iiiiii   iiiiii   a                INFORMATION POLICY ONLINE
  ii       ii    aaa
  ii       ii     aaa                An Internet Newsletter
  ii       ii      aaa                  published by the
  ii       ii aaaaaaaaa        Information Industry Association
  ii       ii        aaa           555 New Jersey Ave., N.W.
  ii       ii         aaa             Washington, DC 20001 
  ii       ii          aaa        Internet: <iia.ipo@his.com>
iiiiii   iiiiii       aaaaaaa   Volume 1, Number 5, July 1994
*****************************************************************
IN THIS ISSUE:
[1]  Administration NII Copyright Report Hailed
[2]  House OKs Telecom Reform
[3]  High Court Nixes Forebearance
[4]  NRENaissance:  Observations of a Committee Member, by
     Cynthia H. Braddon, Vice President, Washington Affairs,
     McGraw-Hill, Inc.
[5]  Library of Congress Switches Gears on Fund Legislation
[6]  Dissemination Is to Access as Paperwork Is to . . . FOIA?
[7]  Health Care Reform and Health Care Data Collection 101
[8]  About INFORMATION POLICY ONLINE and the Information Industry
     Association
*****************************************************************
[1]  ADMINISTRATION NII COPYRIGHT REPORT HAILED

On July 7, the Intellectual Property Working Group of the Administration's
Information Infrastructure Task Force released its long-awaited
preliminary report on "Intellectual Property and the National Information
Infrastructure." With this report, presented to the public and press by
Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown and Bruce Lehman, Commissioner of Patents
and Trademarks, the Administration is beginning to use its "bully pulpit"
to highlight respect for intellectual property rights as a key ingredient
in the success of the information superhighway.

The report identifies many of the fundamental issues that must be resolved
if the National Information Infrastructure (NII) is to achieve its full
potential. Without information, the information superhighway will be an
expressway to nowhere; and without respect for intellectual property
rights, the information resources the American people expect to find will
not materialize on the NII.

The information industry comends the overall thrust of the report, which
appears to recognize that a strong intellectual property foundation for
the NII depends on three supports:

  LAW:  The report concludes that no fundamental rewrite of
  copyright law is warranted, but points out some areas where
  the Copyright Act needs updating to clarify how its basic
  framework applies in the new environment. These include
  redefinitions of "transmission" and "publication," and
  amendments to the "first sale docrtrine" to clarify that
  copyright owners retain rights in copyrighted materials
  distributed over the NII.

  TECHNOLOGY:  The report acknowledges that technological
  approaches, from encryption to software "envelopes" to
  information tagging, can facilitate legitimate transactions
  in copyrighted materials while discouraging piracy and
  unauthorized use. It calls for prohibitions on "black box"
  techniques designed to circumvent these protective
  technologies or to tamper with copyright management
  information, and refrains from recommending the unilateral
  imposition of standards by government in this fast-changing
  field.

  EDUCATION:  The NII cannot succeed without greater public
  understanding of and respect for intellectual property.
  Government can do much to encourage responsible use of
  information networks. The report calls for conferences on
  fair use and on copyright education, to bring together
  interested parties to develop greater consensus among
  copyright owners and users. These could be crucial first
  steps in a sustained educational effort.

The  141-page report contains many specific recommendations. It was
released as a "preliminary draft," with comments invited by September 7.
Public hearings will also be held in Washington, Chicago and Los Angeles
to receive reactions. The timetable calls for issuance of a final report
by year's end, with a legislative agenda to be undertaken next year.

*****************************************************************
[2]  HOUSE OK's TELECOM REFORM

After weeks of apparent stalemate, the House of Representatives gave swift
and overwhelming approval on June 27 to two bills to make sweeping changes
in regulation of telecommunications services.  H.R. 3626, sponsored by two
of the most powerful House committee chairs, Reps. Jack Brooks (D-TX) of
the Judiciary Committee and John Dingell (D-MI) of the Energy and Commerce
Committee, would, among other things, specify the conditions under which 
regional Bell operating companies (RBOCs) may engage in electronic
publishing ventures. One of the bill's most significant pro-competitive
safeguards is the requirement that RBOC electronic publishing activities
be conducted either through joint ventures or through fully separated
subsidiaries, in order to lessen the danger that a local telephone company
will use its monopoly status to subsidize its information services
activities or discriminate against competitors. The House-passed version
of H.R. 3626 includes an expanded definition of "electronic publishing"
that includes entertainment services, legal information, and archival
material, but excludes interactive games, cable television programming, or
full motion video on demand. A last-minute addition to H.R. 3626 (section
206) also requires the FCC to revisit its decision not to require RBOCs to
conduct other information services activities through separate
subsidiaries.

H.R. 3626  also contains provisions to require fairer rules of access to
customer proprietary network information generated by use of telephone
service. The other bill passed by the House, H.R. 3636, was sponsored by
Reps. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Jack Fields (R-TX). It would open the local
telephone service market to competition, striking down state laws or
regulations that confer monopoly status on one service provider.

With the House action, the scene now shifts to the Senate, where S. 1822,
introduced by Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC), is pending before the Commerce
Committee. S. 1822 covers the subject matter addressed by both H.R. 3626
and H.R. 3636. The information industry supports S. 1822 as the best
current legislative proposal on issues such safeguards for competition in
information services, and sound rules on access to and use of customer
proprietary network information. However, time is running short for action
before the anticipated October adjournment of the 103rd Congress, and a
mark-up of S. 1822 is expected during July.

*****************************************************************
[3]  HIGH COURT NIXES FORBEARANCE

In a decision handed down June 17, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the
Federal Communications Commission lacked authority to waive the
requirement that non-dominant common carriers file tariffs for public
disclosure of their service offerings. The decision upheld lower court
rulings that disapproved the FCC policy requiring only AT&T to file
tariffs. The Supreme Court decision does not resolve whether the FCC has
authority to   establish looser requirements for tariffs filed by
non-dominant carriers. The ruling is likely to increase support for S.
1822, telecommunications reform legislation which specifically authorizes
the FCC to exercise forbearance in setting tariff requirements.

*****************************************************************
[4]  NRENAISSANCE: OBSERVATIONS OF A COMMITTEE MEMBER
     by Cynthia H. Braddon,
     Vice President, Washington Affairs, McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Last Spring, I was asked by the National Research Council's Computer
Science and Telecommunications Board to serve as the sole representative
for information providers on a 16-member study group. Our mission was to
come to a consensus and provide a report to the National Science
Foundation (NSF) and the Administration, which would present a five-year
vision and map for the National Research and Education Network (NREN). We
were to advise the government on its appropriate role and how best it
could fill the needs of broader -- but still mostly academic --
communities. Within months, we named ourselves the NRENAISSANCE Committee
and began acquiring presentations and comments from interested parties.

  A number of things became clear early on:

  1) It is lonely and frustrating to be the only information 
     provider in a room filled with very smart people, most
     of whom believe strongly that information must be free,
     or at least very, very cheap;

  2) The constituencies represented on the panel need access
     to information electronically, but face many costly
     obstacles; and

  3) The world was not going to stand still while we studied
     and debated the issues for a year. The Administration
     began discussing the National Information
     Infrastructure (NII); mega-mergers and alliances were
     being formed as we were speaking.

But finally, the National Research Council has published our 300 page
report, REALIZING THE INFORMATION FUTURE.  There are numerous
recommendations and substantive discussion meant to move the debate
forward. Just to highlight a few of the particularly interesting ones:

  - The government should play the role of facilitator,
    overseer and arbiter of last resort.

  - An Open Data Network which is open to users, service
    providers and network providers and will change with
    time, is essential. In fact, the report provides a
    significant contribution to the debate in this area and
    is worth review.

  - Temporary and targeted subsidies for education and
    research institutions should be considered when needed.

  - The government should expand important areas of network
    research, including security and information management
    applications.

The report provides a detailed discussion about the benefits of linking
America s educational institutions (K-12 through life-long learning),
libraries and research communities. It starkly explains the obstacles
which must be overcome -- with big dollars, equipment and training -- to
get from here to there. Did you know that, for example, in too many
elementary schools, the only telephone is in the administration/principal
s office? We devote a chapter to discussing the very principles at the
heart of policy on the NII -- the responsible use of information on the
network by users and providers. We address the need for further work in
the areas of network and data security, First Amendment, intellectual
property management and privacy.

In sum, I am proud to have been part of this effort and the results. The
report does not provide all the answers, but should   prove to be a
significant contribution to the debate. I also feel fortunate to have had
the opportunity to be sequestered for weeks with some very important
constituencies. In the end, I surely better understand their needs and
perceptions and, I hope, they benefited from better understanding ours.

I point to one final aspect of our report: the user wants access to
information as it is needed or wanted. The user does not care how it gets
from there to here. The user just wants it.

*****************************************************************
[5]  LIBRARY OF CONGRESS SWITCHES GEARS ON FUND LEGISLATION

Over the past several years, the Library of Congress has been pushing hard
for legislation to authorize it to offer revenue-generating information
products and services. Throughout the same period, the information
industry has been pushing back. This spring, LC has changed course. There
is even a tantalizing prospect that industry and library groups may join
forces in support of the latest LC proposal.

The story begins with an audit by the General Accounting Office that
questioned the legal basis for some current LC activities that questioned
the legal basis for some current LC activities that are not funded through
appropriations. These activities range from photo duplication services and
gift shop sales to the FEDLINK program (under which LC is the conduit for
procurement of information products by a broad range of federal agencies)
and LC research projects undertaken for other government agencies.
Legislation was needed to satisfy GAO s  concerns, but LC used this as a
springboard to propose a sweeping expansion of its revenue-generating
activities. In industry s view, the proposed Library of Congress Fund Act
lacked adequate safeguards against improper LC competition with existing
private sector information services. Industry was also concerned about
protecting the copyright interests of publishers whose works, deposited
with LC, could be used as the basis for revenue generating information
services.

Groups representing librarians also questioned the legislation, fearing
that traditionally free library services would be swept into the
fee-producing category.

Although the Senate Rules Committee approved a version of the LC fund bill
a year ago, Congress has taken no further action. LC s new initiative to
break the impasse avoids many of the hot-button issues that plagued the LC
fund bill. The draft Library of Congress Financial Reform Act focuses on
the current activities questioned by GAO. It sets up a revolving fund for
receipts from seven specified activities, but does not authorize any new
fee-generating services. It also authorizes LC to recover its distribution
costs for cataloging products and services offered to libraries.

Title III of the draft legislation does contain a new wrinkle of concern to
industry: a fire sale provision, allowing LC to sell  books, periodicals,
phonorecords and other materials that the Librarian of Congress determines
to be excess to the collections,  and apply the proceeds to acquisition
activities. Most of these sales would be innocuous, and the draft bill
contains some safeguards, but concerns remain about fire sales of
materials deposited in connection with copyright registration, especially
electronic publications.

The new LC proposal has not yet been formally introduced in Congress, but
so far the draft has received favorable reviews from industry and library
groups alike. If it stays on course,  it could put several years of
contentious debate to rest.

*****************************************************************
[6]  DISSEMINATION IS TO ACCESS AS PAPERWORK IS TO... FOIA?

Legislation to define the role of federal agencies in information
dissemination took one step back during June, when the Senate Governmental
Affairs Committee failed to act on a compromise draft bill to reauthorize
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). But a closely related bill took one
step forward, as Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) unveiled a new version of his
legislation applying the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to electronic
federal records.

The PRA compromise came apart over issues unrelated to government
information policy. Plans to offer the compromise at a committee mark-up
session June 16 were abandoned. One possible scenario now is that Sen. Sam
Nunn (D-Ga.) and his allies, whose PRA reauthorization bill (S. 560)
commands wide support, will offer their version as an amendment to other
legislation on the Senate floor. The Nunn bill s information dissemination
policy provisions are weaker than those in the compromise version: for
instance, the compromise would forbid agency restrictions on  reuse or
redissemination of government information (unless specifically authorized
by statute), while S. 560 calls for such  restrictions to be avoided to
the extent appropriate and practical.

Meanwhile, the new version of Leahy s electronic FOIA legislation (S. 1782)
underscores the difficulty of continuing to draw distinctions between
passive access to government information and  active dissemination efforts
by government agencies. FOIA has always been viewed as an access statute,
but the Leahy draft substitute also requires greatly expanded electronic
dissemination efforts by federal agencies. Agencies would have to  make
available to the public by computer telecommunications ... or other
electronic means, ten categories of information, ranging from material now
published in the Federal Register to administrative manuals, indexes of
decisions and policy statements, and all records whose disclosure has been
repeatedly requested under FOIA. The new draft would also allow an agency
to finance this activity by retaining half the fees it collects from
requesters under FOIA, so long as it is in substantial compliance  with
statutory time limits for responding to requests.

On traditional access issues, the new draft is clearly positive and should
help information companies obtain prompt access to federal information in
electronic form. However, the scope of its dissemination requirements
could raise questions about its impact on private sector information
products and services based on government information. The Senate
Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology and the Law, which Leahy chairs, is
expected to consider the new version of S. 1782 in the near future.

*****************************************************************
[7]  HEALTH CARE REFORM AND HEALTH CARE DATA COLLECTION 101 

The Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources has completed action on
health care reform legislation. Of interest to the information industry is
the Wofford- Dodd amendment which includes a comprehensive section on
health care collection and dissemination and a section on privacy
protection for protected  health care information.

The bill establishes a Health Care Data Network and requires health care
providers and health care plans to standardize certain health care
transactions and data and transmit the data to the network. The Health
Care Data Network consists of indexing systems, clearinghouses and health
information protection organizations. The clearinghouses are public or
private entities responsible for standardizing data or storing private
entities and making available to other entities standard data. The
indexing systems provide standard indexes to all information contained in
the clearinghouses so that the information is interoperable. The health
information protection organizations (HIPO) take the standardized health
care information and process it into non-identifiable health information.
They satisfy all requests for non-identifiable health information. The
certification process for the indexing systems, clearinghouses and the
HIPOs is done by the National Health Care Board, which is also created by
the legislation.

The bill sets out some of the standards for accessing data, both protected
and non-identifiable, and assesses penalties for violations of those
rules. In some instances the standards will be established by the National
Health Care Board. The bill also  establishes a Health Care Data Advisory
Panel which will provide assistance to the Board in complying with the
requirements of data collection and dissemination.

The second part of the health care information section establishes
guidelines for dissemination and protection of personally identifiable
health care information. This section is similar, although not identical,
to legislation, H.R. 4077, introduced by Congressman Condit earlier this
year. This part of the health care information section outlines penalties
for the wrongful disclosure and misuse of protected health information. 
Protected health information is defined as  any information, whether oral
or recorded in any form or medium  that is created or received by a
participant in the provision of health care or by employers when they are
screening or testing employees. It  further defines the information to be
protected if it identifies an individual or there is a reasonable basis to
believe that the information can be used to identify an individual. This
information includes the past, present, or future physical or mental
health or condition of an enrollee; information about the provision of
care to an enrollee; or demographic data collected from the enrollee.

Protected health information can be disclosed under specific  circumstances
including: if an enrollee authorizes it in written form; for provision of
care; for payment of claims; to a public health organization for disease
or injury reporting, public health surveillance or public health
investigation; for emergencies; for law enforcement; and for health
research purposes.

Health care reform legislation seems to have gotten a jump start in recent
weeks and the outlook around Washington now seems somewhat more optimistic
that some bill will be adopted this year.

*****************************************************************
[8]  ABOUT  INFORMATION POLICY ONLINE AND
     THE INFORMATION INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

ABOUT "INFORMATION POLICY ONLINE"

INFORMATION POLICY ONLINE (IIA-IPO) is an online newsletter published on
the Internet by the Information Industry Association and distributed free
of charge. The purpose of the Newsletter is to inform readers of events
and activities affecting information policy, and to present an information
industry viewpoint concerning these events and activities.

IIA-IPO is copyrighted by the Information Industry Association; however,
IIA-IPO is distributed without charge and may be freely reproduced and
redistributed. Please acknowledge IIA-IPO as the source of the information
when quoting or redistributing the newsletter.

TO SUBSCRIBE TO IIA-IPO:  Send the message "subscribe" to
<iiaipo-request@his.com>. 

ARCHIVES.  IIA-IPO is archived. To get archived copies, ftp to
<ftpmail@his.com> with the message "GET FILENAME." Individual monthly
issues are archived with file names "iia0394.zip" for March 1994,
"iia0494.zip" for April 1994, etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABOUT THE INFORMATION INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

THE INFORMATION INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION represents leading organizations
involved in the generation, processing, distribution and use of
information. IIA is home base for businesses offering the innovative
products and services that make up the information marketplace. IIA
fosters a responsive and responsible forum for promoting a competitive and
growing information marketplace.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
President of the IIA:  Kenneth B. Allen
Editor of Information Policy Online:
       Steven J. Metalitz, IIA Vice President and General Counsel
For messages to IIA-IPO:  <iia.ipo@his.com>
Voice:  (202) 639-8262,  Fax:  (202)638-4403
*****************************************************************

 ============================================================
 From the  'New Product Information'  Electronic News Service
 on AOL (Keyword = New Products) & Delphi (GO BUSINESS PROD)
 ============================================================
 This information was processed from data provided by the
 above mentioned company. For additional details, contact 
 the company at the address or telephone number indicated.
 OmniPage Pro is now used for converting all printed input! 
 ============================================================
 All submissions for this service should be addressed to:
 BAKER ENTERPRISES,  20 Ferro Dr,  Sewell, NJ  08080  U.S.A.
 Email: RBakerPC (AOL/Delphi), rbakerpc@delphi.com (Internet)
 ============================================================
