. Any other views on one? Yes, Jack? JACK: Yeah. I have a question about one, and maybe this is throughout the whole thing. I don't understand the difference between access and service, the way it's expressed here. To me, the service goal we're talking about, universal service or close to it, means it's a passive sort of thing. It's being able to access information that others have prepared. Access, to my mind, means I have the ability to put my material there, that I take a more -- I'm an active participant in this process. This definition would assure diversity of voices in the NII, and it's not clear here. It's used -- the word service and the word access is used interchangeably, and I think they mean two different distinct things, at least in my mind as I just expressed it. VOICE: I would agree that they mean two different things, and that was the intent of everywhere you see it here to putting the words both universal service and universal access. We owe you comprehensive definitions of those two, but what we were trying to identify here is that there are two concepts that are going to need to be reviewed from both aspects. One is access, the other is the services, which are available, and we also are trying to be very careful that we don't get immersed in the definitions of today's world in telephony, which universal takes one different meanings. I think for the purpose of this, if it can be accepted that they are two different distinct concepts, we will come back with definitions, pictorials, that I hope -- that we didn't feel quite comfortable with handing out today. I think -- I think it will be answered, but I guess we're asking people to approve something on the concept that we are talking about two things. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: I think that we had talked before, Jack, about a glossary. We did it in jest, but I think it's becoming more and more real that we should have a glossary of terms, not only that applies to this mega project, but to our work, and I think that would be a valuable contribution. At least you'll know what we mean by what we say as a council. So I think we are going to clarify those. VOICE: But it is difficult though to discuss these things. We're not clear about these two basic very fundamental terms, which are the whole purpose of these principles on universal access and service. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: I think what he is doing here, and correct me if I'm wrong, Bert, is to talk about both of them in a more -- simultaneously because he wasn't ready to say specifically how they should break themselves out. And you're mentioning access and service together, Bert, or not? MR. ROBERTS: We will have it in front of you for the January meeting, our cut at the definitions. It is not a simple two liner. Let me just put it that way. We will try to simplify it, but this -- this had some very broad base implications, particularly when you start mapping it on the long term and short term goals. I mean, I -- we felt that we could look at these principles and approve them as a council, really void those definitions. Obviously, if we can't do that, then this can be postponed until January when we have the definitions that would go along with it. The one thing that we do not want to do is say just universal access or just universal service. They're going to be two distinctly different concepts. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: How does the council in relationship to that? Do you feel that you do need to have a more defined view of those terms before we can approve the set of principles? Or can we move forward, pending the glossary? Yes, Carol? MS. FUKUNAGA: One thing that I would add is that we are seeking to develop a very short, concise, relatively easy to understand definitions, as well as some pictorial forms or pictorial ways of developing, you know, a much more clear cut picture. So that might give people a lot more to work with, rather than just the terms themselves. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Any other comments? Esther? MS. DYSON: My feeling is as long as these our principles and goals, again, rather than legislation, I can live with it. I think there is some, if only fuzzy, notion of what the distinctions are, and it would be nice to have a clear statement of that. But I don't think it should hold us up. VOICE: I think we could discuss this if we are going to come back in January and revisit this for a final approval. This is just a draft. Am I correct? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Bert, how did you want to proceed here? I hear a couple of things, and we've got to be a little more explicit here and say what you mean. It sounds as if there are some saying that final approval should be January when we have definition, as well as principles. Others are saying we can move forward on principles, pending the glossary, but approve those principles, what I thought Esther said. But Jack comes back and says final approval comes in January. Now, we either approve them today as principles or we don't, it seems to me, or we postpone it until January; have it some further discussion, but postpone it until January. What was your intent, what was your thing? MR. ROBERTS: The intent was we'd approve these as principles today. I don't think that -- I mean, the jest of the definitions I -- if there's a confusion as to grossly what we mean, I can give you the jest of the definition. But what we didn't want to do today is to get into a wordsmithing of the definition of universal access, universal service, which I think is a complex issue. Let me tell you what I would not want to do. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yes, sir. MR. ROBERTS: I would not want to take this piece of paper and put it aside, only to get back here in January to have a two hour discussion on disabilities, which I thought was going to be the issue of importance today. At the staff level, it was stated that it would have been helpful to have definitions of these terms because a lot of the wordsmithing and argument was because we didn't have those definitions, but I didn't come to hear that it was a show stopper that we didn't have the definitions coming in here today, or perhaps we would have prioritized that somewhat differently. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Well, that was my thought. Based on what I heard Bert said was his intent, and the way I understood it, is that we would like to see if there's consensus around the table for proceeding to discuss these and approve these principles. Approve them and have a discussion of definitions next week, and I would -- next month. And I would assume that if there's clear departure of understanding, and the definitions completely contravene what we have approved as principles, we'll change it, it would seem to me. But I'm hearing that it was the intent of the chairs, and it was my understanding, that we would approve the principles, subject to the definitions coming next month. Now, is there -- what's the wish of the body? Are we uncomfortable with that? Mr. Golodner seems to have another view. MR. GOLODNER: It's hard to pass on something when we don't understand the meaning of very key words here, of the subject matter actually. VOICE: We didn't do that for the others. I mean, I'm not here as the world's leading expert on what the specific term "intellectual property rights" mean. I'm assuming that there are people on the committee that were experts and understood. I mean, but we have taken steps in the education area, in the electronic commerce area, in the -- maybe not privacy yet, but intellectual property area, without having debated the specific definitions. Perhaps all of those are so obvious where this one is not, but I suspect that's not the case. VOICE: My belief here is that we get a general definition. Not legalistic, just a general definition. That would be enough to carry us, and the specific definitions could happen next -- in January. That would be possible? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: You mean right now? VOICE: Well, also, I mean, if we were to approve what is said today, it really just says that this goal would include defining the basic levels of access and service. So all we're approving is that we will go ahead and define these if we act today. VOICE: To me, the issue was -- there are some people on the council that don't -- that have differing ideas about what the general concept of universal service is and universal access is and how the two differ from each other, in a very general kind of way, not a very -- not the real specific detail definitions that you'll come back with in January. VOICE: Well, (INAUDIBLE) when you're talking about what should be universally available to everyone to avoid a have and have not situation. Are you content with access to a network, or should there be specific services? Should there be, you know, anything from white pages to home shopping or one of those? And that's a very long discussion, which -- VOICE: Well, -- VOICE: Maybe I can take a minute? VOICE: Can I make a suggestion? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Well, Esther and then Bert is going to take a crack at it. MS. DYSON: Yes. It's exactly one sentence. Instead of discussing and discussing and discussing, let's just ask Bert, without anybody writing down his words, to make the distinction clear to us and then maybe we can move forward. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Well, I think that's where we're heading. MR. ROBERTS: There are three things that I think we need to comment on to frame that. First of all, there is a word called universal -- or a set of words called universal service. It has a very specific meaning in the telephone industry today. And what we are trying to do is pull ourself back from that and redefine two terms, one which is universal access, the other which is universal service, that each will have distinctly different meanings, meanings going forward with respect to the National Information Infrastructure and trying to separate the historic meaning of universal service that takes place across regulatory forms and takes place in law to set a new ground of framework. Universal access, or the concept of access, goes along the lines of insuring that all Americans have access to basic information and communication services. We've got to get the word technology in there. It's got a physical aspect, but it's the access capability to get into the network. Universal service is going to be a whole series of things, applications that people -- information services, communications services that people can use. The question on the other front is what of those, irrespective of the ability to access, should be provided on a universal basis, free, for fee, subsidized, paid for, however we're going to define that. But it's the concept that you have information services, communication services, but once you have access to the network, what are you going to -- example. Games on the Internet are examples. Home shopping, it's a service. Is that going to be provided? It has nothing to do with because you're on the network. You may be able to get to a home shopping vehicles. Separate concepts, service and access. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yes. MR. ROBERTS: It's grossly simple. I mean, I know (INAUDIBLE). CO-CHAIR LEWIS: I understand. I thought that was good. Vance and then Jack. MR. OPPERMAN: Well, I assume with Bert and Bill and Alex and the audience we'll get a pretty good definition of these terms. Bert, let me ask you, if I understand, when access to the NII becomes total and everywhere and you have complete ubiquity, then by your definition, all that remains are services. Is that right? MR. ROBERTS: The problem I have with that it sounded sequential. MR. OPPERMAN: Oh, I don't mean it sequential. I'm thinking of -- I guess I think that way. But in terms of trying in my own mind to distinguish between your suggested definition and my understanding of the telephony model, if everybody had access to the NII, then the access -- there's nothing left to the access question. What's left are the services that are available. Is that -- MR. ROBERTS: Yes. But even -- and let me ask some other members of our own committee to fall in. But even the word access may not be one thing or one capability that's the base line access. Bill? MR. FERGUSON: Yes. At the risk of getting pulled into this too deeply, if I could, I -- first of all, I agree exactly with Bert, that I don't think we want to spend our time here defining different types of access, who should have different types, what constitutes universal service, is it 911 and dial 0, or does it include home shopping, etcetera, etcetera. But as a separation between access and services, the services ride on the network. The services, as you will see here we're saying, people should have the ability to put services on the network, and obviously, people should have the ability to take services off of the network, such as gaining information, gaining knowledge, reaching people at the other end. Those are the services that are on the network. Access means how do I get on to the network. Now we're talking about, then, the multiple ways of access, which is what we don't want to deal with, the breaking down of those and the categorizing of those, but the different ways are by telephone, by PC, by wireless, by wire line, by -- and on and on and on. So if we can separate services, that's what rides on the network, from access, which is how do you get on to the network, that's what we're talking about here. VOICE: Right. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: It sounds better to me. VOICE: It's just clearer. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Jack? JACK: I guess how do you get on the network is -- that's access? But how do you get on the network as a provider of information? That's service? MR. FERGUSON: No. No. No. How you -- how a provider gets on the network is also access. How does a provider access the network? Right. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yes, Bob? BOB: Can I make a suggestion? I actually think that the amount of discussion that we would end up having about the basic levels of access and service could, in fact, be someone long, depending upon the point of view of people. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: You've got that right. BOB: I actually think that, as stating this as a goal, it's exactly the right set of things to have in the goal statement, and that we ought to come back and revisit a more elaborate version of what these services and access strategies might be at a later time. But I don't think we should let it hang us up. Now, I think this document is close enough to a good statement of goals and principles that, you know, short of just a little tightening of language or whatever other loose ends there are, we're almost there. I don't think we should let this hang us up because it's not a short diversion. It could be a very long one. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Thank you, Bob. Is there a consensus with what Bob is telling us, based on the fact that we got a general definition a few minutes ago, and we'll come back with a more specific delineation of access and service later, and we can move forward? Thank you. The first one we were on, and Bob had some stylistic comments, and we said we handle those, are there any other comments on principle number one? (No response.) CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Hearing none, number two? Should we read them? "A short term national goal should be set to deploy NII access of service capabilities to all community based public institutions, such as schools and libraries, by the year 2000. This effort would involve technologies available today and access to publicly available networks." Comments? Consensus? Bob, you had a stylistic -- BOB: I just want to add before abut whether we want to say it's goal setting or it's the goal and whether -- you know, you can deal with that off line. VOICE: The reason we used that wording is I didn't -- I mean, I think what we are recommending to the government that they set a goal. I mean, either way is fine. I don't know what our charter is on that. Either way. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Okay. It's advice. So it's basically asking him to set a goal. VOICE: Del? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yes. VOICE: I have a comment on two. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Please. VOICE: And the issue is public again. I spent my life working in public and private sector, but in public -- in the public side in government. But the issue of public institutions, we needs to think about the fact that, for example, in our state, we have, you know, close to 38 private colleges universities, such as Duke University, Wakeforest, Davidson, schools that will provide possibly house for communities to actually interact with them and to use the -- I mean, information infrastructure may go through those. And so using public, you're excluding private institutions that might very well provide public access? I mean, it's real issue, that to me. But I just want to make sure it's on the table for people understand. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Bert, do you have any comments? Carol? It's an excellent point. I don't know how you want to handle it. MR. ROBERTS: Our short term goal here was somewhat different then the way that you came at it, and keep in mind, it started from short very term, 1996, 1997, the year 2000. And what we were looking at here, which I will comment on in a second, but some accelerated effort to get schools and libraries hooked up to available technology, to existing public networks and do it now, as opposed to the future. In this sense, yes, we did mean public, and I have to admit that I was looking at colleges and universities as private schools, more than the thing that you were saying, but the theory being that if this thing came along fast enough and worked, the affluent areas would be able to figure out how to get themselves on. VOICE: But the private institutions that I state would argue that you that they're not necessarily affluent, you know, and in affluent communities. I just -- and I don't normally argue this position because I come from the public side. But the President on Independent Colleges and Universities in our state is a former special assistant of mine for eight years, and she brings this up to me repeatedly, that the libraries in our states are intricately connected to the private university libraries as well as the public libraries. MR. ROBERTS: Just one other quick point. It was buried in here, Bill's point, that doing something quickly, it was probably going to involve some level of government assistant somehow, whether it be tax credits to corporations or whether it be handing money. And that kind of ties itself to the word public, in terms of getting it done quickly. (INAUDIBLE) you open up a whole new can of worms. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yes, Stanley? And then Esther. MR. HUBBARD: You know, it could be that the private institution would be an institution that enables us to come to the public institution in the community. I think your point is well taken I think. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: It is a good point. Esther? MS. DYSON: Yes. Fundamentally, I agree. I think this is a goal. It does not state that this should be funded publicly, and in that case, I think it should be a goal for all institutions that service the public, as opposed to all public institutions. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Now, that's a good way of saying that institutions that serve -- you think, Bert, Carol, that makes sense? And does that get to your point? VOICE: Yes. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: I think it's an excellent idea. VOICE: Well, does it get to your point, Jan? Because there may be institutions that are enabling, but don't serve the public. It serves the people -- VOICE: (INAUDIBLE). VOICE: Just because they're not free doesn't mean they don't serve the public. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: She says it does. VOICE: Okay. Great. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Toni? MS. BEARMAN: The question I have is why the word "all?". I agree, if you want to have a very short term goal, that it would make sense to start with public schools and public libraries, but you say, "Should be set to deploy NII access and service capabilities to all community based public institutions." So it seems to me that your "all" broadens it, and you're trying to narrow it to a very short term goal. What about changing it to community based institutions, such as public schools and public libraries as your short term objective here. VOICE: We were trying to include (INAUDIBLE), on my recommendation, but I think we can still work the words in, is that Indian Reservations who may not have a library and (INAUDIBLE). And so we were saying a community based organization that could be included in this. MS. BEARMAN: No. I'm not -- and that's why I'm suggesting that you take out the word "all" community based, and if you say such as, public schools and public libraries, that still allows you the other kinds of community institutions. MR. ROBERTS: You're suggesting that we change it to access and service capabilities to community based institutions, such as public schools and public libraries? VOICE: Or Esther's idea (INAUDIBLE) serve the public, such as -- VOICE: Can I wade in here for a second? I'm normally the one that would object to the use of sweeping terms like that, but if you're stating it as part of goal, it seems to me it's really okay. You're probably but not going to get there, but as a goal, if the goal is to get to all of them, it seems to me that's the place where you actually could use the word like "all," where normally I would be opposed to it. VOICE: Of all ages, too. (Laughter) CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Good point, Bob. How about we change this to exactly what -- the public education we had? VOICE: Say that again. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: We change this to exactly rule number two, that the education (INAUDIBLE). VOICE: Yeah. But now I'm concerned because before we were talking about principle, and therefore, we didn't have to worry about funding. Now, we're talking about a goal, and a short term goal, and we've got to be concerned about funding. And, you know, if we said that the President ought to set a goal so that everyone has health care by the year 2000, and legislation would follow that, that includes funding. We're doing the same thing here. This includes funding, and therefore, do you really mean you want to help fund private institutions, etcetera? You know, I'm Chairman of the board of trustees of a private college, and so, you know, selfishly, it would be neat. We'd love to have some government money. But we've got a short term goal to try to expand this very quickly, and I agree that the way we ought to start and focus is through public institutions. VOICE: Clinton may not believe, but there are ways to have health care for everybody, other than government funding of health care and -- VOICE: Okay. I withdraw that as an example. (Laughter) CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Can we have a consensus here, Bert? I think we were close to -- I do think we need private in there or drop it all the way, because as a vision and a goal, you want to be inclusive, and to say public would leave out. And I respect Jane Patterson's views of North Carolina about private institutions serving the public, and I thought Esther's comment began to reach that. Now, we were at a point where we were at -- and then Toni came in and wanted to take out "all." But my point was, I think the basic problem here was how you include private. And if we hang under that one, we might be able to get a consensus. Do you have something? VOICE: In our education, as Bert mentioned, we -- you know, we literally just -- we didn't have a descriptor in there. We put in there schools, colleges, universities, libraries and other community centers and institutions, and that's what we put. VOICE: I thought this was in addition to our lifelong learning goal, which we've already approved, but we do want everybody to be included. I thought this was meant to be a short term objective, which at the end of five years, we could say, "Okay. Do we now have public libraries and public schools linked up?" But this is not to replace what we've already agreed to. This is meant to be a very short term focused objective. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Well, that's Bill Ferguson's point here. MR. FERGUSON: Right. Right. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Bert, where do you come out between these two? There is the -- Jane Patterson is saying it lacks the private piece. Toni and Bill Ferguson are saying this is a short term objective intended to get, in a very short period of time, a jump start on public institutions, it does not mean to exclude, but it was a short term objective. And that's what we understand was the intent of your -- that what she says is the intent of your number two. VOICE: In fact, should I add one thing to his? Isn't that you're going to -- underneath this, if you're going to define this further and state that you are not intending to exclude, then I could accept this in a consensus point of view. My concern is that -- you know, that we -- that people know up front it's a short term goal, and that we are committed to total access, complete access, but that is not an inclusive way because private colleges and universities can provide access for schools even in their area into the NII. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Well, I'm not sure how we would handle that. You try to reach a consensus to say somewhere along the line. We're not putting in footnotes here, we're not putting in an appendix. It would be an understanding among the group, Jane, that that's what was the intent here. But it still will be in writing, very limited and very short term, and we either say we're going to go in this direction or not. Joan? MS. SMITH: I think there are two points that may be missed here, and the fact is that our goal, as opposed to lifelong learning goal, although the words might be the same, was to figure out how, in an economically efficient way, we could expedite as many people being able to use the NII as possible in the short term, and the answer came out publicly based, community based institutions. I back away in the second point from public in that there are hardly any private or not for profit institutions who don't get support from the government in way or another, including their tax exempt status. So I think leaving public out makes a lot of sense. The way -- the whole purpose here is in the short term to -- (End side B tape 3.) CO-CHAIR LEWIS: One is that we drop. The last one was Joan Smith, that we drop public, and I don't know what the wording would be. The other was that we -- VOICE: Drop all. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: -- drop all, and then there was -- that one doesn't seem to be consistent with what we're going to. But anyway, that was Toni's point. The other was public institutions that serve the public. But this discussion started with Jane Patterson talking about the exclusion of private, and we came around to an understanding of the goal being very short termed and being to really be directed to public institutions to show some progress in a short term, not to be excluded. That was the intent of the original number two. So where do you come out? MR. ROBERTS: Two things. I think, particularly based on what Joan said, that private institutions are subsidized anyway, dropping that is all right with me, leaving the word just institutions. I have a problem with dropping the word "all" because I want to get -- VOICE: No. Don't (INAUDIBLE). MR. ROBERTS: Okay. I wanted to get in here the concept. I think we wanted to get in here the concept that this short term goal (INAUDIBLE) to the have, the have nots, it's to the world, it's to the -- CO-CHAIR LEWIS: So we'll leave with it, "All community based institutions." VOICE: That serve the public. VOICE: "Such as public schools and libraries." CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Well, Esther still says we ought to put in "that serve the public." VOICE: Right. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Are you all right with that? VOICE: I'm not all right, but it's better than libraries. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Such as schools and libraries. VOICE: Right. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: So it would read, a short term national goal should be to set, to deploy NII access and service capabilities to all community based institutions that serve the public, such as schools and libraries, by the year 2000." VOICE: Just fine. I have a question. I have the image that we were merging all the principles into a list of principles. I'm now getting the impression that we're going to have separate sets of principles, which is fine, but I think that helps us understand how they're going to be used. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Let me just give a thought of that. My view is that, at least to get our work product directed, they will be separate principles attached to the mega projects. By the end of this, there will probably be a document that puts a lot of things together. VOICE: Okay. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: We've got to start somewhere. VOICE: Okay. That's fine. It just helps me understand -- VOICE: Del, can I ask you a question on this now? If we agree to the way we've now done it, and let's say, in effect, all the schools and libraries are part of the NII by the year 2000, does that not, in fact, at some level, enable every individual to have access to the NII? Haven't we achieved goal one, which was set for 2005, essentially five years early, by virtue of giving everybody access via these public institutions? I'm just trying to understand what is -- you know, I think there's a different point being made in number one, which is that the public library is probably not what we have in mind by access for individuals. So I'm just trying to clarify whether two doesn't preempt one. VOICE: Mr. Chairman? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yes. VOICE: In the short term, it actually is. In fact, it functions that way today. It would be as if -- as in some foreign countries, the only place you could use the phone was at the local post office. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Right. VOICE: Our hope and ultimate goal is to have every individual who wants to be connected to the NII be able to do so is from his or her home, and that's what the first goal is about. VOICE: No. That doesn't say from their own home and, in fact, it seems to me you may very well want improved methods of access. Maybe that the first one is really a longer term goal, is to have improved access by individuals to the NII over what they might get through libraries, where there might be lines, they might be delayed, it might not be the kind of service they do want. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Debbie and then -- MS. KAPLAN: Well, to literally answer the question, there are enough people who don't leave their home, either because they're care givers of people and they can't get out very often or because they have disabilities or other reasons that it's literally not true that you can expect everyone to physically go somewhere else to get information services. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Carol? MS. FUKUNAGA: Just to add a point on goal number two, we're really talking about technologies that are available today, and to underscore the fact that this is a short term, accelerated way of getting at the problem. This is speaking to with what's available today. Goal number one is really in terms of where we would like to be. You know, when it's fully interactive, fully broadband and potentially (INAUDIBLE). VOICE: All right. Okay. I see. Thank you, Del. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Okay. We have one and two. Can we go to three? Yes, Vance? MR. OPPERMAN: The issue that I'd like to raise on three is an issue I raised earlier when we were discussing the letter to Secretary Brown, and that's the language at the end of three that encourages "women and minority owned business, as well as small businesses." When one starts to discuss this subject, you're almost tempted or you feel to try trod on one's credentials, and I don't mean to do that. In every one of the other principles, and we've reworded things, we've driven toward an inclusive goal. We did that in the IP discussion, we did that in lifelong learning, we did that in electronic commerce. And in none of those cases, where we had words that were not totally inclusive, we usually drove toward the use of the word individuals, for example, or citizens when we were being country specific. I notice too that in the discussion of the -- in mega project's two report, when they have the larger discussion for each principle. But in every other instance, there are paragraphs that discuss the entire language in the principle under discussion. The only exception to that is the phrase I've just specified. There is no discussion, unlike the entire rest of the report, of any finding, necessity, language or reason why we should be not inclusive, but specify special groups. I also object to the special groupings, for these reasons. I'm not sure that -- and generally speaking, when one uses language, which is redolent of protected class, one does that because there's some evidence or some documented -- a reason to believe that there have to be governmental ways to balance the scales. I don't know that women, for example, would need government encouragement to participate in the NII more than men or vice versa. I don't know that minority owned businesses have that record either, any more so than by categorization. And I note that, ironically to me at least for this position, in the discussion of paragraph three, the group does say they don't want to vulcanize the net, and I think this vulcanizes it.' But, for example, in the discussion of minority owned businesses as a set aside, what do we do when someone comes before us and says, "Yes. We need to have set asides for minority businesses, we need to have set asides for gay owned businesses, we need to have set asides for various religious minority groups?" And that's not a frivolous argument on the NII, and if you think it's a frivolous argument, much of the so called Christian Rights and their broadcasting issues, and their problems getting licenses or their alleged problems getting licenses, will come very much to the floor. And finally, with regard to small businesses, there's no discussion that there's a need or a lack, or even a desirability with regard to special encouragement for small businesses. At least in electronic commerce, the only scan I'd seen of that suggests that much of the growth has, in fact, been in small businesses. And for all of those reasons, I think that this is a -- this phrase that starts "women and minority owned businesses, as well as small businesses," does not drive the direction of inclusiveness, and I'd either like to see it dropped entirely so that number three would read -- we would essentially end at "insure inter-operability to the NII," period. Or that we drive toward inclusiveness and say that we want encourage all people to participate in the NII. In every other instance where we've had citizens, individuals, we've either gone to the word individual or gone to the phrase all people, and I would, as an alternative, urge that we do that. But either way. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Thanks, Vance. Bert and Carol first. Any comments, particularly on Vance's position? MR. ROBERTS: I can give you the logic. I mean, it's obviously open for debate. I think that the principle itself, by putting the period where Vance suggested, still stands alone. The reason that the phrase was added goes along the following several lines: First of all, those words are a fact of life today. They are in most laws, most endeavors that the government gets involved with and would they be conspicuous by their absence. In fact, when you get into subsidies, you get into funding, you get into federal, state and local governments assuring access, those will be very real concepts. Secondly, I think the facts are that we do have, and we were trying to focus on some of the concepts that the Vice President was doing with respect to have, have nots and so on, and we did use the word "encourage." We didn't say mandate, we didn't say other words. It was basically to encourage, and I'll let a couple of others speak for themselves on that. And the connection with small business, that actually had a little broader connotation here than what's under the law, and there was some concern on the part of the mega group--Jack's gone, but this would have been his point--that as the NII develops, we've got to encourage entrepreneurship, small businesses, otherwise they will be taken over by the likes of even MCI and NYNEX now, as we start to move into this. And if you look at the Internet, which is at the opposite end of the spectrum right now, lots of garage shops, lots of small operations, and somehow we wanted to somehow stimulate and encourage that the small business entrepreneurship of this thing, as a groove, would be stimulated, as opposed to -- or encouraged, as opposed to left unsaid. Now, other members of the panel that want to jump in? I mean, we -- CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Carol had her hand up. MS. FUKUNAGA: We discussed this principle at some length in some of our telephone discussions, and some of the tension between insuring broad access on one hand and participation by all groups was reflected in principle number three. With respect to principle number seven, I think we do address the point that Vance raises, that, you know, we're really talking about encouraging and stimulating commerce and development. But at the same time, because our mega project group is chartered with the necessity of determining universal access as well as universal service, and it was our desire to avoid, you know, the kinds of difficulties of the haves versus the have nots. We felt that if we put in the two principles we would then have as close a balance as we might be able to achieve. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Jack? JACK: Yeah, Del. And again, I'm getting confused here, because we're using words like broad access, universal coverage and what not, and yet this paragraph talks only about commercial enterprises and businesses, leaving out an awful lot of people who are also worthy of consideration. I tend to agree with Vance in a sense that he warns us once we start to enumerate special groups for treatment in the NII, you're going to run into trouble because you're always going to leave someone out. And it seems to me that this paragraph was fraught with a lot of singling out of special interest groups for some special treatment, and I don't know why. The first sentence is, in my mind, very much overstated. I think commercial and competitive forces can be a driving force. A driving force, but not the. They're not solely the way we're going to try the NII. We've been talking here about the role of government, non-profit institutions and other types of entities. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Thank you. Craig? DR. FIELDS: You know, the last point that you raised, Jack, I think is actually worth expanding because it leads to my view of this principle, namely that the critical positioning is that first sentence, Stanley, that the dominant role in development would be from the commercial sector. And in part, this is a reaction, a reaction to a lot of argumentation about whether the government will play a very large role as it did in building highways, physical highways, or smaller roads, and I think with a national consensus now that it would be mostly commercial. So that is a principle, and we could argue against it, and no doubt other organizations in the government -- other organizations than private business will play some role, but I'm just making a statement that it would be the dominant role in some quantitative basis. Now, with that said, we then want to make some claims about different kinds of roles of government. And so this was not meant to be a complete list, but a list of examples promoting inter-operability, promoting access, etcetera, etcetera. And then this last array, which was taken at most of the discussion, in which certain special groups are spelled out, there's nothing here that's unique to the NII. It is a traditional argument about the functioning of government about almost everywhere as to whether you're going to spell out (INAUDIBLE) and really identify particular groups for special treatment for particular periods of time, and I think that in our government we tend to do that. Now, we can argue against it, but it's quite traditional to have laws that will do special things for special groups. It's sort of a national way of our government operating so we're not being (INAUDIBLE). I just think that we should keep our eye on the ball, and the first sentence has the major claim, and the others really are a sort of series of corrections and additions after that. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: We have Lynn and then Debbie, and we ought to move ahead here. MS. FORESTER: I agree with Bert's presentation of the legislative history of why this was in here. I mean, it's important to remember that this is part of the telecommunications dialogue already. Also, I think it's important to note that there's not a discussion here of a broad application of this principle. Right now, the government, when it is allocating its resources, it has made a decision that it is important in the overall development of this industry that groups that have not traditionally participated be allowed to participate, when the government is allocating a resource. So it's a fairly narrowly defined application. Also, I think that if you're going to say let's talk about inclusiveness, you sort of also have to say that -- you have to admit that to not include this concept is de facto excluding people. When you're talking about competition in an industry that's controlled by major corporations, to leave out a reference like this is de factor exclusion. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Debbie? And then we'll try to frame this for a vote or a consensus. MS. KAPLAN: You know, I think, as a member of the mega project, the intention here is to clarify what we do think the role of government is. This is not a new role of government. This is also, I would point out, a role of local government, state government, as well as the Federal Government. It has historically been one, and I also agree to ignore would be very close to saying we think that should no longer be a role of government, and I would strongly disagree with that. As to whether other groups should come along and also demand the same kind of treatment, I -- that's part of the democratic process. They don't do that through the NII. They do that through the public policy relating encouragement of small and minority and women owned businesses. And if that's what they do, they're going to do it regardless of what we say here. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Eduardo? Jack, I'm going to have to cut this off in a second. MR. GOMEZ: I just want to say that Bert and Craig and Debbie have put it well. I don't have to add anything to that, except to say that we have been playing on unlevel field for a long time. In broadcasting, my own industry, out of 10,000 radio stations, only 100 are hispanic owned, and that's not a good percentage. And the Small Business Administration has been in existence for decades, and I just recently repealed the opinion motor rule to include broadcasters. And small business is the driving force of our economy in this country, and most of the radio stations in this country are small businesses. So I would hope that the council would follow that lead. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: We're going to have to stop. This is it. Jack and Bob, and we're going to move. I'm sorry. JACK: Could I just clarify something. My problem is not with identifying minority or women. It's with ignoring women, for example, who are in women's organizations that may be non-profit, or minority membership organizations that are non-profit. All this is talking about is commercial organizations. Yeah. We had commercial broadcasting for a number of years, and they didn't quite fit the bill, and that's why we had to create public broadcasting because commercial alone does not do it, and this is what (INAUDIBLE) say, that it should be the driving force. I think that's rather strong. It can be one of the players, but if we're talking about allowing more groups and individuals to participate, I don't think we should just limit ourselves to commercial business enterprises. So my problem is not with addressing minorities or women. It's the problem of we're starting out with giving over this whole NII to just commercial ownership. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yeah. I hear you. I think one of the things that has been said--I think Craig said it and Bert said--that in this particular bullet, number three, it is specifically saying it should be a driving force or commercial force, commercial and competitive forces, and under that, there's some other gradations under that to participate and obviously to add those protected classes. So I think this is very clearly directed at the commercial and competitive force being the driver. It does not mean that everything else is excluded. You have to take this as one of the principles set out in the access situation. So -- VOICE: Well, can we call it -- should it be a driving force? Would that be acceptable? VOICE: No. It's got to be the. This is a very specific -- this is probably the single most fundamental principle that we have come up with. VOICE: Well, then number four is inconsistent because all individuals, you're saying, should be producers of information. It can't be if there's only one type of individual that's recognized. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Well, I think we can argue with you on that and challenge you on that. I think that you've really looked at those things in the literal interpretation. It's saying that commercial and competitive forces should be the driving force the NII. It did not say that everything else was excluded. It should be the driving force. And obviously, other players are involved. But it's a fundamental principle that it's going to guide the NII from a dominant position. And Bert's says that's a basic principle, and we'll come back to that. We're going to vote it up and down, if that's necessary, but it's definitely a principle that they want to put on the table for this council to adhere to. And if we don't agree, the votes will bear it out. Bob, the last comment. BOB: Yeah. Well, first of all, I strongly believe that that's the most important part of the principle here, and I would support that. The concern I have here was different from one that's been discussed before. On point number one, we talked about basic levels of service, but in number three, we talk about minimum levels of service. So one question I have is do we really mean minimum levels are really the same as basic levels? Or that there is another thing called the minimum level, which we don't ever define, that is, in fact, going to be assured by the Federal Government? Or do we really mean the basic levels are basic levels of minimum service? Or do we mean that the minimum levels are really minimum levels of basic service? So I just -- I think you need some clarification as to where -- CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Thank you, Bob. You're always very helpful. (Laughter) CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Bert, I turn it over to you. BOB: One minimal level of service that I know that they can assure by is probably vision. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Bert, what do you think? MR. ROBERTS: You can change the word to be the same as number one. You can either use "basic" in both places or not in both places. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: All right. We're going to change it to basic. BOB: I have one other just observation, which you probably -- CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Oh, Bob, you're just a sweetheart today. BOB: I know. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Go ahead. BOB: And let me just mention it, and then you can move on. The term before that, "assure access regardless of geography," I just want to point out that you may not mean that exactly as you say it, but you may want to treat this like all ages. There may be some geographical places you really don't want to assure access to for a variety of reasons, but I don't know that it's going to help to debate that point a lot. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: We've got to move. Thank you, Bob. Number four? We've got to get through this in the next 15 minutes, folks. I'm sorry. VOICE: I have five minutes? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: I know. Well, you're going to have to give us yours in five. I'm sorry. VOICE: Oh, okay. VOICE: In thinking about the points that Jack has been raising, which I do think are legitimate about the role of non-profit as information providers, and also, I think, the role of government as information providers, if anything, I think number four is probably the most logical place where that concept fits, and I think that we ought to develop that further within the parameters of this principle, taking it very broadly. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: The suggestion is we'll leave it in, but obviously to take in the human resource inclusionary positions that have been talked about, we probably should expand on number four. But I understand your position. As four stands, it's okay. VOICE: Yeah. I don't think we need to mess with it in order to look at that, but the issue of non- commercial information providers. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yes. I heard you. Any other comments on four? VOICE: We didn't change four, did we? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: No. I think I understand Debbie not to change, but she said maybe later on we could expand it to deal with non-commercial, not for profit kinds of -- VOICE: Well, you can simply add a sentence to say that "non-profit, membership and service organizations also have a role to play as information providers," as a second sentence in the fourth. VOICE: Or rather than word crafting, maybe come back later with something, since people need to move on. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Jack, wanted to add a sentence, and he can explain what he wanted to add. And Debbie came back with the fact that maybe we could do it later and not hold it up at this point. Do you want to read your sentence, Jack? JACK: Well, I was trying to capture Debbie's thoughts here, by just adding a second sentence there, that "non-profit, membership and service organizations also have a role to play as information providers." CO-CHAIR LEWIS: What's the consensus? Do you want to add the sentence? VOICE: Would somebody please tell me what sentence is being added where? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: It's a sentence to be added, that Jack will say again, to number four. Do you want to repeat it? JACK: "Non-profit, membership and service organizations also have a role to play as information providers." VOICE: Non-profit, membership and service organizations what? JACK: "Non-profit, membership and service organizations also have a role to play as information providers." The first sentence is saying all individuals should be able to be both consumers and producers. We're talking about individuals, we're talking about non-profit groups can also -- VOICE: It should be also consumers. JACK: Yeah. Both. Of course. VOICE: (INAUDIBLE). I think that Jack's point (INAUDIBLE) probably been settled, but maybe (INAUDIBLE), and I think that Deborah's suggestion that we maybe tackle this later is better. It's better to write something that is thoughtful and encompasses the thought than to make such a case of the (INAUDIBLE). For example, my observation (INAUDIBLE) of the other. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Do you agree with that, Jack? We'll just -- JACK: Yeah. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Debbie made a suggestion. JACK: If we're going to revisit it, no problem. VOICE: One last point on there, we're talking about consumers and producers of information, but I think there's going to be a whole class of competitive forces out there providing services that aren't necessarily just information where you end up dealing with somebody and they make something happen for you, but it isn't providing new information. So I would like to say both consumers and producers of information and services on the NII. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: We're now at a point where we have decided not add Jack Golodner's language, but come back to it later with some wordsmithing. VOICE: But the thought. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Right. But Bob Kahn has talked about adding service, and service behind information. VOICE: I think that's good. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Is that fine? So it should read, "All individuals should be able to be both consumers and producers of information and services on the NII." And we'll come back to, at a later point, the non-commercial, not for profit providers and users. Now, we have -- I see five, six, seven and eight. We have to talk about access for a few minutes, at least to position it, and then public comment before we adjourn. If there are real discussion on five, and there was from Bert's point of view. He thought that was the most lively issue, and how little did he know. We haven't even gotten to five. If there is more discussion on five, six, seven and eight, from the way you sit now, maybe we ought to postpone this until January. VOICE: I think you're going to have to postpone because I think there are a lot of points that people want to bring up here. VOICE: I think that access is -- I think that universal access and universal service are the really tough, tough issues that we as an advisory council need to deal with. And I think the idea of continuing the discussion between now and the next meeting, really working it as staff and exchanging views off line and then coming back at the next meeting would be very good. In fact, I think it's something that we should expect of ourselves. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: What's the consensus? That we -- it is a very important area. We don't want to rush and not to an adequate job. That we put this off, Bert and Carol, until January? MS. FUKUNAGA: From number five on. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: From number five on. You're right. MS. FUKUNAGA: And we'll take care of the things that we need to take care of on item number one. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Absolutely. And I would think, at that time, that we'd also move to talk about the definitions. But we go from number five on and hope to have full discussion there and have final approval. Only four is where we're adding the thought. I don't think that should be a big problem. VOICE: I think we have a really great start here. I think these points are really, the language, I think, is really good and -- but it's really a meaty issue. The kind of issue this advisory really does need to deal with. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: So if that's the consensus, it is an important issue, and to the co-chairs and to the committee, this is not a defeat. We want to certainly support you in your efforts and to make sure we do the best job possible. So given time constraints, and also people wanting to participate, we'll put this off from number four on in the access principles, and then we'll come back for a discussion and final approval. Before we go to privacy, just a reminder that if there are people who want to sign up for public comment, please do down here outside in the lobby area. I please remind you that public comment sessions have always been designed to have people speak to us three to five minutes. It's no a colloquy, there's not a response from us, but hearing from the public at the end of our meeting. So just that particular procedural point. But if you're interested, please sign up. The next item, sir? Thank you very much by the way. VOICE: We talked briefly about the next issue before lunch. You have a copy of the privacy and security principles for the NII with you. I think what the best thing to do here is to have Esther Dyson give us a quick overview of the work and then -- see what it looks like, and then take inputs, off line I guess, between now and the next meeting, with the idea of revisiting this again in January. MS. DYSON: Yes. Basically, we're going to get to the point where mega project two just got with the access principles, but we're going to do it in five minutes. I apologize. I need to catch a plane. I have to go to Dulles, so I can't stick around. What I'd like briefly like to do is just run you through where we are. You have our draft work product in front of you, or you can get it from somebody who is passing it around. This is a very important topic here, in a lot of the issues we're dealing with here, the goodness is fairly obvious. And there are issues over how we're going to fund this stuff, there are particularly issues if carriers are going to have to fund this rather than the public in general, and so forth and so on. When you get to the issue of privacy, as with intellectual property, there are companies and individuals who genuinely feel, and may be right, that their businesses are threatened, and so it's -- it's not just a question of figuring out word that state clearly what everybody means, but actually dealing with conflicting interests. And in particular, with the privacy principles, in some sense, there's a feeling that we really do want to break new ground. With the National Information Infrastructure, there will be new threats to privacy, there will be new technological capabilities, just as there are for intellectual property, that may genuinely require not just the same old laws, but new laws, new protections, and therefore, we are very concerned not to ahead as a committee without substantial public input and input from the rest of the council before we present our draft principles for adoption. Contrary to what was said in the schedule, these are not principles for adoption today, which obviously is moot. These are principles that we would like you to consider. You, not just on the council, but you in the public, and respond to, and we have a process for this to happen. You can forward your written comments to either Jan Laurie Goldman or Dedra Mulligan at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. They are my staff, and their coordinates are in the book. We would like to get those responses, if possible, by December 15th. We're having a short conference call on December 9th to sort of plan strategy. By December 15th, if the staff can collect these comments, they will produce some more documents that we will consider fully at our conference call on December 20th. And other council members, in addition to mega project members, are invited and encouraged to participate, because we would rather hear your comments and address them then than wait until January and inflict the long process on everybody. People who feel they have a stake in this, people who have strong opinions, we invite you to come forward early rather than wait until the last moment. And you can, again, check with the staff on the exact -- the conference call is some time in the morning on the 20th, but on the exact details of how this all works. What we have, in terms of work product, just so you know, we have this draft that you see before you. Originally, we had a separate preamble, and we decided to incorporate it into the principles because we wanted it to be part of what was passed by the full council. In addition to this, we have a worked product, which looks pale and measly by comparison to mega project two's, but it's a fair amount of staff work that provides the background of legal -- the legal context, the social context, some of the technical context for some of these issues we're dealing with. Like the book of mega project two, it's not something we want the council to pass on, but we hope it will be useful, both to them and informally to the public in framing same of these issues. We will also include in there any public comments we receive, and here we need to be careful, but we deem worthy. Public comments that we consider to be substandard and that help increase the dialogue. There are not a lot of people of "direct marketing" represented on the mega project, and so we wanted to especially reach out to them and to the advertising community, in order to make sure that all points of view are considered in what we're trying to do. The draft principles will also be put up on the MTIA Internet site and will be available to the public in any form. So as I said, we encourage your response, but we encourage it by December 15th. And there will two hearings tomorrow, financial and insurance information and security and education and health on Thursday here, in the Department of Commerce auditorium, being led by Bruce McConnell, and we don't really have time to go through all the issues here, but let me just give you some of the highlights. One is the issue of personally identifiable information, what is it, does that include stuff like information that does not have a person's name, but that can be attached back to that person's name using computer matching? In general, we believe that it should include such information, but only when they're strong associations. The whole motion of informed consent, versus specific informed consent, versus locked out principles. What kind of consent do you have to get from an individual to use their information in a different way? What's the difference between coerced consent, when somebody -- if they need a new kidney, and they'll tell you anything just to get their new kidney, versus uncoerced, freely given consent. Informed does not necessarily mean voluntary. It just means they know and they feel pressured. The issues of spheres of anaminity. There was a lot of discussion of making sure that there's a balance between privacy rights and the need for law enforcement, other public interest issues, accountability, the protection of intellectual property rights. So a lot of the things we're dealing here with were not simple. We encourage your comments, and we will use them in our conference call on December 20th, and probably another one in January before presenting you with our draft principles in January on the 26th. If there are any questions, which I can answer briefly, -- CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Thank you, Esther. Are there any process questions for Esther? VOICE: I have one process question, and that is our point of view. And that is, when you place this on the NTIA cover, if you could note it's a mega project draft so they don't think it's a draft of the entire council. VOICE: Right. MS. DYSON: Thank you. We will be sure to do that. Yes. VOICE: I have a quick process question as well. The background document, whatever you call it, that you're putting together, I think will be very helpful. In that, will you be addressing how the principles you drafted relate to the information infrastructure task force document that Sally Katzen presented to use early on? MS. DYSON: Yes. Thank you. That was an answer that I forgot to give. Just as the IT people are addressing the green paper, we're going to be addressing the IITF paper on privacy and pointing out where our principles differ from theirs and for what reason. And this work product will also explore some of the controversies, and to the extent possible, explain why we came down where we did or where we will. VOICE: Thank you. VOICE: I just wanted to make one general comment on this that you might want to think about, Esther, before you go into any of these further discussions. I think it's going to become important that we find a way to make a statement about what people wish not to be in their sphere of privacy. For example, I'm sure nothing in this document would want to attach to it let's say a paper that somebody wrote that was intended to be made available to the world or a book that they published that was covered under copyright, things like that. Something that's in the middle ground might be electronic mail. I mean, as I read this right now, I presume the intention is that if a piece of electronic mail went from one place to another, because it can be associated with the individual, making that mail available would be a violation of their privacy. And I don't have any problem with that, except that I think it's going to be important for individuals to actively take a role in stipulating what things they are willing to have out there so that -- like if you send a piece of mail to somebody, they can say, "Feel free to distribute this." And if that's the case, it goes into this other sphere. It doesn't get represented in here, and I think it's an issue that needs to be addressed somehow, a statement of being out there, and therefore, it's okay to do with it and not being okay. MS. DYSON: Remind us on December 20th. VOICE: I won't be at the -- MS. DYSON: Okay. Well, -- CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: We'll encourage the members of the council to be active participant in this process, and also whatever similar process that mega project two puts together so that we can get a lot done so that we can really address the issues at the next meeting and make a lot of progress. Thank you very much. Del? CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yes. VOICE: I have a trivial point. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yes, Bonnie? MS. BRACEY: This might be considered a very trivial point, but in edutainment, if you read the literature and look at the information--I didn't bring it up because it didn't have anything to do with the principles--most of the software that's published in games is published for boys, and I just thought I'd make that trivial point because it wasn't said by anyone, because there are lot of little girls out there, who may learn in different ways perhaps, but who might also be involved more in technology if more products were made available to them in the same way they are made available to boys. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: The point is well taken. We're now at a point for public comment, questions and answer. We have one person who signed, Stan Newman, Community Learning Information Network. Stan? MR. NEWMAN: Thank you, Del. (INAUDIBLE) CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Thank you very much, Stan. We come to the end of our meeting with closing remarks. Ed is going to have to leave. Yes? VOICE: -- John Gallagher (INAUDIBLE). CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Yes. Mr. Gallagher? Please just state your name and affiliation, please. MR. GALLAGHER: John Gallagher. I'm -- (INAUDIBLE). (End side A tape 4.) MR. GALLAGHER: -- because only so much goes out, that a lot comes in. And also, I just want to make sure that in all this process that it is made accessible for someone say who's visual impaired. Say, for instance, when you use you -- if you use your modem, that you -- after you dial the number, like there will be different codes and a code say if you're blind or if you speak a different language, and automatically it would read it to you or it would put it in a different language. Because if this isn't for people to make lots and lots of money, as was talked about earlier, you have to have access like that. Or it's going to be so expensive, it's going to be pathetic. Thank you. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Thank you very much. Your points are well taken. Yes? VOICE: Just very briefly, if I may. I think this raises two points. I think that our advisory council meetings should always be in places that are easily accessible by everyone, and I would hope that in the future we will make sure that that happens. And secondly, because of the end of meetings some people do have to leave to catch airplanes, I would like to request that the slot for public comments and questions be earlier on our agenda, perhaps right after lunch. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Thank you. We are probably going to do so some reformatting of the agenda over the next few months. In any event, look at '95. There was some recommendations that we bring demonstrations in and do them in an early period and obviously we could move public comment up, too. So there will be some reformatting. So thank you, Toni. We've had a full day. We're down to the closing remarks, and Ed has to leave shortly, but he will start out. And we'll make this very, very quick. CO-CHAIR MC CRACKEN: Thank you, Del. I think the other thing, we do need to, I think, also revisit kind of the work product a little bit, the work schedule. Del and I plan to meet, I think, prior to the next meeting, and we'll try to meet with the co-chairs of the mega projects as well, if it's possible, so that we can just take another look at it now that we have so much more information about the process. Those of you that had the principles approved, please get the document, as they were approved today, as quickly as possible on a disk, or whatever, to the co- chair's staff if possible. We'll try to start doing the drafting necessary to get it into a coherent document. And again, I thought today's meeting was really great. I think we're really doing the work that we're set up to do, to advise the government in this very important area. Sometimes it's frustrating because we don't make quite as much progress as we think we might, but I think we're dealing with the real issues, and we're dealing with the issues as a result of a lot of work that's gone on that's made it possible. And I really want to thank all of you for the work you've done. It makes the discussion very meaningful. And I'm looking forward to the next meeting. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Thank you very much, Ed. And I want to thank Ed for his participation, an extraordinary job today in helping us guide this council, and I appreciate our working together. A couple of things, then I have some final remarks. We want to announce two public meetings sponsored by mega project three, an IITF security issues forum. The first one is December 7th, Wednesday, tomorrow, from 9:00 to 12:30 at the Department of Commerce auditorium. Is that here? Security for Financial and Insurance Information in the NII. That's the title. And the second one is December 8th, Thursday, from 9:00 to 12:30, Department of Interior, Room 5160. So I'll state that again: December 8th, Department of Interior, Room 5160. The title of the topic is Security for Education and Health Information in the NII. I just want to echo the comments of Ed, that we had a very, very fruitful meeting. We approved a number of sets of principles, and I just want to congratulate all of the mega project committees for an outstanding job. On the access, Bert and Carol and others, if I appeared to move too quickly or to push people to get their points of view across, it was only designed to move the agenda and nothing personal intended. But we wanted to move forward, and I think we've done that in a very, very fine fashion. So thank you. And, Bob, all those were jokes, and I appreciated you input very, very much. I want to thank the staffs, and I won't call any names because we'll leave somebody out. But it's the staffs, your staff, the staffs at NPR, the staffs at Silicon Graphics, all the others, outstanding work, and I want to say thank you. One caveat. Two members brought up to me that, those of you standing here, this may not apply, but you want to pass the word that we want full participation on the part of our members. It's not fair for those who come and not fully participate or partially participate, when many of us give full time and attention. So all of you sitting here, I'm preaching to the saved, but pass that word along, that we want full participation, and I know we will receive it, and we appreciate it. As Ed mentioned, we're going to get together before the North Carolina meeting. And by the way, that's on January 26th, in Raleigh Durham, North Carolina, is our next meeting. We're going to get together and try to add more substance to our work plan and to come back to give you some indications of what -- an action agenda, and the next steps, including outreach will be all about. So we will work together and bring that to our January meeting. And finally, we have some thoughts about the coordination of mega projects as they began to unfold, what will be the roles of the mega projects, and Ed and I were just theorizing that maybe there comes a time where mega projects ought to come together, because we see the overlaps of the issues, and may in some fashion they should come together and meet together with dialogue toward a particular objective. So we're going to put some more thought to that as we develop the work plan or at least enhance the work plan for the rest of the year. Thank you for your work. Outstanding. We'll well on our way, and I'm very proud of the work of the council. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. VOICE: So moved. CO-CHAIR LEWIS: Thank you so much. (Whereupon, the meeting was concluded.) C E R T I F I C A T E This is to certify that the foregoing proceedings of a meeting of the United States Advisory Council on the National Information Infrastructure, held on Tuesday, December 6, 1994, were transcribed as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof. FABIANA E. BARHAM Transcriber