Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
44161839
label
Miscellaneous Unsorted Files
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
44161839
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Miscellaneous Unsorted Files
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (Clinton Administration)
John O'Neil's Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
44161839
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-12359457-20081524F-029-006-2016
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
90c72c9e4f7767c7
ocrText
Case Number: 2008-1524-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the Clinton Presidential
Library Staff.
Folder Title:
Miscellaneous Unsorted Files
Staff Office-Individual:
Science Technology Policy-O'Neil, John
Original OA/ID Number:
CF 99
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
Stack:
23
6
10
2
V
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001a. memo
Carmin Caputo to NCS Principals, re: Minutes of NCS Committee of
08/23/1993
P3/b(3)
Principals July 22, 1993 Meeting [partial] [National Security Act] (1
page)
001b. minutes
NCS Committee of Principals Meeting of July 22, 1993 [partial]
ca.
07/1993
P3/b(3)
[National Security Act] (2 pages)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Office of Science and Technology Policy
O'Neil, John
OA/Box Number: CF 99
FOLDER TITLE:
Miscellaneous Unsorted Files
2008-1524-F
ke2347
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)|
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
PI National Security Classified Information |(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA|
an agency |(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information |(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors |a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes |(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions |(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells |(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
COMMUNICATION ATIONS
NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
OFFICE OF THE MANAGER
NCS SYSTEM NATIONAL
701 SOUTH COURT HOUSE ROAD
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22204-2198
IN REPLY
REFER TO:
NP
NCS 2857/1
APR 7 1993
MEMORANDUM FOR NCS PRINCIPALS
SUBJECT:
National Security and Emergency Preparedness
Telecommunications Candidate Initiatives
1. Enclosed is the National Communications System (NCS), National
Security and Emergency Preparedness (NS/EP) Telecommunications
Candidate Initiatives document, NCS 2352/2, dated February 25,
1993.
2. At the March 25, 1993 Council of Representatives (COR) meeting,
the Representatives voted to forward this document to the Committee
of Principals with a cover letter reflecting the following pen and
changes:
a. To reflect the importance of interoperability in the
consideration of Candidate Initiatives; Initiative #12, Advanced
Engineering Communications; Telecommunications, Interoperability,
and Initiative #20, Applications of Standards for Interoperability
of Communication Systems were combined and renumbered as Initiative
#2.
b. Delete the section titled Other Possible Initiatives and
relocate the initiatives under that section to the section titled
Initiatives Under Consideration.
C. Delete the following Initiatives in their entirety:
Initiative #2:
Thin Line System Based on Meteor
Burst Communications
Initiative #14:
Improvement of the EBS data base
Initiative #22:
Research the Use of Backup Energy
Sources or Systems
3. This Candidate Initiatives document, with the incorporated
COR recommendations, will be used as a reference, internally
by the Manager, NCS, in the implementation of the revised
NS/EP Telecommunications Planning Process
1 Enclosure:
B. E. MORRISS
NCS 2352/2
Deputy Manager
COL, USA
Copy to:
NCS Reps (w/o encl)
2
Revise the National Plan for Telecommunications Support in Non-Wartime
Emergencies, if necessary, to be consistent with the Federal Response Plan, as
discussed above, other changes in NS/EP Telecommunications, and other
appropriate changes which might result from the most recent National Security
Telecommunications Advisory Committee recommendations.
In addition, the OMNCS should continue to perform secretariat functions in
support of the Joint Telecommunications Resources Board and continue to keep the
Board apprised of telecommunications situations in accordance with the Response and
Coordination Procedures.
I look forward to visiting the NCC in the not too distant future and hope to see
you at that time.
John M. Gibbons
Director
cc:
Anthony Lake, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
Leon E.Panetta, Director, Office of Management and Budget
James Lee Witt, Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency
Emmett Paige, Assistant Secretary of Defense for C³I
Larry Irving, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce,
National Telecommunications & Information Agency
G. Martin Wagner, Acting Commissioner, General Services Administration
Bruce J. Campbell, Assistant Associate Director, Federal Emergency
Management Agency
Andrew Barrett, Defense Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
CLINTON LIBRARY PHOTOCOPY
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON D.C. 20506
June 11, 1993
Dear Mr. Witt:
I understand that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is in the
process of revising the Federal Response Plan (FRP) and its Emergency Support Functions
(ESFs).
Executive Order 12472, Assignment of National Security and Emergency
Preparedness Telecommunications, required the Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) to establish a Joint Telecommunications Resources Board (JTRB)
to assist him in providing information, advice, guidance and assistance to the President and
to those Federal departments and agencies with responsibilities for the provision,
management, or allocation of telecommunications resources during non-wartime crises or
emergencies.
At the direction of OSTP, the National Plan for Telecommunications Support in Non-
Wartime Emergencies was prepared in coordination with the member organizations of the
JTRB, the Office of the Manager, National Communications System (OMNCS), the General
Services Administration (GSA), and FEMA. This document, in effect since 1984, is the
formal U.S. Government plan applicable to all Federal executive departments, agencies, and
organizations.
The National Plan establishes procedures for planning and using national
telecommunications assets and resources in support of non-wartime emergencies, including
Presidentially declared emergencies, major disasters, and extraordinary situations. It
establishes responsibilities, outlines missions, and identifies functions in support of the
Federal official exercising the authorities of Public Law 93-288, as amended, Executive
Order 12472, and other applicable authorities. It provides for telecommunications staff
support for the Federal Coordinating Officer, and/or the Senior FEMA Official.
In order to ensure consistency between the Federal Response Plan and the National
Plan, I have requested that the Manager, National Communications System review both plans
and make changes where appropriate, that OSTP be clearly identified as the primary agency
for ESF 2 (telecommunications), and that the OMNCS execute responsibilities in the revised
FRP on behalf of OSTP, until the situation demands involvement of the JTRB.
2
I believe these steps will improve telecommunications support during situations
requiring response by the Federal Government, and thereby support your efforts to improve
responsiveness throughout the Federal Government.
Sincerely,
John
Director
Mr. James Lee Witt
Diretor
Federal Emergency Management Agency
500 C Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20472
cc:
Alonso Short, Manager, National Communications System
Bruce J. Campbell, Assistant Associate Director, Federal Emergency
Agency
Emmett Paige, Assistant Secretary for Defense C³I
Larry Irving, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce,
National Telecommunications & Information Administration
G. Martin Wagner, Acting Commissioner, General Services Administration
Andrew Barrett, Defense Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
CE; To Ann Ward
Date Rec 8-13-43
ACTION in BAchteL
-OMMUNICATIONS
NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
INFO a
Johns
OFFICE OF THE MANAGER
NATIONAL NCS SYSTEM
701 SOUTH COURT HOUSE ROAD
Newell
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22204-2198
(orts set for 9/20
@
Nelson
IN REPLY
05 a.m -2:00
REFER TO:
NE
23 July 1993
There
PE
SWG ml
(Wind
MEMORANDUM FOR DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY Stationery
THRU:
EPain
9 AUG 1993
Executive Agent, National Communications System
SUBJECT:
National Security and Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications
Reference:
Office of Science and Technology Policy Memo, Subject as above,
June 11, 1993
mike
will do his
1. Thank you for your memorandum of June 11, 1993. I agree that it is extremely
important that we continue to work with the private sector to ensure that our
visit
telecommunications meet the requirements of the President and the Nation in any
or
emergency.
8/28
2. During your visit, I would like to take some time to discuss our readiness
programs and our action plan to:
a. Implement the National Telecommunications Management Structure (NTMS)
and show how it is being enhanced to ensure a "flexible, integrated response
capability to manage the Nation's telecommunications assets across the full
spectrum of domestic and national security emergencies"
b. Ensure consistency between the National Plan for Telecommunications
during Non-Wartime Emergencies and the Federal Response Plan (FRP), with emphasis
on the support role of the National Coordinating Center (NCC) for
Telecommunications
diduty
C. Execute, on behalf of the Director, Office of Science and Technology
Policy, the Federal Response Plan responsibilities of the Primary Agency for
communications support, ESF-2.
3. I look forward to presenting our plans and having you visit the NCC which has
proven very effective in the management of telecommunications during our recent
emergencies and Presidentially declared disasters. My staff is in contact with
your office and will be scheduling a meeting at your convenience.
FEMA
FSP-
alomp Ethater
I-in. thick
ALONZO E. SHORT, JR
Lieutenant General, USA
apr. 92
Manager
Phile Stripe
attendees - (Suggested)
- Dr. Gibbons
\
- SkipShns
Jane Wales (2)
Mike nelson.24
-
The newell ?)
s10m Calendar of 9/20
-- Dr. Gibbons
us
1400
-- Skip Johns
Provide Current
agenda to Barb
& Sue upon receipt 1
Provide
to background Sue for
JHG
COMMUNICA ATIONS
COMMUNIC ATIONS
NATIONAL SYSTEM D
NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SYSTEM NATIONAL
UNCLASSIFIED
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
FROM
Joanne Cavalcante
TO JoAnne Ward
OFFICE CODE NA
OFFICE CODE
PHONE NUMBER (703) 692-3760
PHONE NUMBER (202) 395-3272
FAX NUMBER (703) 746-7184
FAX NUMBER (202) 395-1572
NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THIS HEADER PAGE
3
DATE 14 July 93
TIME 1810
SUBJECT: Visit by Dr. Gibbons
COMMENTS: JoAnne,
I spoke to Susanne Bachtell this evening. She suggested that I send you
a copy of what 1 taxed to her. She said you would be working with her to
coordinate and set up this visit. Soooooooo, here you go. Call me if
you need anything!!!
SENDER JONAT SIGNATURE
UNCLASSIFIED FACSIMILE HEADER PAGE
100'000J
JN
WONJ
31:01 CO. 11 700
COMMUNICA ATIONS
COMMUNICA CATIONS
SYSTEM
NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
UNCLASSIFIED
SECTION STATE SYSTEM NATIONAL
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
FROM Joanne Cavalcante
TO Susanne Bachtell
OFFICE CODE
NA
OFFICE CODE
PHONE NUMBER (703) 692-3760
PHONE NUMBER (202) 456-7116
FAX NUMBER (703) 746-7184
FAX NUMBER (202) 395-3261
NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THIS HEADER PAGE
2
DATE 14 July 93
TIME 1808
SUBJECT: Dr. Gibbons visit to the National Communications System and Defense
Information Systems Agency
COMMENTS:
Per phonecon with JoAnne Ward on 13 July. attached is the proposed
agenda for the Director, OSTP to come and visit with the NCS and DISA. The
three dates (in priority order) are as follows:
NO - 27 September - Space Station adv. Comm.
OK - 15 September
test
20
September - - 10:15 - 2:PM 11 +02 - 12 lunch w/Yen. Short
Please contact Ms. Joanne Cavalcante, telephone (703) 692-3760 to confirm which
date is most convenient for Dr. Gibbons and his staff. I look forward to
hearing from you.
Copy to:
JoAnne Ward
Joanne Cavalcast
UNCLASSIFIED FACSIMILE HEADER PAGE
newell Level of
clearance
Nelson
Tim
Check , on mike is ,20min. may.
1.
Travel Time
FROM NP
31:81 86. VI 200
** 200'3948 78101 **
PROPOSED AGENDA
FOR
DR. JOHN GIBBONS
DIRECTOR, OSTP
TIME ALLOTED
TOPIC(S) OF INTEREST
Depart OSTP
30 Minutes
Arrive DISA HQ
701 South Court House Road
Arlington, VA 22204-2199
15 Minutes
Office call with LTG Short
NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM (NCS) PROGRAMS
10 Minutes
NCS Introduction
50 Minutes
National Coordinating Center
for Telecommunications
Briefing and Tour
00
NCC Role in Federal Disaster Response
00
NCS Support to Joint Telecommunications
Resources Board
00
Tour of NCC
00 Tour of Secure Video Teleconferencing Center
40 Minutes
National Telecommunications Management Structure (NTMS)
Implementation - CLASSIFIED
00
NTMS Concept and Program Status
00
Support of OSTP during wartime emergencies
00
Response to OSTP tasking to expand NTMS for
all hazards
20 Minutes
NCS Wrap-up/Discussion
DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY BRIEFINGS
30 Minutes
DISA Overview
30 Minutes
Tour of Network Management Operations Center (NMOC)
Depart DISA Headquarters
30 Minutes
Arrive OSTP
TOTAL TIME:
4 hours, 15 minutes (includes
travel time to and from
DISA HQ)
dN BROM
31:81 86. VI 705
300'390°
7/13
sue
-
Jo (phone: Cavalcante of the NCS
703-692-3760)
will be calling either late
today or early tomorrow to try
and schedule a visit to NCS
by Dr. Gibbons attached
is a memo from Wr Gibbons
(see last sentence, page 2) which
mentions his desire to visit.
Johnn
Called g 7/13 to request good dates in aug/Sep.
- proposed agench
- length of time necessary
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
June 11, 1993
MEMORANDUM FOR LTG ALONZO SHORT, U.S. ARMY
MANAGER, NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SUBJECT:
NATIONAL SECURITY AND EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
I congratulate you on the success of the recent National Security
Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) meeting held here in Washington.
It was a pleasure to address this dynamic group and to hear their discussions and
questions in the Executive Session.
As you know, these are times of truly profound change throughout the world,
and changes are occurring in National Security and Emergency Preparedness (NS/EP) in
response to these changes and Presidential guidance. We should build on the excellent
record of government and private sector cooperation in NS/EP telecommunications and
ensure that we provide the President, and the nation, responsive telecommunications
they require during emergencies.
The beginning of this new Administration offers a unique opportunity to us to
examine NS/EP telecommunications in light of Presidential guidance and to make other
appropriate changes at this time. Therefore, I request that you:
Continue with implementation of the National Telecommunications Management
Structure (NTMS) and take steps necessary, within current budgetary guidance,
to enhance the NTMS to ensure a flexible, integrated response capability to
manage the Nation's telecommunications assets across the full spectrum of
domestic and national security emergencies.
Work to revise the Federal Response Plan (FRP) to ensure that it and the
National Plan for Telecommunications Support in Non-Wartime Emergencies
(National Plan) are fully consistent, that the FRP clearly shows that OSTP is the
Primary Agency for the Emergency Support Function for Communications, but
that the Office of the Manager, National communications System (OMNCS) will
execute these functions on behalf of OSTP until such time as the situation
requires the attention of the Joint Telecommunications Resources Board.
Execute, on behalf of the Office of Science and Technology Policy the
responsibilities in the revised Emergency Support Function for Communications
in the Federal Response Plan.
2
Revise the National Plan for Telecommunications Support in Non-Wartime
Emergencies, if necessary, to be consistent with the Federal Response Plan, as
discussed above, other changes in NS/EP Telecommunications, and other
appropriate changes which might result from the most recent National Security
Telecommunications Advisory Committee recommendations.
In addition, the OMNCS should continue to perform secretariat functions in
support of the Joint Telecommunications Resources Board and continue to keep the
Board apprised of telecommunications situations in accordance with the Response and
Coordination Procedures.
I look forward to visiting the NCC in the not too distant future and hope to see
you at that time.
John M. Gibbons
Director
cc:
Anthony Lake, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
Leon E.Panetta, Director, Office of Management and Budget
James Lee Witt, Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency
Emmett Paige, Assistant Secretary of Defense for C³I
Larry Irving, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce,
National Telecommunications & Information Agency
G. Martin Wagner, Acting Commissioner, General Services Administration
Bruce J. Campbell, Assistant Associate Director, Federal Emergency
Management Agency
Andrew Barrett, Defense Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
Date Rec'd #13
ACTION, to
CNeil
INFO to Dana JHG S. Recd A 001.06
Document No. 012261
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
MNelion
DATE:
04/12/93
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: 1:00 PM 04/13
SIG of
SUBJECT: NATIONAL SECURITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS ADVISRORY COMMITTEE (NSTAC)
REPORT
DATE DUE
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
PASTER
McLARTY
RASCO
GEARAN
RUBIN
PANETTA
SEGAL
EMANUEL
STEPHANOPOULOS
GIBBONS
VARNEY
HALE
WATKINS
HERMAN
WILLIAMS
LAKE
LINDSEY
MONTOYA
NUSSBAUM
REMARKS:
Do you concur with the suggested response?
Phanedin Concurrence
at 1300 13 Agr 193
RESPONSE:
Concur.
JFO
JOHN D. PODESTA
Assistant to the President
and Staff Secretary
Ext. 2702
THE WHITE HOUSE
2202
WASHINGTON
April 12, 1993
93 APR 12 P12 : 48
ACTION
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
ANTHONY LAKE
SUBJECT:
National Security Telecommunications Advisory
Committee (NSTAC) Report
Purpose
To respond to the National Security Telecommunications Advisory
Committee (NSTAC) Executive Report.
Background
The President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory
Committee is composed of 26 corporate leaders of our Nation's
telecommunications industry. A membership list is provided at
Tab B. Their companies build, supply and operate both the
government and the private sector information infrastructure.
NSTAC is a Federal Advisory Committee whose objective is to
provide the President, the Assistant to the President for
National Security Affairs, the Secretary of Defense (as the
National Communications System Executive Agent) and other Federal
Agencies with a source of expertise, knowledge and insight not
available within the government on issues and problems related to
the implementation of National Security Telecommunications
policy.
In the past, this group has been instrumental in coordinating
joint industry-government efforts in telecommunications. A
primary NSTAC goal is to ensure that U.S. information highways
are sufficiently robust to operate before, during and after any
local, national or international crisis. Robert E. Allen,
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of AT&T, is the
current NSTAC Chairman. Norm Augustine, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of Martin Marietta Corporation will be inducted
as NSTAC Chairman at the next meeting on May 27.
This year's NSTAC Report provides recommendations for the
exchange of sensitive information about hacker attacks on
telephone networks and develops guidelines to prevent hackers
from disabling individual company and government telephone
CC: Vice President
Chief of Staff
2
systems. The Report also assesses technologies that will allow
critical government users to complete telephone calls rapidly,
even when telephone networks are stressed from physical damage or
extreme network congestion.
RECOMMENDATION
That you sign the letter to Robert Allen at Tab A.
Attachments
Tab A
Letter to Mr. Robert E. Allen
Tab B
NSTAC Membership
USE
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Dear Bob:
Your report on the recent work of the National
Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee
(NSTAC) highlights the Committee's outstanding
and valuable support of national security and
emergency preparedness objectives. Both Vice
President Gore and I are personally interested
in the Committee's work as a potential key
element of our planning and investment.
Network security and its corresponding "hacker"
threat will continue to be a significant issue,
requiring close industry and government
coordination. To facilitate that coordination,
I have directed the National Institute for
Standards and Technology to be the Government's
focal point for network security standards, and
I ask for your support to continue industry's
efforts through your Network Security Standards
Oversight Group.
NSTAC's recommendations for enhanced call
completion also are timely, and I have directed
the Secretary of Defense, as my Executive Agent,
to implement those recommendations through the
Manager, National Communications System. Future
results of these joint ventures will provide
excellent examples of what industry and
government can do when we work together.
2
Please extend my personal thanks to the other
USE
members for their contributions. In the years
ahead, I will continue to look to the NSTAC for
advice and leadership in national
telecommunications and technology issues as we
jointly build a stronger nation.
Sincerely,
Mr. Robert E. Allen
Chairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer
American Telephone and Telegraph Company
295 N. Maple Avenue
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920
THE PRESIDENT'S
NATIONAL SECURITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
(NSTAC)
CURRENT MEMBERS
(as of March 16, 1993)
AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY (AT&T)
Mr. Robert E. Allen
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
American Telephone and Telegraph Company
Basking Ridge, NJ
Appointed January 18, 1989
BELL COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH, INC. (BELLCORE)
Dr. George H. Heilmeier
President and Chief Executive Officer
Bell Communications Research, Inc.
Livingston, NJ
Appointed October 8, 1991
THE BOEING COMPANY
Mr. Arthur E. Hitsman
President
Boeing Computer Services
Seattle, WA
Appointed March 13, 1991
COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION (COMSAT)
Mr. Bruce L. Crockett
President and Chief Executive Officer
Communications Satellite Corporation
Washington, DC
Appointed November 20, 1992
COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION (CSC)
Mr. William R. Hoover
President and Chairman of the Board
Computer Sciences Corporation
El Segundo, CA
Appointed August 14, 1987
ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS (EDS)
Mr. Lester M. Alberthal, Jr.
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
Electronic Data Systems
Dallas, TX
Appointed January 15, 1993
1
GTE CORPORATION (GTE)
Mr. Charles R. Lee
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
GTE Corporation
Stamford, CT
Appointed October 8, 1992
HARRIS CORPORATION (HARRIS)
Mr. John T. Hartley
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Harris Corporation
Melbourne, FL
Appointed May 2, 1988
HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY (HUGHES)
Mr. C. Michael Armstrong
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Hughes Aircraft Company
Los Angeles, CA
Appointed November 20, 1992
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION (IBM)
Mr. Gerald W. Ebker
Vice President, and President Federal Sector Division
International Business Machines Corporation
Bethesda, MD
Appointed April 16, 1990
INTERDIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (INTERDIGITAL)
Mr. William J. Hilsman
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
InterDigital Communications Corporation
Philadelphia, PA
Appointed November 9, 1989
ITT CORPORATION (ITT)
Mr. D. Travis Engen
Executive Vice President
ITT Corporation
New York, NY
Appointed May 13, 1992
LOCKHEED CORPORATION (LOCKHEED)
Mr. John N. McMahon
President
Lockheed Missiles & Space Systems Group
Sunnyvale, CA
Appointed May 13, 1992
2
MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION (MARTIN MARIETTA)
Mr. Norman R. Augustine
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Martin Marietta Corporation
Bethesda, MD
Appointed August 9, 1988
McCA CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED (McCAW)
Mr. Craig O. McCaw
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc
Kirkland, WA
Appointed March 16, 1988
MCI COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (MCI)
Mr. Bert C. Roberts, Jr.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
MCI Communications Corporation
Washington, DC
Appointed January 15, 1993
METROPOLITAN FIBER SYSTEMS COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
Mr. Royce J. Holland
President and Chief Operating Officer
Metropolitan Fiber Systems Communications Company
Oakbrook Terrace, IL
Appointed January 15, 1993
MOTOROLA, INC. (MOTOROLA)
Mr. John F. Mitchell
Vice Chairman of the Board
Motorola, Inc.
Schaumburg, IL
Appointed May 1983
NORTHERN TELECOM INC. (NTI)
Dr. Paul G. Stern
Chairman of the Board
Northern Telecom Ltd.
Potomac, MD
Appointed August 7, 1990
PACIFIC TELECOM, INC. (PTI)
Mr. Charles E. Robinson
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Pacific Telecom, Inc.
Vancouver, WA
Appointed May 1983
3
ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION (ROCKWELL)
Mr. Kent M. Black
Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
Rockwell International Corporation
Richardson, TX
Appointed April 9, 1990
SPRINT CORPORATION (SPRINT)
Mr. William T. Esrey
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Sprint Corporation
Kansas City, MO
Appointed July 1990
UNISYS CORPORATION (UNISYS)
Mr. Albert F. Zettlemoyer
President, Paramax Corporation
Senior Vice President, Unisys Corporation
McLean, VA
(Appointment pending application - replacing deceased member)
U.S. TELEPHONE ASSOCIATION (USTA)
Mr. Robert C. Brown, III
1st Vice Chairman of the Board
U.S. Telephone Association
Sugar Land, TX
Appointed March 13, 1991
US WEST, INC.
Mr. Richard D. McCormick
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
U S WEST, Inc.
Englewood, CO
Appointed March 13, 1991
WILLIAMS TELECOMMUNICATIONS GROUP INC (WILTEL)
Mr. Roy A. Wilkens
President
Williams Telecommunications Inc
Tulsa, OK
Appointed November 20, 1992
4
COMMUNICATIONS ATIONS
NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
NCS 2929/1
OFFICE OF THE MANAGER
NATIONAL NCS and SYSTEM
701 SOUTH COURT HOUSE ROAD
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22204-2198
IN REPLY
REFER TO.
NJ
MEMORANDUM FOR NCS PRINCIPALS
August 23, 1993
SUBJECT:
Minutes of the NCS Committee of Principals
July 22, 1993 Meeting
Enclosed are the draft minutes of the NCS Committee of Principals
July 22, 1993 meeting, which the Committee will consider for approval
at its October 28, 1993 meeting. Please provide any comments or changes
to Janet Jefferson, Office of the Joint Secretariat, (703) 692-8434, at
your earliest convenience.
Chuck Paguto CARMIN C. CAPUTO
1 Enclosure:
NCS 2927/1
Executive Secretary
CLINTON LIBRARY PHOTOCOPY
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001a. memo
Carmin Caputo to NCS Principals, re: Minutes of NCS Committee of
08/23/1993
P3/b(3)
Principals July 22, 1993 Meeting [partial] [National Security Act] (1
page)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Office of Science and Technology Policy
O'Neil, John
OA/Box Number: CF 99
FOLDER TITLE:
Miscellaneous Unsorted Files
2008-1524-F
ke2347
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRAJ
b(1) National security classified information |(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office |(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute |(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information ((a)(4) of the PRAJ
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information |(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors |a)(5) of the PRA|
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy |(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells |(b)(9) of the FOIA|
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
National Communications System Principals
DOS
Mr. John E. Clark
TREAS
Mr. James J. Flyzik
DoD
Mr. John G. Grimes
DOJ
Mr. Roger M. Cooper
DOI
Mr. James P. Jadlos
USDA
Mr. John L. Okay
DOC
Mr. Thomas W. Zetty
HHS
Dr. Neil J. Stillman
DOT
Ms. Cynthia Rand
DOE
Mr. Raymond S. Barrow
DVA
In he determined
(b)(3)
[001a]
JS
It Gen Albert J. Edmonds, USAF
GSA
Mr. Michael L. Corrigan
USIA
Mr. Gary Barnett
NASA
Mr. Charles T. Force
FEMA
Mr. Bruce J. Campbell
FCC
Mr. Alan R. McKie
NRC
Mr. Gerald F. Cranford
USPS
Mr. Tim Patterson
FRB
Ms. Louise L. Roseman
(b)(3)
NTIA
Mr. Richard D. Parlow
Copy to:
DOS
Mr. William E. Bischoff
TREAS
Mr. William H. Wunderlich
DoD
Mr. J. Robert Anderson
DOI
Mr. James E. Dolezal
DOJ
Mr. Donald E. Josephs
USDA
Mr. Robert D. Johnson
DOC
Mr. Jorome T. Gibbon
HHS
Mr. Frank J. Campbell
DOT
Ms. Nancy H. Correia
DOE
Mr. Robert M. Lewis
DVA
Mr. Howard D. Bovd
(b)(3)
JS
LTC (P) Marlin Forbes, USA
GSA
Mr. George F. Flynn, Jr.
NASA
Mr. Arthur L. C. Sigust
FEMA
Mr. Paul B. Maison
FCC
Mr. Terry D. Johnson
NRC
Ms. Pamela G. Kruzic
FRB
Mr. Kenneth D. Buckley
(b)(3)
NTIA
TO be determined
NSC
CAPT Keith D. Hahn, USN
NASA
Mr. Norman Pozinsky
NCS 2927/1
NCS Committee of Principals
Meeting of July 22, 1993
Minutes
1. Introduction. The National Communications System (NCS) Committee of
Principals (COP) met on July 22, 1993, in conjunction with the NCS Vision 21
off-site, at the Tidewater Inn, Easton, Maryland. LTG Alonzo Short, USA,
Manager, NCS, served as Chair and called the meeting to order.
The Chair introduced Mr. Don Scott, GSA Associate Administrator for
FTS2000; and greeted Mr. Ben Morriss, retiring Deputy Manager, NCS.
2. Administrative Announcements. Mr. Chuck Caputo, NCS Office of the Joint
Secretariat (NJ), announced that the NCS picnic will be held August 5, 1993,
at Ft. Myer, Virginia.
3. Agenda Item 3 - FTS2000. Mr. Don Scott, GSA Associate Administrator for
FTS2000, provided the Principals with an update on FTS2000 activities,
recently enhanced services for higher reliability, and future plans. He
discussed special features, price determination and service reallocation,
switched voice service, publically available price caps, accomplishments,
recent network service enhancements, and the network service assurance plan.
4. Agenda Item 4 - Review Minutes of April 22, 1993. The minutes of the
April 22, 1993 meeting were approved as written.
5. Agenda Item 5 - NCS Directive 2-1, "National Security and Emergency
Preparedness (NS/EP) Telecommunications Planning Process." Mr. Tom Sellers,
NCS Office of Plans and Programs (NP), presented a briefing on the proposed
revisions to NCS Directive 2-1, "National Security and Emergency Preparedness
(NS/EP) Telecommunications Planning Process." He discussed the purpose,
procedures, applicability, and next steps regarding the directive.
The USDA Principal asked whether NCS document 2834/2, "National Security
and Emergency Preparedness (NS/EP) Telecommunications Planning Process," is a
draft or final document. Mr. Sellers responded that the document will become
final upon approval by the Executive Agent, NCS. The document will be
forwarded to the Executive Agent as NCS Manual 2-1-1, along with NCS Directive
2-1, after consideration of NCS Directive 2-1 by the COP. No changes will be
made to the manual before it is forwarded.
The DOE Alternate Principal moved that the Committee of Principals
recommend forwarding NCS Directive 2-1, "National Security and Emergency
Preparedness (NS/EP) Telecommunications Planning Process," to the Executive
Office of the President through the Executive Agent, NCS. The DOT Alternate
Principal seconded the motion, which passed 19-0-0.
6. Agenda Item 6 - National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee
(NSTAC). LtCol Mike Cleary, NJ, presented an information briefing on the
results of the NSTAC XV meeting held May 26-27, 1993 in Washington, D.C.
Included in his presentation were the activities surrounding NSTAC XV,
recommendations to the President made by the Energy Task Force, the Network
Security Steering Committee, and the NS/EP Panel. He also highlighted the
Industry Executive Subcommittee (IES) Report and the Executive Office of the
President's comments at the NSTAC XV meeting.
7. Agenda Item 7 - Network Security of the Public Switched Network. Mr. Fred
Herr, NJ, briefed the members on the network security program activities, the
network security information exchanges (NSIEs), the standards and research and
development activities, and the OMNCS network security projects. The Chair
commented that security and privacy issues are taking on a greater
significance as new technologies continue to emerge, and emphasized the
importance of industry/Government cooperation in this area.
The FRB Alternate Principal asked for more information on the joint NSIE's
proposed changes to legislation in the network security area. Mr. Herr
responded that the NSIEs recommended changes to the legislation regarding
computer crime to specifically protect the PSN from computer intruders as
had already been done for financial institutions and credit reporting
organizations. The NSIEs' paper identifies six examples of holes in current
legislation that prevent or hinder the identification and prosecution of
computer intruders. For example, intrastate intrusions into telecommuni-
cations switches are not currently Federal offenses even though they have the
potential to adversely affect interstate telecommunications. The Chair said
a copy of the proposed legislative changes will be distributed to the members.
The FRB Alternate Principal asked whether the objective of the NSIEs is to
educate Government and industry about vulnerabilities of the network or to
make the public switched network (PSN) less vulnerable. Mr. Herr said they
are both objectives of network security efforts. The NSIEs exchange
information on vulnerabilities of the network and on actual incidents to
improve security and education. The FRB Alternate Principal noted that his
organization has had difficulty obtaining information on the threat to the
PSN. More information is available from hackers and hacker publications than
from the telecommunications companies. As a result, the FRB approaches the
PSN as untrusted and develops its own methods to avoid disruptions. However,
it is difficult to educate the commercial banking industry, for example, about
these methods. A more positive approach to educating network users should
exist which would facilitate the sharing of network security information.
Mr. Herr agreed that users should be included in network security efforts,
but a difficult compromise has to be reached between industry, Government, and
users, given the sensitive and proprietary nature of much of the information.
The NTIA Principal agreed that some mechanism should be found to share
available information with user groups.
The DoD Principal commented that network security and privacy issues
are critical to the development of the National Information Infrastructure
(NII) and should be discussed by the NII Task Force. If the users of the NII
are concerned about its vulnerabilities, they will be hesitant to utilize it.
The NASA Alternate Principal commented that a mechanism should be established
to capture lessons learned from international network incidents. For
2
instance, the French telecommunications system recently had a system failure
that affected a portion of its banking functions. Although the cause of the
disruption was not publicized, it could have been an intruder incident. The
Chair said the OMNCS would investigate how such information could be disclosed
to member organizations.
8. Agenda Item 8 - National Telecommunications Management Structure (NTMS).
Ms. Peggy Newland, NP, presented an information briefing on the status of NTMS
implementation, including discussion of the NTMS mission, validation schedule,
future NTMS implementation activities, and activities underway to enhance the
NTMS. The briefing also included an overview of the National
Telecommunications Coordinating Network (NTCN) operational concept and
implementation activities.
The DOE Alternate Principal said that the activities of the Communications
Resource Information Sharing Program (CRISP) could be beneficial to the NTMS
since the communications assets identified through CRISP could be utilized as
part of the NTCN.
10. Agenda Item 9 - Old Business. The Chair reminded the members of the
importance of the joint industry/Government planning process, and encouraged
members to become involved in industry activities such as the NSTAC, IES, and
other subgroups.
11. Agenda Item 10 - New Business. The Chair said that the National Level
Program Implementation Quarterly Status Report was provided as an information
handout, as required.
The NSA Alternate Principal said the COP/COR should deliberate on the NCS
role vis-a-vis the Administration's National Information Infrastructure,
particularly in regard to network security. The Chair said that the issue
would be a subject of discussion at the afternoon session of the off-site
meeting.
The DoD Principal said that the implications of spectrum reallocation
associated with the "Emerging Technologies Act of 1993" should be considered
by the NCS. DoD is already assessing the impact of the proposed legislation.
All agencies should be concerned with the potential costs involved in the
transfer of government-reserved frequencies for commercial use. Also, from an
NS/EP perspective, the NCS could be of assistance to NTIA in helping to manage
the process. The NTIA Principal said both the NS/EP and operational impact
will be important to consider. Agencies who will potentially be affected have
already been active on the issue. There is no longer an opportunity to
influence the legislation, which is certain to be enacted. However, it will
now be necessary for agencies to plan for the transition and work out
revisions to their systems. It will be important for NCS member organizations
to cooperate in this area to come up with the best solutions in the face of
the likely changes. The Chair said that further discussion should be taken up
at the afternoon session of the off-site meeting.
12. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 a.m.
3
CLINTON LIBRARY PHOTOCOPY
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001b. minutes
NCS Committee of Principals Meeting of July 22, 1993 [partial]
ca. 07/1993
P3/b(3)
[National Security Act] (2 pages)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Office of Science and Technology Policy
O'Neil, John
OA/Box Number: CF 99
FOLDER TITLE:
Miscellaneous Unsorted Files
2008-1524-F
ke2347
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information |(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information |(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency |(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions |(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
NCS COMMITTEE OF PRINCIPALS
Meeting of July 22, 1993
NAME
AGENCY
TELEPHONE
** BISCHOFF, William E.
DOS
(202) 647-2624
CLARK, John
DOS
(202) 647-7000
** WUNDERLICH, William H.
TREAS
(202) 622-1553
* GRIMES, John G.
DoD
(703) 697-4542
** ANDERSON, J. Robert
DoD
(703) 697-7626
** SHIVELEY, M. Wayne, Dr.
DOJ
(202) 616-2594
JOSEPHS, Donald E.
DOJ
(202) 514-3386
** DOLEZAL, James E.
DOI
(202) 208-5002
* OKAY, John L.
USDA
(202) 720-3152
** JOHNSON, Robert D.
USDA
(202) 720-8628
* ZETTY, Thomas W.
DOC
(202) 482-3501
** GIBBON, Jorome T.
DOC
(202) 482-3501
CAMPBELL, Frank J.
HHS
(202) 690-6360
PRICE, John 8.
HHS
(202) 690-8356
** CORREIA, Nancy H.
DOT
(202) 366-9691
** LEWIS, Robert M.
DOE
(301) 903-4627
HAYDEN, Richard 0.
DOE
(301) 903-6977
(b)(3)
[0016]
** FORBES, Marlin, LTC(P), USA
JS
(703) 697-4230
ALY, Sherrie, CDR, USN
JS
(703) 697-7091
*
CORRIGAN, Michael L.
GSA
(202) 501-0308
** FLYNN, George F., Jr.
GSA
(202) 501-0843
SCOTT, Don
GSA
(202) 208-7493
* BARNETT, Gary
USIA
(202) 619-5691
** FUECHSEL, Charles
NASA
(202) 453-2000
SIGUST, Arthur L.C.
NASA
(202) 453-2008
** MAISON, Paul B.
FEMA
(202) 646-4288
BERENSON, Larry
FEMA
(202) 646-2900
* NCS Principal
**
NCS Alternate Principal
4
JOHNSON, Terry D.
FCC
(202) 632-0923
* CRANFORD, Gerald F.
NRC
(301) 492-7585
KELLAM, Thomas B.
NRC
(301) 492-4054
** BUCKLEY, Kenneth D.
FRB
(202) 452-3646
(b)(3)
* PARLOW, Richard
NTIA
(202) 482-1850
SHORT, Alonzo, LTG, USA
AA
(703) 692-0018
BOWSER, Victor, COL, USA
NA
(703) 692-3760
SMITH, Carl
AR
(703) 692-8457
BITTNER, James
CN
(703) 692-8020
GANNON, Harvey, CAPT, USN
NJ
(703) 692-9274
CAPUTO, Chuck
NJ
(703) 692-8044
CLEARY, Mike, LtCol, USAF
NJ
(703) 692-8565
FLEIT, Merle
NJ
(703) 692-8508
HERR, Fred
NJ
(703) 692-8388
JEFFERSON, Janet
NJ
(703) 692-8434
BOHEIM, Ken
NP
(703) 692-2813
BARKER, Rocky
NP
(703) 692-9835
HAMILTON, Paul, Col, USAF
NP
(703) 692-9854
NEWLAND, Peggy
NP
(703) 692-8509
PHILLIP, Eugene
NP
(703) 692-9853
SELLERS, Tom
NP
(703) 692-9835
BODSON, Dennis
NT
(703) 692-2124
TATE, Jay
DISA
(703) 746-1451
MORRISS, B.E.
(703) 820-1795
APOSTOLOU, Greg
BAH
(703) 902-5358
BRODY, Ira
BAH
(703) 902-5449
GOLDBERG, Monica
BAH
(703) 902-5373
SPARKS, Rebecca
BAH
(703) 902-5432
* NCS Principal
** NCS Alternate Principal
5
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a publication.
Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose
of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or
visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room.
NCS 30th Anniversary. Issue.
NS/EP
COMMUNICATIONS
SNOILNS
NATIONAL
NCS
Telecom News
SYSTEM
August 1993
Volume 5 Number 1
The NCS: 30 Years
NCS Programs:
of Accomplishment
Meeting the Challenge
On August 21, 1993, the National Communica-
New world challenges have shaped the NCS
tions System (NCS) celebrated its 30th anniversary
response to its mission of ensuring the availability of
of service to the Nation. This anniversary caps three
national security and emergency preparedness
decades of accomplishment during which this unique
(NS/EP) telecommunications capabilities under all
government organization has nurtured, promoted,
conditions. The NCS has developed a set of programs
and achieved not only interagency cooperation among
to accomplish this mission. The mainstay of these ef-
Federal departments and agencies, but a strong part-
forts, the National Level NS/EP Telecommunications
nership with the telecommunications and informa-
Program (NLP), consists of three integrated pro-
tion systems industries. From its beginnings in the
grams designed to enhance the existing national tele-
aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis, through the
communications infrastructure to increase its
critical support it provided during Operations Desert
robustness during emergency situations. These pro-
Shield/Desert Storm and Hurricane Andrew, to the
grams, structured to take advantage of technological
role it plays in today's humanitarian aid efforts
and service enhancements in the networks being
implemented by the telecommunications industry, in-
see 30 YEARS, page 7
clude the Government Emergency Telecommunica-
tions Service (GETS), Commercial Network
Survivability (CNS), and Commercial SATCOM
Inside:
Interconnectivity (CSI). GETS, CNS, and CSI are
intended to complement existing Federal Govern-
ment systems and services, thus enabling the Fed-
Letter from President Clinton
2
eral Government to respond to virtually any
emergency situation.
LTG Alonzo Short, Jr., NCS Manager
3
GETS. Recent contract awards to the primary
interexchange carriers set the stage for the initial op-
erating capability (IOC) of GETS. GETS will enhance
Partnership with Industry
3
the existing capabilities of the public switched net-
works and selected government networks so that they
NRC Issues Findings
4
can provide switched voice and voice-band data com-
munications to authorized NS/EP users nationwide.
GETS will improve network transmission facilities
The Changing Technology Environment
5
and use existing switches. Users will dial a personal
identification number to access the service and will
receive priority treatment when placing calls.
New FCC Chairman Named
15
Specifically, GETS will provide a nationwide
capability for switched voice and voice-band data
Calendar
16
communications by exploiting the undamaged
see CHALLENGE, page 11
Letter From the Editor
AUG 18 1993
NS/EP Telecom News: Celebrating our Fifth Year
Along with celebrating the 30th Anniversary of the National Communica-
tions System, in the month of August, we are celebrating the start of the
fifth year of publication of the National Communications System's NS/EP
Telecom News. Since my last letter to "News" readers, two years ago, there
have been several changes. In addition to readership more than doubling in
the last two years, this publication is now available in an electronic format
on several Electronic Bulletin Board Systems throughout the United States.
Starting with Volume 4, Number 1, dated August 1992, we began posting
the NS/EP Telecom News on the following Bulletin Board systems:
International Interactive Computer Society (IICS) BBS
(301) 258-1858
State and Local Emergency Managers Data Users Group (SALEMDUG) BBS
(202) 646-2887
Emergency Communications (E*COM) BBS
(412) 834-1128
Volunteers in Technical Assistance (VITANet) BBS
(703) 527-1086
We would again like to reiterate, we are looking for new articles from
our readers. The article should be between 450 and 1500 words, of general
interest to all readers, and relate to National Security and Emergency
Preparedness telecommunications. The article must be accompanied by the
author's name, company/organization and daytime work telephone number. It may
not be copyright material, a commercial advertisement, or endorsement or
implied endorsement of a commercial product. We reserve the right to edit
articles, with approval from the author, before publication.
In addition, we encourage you to write to us. Let us know if you do or
do not like our articles or if you have a recommendation for additional
subjects to be covered. We are always open to your suggestions and/or
criticisms.
If you would like to write to us, inform us of a change of address or
submit an article, our address is as follows:
National Communications System
Attention: NJ - NS/EP Telecom News Editor
701 South Court House Road
Arlington, Virginia 22204-2198
Phuck Diguto Caputo
Hold. Telecomm
National Security
Telecommunications
Advisory Committee
September 1, 1993
MEMORANDUM FOR THE FUNDING AND REGULATORY WORKING GROUP
SUBJECT: Meeting of the Funding and Regulatory Working Group
1. There will be a Funding and Regulatory Working Group (FRWG) meeting on
Tuesday, October 26, 1993, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. at Metropolitian Fiber
Systems Communications Company, 8100 Boone Boulevard, Suite 500, Vienna, VA.
A map is enclosed. The agenda will be distributed upon coordination. Also,
the FRWG would like your ideas on what issues require FRWG attention.
2. Please find enclosed a draft summary of the August 17, 1993, meeting for
your review and approval. Also enclosed is a draft request for advice letter
for your review and comment. Please send any modifications to this letter to
Ms. Julia Delpino (fax 703-746-5240) for incorporation before the October 26
meeting.
3. If you have any questions or comments regarding the upcoming meeting,
please call me at (708) 218-7258 or Ms. Delpino at (703) 692-8131.
3 Enclosures:
Julin RON BEAUMONT Delyans
1 Map
Chairman
2 Draft Summary
Funding and Regulatory Working Group
3 Draft Letter
FOR COP AND COR MEMBERS:
As you will recall, you are always welcome to attend
the meetings of any NSTAC group. If you will be
attending please notify Ms. Julia Delpino so your name
can be added to the access roster. A copy of the last
draft meeting summary will be provided to you if you
request it of Ms. Delpino (703-692-8131). Thank you.
40
Tysons Corner, Virginia
LEWINGVR.LE.RD
DULLES AIRPORT ACCESS ROAD
TOLL ROAD/ROUTE 287
TYCO ROAD
JONES BRANCH DRIVE
Sheraton
Premiere
$
INTERNATIONAL
PARK RUN
DRIVE
SPRINGHILL
WEST
BRANCH
DRIVE
Days inn
MONTE?
CREENSBORO
8
You
MOTRE
DRIVE
3/1NC
Hilton
DRIVE
Holiday
Embassy
40
Inn
LOW DATE 137700
ROAD
CANADA
COLSMIRE
Guest Suites
GOSNELL
Westpark
ROUTE 123
OLD
CORNER
MEADOW
a
SHOPPING
MITRE
(Hayes)
NOWARD
FIKE
7525 Colshire Dr.
CHAIN BRIDGE ROAD
Organ of
ANDERSON ROAD
Marriott
BORING
PIMMIT DRIVE
AT&T
Ramada
GALLOWS ROAD
CAPITAL BELTWAY 1-495
LEESBURG PIKE
Matro
M
(Subwee)
ROAD
-
-
ROUTE
ROUTEM
3
Direction to Metropolitan Fiber Systems Communications Company
8100 Boone Blvd., Vienna, Virginia 22182
703/506-2000
Take 495 to Route 7 West (Exit 10) go to the second light and turn left on
Gallows Road, go to the first light and turn left on Boone Blvd., we are the
second building on the left.
DRAFT
FUNDING AND REGULATORY WORKING GROUP (FRWG)
MEETING SUMMARY
August 17, 1993
CALL TO ORDER/ADMINISTRATIVE REMARKS. Mr. Andrew Lipman, MFS Communications
Company, Inc. (MFSCC) convened the twelth meeting of the FRWG at 9:00 a.m. at
GTE in Washington, D.C. Mr. Ron Beaumont, MFSCC, FRWG Chairman, joined the
meeting by phone. A meeting attendance list and handouts are provided in
Appendices A & B, respectively.
REVIEW OF PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT REGULATORY ISSUE DISCUSSION. Mr. Lipman
reviewed the discussion of preferential treatment regulatory issues conducted
at the last FRWG meeting on July 19, 1993, and the activities that have
occurred subsequent to that meeting, including the results of the
questionnaire sent to National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee
(NSTAC) Industry Executive Subcommittee (IES) members. He said the IES
respondents nearly unanimously agreed that priority preferences offered
voluntarily did not violate the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and
that the Government should ask the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for
an Advice Letter, although one member noted that the FCC Advice Letter could
be overruled in court. IES respondents also agreed that compliance should be
voluntary.
DISCUSSION OF OUTLINE OF LETTER TO FCC REQUESTING ADVICE LETTER. Mr. Lipman
then reviewed the draft of the letter outline prepared by
Mr. Paul Schwedler, Assistant Regulatory Counsel, Telecommunications,
Department of Defense (NCS-AR) (see Appendix B).
In the initial comments, LtCol Michael Cleary, National Communications
System, Office of the Joint Secretariat (NCS-NJ), suggested replacing a
reference in paragraph 3 to "national defense" with "national security."
Mr. Schwedler agreed. Mr. Schwedler noted the final draft would include
graphics and citations. Mr. Lipman questioned whether the letter should be
addressed to the FCC's Common Carrier Bureau or the FCC Secretary's office.
After further discussion, the members agreed that Mr. Lipman would speak with
FCC Commissioner Andrew Barrett to determine who the appropriate addressee
should be and to familiarize him with the issue.
Mr. Dave Bush, AT&T, suggested that the letter should expressly state
the Federal Government did not envision preemption of intrastate calls.
Mr. Lipman clarified that the letter pertained only to calls under FCC
jurisdiction, i.e., interstate calls, and that it was not intended to
supersede the States.
Mr. Bush asked whether the national security and emergency preparedness
(NS/EP) nature of the services under discussion would allow the FCC to mandate
preemption. Mr. Lipman responded that the letter addressed local origination
and termination of interstate calls and observed that FCC jurisdiction
generally did not extend to local or intrastate toll calls. He suggested,
1
DRAFT
Enclosure 2
DRAFT
however, that the letter could include words to justify FCC preemption.
Mr. Schwedler observed that doing so would require another FCC vehicle such as
a rulemaking. Mr. Lipman agreed.
Ms. Ernie Gormsen, GTE, observed that most traffic during disasters was
intrastate. LtCol Cleary stated that during disasters, intrastate calls may
be routed beyond State boundaries in order to be completed.
Mr. Bob Anderson, DoD, asked if the Government Emergency
Telecommunications Service (GETS) would be affected if enhanced call
completion (ECC) services were restricted to interstate services.
Mr. Eugene Phillips, NCS Office of Plans and Programs (NP), stated, in this
respect, if the letter was worded improperly it could prompt the FCC to issue
a negative ruling. Mr. Schwedler responded that the FCC Advice Letter covered
GETS, but added that it did not address cellular priorities or implementation
of other ECC calling features. He also stated DoD Chief Regulatory Counsel for
Telecommunications, Carl Smith, agreed with this approach. Mr. Lipman added,
in addition to increasing the comfort level of industry, a favorable FCC
response would have a similar effect on the States. They could thus conclude
preferential treatment is not discriminatory.
Citing the Telecommunications Services Priority (TSP) example, Mr. Bush
said some State public utility commissions (PUCs) might object and suggested
approaching them independently to socialize the issue and gain their support.
LtCol Cleary suggested asking the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
to work with the States, although Mr. Anderson recalled FEMA's lack of success
in a similar effort to present the TSP program. Mr. Bush observed that
preferential treatment would have a more significant impact on the States
because it would take precedence over 911 and any other service that did not
have a preferential treatment flag. The Government could therefore anticipate
problems, he concluded. Mr. Anderson suggested starting a public relations
effort with the States noting that a similar effort by the TSP program office
produced positive results.
In response to a question regarding the inclusion of State and local
users within the definition of NS/EP, Mr. Schwedler said these users could
take advantage of programs such as GETS. Mr. Anderson observed that GETS had
been advertised as a State and local service, adding that DoD intended to
authorize GETS use for specific DoD contractors. Mr. Schwedler suggested
using the TSP definition, which includes State and local governments.
Mr. Anderson suggested this language should be incorporated in the GETS
documentation.
Mr. Bush suggested asking the FCC to authorize preferential treatment
services in the local exchange service areas. Mr. Anderson noted TSP
documentation could be used to demonstrate such authorization already existed.
Mr. Phillips questioned whether the GETS program might be placed at risk by
raising the issue with the FCC. Mr. Anderson responded that failure to raise
the issue would create a greater risk. Mr. Lipman reiterated the purpose of
2
DRAFT
DRAFT
getting FCC approval is to raise the comfort level and that it is unlikely the
FCC would prevent carriers from providing preferential treatment for NS/EP
purposes.
LtCol Cleary asked whether State and local users included 911 services.
Mr. Schwedler stated 911 services are included under TSP. Ms. Gormsen
observed 911 service is primarily intrastate and therefore would not be
subject to FCC jurisdiction. Mr. Bush said although NS/EP services are
generally covered by the FCC, it was not clear that all 911 calls are NS/EP
calls. TSP Program Manager Mr. Bernie Farrell, NCS Office of Emergency
Preparedness (NE), said 911 service is not designed to deal with major
disasters because it could handle only a finite number of calls. He also
noted 911 services are trunked separately.
Ms. Gormsen said TSP tariffs need to be filed both with the FCC and
State PUCs. Mr. Lipman observed an intrastate tariff for preferential
treatment can be filed with the PUC and that it would then be up to the PUC to
file an objection. Ms. Gormsen recalled such a procedure was followed with
the original TSP filings and that the State and local governments protested.
Mr. Beaumont stated the FCC Advice Letter should address only interstate
services. The members discussed alternatives to gaining authorization for
intrastate preferential call treatment. Mr. Lipman said, for intrastate
preferences, the Government would have to go through the FCC comment and
rulemaking process. Mr. Farrell stated, if the Government took this approach,
it should approach the National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners (NARUC), the National Association of State Telecommunications
Directors (NASTD), and individual States in order to socialize the issue and
gain support. Mr. Lipman agreed, adding that NASTD and NARUC's support of the
Government's position would influence the FCC. The sooner the Government
approached NARUC, he added, the greater the possibility of success.
Mr. Schwedler observed that one problem with the bifurcated approach was the
FCC might decide to consolidate both into a single rulemaking. Mr. Bush
suggested asking Mr. Smith to discuss the issue informally with FCC staff to
determine how best to proceed.
After further discussion, LtCol Cleary suggested the NSTAC recommend
that the President, by virtue of his close ties with State governors, be asked
to raise the issue with them at the next possible opportunity. Ms. Gormsen
observed that the new FEMA director, Mr. James Witt, is a friend of the
President and should also be approached.
Summarizing the discussion, Mr. Lipman stated the group approved of the
draft outline of the letter to the FCC requesting an Advice Letter, and that
the letter should be finalized and socialized with the FCC. He noted the
apparent consensus of the members regarding preparation of a separate document
for presentation to the FCC that authorized preferential treatment for
intrastate services. To avoid delaying issuance of the initial FCC Advice
Letter, he suggested addressing the State preemption issue at a later date,
3
DRAFT
DRAFT
adding that a one-line reference to State preemption would be included in the
letter to the FCC to flag the issue. A draft of the letter to the FCC will be
faxed to the IES members for comment as soon as possible. Ms. Gormsen noted,
and the members generally agreed, that only common-carrier members would
respond, but that among the common carrier members there would be consensus.
Mr. Beaumont said responses from a majority of the common-carrier members
would be satisfactory.
Mr. Beaumont said the Government should also prepare a white paper to
explain ECC, preferential treatment, and priority access. This paper could be
used to socialize the issue with both the FCC and the States. He suggested
writing a letter to all IES members to advise them of the FRWG's activities
and to solicit their comments. The members agreed. Mr. Beaumont noted the
FRWG members should set a deadline for both the letter to the FCC and the
white paper.
NEW BUSINESS. Mr. Beaumont noted that several IES members had told him the
scope of the FRWG should be broadened to include new issues. He stated, while
the FRWG supported IES task forces and working groups that identified issues,
the FRWG ought to be proactive. In response to comments regarding possible
issues which may emerge within the context of the National Information
Infrastructure (NII) Task Force, Mr. Beaumont stated the FRWG did not want to
get ahead of the Task Force. Mr. Lipman stated it would nevertheless be
helpful to get a list of regulatory issues identified by the NII Task Force to
generate ideas for future issues. He also suggested polling other task force
and working group chairmen to identify additional issues. The members agreed.
NEXT STEPS/MEETING SCHEDULE. The next meeting of the FRWG will be held on
October 26, 1993, 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., at MFSCC facilities in McLean, VA.
ACTION ITEMS:
Revise draft letter to FCC requesting Advice Letter and fax to IES
members for comments
Begin preparation of petition to FCC for rulemaking authorizing
preferential treatment of intrastate calls
Begin preparation of white paper on preferential treatment explaining
ECC and preferential treatment
Obtain list of potential issues for FRWG consideration from IES Task
Force and Working Group chairmen.
4
DRAFT
DRAFT
APPENDIX A
FRWG MEETING ATTENDEES
JULY 19, 1993
NAME
ORGANIZATION
PHONE NUMBER
Robert Anderson
DoD
(703) 697-7626
Jim Bean
GTE
(202) 466-2302
Ron Beaumont (Chair)
MFSCC
(708) 218-7258
Dave Bush
AT&T
(301) 608-4871
LtCol Mike Cleary
NCS-NJ
(703) 692-8565
Michael Cohen
MITRE
(703) 883-7372
Jodi Cooper
MCI
(202) 887-2145
Barbara Deitzer
BAH
(703) 902-5361
Julia Delpino
NCS-NJ
(703) 692-8131
Bernie Farrell
NCS-NE
(703) 746-5375
Richard Fruchterman
Wiltel
(202) 833-8994
CAPT Harvey Gannon
NCS-NJ
(703) 692-9274
Ernie Gormsen
GTE
(202) 466-2325
Louis Levy
BAH
(703) 902-5399
Andrew Lipman
MFS
(202) 424-7833
Eugene Phillip
NCS-NP
(703) 692-9853
Paul Schwedler
NCS-AR
(703) 692-8457
Brian Thomas
PTI
(202) 223-5200
LtCol Gerry Trull
NCS-NJ
(703) 692-8132
5
DRAFT
DRAFT
APPENDIX B
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONAIRE
TOTAL RESPONSES: 19
ABSTENTION: 4
Issue 1.
I agree that the proposed call-by-call prioritial preferences offered
voluntarily by common carriers to the federal government do not appear to be
in violation of Section 202 (a) or any other section of the Communications Act.
YES
12
Comments: Should be determined by FCC.
Needs to be spelled out clearly.
NO
-
Issue 2.
I agree that it is advisable to ask the FCC to confirm that the voluntary
offering of these services do not violate the Act.
YES
15
Comments: Depends on method used; informal V. formal
pleading
NO
-
Issue 3.
I agree that if the FCC itself, or through delegation to the Common Carrier
Bureau, issues a letter confirming that the services to be provided do not
violate the Communications Act, the carriers may safely provide them.
YES
14
Comments: FCC action is not a guarantee eg
forbearance
NO
1
If it's an advisory opinion letter
consistent with administrative law
If they so chose.
But what about protection if preemeption
is required.
Issue 4.
I agree that only common carriers which have the interest and capability to
provide the proposed services will provide them. No carrier will be required
to expend resources specifically to provide the services.
YES
13
Comments: It could come to mandatory provision.
NO
I
Additional Comments:
Recommendation for a declaratory rulemaking.
The conclusion is correct to provide preferred treatment to the
Government because the Comm Act provides for a class of
traffic. The Government would be that class. Therefore, the
de minimus effect is not germane.
6
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT OUTLINE
W. F. Caton, Acting Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
1919 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554
Re: Request for Advice Letter
Dear Mr. Caton,
1. Request
Request for a letter advising that common carriers may provide certain calling
priorities over the PSN for NS/EP purposes on a call-by-call basis without
being in violation of Section 202(a) of the Act. OMNCS requesting letter as
the customer of carriers with whom it has entered into contracts to provide
services. NSTAC's FRWG requested this letter.
2. Background
A.
Previously authorized such priorities under Voice Precedence System.
Rules were eliminated as part of TSP rulemaking as impracticable since
they required operator involvement and, the automation of the PSN had
eliminated most operator involvement. Now technology will permit the
identification of an NS/EP call as it traverses the PSN, allowing
priorities to be given. Need assurance that technology may be
implemented.
B.
Recent disasters highlight need.
3. Precedent
Cites to affirm that FCC has right and duty to act in the interests of
national defense and has done so previously.
4. Description of Services
A.
Used for NS/EP only, controls over authorization
Voluntarily provided by carriers under contract
To be tariffed
Available 24 hours a day
Permits NS/EP calls into/out of disaster area, from any phone
Unlike old Voice Precedence System which was provided free of
charge, Government will pay. Also, there is to be no
preemption of completed calls, as was permitted under VPS.
B.
Special Application of and exemption from Network Management
Controls
Enhanced Alternate Routing (LEC, IXC)
Trunk Queuing
Dynamic Trunk Reservation
C.
Expected de mimimus effect on overall PSN operation
5. Request for Letter of Authorization
Please say it's OK.
s/Carl Wayne Smith
7
DRAFT
DRAFT 1
W. F. Caton, Acting Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
1919 M Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554
Re: Request for Advice Letter
Regarding NS/EP Services
Dear Mr. Caton,
The Office of the Manager of the National Communications
System (OMNCS) hereby requests that the Commission issue an
advice letter which, if issued, would permit common carriers to
better serve National Security/Emergency Preparedness (NS/EP)
interests. Specifically, it is requested that the Commission
advise that common carriers may, prior to implementation of the
President's war emergency powers under Section 706 of the
Communications Act (the "Act"), provide call-by-call priorities
over the Public Switched Network (PSN) for NS/EP purposes without
being in violation of Section 202 (a) of the Act. The OMNCS
requests this advice on behalf of a number of common carriers
which have expressed a willingness to provide the priority
calling services, to be described below.
The request is necessary given the language in Section
202 (a) of the Act which makes it unlawful for any common carrier
to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in its
practices or services for like communications services or to make
or give any undue or unreasonable preferences to any person or
class of persons, or to subject any users to any undue or
unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage. Without a letter
advising that the proposed services would not constitute the
actions prohibited by Section 202 (a) of the Act, carriers may be
understandably reluctant to provide them. Attached hereto and
incorporated herein is a legal memorandum setting forth the
Commission's authority and responsibility to consider NS/EP in
its actions.
In keeping with the responsibilities and duties conferred
upon it by the Act, the Commission has previously authorized
call-by-call priorities over the PSN. In the Matter of a
Precedence System for Public Correspondence Service Provided by
the Communications Common Carriers, 20 FCC 2d. 169 (1969). Those
rules provided a method whereby operators could permissibly give
certain emergency calls relating to national defense priority
over other, non-emergency calls. The rules were set forth in
Enclosure 3
8
Appendix B to Part 64 of the Commissions Rules and Regulations.
In 1988, as part of the Telecommunications Services Priority
rulemaking, the rules permitting call-by-call priorities were
deleted. By that date, the PSN had become automated to the extent
that the vast majority of calls required no operator involvement,
and without operators there was no method to distinguish an
emergency call from a non-emergency call on the PSN. National
Security Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications Services
Priority System, 3 FCC Rec. 6650 (1988). Today, with
advancements in technology, calls may be identified as emergency
calls and given priorities automatically as they traverse the
PSN, without operator involvement. What is being sought
therefore, is merely reaffirmation that what was legal from 1969
to 1988 remains legal. Only the technology has changed. Recent
disasters, including the Loma Prieta earthquake and Hurricanes
Hugo and Andrew, have pointed out the current necessity and
desirability of permitting calling priorities in emergency
situations for NS/EP personnel.
The following is presented as a sample of those services
which, if implemented, would greatly enhance NS/EP efforts. Other
priority services will almost certainly be developed. It is
believed that their impact on the non-emergency user of the PSN
would be largely imperceptible, but there may be times when their
use could delay for a short interval of seconds the completion of
a non-emergency call:
A. Trunk Queuing. NS/EP calls would be held in a queue
until a trunk became available, at which time the first call in
queue would have access to the trunk on a first-in, first-out
basis. NS/EP calls remaining in the queue would be held until
subsequent trunks became idle, rather than being routed to an
all-trunks-busy tone trunk.
B. Dynamic Trunk Reservation. This permits the reservation
of voice grade trunks in the PSN for certain classes of calls
under designated conditions. It could be implemented and
activated in several ways. Under one such method, a control
could be operated that would reserve a trunk in the PSN for NS/EP
traffic as soon as it became idle. When an NS/EP call accessed
the idle trunk, another idle trunk would be reserved for NS/EP
traffic.
C. Special Application of and Exemption from Network
Management Controls. Network management controls are a set of
measures used to prevent or reduce degradation in PSN service.
Controls may be invoked when customer demands, equipment
malfunctions or other events cause a deviation from engineered
traffic loads and result in abnormally high traffic overflow or
blockage, such as typically occurs during a major natural
disaster. Special application of network management controls
could provide NS/EP identified calls with special traffic
handling privileges not available to non-emergency users.
Exemption from network management protective controls would
9
provide NS/EP identified calls with immunity from cancellation
controls, which would be applicable to the non-emergency user of
the PSN.
D. Enhanced Routing. Enhanced alternate routing programs
would provide inter exchange carriers additional capability to
transport NS/EP calls to their destinations by affording them
special routing controls and paths within or among the inter
exchange carriers's networks.
These services, and other similar services, would be
provided only to duly authorized NS/EP users of the PSN for their
exclusive use in emergency conditions. The services would be
provided under contract with carriers, and in most instances
tariffs would be filed reflecting the prices charged for these
services.
Two distinctions between these priority services and those
provided under the rules previously contained in Appendix B to
Part 64 of the Rules should be noted. First, under the old
rules, calls could be preempted, that is, a non-emergency call
already completed could be disconnected by the operator if that
action were necessary to complete the emergency call. No
preemption of already completed calls would be permitted under
the services to be provided pursuant to the requested advice
letter, and hence any possible degradation of service to the non-
emergency PSN user would be less than under the old rules.
Second, the NS/EP services provided under the old rules were
provided without cost to the user. The proposed services will be
paid for by the NS/EP user. These distinct services, with
distinct charges, made available only to Government users,
constitute a separate offering distinguishable from standard PSN
services. These services are therefore properly classifiable as
"Government" services under Section 201 (b) of the Act. So
classified, they are not the type of "like" service to which
Section 202 (a) applies in relation to unjust or unreasonable
discrimination, nor would their provision constitute any undue or
unreasonable preference or undue or unreasonable prejudice or
disadvantage.
Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that
the Commission issue a letter advising that the provision by
common carriers of priorities or preferences to NS/EP users of
the PSN, prior to invocation of the President's emergency war
powers, would not be considered a violation of Section 202 (a) of
the Act.
CARL WAYNE SMITH
Chief Regulatory Counsel,
Telecommunications-DoD
10
LEGAL MEMORANDUM
A SYSTEM FOR PRIORITY TREATMENT OF NSEP TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES IS
AUTHORIZED BY THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED.
A. The Communications Act requires the FCC to take NSEP concerns into
account in its regulatory actions.
Section 1 of the Communications Act establishes that the FCC was
created, in part, "for the purpose of the national defense." 47 U.S.C. Sec.
151. Since the enactment of that provision, the FCC has consistently
recognized its duty to consider national security emergency preparedness
concerns and goals when exercising its regulatory responsibilities. See e.g.,
The Consolidated Application of AT&T Company and Specified Bell System
Companies, 98 FCC 2d 141 (1983); AT&T, 44 FCC 602, 605 (1955) Overseas
Communications, FCC 78-155 (released October 26, 1978); Bendix Aviation Corp.
V. FCC, 272 F.2d 533, 538 (D.C. Cir. 1959). In the MTS-WATS Market Structure
Inquiry (73 FCC 2d 222, 230 (1979)), the FCC observed that satisfying national
defense needs is a specific goal of the Communications Act. The FCC has also
recognized that national defense considerations are properly a part of its
decision-making process regarding Section 214 and 310(d) applications because
its responsibilities under those sections are to ensure that the public
interest, convenience, and necessity will not be adversely affected by the
transfer of facilities and radio licenses. See e.g., AT&T, Northeast Corridor
Lightguide Cable, 89 FCC 2d 1168, 1179 (1982). Moreover, to meet the needs of
national defense and security, the FCC specifically tailored its decision
establishing the existing Telecommunications Services Priority System, which
allows priority restoration and provisioning of certain critical government
telecommunication services. See, National Security Emergency Preparedness
Telecommunications Services Priority System, 3 FCC Rec. 6650 (1988). The FCC
11
has considered the requirements of NSEP in its evaluation of whether to impose
limited joint planning requirements upon commercial carriers. See MTS and
WATS Market Structure, Phase III, 100 FCC 2d 860 (1985). The FCC has also
given national security considerations weight in arriving at a facilities plan
to meet Pacific telecommunication needs during the period from 1981 to 1995.
See Inquiry to Be Followed in the Authorization of Common Carrier Facilities
to Meet Pacific Telecommunications Needs During the Period 1981-1995, 100 FCC
2d 1444 (1985). Indeed, the FCC in part based its decision to allow the
transfer of licenses and facilities from AT&T to the Bell Operating Companies
(to implement divestiture) upon an assessment of the impact upon NSEP. See
The Consolidated Application of AT&T and Specified Bell System Companies,
supra, at 172. There, the FCC specifically found that the BOC's NSEP response
plan (i.e., the portion of the AT&T Plan of Reorganization stating the
responsibilities of Bellcore NSEP) would serve the public interest. Finally,
the Commission's May 1986 Declaratory Ruling on the NSEP Procedures Manual
again noted that its defense responsibilities require all provisions of the
Communications Act to be read in light of the national defense purpose of the
Communications Act.
B. Legislative history evidences congressional intent to allow priority
treatment of Federal government telecommunications services in the interests
of national defense.
A review of legislative history of the Communications Act supports the
conclusion that telecommunication service vendors should be allowed to provide
call-by-call priorities over the Public Switched Network as proposed herein.
Prior to enactment of the Communications Act of 1934, Senate Bill 2910
and House Rule 8301 were the bills introduced in the 73rd Congress, 2d
Session. They were intended to provide for the regulation of interstate and
foreign communications by wire and radio. Extensive hearings were held on the
12
Senate Bill during March 1934. Hearings on S.2910 before the Senate Committee
on Interstate Commerce, 73rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1934). Captain S.C. Hooper,
Director of Naval Communications testified before the Senate Committee and
suggested changes in three sections of the bill in order to protect more fully
the interests of national defense. Hearings on S.2910, supra, at 160-173.
Specifically addressing Section 1 of the Act, Captain Hooper stated:
Section 1 relates the purposes of the act. It expresses or should
express the broad policy by which the Commission is to be guided in its
decisions. One of the most potent factors which will operate either for
or against our success in any future war is our vast system of internal
and external wire, cable, telephone, and radio communications over which
this Commission is now being placed in control. While the demands of
national defense in time of peace affect our communications lightly,
nevertheless, a firm foundation must be built within our communication
companies on which our wartime communication structure may be placed
swiftly and safely. The transfer of our commercial organizations from a
peace to war basis cannot be accomplished in a month or even a year,
unless the groundwork is carefully laid. The Communications Act of 1934
should recognize this fact and, to afford the members a complete
statement of the general purpose of the act by which, in general their
actions are to be guided, I suggest that in line 4, page 2, after the
comma after the word 'charges' the words 'for the purpose of
safeguarding these services and facilities in order that they may be
utilized to best advantage in the interest of common defense.'
Id. at 161. Captain Hooper also presented to the Committee excerpts from a
Joint Board of the Army and Navy which emphasized "that the communication
system of the Nation is of vital importance to the national defense
"
Captain Hooper presented similar testimony before a House Committee in
April 1934. Hearings on H.R. 8301 before the House Interstate & Foreign
Commerce Committee, 73rd Cong., 2nd Sess. (1934). Captain Hooper again
proposed amending Section 1 of the bill to reflect a national defense purpose
and presented detailed memoranda noting in part the need for a law properly
addressing national defense. Id. at 20-21, 24, 41, 59-60. Major Roger
Colton, Signal Corps, U.S. Army, also testified on behalf of the War
Department before the House Committee and concurred in the Navy Department's
13
recommendation. Id. at 100-101.
As a result of the Senate Hearings, a new bill, S. 3285, was introduced
in the Senate. As contained in the bill, Section 1 of the Act described
national defense as one of its purposes. That bill ultimately became the
present law.
Both the FCC and courts of law have subsequently recognized the specific
legislative intent to incorporate national defense concerns into the
regulatory process created by the 1934 Act. In 1955 the FCC, in setting forth
the purposes to be achieved by the Commission's regulatory activity,
recognized Section 1 of the Act, which includes its national defense purpose.
AT&T, supra. See also Overseas Communications, supra, at para 7. In the same
proceeding, the Commission also indicated its awareness " of numerous clear
and unequivocal expressions of Congressional intent, of which we hereby take
judicial notice, that the highest priority must be given to the national
defense and security interests of the nation." Id. In Bendix Aviation Corp.
V. FCC, the court stated a similar view noting that "one of the prime purposes
of the Act' is "national defense." 272 F. 2d 533, 538 (D.C. Cir. 1959).
Finally, as detailed above, the Commission recognized in the MTS-WATS Market
Structure Inquiry, supra, that satisfying national defense needs is one of its
specific goals as expressed in Section 1 of the 1934 Act.
In addition to specifying its national defense purpose, the 1934 Act
addresses the need for separate treatment of government telecommunication
services. According to Section 201 (b):
The communications by wire or radio subject to this Act my be
classified into day, night, repeated, unrepeated, letter,
commercial, press, Government, and such other classes as the
Commission may decide to be just and reasonable, and different
charges may be made for the different classes of communications.
14
47 U.S.C. Sec. 201 (b) (emphasis added).
This language is identical to that submitted in 1934 in Senate Bills
2910 and 3285, and House Resolution 8301. However, the legislative history of
the 1934 Act did not particularly address the intent behind allowing
telecommunication services to be classified as "Government." Ultimately,
between 1943 and 1947, extensive discussion concerning the meaning of Section
201 (b) did occur and resulted in an amendment to the Act, permitting special
government rates for telegraph service.
The effect of this amendment was to preserve preferential rates mandated
by the Post Roads Act of 1866 for domestic telegrams from government
departments and officials relating exclusively to public business. Sections 3
and 601 of the Communications Act of 1934 later established preferential
government rates for all types of telegraph service. In 1943 Congress amended
Section 3 to establish the priority of government telegrams over commercial
traffic. At the same time, Congress rejected a proposed amendment to the 1866
Act which, in effect, would have eliminated the requirement for telegraph
companies to charge the government less than commercial rates. Congress
granted the FCC the authority to fix the level of these lower rates.
H.R. Rep. No. 69, 78th Cong., 1st Sess. (February 1, 1943); and S. Rep. No.
13, 78th Cong., 1st Sess. (January 18, 1943). As stated in the Conference
Report, the result of this congressional action was to confirm that "[u]nder
such section 201 (b) the Commission may classify 'Government' communications as
such, and prescribe rates therefor." Conf. Rep. No. 142, 78th Cong., 1st
Sess. 15 (February 22, 1943).
Several other provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 evidence
congressional intent that the Federal government may be give separate, and
sometimes special, treatment. Section 4(j) authorizes the Commission to
15
withhold publication of secret information affecting the national defense.
Section 210(b) permits the Commission to authorize the provision of free
service to the Federal government "in connection with the preparation for the
national defense." Sections 214(b) and 222(c)(1) also requi notice to
certain government officials regarding various proposed carr; if activities.
Sections 305, 319(d) and 323 contain special provisions related to government-
owned radio stations.
C. The existing Telecommunications Services Priority (TSP) System currently
authorizes restoration and provisioning priority treatment for certain NSEP
telecommunication services.
Pursuant to the Communications Act, the FCC and Executive Office of the
President (EOP) (acting through the NCS) have established the current TSP
System as a uniform system of priorities for the restoration and provisioning,
during emergency situations, of vital NSEP telecommunication services. (See
47 CFR Parts 64 (Appendix A) and 216.2 for the rules and regulations governing
TSP.) Such situations include major natural or man-made disasters and
emergencies involving the national defense and security. In so doing, the FCC
ordered common carriers to honor approved priorities and restore services
according to the level of priority assigned to such service. The TSP system
also includes for priority provisioning of new services, again utilizing a
level of priority.
Read as a whole, the provisions of the Communications Act and their
legislative history demonstrate that national security emergency preparedness
considerations and Federal government telecommunication needs were intended to
receive some separate and priority treatment within the regulatory framework
established by Congress.
16
Date 5/25
To John
Time 0840
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M Jeff NASA Hofgard
of
Phone
358-1651
Area Code
Number
Extension
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
Message
Re aeronautics MOU
Operator
AMPAD
23-021 - 200 SETS
EFFICIENCY@
23-421-400 SETS
CARBONLESS
5/24
TO:
OSTP/O'Neil 395-1572 395
OSTP/Mussara 395-4195
FROM:
NASA/Hofgard
RE:
Draft MOU
Enclosed is an uncleared draft aeronautics MOU with Russia.
(The program office has cleared. The legal office has essential
cleared with some very minor comments). Please call me later
today. Thanks.
Jeff m Hofgard
P.01
I CODE
3584329 202
15:30
Proft 5/24/93
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
ON
COOPERATION IN FUNDAMENTAL AERONAUTICAL SCIENCES
BETWEEN
THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION INDUSTRY, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY
OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA) OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION INDUSTRY,
MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, HEREINAFTER
REFERRED TO AS "THE PARTIES":
HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
ARTICLE I. PRINCIPLES
1.
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) SHALL ESTABLISH
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH IN FUNDAMENTAL AERONAUTICAL SCIENCES
BETWEEN THE PARTIES, UTILIZING THE COMPLEMENTARY
CAPABILITIES, FACILITIES AND TALENTS OF THE PARTIES.
2.
THE PARTIES SHALL CARRY OUT COOPERATIVE EFFORTS IN
FUNDAMENTAL AERONAUTICAL SCIENCES UNDER THIS MOU ON THE
BASIS OF EQUALITY, RECIPROCITY AND MUTUAL BENEFIT.
3.
THE PARTIES HAVE IDENTIFIED FUNDAMENTAL AERONAUTICAL SCIENCE
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH ACTIVITIES IN AREAS SUCH AS:
TRANSITION AND TURBULENCE
:
THERMAL PROTECTION SYSTEM MATERIALS
CHEMICALLY REACTING FLOWS
COMPOSITE STRUCTURES AND MATERIALS
20'd
1 CODE
3584329 202
15:31 05-24-1993
Dust
4.
COOPERATION UNDER THIS MOU MAY BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE
FOLLOWING FORMS:
COOPERATIVE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROJECTS
COOPERATIVE UTILIZATION OF TEST FACILITIES AND TEST
ARTICLES
JOINTLY-SPONSORED SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES, SYMPOSIA AND
WORKSHOPS
EXCHANGES OF DATA, INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION
5.
COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES UNDER THIS MOU, INCLUDING EXCHANGES
OF TECHNICAL DATA, INFORMATION AND EQUIPMENT, SHALL BE
CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH NATIONAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS
OF EACH PARTY, AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF
APPROPRIATED FUNDS.
ARTICLE II. ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION
1.
THE PARTIES SHALL SERVE AS THE PRINCIPAL IMPLEMENTING
AGENCIES FOR DEVELOPING AND CARRYING OUT THE COOPERATION
ENVISAGED UNDER ARTICLE I OF THIS MOU.
2.
EACH OF THE COOPERATIVE PROJECTS MAY BE THE SUBJECT OF A
SPECIFIC WRITTEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DESIGNATED
IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES THAT DEFINES THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF
THE PROJECT, THE INDIVIDUAL AND JOINT RESPONSIBILITIES OF
THE DESIGNATED IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES, FINANCIAL
ARRANGEMENTS, IF ANY, AND THE PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS MOU.
3.
THE PARTIES SHALL FORM A JOINT WORKING GROUP FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF AGREED COOPERATION IN AERONAUTICAL
SCIENCES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS MOU.
4.
THE JOINT WORKING GROUP IN AERONAUTICAL SCIENCES SHALL MEET
PERIODICALLY IN THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA, USUALLY ON AN
ANNUAL BASIS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING A MANAGEMENT
STRUCTURE AND OVERSIGHT OF JOINT EFFORTS CARRIED OUT
PURSUANT TO THIS MOU. THE JOINT WORKING GROUP SHALL:
APPROVE THE WORK PROGRAM FOR AGREED JOINT EFFORTS; REVIEW
THE STATUS OF ONGOING EFFORTS; EVALUATE THE RESULTS OF
COMPLETED EFFORTS; CONSIDER NEW PROPOSALS FOR COOPERATION;
CONCLUDE SPECIFIC PROJECT AGREEMENTS; EXCHANGE INFORMATION
ON AERONAUTICAL SCIENCES RESEARCH BEING CONDUCTED IN EACH
COUNTRY; AND EXCHANGE INFORMATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ALL COOPERATION CONDUCTED
UNDER THIS MOU.
3.00
I 3000
3584329 202
15:31
Draft
ARTICLE III. ALLOCATION OF CERTAIN RISK
1.
WITH RESPECT TO ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN PURSUANT TO THIS MOU,
NEITHER PARTY SHALL MAKE ANY CLAIM AGAINST THE OTHER WITH
RESPECT TO INJURY OF DEATH OF ITS OWN OR ITS CONTRACTORS' OR
SUBCONTRACTORS' EMPLOYEES, OR WITH RESPECT TO DAMAGE OF ANY
KIND TO OR LOSS OF ITS OWN OR ITS CONTRACTORS' OR
SUBCONTRACTORS' PROPERTY WHETHER SUCH INJURY, DEATH, DAMAGE
OF LOSS ARISES THROUGH NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE, EXCEPT IN
THE CASE OF WILLFUL MISCONDUCT.
2.
AT ELECTION OF EITHER PARTY, ADDITIONAL OR ALTERNATIVE
PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE ALLOCATION OF RISK FOR SPECIFIC
COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES MAY BE NEGOTIATED PRIOR TO THE
COMMENCEMENT OF THOSE SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES.
ARTICLE IV. EXCHANGE OF TECHNICAL DATA AND GOODS
EACH PARTY IS OBLIGATED TC TRANSFER TO THE OTHER PARTY ONLY THOSE
TECHNICAL DATA AND GOODS NECESSARY TO FULFILL THE
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE TRANSFERRING PARTY UNDER THIS MOU AND ANY
RELEVANT IMPLEMENTING ARRANGEMENTS, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:
1.
IN THE EVENT A PARTY FINDS IT NECESSARY TO TRANSFER
TECHNICAL DATA IN CARRYING OUT ITS RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER
THIS MOU OR IMPLEMENTING ARRANGEMENT THAT ARE PROPRIETARY,
AND FOR WHICH PROTECTION IS TO BE MAINTAINED, SUCH TECHNICAL
DATA WILL BE MARKED WITH A NOTICE INDICATING THAT IT SHALL
BE USED AND DISCLOSED BY THE RECEIVING PARTY AND ITS
CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF
FULFILLING THE RECEIVING PARTY'S RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THIS
MOU OR IMPLEMENTING ARRANGEMENT, AND THAT THE TECHNICAL DATA
SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED OR RETRANSFERRED TO ANY OTHER ENTITY
WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE FURNISHING PARTY.
THE RECEIVING PARTY AGREES TO ABIDE BY THE TERMS OF THE
NOTICE, AND TO PROTECT ANY SUCH MARKED TECHNICAL DATA FROM
UNAUTHORIZED USE AND DISCLOSURE.
2.
IN THE EVENT A PARTY FINDS IT NECESSARY TO TRANSFER
TECHNICAL DATA AND GOODS IN CARRYING OUT ITS
RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THIS MOU OR IMPLEMENTING ARRANGEMENT
THAT ARE EXPORT-CONTROLLED, THE FURNISHING PARTY SHALL MARK
SUCH TECHNICAL DATA WITH A NOTICE AND IDENTIFY SUCH GOODS.
THE NOTICE OR IDENTIFICATION SHALL INDICATE THAT SUCH
TECHNICAL DATA AND GOODS SHALL BE USED, AND SUCH TECHNICAL
DATA SHALL BE DISCLOSED, BY THE RECEIVING PARTY AND ITS
CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF
FULFILLING THE RECEIVING PARTY'S RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THIS
MOU OR IMPLEMENTING ARRANGEMENT. THE NOTICE OR
P.04
I 3000
3584329 202
23:32
Draft
IDENTIFICATION SHALL ALSO PROVIDE THAT SUCH TECHNICAL
DATA AND GOODS SHALL NOT BE RETRANSFERRED, TO ANY OTHER
ENTITY WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE
FURNISHING PARTY. THE PARTIES AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE
TERMS OF THE NOTICE OR IDENTIFICATION AND TO PROTECT
ANY SUCH MARKED TECHNICAL DATA AND IDENTIFIED GOODS.
3.
THE PARTIES ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TC PROTECT ANY UNMARKED
TECHNICAL DATA OR UNIDENTIFIED GOODS.
ARTICLE V. PATENT AND INVENTION RIGHTS
NOTHING IN THIS MOU OR IMPLEMENTING ARRANGEMENT SHALL BE
CONSTRUED AS GRANTING OR IMPLYING ANY RIGHTS TO, OR INTEREST IN,
PATENTS CR INVENTIONS OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR CONTRACTORS OR
SUBCONTRACTORS.
ARTICLE VI. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL DATA
RESULTING FROM THE COOPERATION
IT IS THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES THAT THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL
DATA RESULTING FROM THE COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES UNDER THIS MOU BE
EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND THAT THE RESULTS OF THEIR
COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY IN GENERAL THROUGH PUBLICATION IN APPROPRIATE JOURNALS
CR OTHER ESTABLISHED CHANNELS. IN THE EVENT SUCH REPORTS OR
PUBLICATIONS ARE COPYRIGHTED, EACH PARTY SHALL HAVE A ROYALTY-
FREE RIGHT UNDER THE COPYRIGHT TO TRANSLATE, REPRODUCE,
DISTRIBUTE, AND USE SUCH COPYRIGHTED WORK FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES.
ARTICLE VII. RELEASE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION
RELEASE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION REGARDING THIS COOPERATION MAY BE
MADE BY THE APPROPRIATE PARTY FOR ITS OWN PORTION OF THE
COOPERATION AS DESIRED AND, INSOFAR AS PARTICIPATION OF THE OTHER
IS INVOLVED, AFTER SUITABLE CONSULTATION.
ARTICLE VIII. ENTRY INTO FORCE, AMENDMENT, TERMINATION
1.
THIS MOU SHALL ENTER INTO FORCE IMMEDIATELY UPON SIGNATURE
OF BOTH PARTIES, AND SHALL REMAIN IN FORCE FOR FIVE YEARS.
IT MAY BE EXTENDED FOR FURTHER FIVE-YEAR PERIODS BY WRITTEN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
50'd
I COOE
3584329 202
15:32
Draft
2.
THIS MOU MAYBE AMENDED BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
PARTIES.
3.
THIS MOU MAY BE TERMINATED BY EITHER PARTY ON SIX MONTHS
ADVANCE WRITTEN NOTICE.
4.
EXPIRATION OF THIS MOU SHALL NOT AFFECT THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF ANY COOPERATIVE ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN PURSUANT TO THIS MOU
AND NOT FULLY EXECUTED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OCCURS.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING DULY AUTHORIZED BY
THEIR RESPECTIVE GOVERNMENTS, HAVE SIGNED THIS MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING.
DONE AT
,
IN DUPLICATE, THIS
TH DAY
OF
,
1993, IN THE ENGLISH AND RUSSIAN LANGUAGES, BOTH
TEXTS BEING EQUALLY AUTHENTIC.
ON BEHALF OF THE
ON BEHALF OF THE
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
INDUSTRY
MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY
90'd
I CODE
202 3584329
EE:51 56-24-1993
NASA
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Washington. D.C
20546
Reply 10 Alln of: IR
January 13, 1993
TO:
Department of State
Attn: OES/SAT Dr. Jerome J. Bosken
FROM:
IR/Director of International Relations
SUBJECT: Your Proposed Rewrite of the Draft NASA MOU with the
Russian Department of Aviation Industry on Cooperation
in the Aeronautical Sciences
REF:
Your memorandum of December 10, 1992
Thank you for providing us your views on possible revision of the
draft MOU. Unfortunately, we do not believe that your proposed
changes are a step forward, for two main reasons:
1. NASA does not wish to embark on cooperative work with Russian
aeronautical research organizations that goes beyond the
definition of basic research in Article I of our draft. State's
redraft appears to propose an umbrella for a range of activities
that could go beyond what NASA considers appropriate for
international cooperation in aeronautics. U.S. industry's
international competitiveness is an important consideration in
our structuring of relationships with Western countries in this
field, and I am sure State would agree that the same attention to
this issue should be given in relation to Russia.
2. The proposed dual subordination of the Aeronautical Sciences
MOU to both the Basic Scientific Research Agreement and the Space
Agreement would create severe institutional problems on the
Russian side. While NASA is principally responsible for both
civil space and civil aeronautics with the U.S. Government, the
two fields are distinct in Russia. The Russian entities of
current interest to NASA as cooperative counterparts in
aeronautics are all subordinate to the Department of Aviation
Industry of the Ministry of Industry. The Space Agreement, by
contrast, specifically identifies the Russian Space Agency as the
Russian counterpart. NASA understands the Department's interest
in foreign policy oversight of activities under the Aeronautics
MOU, but believes that imposing this unworkable structure on the
agreement at the outset will simply frustrate cooperation.
State appears to believe that some activities of interest to
NASA, because they involve engineering, are beyond the scope of
the Basic Scientific Research Agreement. We note, however, that
Annex III of that agreement clearly identifies "Basic Scientific
Research in Engineering Sciences" as a covered topic.
2
For these reasons, NASA continues to believe that its original
proposal, involving subordination of this MOU to the Basic
Scientific Research Agreement, continues to be preferable.
Alternatively, NASA could agree to a free-standing agreement, if
OSTP agrees.
With respect to other specific changes suggested in your
memorandum (other than those relating to the proposed dual
subordination), NASA is reviewing the draft MOU for changes that
might be made to conform with more recent precedents. In the
meantime, I would appreciate an early response to the points
discussed in this letter.
Peter G. Smith
12/10/92
12:02
202 736 7336
OES/SAT
002
United States Department of State
Bureau of Oceans and International
Environmental and Scientific Affairs
Washington, D.C. 20520
December 10, 1992
TO:
NASA/IR - Peter Smith
FROM: OES/SAT - Jerome J. Bosken
SUBJ: Aeronautics R&D MOU
Attached is a rewrite of the proposed MOU with the
Russian Ministry of Industry for cooperation in aeronautics
R&D. NASA anticipates activities with Russia that include both
basic research in aeronautical science and applied work and
joint efforts concerning SCRAM jets and use of high speed wind
tunnels. As we have discussed, State believes that both
umbrella agreements, Basic Science and Space Cooperation, are
relevant and, consequently, have proposed that the MOU be
covered by both.
The attached draft follows the original proposal but
incorporates both agreements in a parallel fashion. The
significant modifications to the original are:
Title
-- Adds "Engineering"
Article I
-- Adds coverage of the Space Agreement, with Parties
to determine which Agreement covers each activity
under the MOU
-- Deletes definition of "basic research" (since
both basic research and applications are to be
covered)
Article
11 -- Adds that covering agreement will be specified
when topics are agreed to (3)
-- Expands upon reference to separate Understanding
for financial arrangements through stipulation
that activities may entail specific implementing
arrangement to include financial and other
responsibilities (7)
Article V
-- Adds IPR parallel allocation according to Space
Agreement when relevant
DEC 10 '92 13:08
202 736 7336 PAGE. . 002
12/10/92 12:03
202 736 7336
OES/SAT
003
- 2 -
Article VI -- Adds policy oversight mechanism, that would
be either Science or Space Consultation depending
upon the covering agreement previously identified
for that topic (2)
If this draft is acceptable, we will finalize the C-175
authorization memorandum. Comments please.
cc: OES/S - JBoright
OSTP - JO'Neill
OES/SCT - CCampbell
DEC 10 '92 13:08
202 736 7336 PAGE. 003
12/10/92
12:03
202 736 7336
OES/SAT
004
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
ON
COOPERATION IN THE AERONAUTICAL SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING
BETWEEN
THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION INDUSTRY
MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY
OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) of the
United States of America and the Department of Aviation Industry,
Ministry of Industry of the Russian Federation, hereinafter
referred to as "the Parties",
have agreed as follows:
ARTICLE I.
1. This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is subject to the
"Agreement between the Government of the United States of America
and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics on
Cooperation in the Field of Basic Scientific Research" signed
January 8, 1989, hereinafter referred to as the "Basic Scientific
Research Agreement" and of the "Agreement between the United
States of America and the Russia Federation concerning
Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for
Peaceful Uses" signed June 17, 1992, hereinafter referred to as
the "Space Cooperation Agreement." The Parties shall determine
which Agreement shall govern, in whole or in part, each
cooperative activity undertaken pursuant to this MOU.
2. The Parties shall coordinate, facilitate, and support the
development and implementation of cooperation under this MOU on
the basis of the principles of equality, overall reciprocity, and
mutual benefit.
DEC 10 '92 13:08
202 736 7336 PAGE. 004
12/10/92
12:04
202 736 7336
OES/SAT
005
ARTICLE II. PRINCIPLES
1. The objective of this MOU is to contribute to the
broadening of cooperative research in aeronautical sciences and
engineering activities of mutual benefit by combining the
complementary efforts, capabilities and talents of the Parties.
2. The scope of the cooperation in basic research in
aeronautical sciences and engineering between the Parties is
included in the basic scientific in engineering sciences area of
cooperation, as identified in Annex III of the Basic Scientific
Research Agreement. The scope of the cooperation in space-related
technologies is included in Article I of the Space Cooperation
Agreement.
3. The Parties shall jointly identify potential aeronautical
science and engineering research topics for cooperation and
determine whether the Basic Scientific Research Agreement or the
Space Cooperation Agreement shall apply, in whole or in part, to
each. These topics are described in Annex 1 of this MOU which is
an integral part of this MOU.
4. Cooperation under this MOU may be implemented by:
a. Cooperative scientific research projects;
b. Joint scientific conferences, symposia, and workshops;
C. Exchange of scientific information and documentation; and
d. Other forms of cooperation upon which the Parties agree.
5. Cooperative activities under this MOU, including exchanges
of technical information, equipment and data, shall be conducted
in accordance with the national laws and regulations of each Party.
6. Activities undertaken pursuant to the MOU shall be subject
to the respective funding procedures of each Party, including the
availability of funds. Each Party will share in the effort and
the cost of each specific activity. Although this provision does
not require a precise matching of funds, personnel, or facilities
in any given activity, the implementation of cooperation under
this MOU shall be balanced and of mutual benefit.
7. Each of the cooperative activities may be the subject of a
specific written implementing arrangement between the Parties that
defines the nature and scope of the project, the individual and
joint responsibilities of the Parties, financial arrangements, if
any, and the protection of intellectual property consistent with
the provisions of this MOU.
DEC 10 '92 13:09
202 736 7336 PAGE. 005
12/10/92
12:04
202 736 7336
OES/SAT
006
ARTICLE III. ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION
The Parties, acting through their designated cooperating
agencies, shall form a joint working group for the implementation
of cooperation in each of the topics listed and described in
Annex I of this MOU.
ARTICLE IV. ALLOCATION OF CERTAIN RISK
1. With respect to activities undertaken pursuant to this
MOU, neither party shall make any claim against the other with
respect to injury or death of its own or its contractors, or
subcontractors' employees, or with respect to damage of any kind
to or loss of its own or its contractors, or subcontractors'
property whether such injury, death, damage or loss arises
through negligence or otherwise, except in the case of willful
misconduct.
2. By written agreement of the Parties, additional or
alternative provisions relating to the allocation of risk for
specific cooperative activities may be negotiated prior to the
commencement of those specific activities.
ARTICLE V. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
The Parties shall ensure adequate and effective protection of
intellectual property created or furnished under this MOU and
relevant implementing arrangements. Where allocation of rights
to intellectual property is provided for in the implementing
arrangements, such allocation shall be made in accordance either
with Annex II of the Basic Scientific Research Agreement, which
is an integral part of that Agreement, or with the Annex on
Intellectual Property of the Space Cooperation Agreement, which
is an integral part of that Agreement, as appropriate and as
determined in accordance with Article II.3 of this MOU. To the
extent that it is necessary and appropriate, such implementing
arrangements may contain different provisions for protection and
allocation of intellectual property.
DEC 10 '92 13:09
202 736 7336 PAGE 006
12/10/92
12:05
202 736 7336
OES/SAT
007
ARTICILE VI. JOINT IMPLEMENTATION AND REVIEW OF COOPERATION
1. Representatives of the Parties shall meet periodically in
the United States and Russia, as necessary, but normally once a
year, to evaluate the results of the joint activities; consider
modification of the program of cooperation; exchange information
about basic scientific research in aeronautical sciences and
engineering within their respective countries; and exchange
information on administrative matters relating to implementation
of all cooperation conducted under this MOU.
2. General policy issues related to implementation of this
MOU and overall status of the cooperation will be discussed in
the regular consultations established in the Basic Scientific
Research Agreement and the Space Cooperation Agreement, as
appropriate and as determined in Article II.3 of this MOU.
ARTICLE VII. ENTRY INTO FORCE, TERMINATION, MODIFICATION
1. This MOU shall enter into force upon signature by both
Parties, and shall remain in force for five years. It may be
extended for further five-year periods by written agreement of
the Parties.
2. This MOU may be terminated by either Party upon six
months written notice to the other Party.
3. Termination of this MOU shall not affect the full
implementation of any cooperative activity undertaken pursuant to
this MOU and not completed before termination.
4. This MOU may be amended by written agreement of the
Parties.
DEC 10 '92 13:10
202 736 7336 PAGE. . 007
12/10/92 12:05
202 736 7336
OES/SAT
008
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being duly authorized by
their respective Governments, have signed this Memorandum of
Understanding.
DONE at
,
in duplicate, this
day of
,
in the English and Russian
languages, both texts being equally authentic.
FOR THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
FOR THE MINISTRY OF
AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
INDUSTRY
OF THE UNITED STATES OF
OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION:
AMERICA:
DEC 10 '92 13:10
202 736 7336 PAGE.008
12/10/92
11:41
130 (JJO
0ES/5A1
United States Department of State
Bureau of Oceans and International
Environmental and Scientific Affairs
Washington, D.C. 20520
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
DATE: Dec 10,1992
TIME: 11:40 A.M.
TO
NAME: John O' Neill
TEL. NO. 395-3272
OFFICE: OSTP
FAX NO.
- 1572
FROM
NAME: JEROME Bosken
TEL. NO. (202) 647-2841
OFFICE: ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
FAX NO. (202) 736-7336
(OES/SAT)
7
PAGES TO FOLLOW:
REPLY REQUESTED:
YES NO
MESSAGE
COMMENTS PLEASE -
dan + trust
NASA mou
12/10/92
11:41
202 736 7336
OES/SAT
United States Department of State
Bureau of Oceans and International
Environmental and Scientific Affairs
Washington, D.C. 20520
December 10, 1992
TO:
NASA/IR - Peter Smith
FROM: OES/SAT - Jerome J. Bosken
SUBJ: Aeronautics R&D MOU
Attached is a rewrite of the proposed MOU with the
Russian Ministry of Industry for cooperation in aeronautics
R&D. NASA anticipates activities with Russia that include both
basic research in aeronautical science and applied work and
joint efforts concerning SCRAM jets and use of high speed wind
tunnels. As we have discussed, State believes that both
umbrella agreements, Basic Science and Space Cooperation, are
relevant and, consequently, have proposed that the MOU be
covered by both.
The attached draft follows the original proposal but
incorporates both agreements in a parallel fashion. The
significant modifications to the original are:
Title
-- Adds "Engineering"
Article I
-- Adds coverage of the Space Agreement, with Partics
to determine which Agreement covers each activity
under the MOU
-- Deletes definition of "basic research" (since
both basic research and applications are to be
covered)
Article II -- Adds that covering agreement will be specified
when topics are agreed to (3)
-- Expands upon reference to separate Understanding
for financial arrangements through stipulation
that activities may entail specific implementing
arrangement to include financial and other
responsibilities (7)
Article V
:
Adds IPR parallel allocation according to Space
Agreement when relevant
12/10/92
11:42
0202 736
- 2 -
Article VI -- Adds policy oversight mechanism, that would
be either Science or Space Consultation depending
upon the covering agreement previously identified
for that topic (2)
If this draft is acceptable, we will finalize the C-175
authorization memorandum. Comments please.
cc: OES/S - JBoright
OSTP - JO'Neill
OES/SCT - CCampbell
12.10.92
11:46
UZ02 1000
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
ON
COOPERATION IN THE AERONAUTICAL SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING
BETWEEN
THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION INDUSTRY
MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY
OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) of the
United States of America and the Department of Aviation Industry,
Ministry of Industry of the Russian Federation, hereinafter
referred to as "the Parties",
have agreed as follows:
ARTICLE T.
1. This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is subject to the
"Agreement between the Government of the United States of America
and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics on
Cooperation in the Field of Basic Scientific Research" signed
January 8, 1989, hereinafter referred to ae the "Basic Scientific
Research Agreement" and of the "Agreement between the United
States of America and the Russia Federation concerning
Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for
Peaceful Uses" signed June 17, 1992, horcinafter referred to as
the "Space Cooperation Agreement." The Parties shall determine
which Agreement shall govern, in wholc or in part, each
cooperative activity undertaken pursuant to this MOU.
2. The Parties shall coordinate, facilitate, and support the
development and implementation of cooperation under this MOU on
the basis of the principles of equality, overall reciprocity, and
mutual benefit.
12/10/92
11:43
C202
ARTICLE II. PRINCIPLES
1. The objective of this MOU is to contribute to the
broadening of cooperative research in aeronautical sciences and
engineering activities of mutual benefit by combining the
complementary efforts, capabilities and talents of the Parties.
2. The scope of the cooperation in basic research in
aeronautical sciences and engineering between the Parties is
included in the basic scientific in engineering sciences area of
cooperation, as identified in Annex III of the Basic Scientific
Research Agreement. The scope of the cooperation in space-related
technologies is included in Article I of the Space Cooperation
Agreement.
3. The Parties shall jointly identify potential aeronautical
science and engineering research topics for cooperation and
determine whether the Basic Scientific Research Agreement or the
Space Cooperation Agreement shall apply, in whole or in part, to
each. These topics are described in Annex 1 of this MOU which is
an integral part of this MOU.
None
4. Cooperation under this MOU may be implemented by:
attached
a. Cooperative scientific research projects;
b. Joint scientific conferences, symposia, and workshops;
C. Exchange of scientific information and documentation; and
d. Other forms of cooperation upon which the Parties agree.
5. Cooperative activities under this MOU, including exchanges
of technical information, equipment and data, shall be conducted
in accordance with the national laws and regulations of each Party.
6. Activities undertaken pursuant to the MOU shall be subject
to the respective funding procedures of each Party, including the
availability of funds. Each Party will share in the offort and
the cost of each specific activity. Although this provision does
not require a precise matching of funds, personnel, or facilities
in any given activity, the implementation of cooperation under
this MOU shall be balanced and of mutual benefit.
7. Each of the cooperative activities may be the subject of a
specific written implementing arrangement between the Parties that
defines the nature and scope of the project, the individual and
joint responsibilities of the Parties, financial arrangements, if
any, and the protection of intellectual property consistent with
the provisions of this MOU.
12/10/92
11:43
C202 738 7336
UES/SAI
ARTICLE III. ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION
The Parties, acting through their designated cooperating
7
agencies, shall form a joint working group for the implementation
of cooperation in each of the topics listed and described in
Annex I of this MOU.
ARTICLE IV. ALLOCATION OF CERTAIN RISK
1. With respect to activities undertaken pursuant to this
MOU, neither party shall make any claim against the other with
respect to injury or death of its own or its contractors, or
subcontractors' employees, or with respect to damage of any kind
to or loss of its own or its contractors, or subcontractors
property whether such injury, death, damage or loss arises
through negligence or otherwise, except in the case of willful
misconduct.
2. By written agreement of the Parties, additional or
alternative provisions relating to the allocation of risk for
specific cooperative activities may be negotiated prior to the
commencement of those specific activities.
ARTICLE V. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
The, Parties shall ensure adequate and effective protection of
intellectual property created or furnished under this MOU and
relevant implementing arrangements. Where allocation of rights
to intellectual property is provided for in the implementing
arrangements, such allocation shall be made in accordance either
with Annex II of the Basic Scientific Research Agreement, which
is an integral part of that Agreement, or with the Annex on
Intellectual Property of the Space Cooperation Agreement, which
is an integral part of that Agreement, 03 appropriate and as
determined in accordance with Article II.3 of this MOU. To the
extent that it is necessary and appropriate, such implementing
arrangements may contain different provisions for protection and
allocation of intellectual property.
12/10/92
11:44
202 736 7336
OES/SAT
ARTICILE VI. JOINT IMPLEMENTATION AND REVIEW OF COOPERATION
1. Rcpresentatives of the Parties shall meet periodically in
the United States and Russia, as necessary, but normally once a
year, to evaluate the results of the joint activities; consider
modification cf the program of cooperation; exchange information
about basic scientific research in aeronautical sciences and
engineering within their respective countries; and exchange
information on administrative matters relating to implementation
of all cooperation conducted under this MOU.
2. General policy issues related to implementation of this
MOU and overall status of the cooperation will be discussed in
the regular consultations established in the Basic Scientific
Research Agreement and the Space Cooperation Agreement, as
appropriate and as determined in Article II.3 of this MOU.
ARTICLE VII. ENTRY INTO FORCE, TERMINATION, MODIFICATION
1. This MOU shall enter into force upon signature by both
Parties, and shall remain in force for five years. It may be
extended for further five-year periods by written agreement of
the Parties.
2. This MOU may be terminated by either Party upon six
months written notice to the other Party.
3. Termination of this MOU shall not affect the full
implementation of any cooperative activity undertaken pursuant to
this MOU and not completed before termination.
4. This MOU may be amended by written agreement of the
Parties.
12/10/92
11:44
202 736 7336
OES/SAT
8007
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being duly authorized by
their respective Governments, have signed this Memorandum of
Understanding.
DONE at
/
in duplicate, this
day of
,
in the English and Russian
languages, both texts being equally authentic.
FOR THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
FOR THE MINISTRY OF
AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
INDUSTRY
OF THE UNITED STATES OF
OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION:
AMERICA:
NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
PLANS AND PROGRAMS
(NCS/NPM)
PEGGY NEWLAND
(703) 692-8506 DSN 222-8506
FAX (703) 692-7682
Check w/ Sue B.
SYSTEM NATIONAL COMMUNICATION
about a car to NCST St
peturn.
DATE 3 SEPT 93
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER 2
TO Joanne Ward
LOCATION OSTP
PHONE (202)395-3272
FAX (202) 395-1572
his approval & hell send over w/ memo to Dr. Gibbons
for Dr. Gibbons' visit. I'll send up to LTG short for
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS JOAnne- Here is latest agenda
formalizing plans. THX! Peq
PROPOSED AGENDA FOR DIRECTOR, OSTP VISIT TO NCS/DISA
SEPTEMBER 20, 1993
1015 - 1215 NCS PROGRAMS
-
Escort Dr. Gibbons to NCC/tour of NCC
-
NCS Introduction
-
National Telecommunications Management Structure (NTMS)
Implementation - classified - -Secret
-- NTMS Concept and Program Status
-- Support to OSTP during wartime emergencies
-- Response to OSTP tasking to expand NTMS for all
hazards
-
National Coordinating Center for Telecommunications
Briefing
-- NCC Role in Federal Disaster Response
-- NCS Support to Joint Telecommunications Resources
Board
-
NCS Role in NII
-
NCS Wrap-Up/Discussion
-
Tour/demo Secure Video Teleconferencing Center
1215 - 1300 Visit/ Lunch with LTG Short
1300 - 1400 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY BRIEFINGS
-
DISA Overview
-
Tour of Network Management Operations Center
1400 - Depart DISA Headquarters
PROPOSED AGENDA FOR DIRECTOR, OSTP VISIT TO NCS/DISA
SEPTEMBER 20, 1993
1015 - 1215 NCS PROGRAMS
-
Escort Dr. Gibbons to NCC/tour of NCC
-
NCS Introduction
-
National Telecommunications Management Structure (NTMS)
Implementation - classified - Secret
-- NTMS Concept and Program Status
-- Support to OSTP during wartime emergencies
-- Response to OSTP tasking to expand NTMS for all
hazards
-
National Coordinating Center for Telecommunications
Briefing
-- NCC Role in Federal Disaster Response
-- NCS Support to Joint Telecommunications Resources
Board
-
NCS Role in NII
-
NCS Wrap-Up/Discussion
-
Tour/demo Secure Video Teleconferencing Center
1215 - 1300 Visit/ Lunch with LTG Short
1300 - 1400 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY BRIEFINGS
-
DISA Overview
-
Tour of Network Management Operations Center
1400 - Depart DISA Headquarters
PROPOSED AGENDA FOR DIRECTOR, OSTP VISIT TO NCS/DISA
SEPTEMBER 20, 1993
1015 - 1215 NCS PROGRAMS
-
Escort Dr. Gibbons to NCC/tour of NCC
-
NC8 Introduction
-
National Telecommunications Management Structure (NTMS)
Implementation - classified Secret
-- NTMS Concept and Program Status
-- Support to OSTP during. wartime emergencies
-- Response to OSTP tasking to expand NTMS for all
hazards
-
National Coordinating Center for Telecommunications
Briefing
-- NCC Role in Federal Disaster Response
-- NCS Support to Joint Telecommunications Resources
Board
-
NCS Role in NII
-
NCS Wrap-Up/Discussion
-
Tour/demo Secure Video Teleconferencing Center
1215 - 1300 Visit/ Lunch with LTG Short
1300 - 1400 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY BRIEFINGS
-
DISA Overview
-
Tour of Network Management Operations Center
1400 - Depart DISA Headquarters
[16] From: Susanne Bachtel 9/15/93 10:59AM (1471 bytes: 19 ln)
To: Susanne Bachtel, Barbara L. Bernstein, Christopher N. Clary,
Donna I. Coleman, Ruth Fisher, Katherine B. Gillman, Mary R. Greenwood,
Holly L. Gwin, Lionel S. Johns, Mark E. Schaefer, Jeff Schweitzer,
Timothy L. Newell, Michael R. Nelson, Henry C. Kelly, Jane Wales, Jo Ann Ward,
Robert T. Watson
Subject: 1/2 day briefing at Nat.Com.Sys.& Defense Info. Sys. Agenc
Message Contents
Some months ago, a 1/2 day meeting to tour the National
Communications System, and Defense Information Systems Agency, was
arranged for this coming Monday, September 20, for JHG and others. (The
meeting was set before all the Associate-Director Designates were on
board.)
Because of a new scheduling conflict, the Monday September 20
meeting is cancelled, and a new Monday date (Monday, November 1) is
being proposed. The tour/briefing takes place in Arlington - and the
time period is roughly from 9:30 a.m. (leave for Rosslyn), includes
lunch, tour/briefing ends about 2 p.m. and return to OSTP by about
2:30 p.m. give or take. Total time required is therefore about 5
hours.
Could you let me know ASAP (so I can call back to NSC/DISA) of
your interest/availability. Could someone let me know about Frank von
Hippel's availability (he's not yet on e-mail). Thanks very much.
Sue B.
- Speak to Jane about this
[16] From: Susanne Bachtel 9/15/93 10:59AM (1471 bytes: 19 ln)
To: Susanne Bachtel, Barbara L. Bernstein, Christopher N. Clary,
Donna I. Coleman, Ruth Fisher, Katherine B. Gillman, Mary R. Greenwood,
Holly L. Gwin, Lionel S. Johns, Mark E. Schaefer, Jeff Schweitzer,
Timothy L. Newell, Michael R. Nelson, Henry C. Kelly, Jane Wales, Jo Ann Ward,
Robert T. Watson
Subject: 1/2 day briefing at Nat.Com.Sys.& Defense Info. Sys. Agenc
Message Contents
Some months ago, a 1/2 day meeting to tour the National
Communications System, and Defense Information Systems Agency, was
arranged for this coming Monday, September 20, for JHG and others. (The
meeting was set before all the Associate-Director Designates were on
board.)
Because of a new scheduling conflict, the Monday September 20
meeting is cancelled, and a new Monday date (Monday, November 1) is
being proposed. The tour/briefing takes place in Arlington - and the
time period is roughly from 9:30 a.m. (leave for Rosslyn), includes
lunch, tour/briefing ends about 2 p.m. and return to OSTP by about
2:30 p.m. give or take. Total time required is therefore about 5
hours.
Could you let me know ASAP (so I can call back to NSC/DISA) of
your interest/availability. Could someone let me know about Frank von
Hippel's availability (he's not yet on e-mail). Thanks very much.
Sue B.
IF JANE WANTS TO LEAVE
ON SUN 19TH, PLEASE LET
JO ANN KNOW ASAP-
yes
I NEED TO SEND FLIGHT INFO
Junday coming 25th backon
TO STATE)
Jey