Domain Dispatches: NETmundial Day 1 - A Parade and then a Circus

NETmundial, the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, opened Wednesday, April 23 in Sao Paulo, Brazil.  Around 800 participants representing governments, private sector, academia, civil society and the technical community filled the room, with at least twice that participating remotely.

The morning session consisted entirely of a parade of speeches from dignitaries, most from government, with a smattering from other stakeholder groups.  A few themes and a few speeches stood out.

After the introductory remarks came perhaps the most stirring speech, from Nnenna Nwakanma. Africa Regional Coordinator of the World Wide Web Foundation.  Dressed in colorful and striking African garb, she began, “My name is Nnenna. I come from the Internet.”  She went on: “I work to establish the open Web as a global public good and a basic right, ensuring that everyone can access and use it freely.  That is what I do for a living.”  She called NETmundial the “World Cup of Internet Governance.”

She cited three key issues for the future of the Internet:  access, social and economic justice, and freedom and human rights.  Turning to Internet governance specifically, she cited three more issues: participation, resources and change.  Her remarks on change constituted fairly outspoken criticism of what she sees as the current state of affairs:

NetMundial is offering us a chance at change.  Let us seize it:
From one stakeholder hijacking the process – to an open and inclusive process.
From top officials issuing orders – to a collaboration.
From summary reports – to transparency.
From power - to  accountability.
From  monologues – to dialogues and debates.
Change the rhetoric of cyberwar – to the notion of Internet for peace. 
Change from  cyber threats – to digital solidarity.
And these, I believe, will guide us in  the IANA transition.

Continue Reading...

Reed Smith to Participate at World IP Day Event in NYC

This Friday, April 25, Reed Smith will be part of a World IP Day event in New York City titled, Movies a Global Passion, hosted by World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), and United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Keri S. Bruce will be speaking on a panel to discuss intellectual property in films, alongside David Morrison (Indie Film Clinic) and Neil J. Rosini (Franklin, Weinrib, Rudell & Vassallo, P.C.).  Among the event's keynote speakers are Michelle Lee, Deputy Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; Congressman Hakeem Jeffries; and Congresswoman Grace Meng (invited).

The event is FREE and open to the public, and will feature an exhibition by film studios, directors and IP service providers.

RSVP now for this event.

Date and Time:
Friday, April 25, 2014
8am-12pm (8-9am is check-in & breakfast reception)

Location:
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
55 5th Ave, New York, NY 10003
Map and Directions

Third Edition of Reed Smith's Social Media White Paper Now Available

This post was written by Douglas J. Wood and Stacy K. Marcus.

Reed Smith is proud to make available the Third Edition of our Social Media White Paper, “Network Interference: A Legal Guide to the commercial Risks and Rewards of the Social Media Phenomenon.”  A lot has happened in the ever-expanding and rapidly evolving world of social media since the release of our last edition in 2010.  This White Paper includes important updates and practical guidance for both the U.S. and in Europe.  Click here to access your PDF of the new version.

SAG-AFTRA Commercials Contract - Clarifications

After conclusion of the 2013 Commercials Contracts negotiations and subsequent ratification, several issues came under review by the JPC and SAG-AFTRA that warranted further discussion and clarification.

(Those issues were previously outlined in 4A’s Bulletin # 7545JPC, dated 8/6/13.)

The JPC and SAG-AFTRA have reached final agreement on these outstanding items.  Download a copy of the joint JPC/SAG-AFTRA memorandum for further information.

Domain Dispatches: NETmundial Is Right Around The Corner

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014, Sao Paulo, Brazil will host NETmundial – the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance. Approximately 800 people will descend on Sao Paulo to spend two days and nights discussing, debating, arguing, cajoling, pleading, and demanding potential changes in the governance of the Internet. Hundreds more will participate remotely, at "remote hubs" and through the Internet (of course).

NETmundial started out as a reaction to the "Snowden revelations," even though nothing Snowden revealed was directly connected to Internet Governance issues. Dilma Rousseff, the President of Brazil, was personally offended to find out that she was under surveillance. Although ICANN might have been a target of a Snowden-driven NETmundial (simply because it is headquartered in the U.S. and has some level of U.S. oversight), it moved swiftly to become a co-sponsor of sorts (through the newly-created "1net Coalition," which it founded along with several other Internet Governance organizations known as the "I-stars" or "I*" (since the organizations mostly begin with "I")).

NETmundial formed several committees, including the "High Level Multistakeholder Committee," consisting of 12 government representatives and 3 representatives from each of the following four "stakeholder groups" – private sector (i.e., business), civil society (i.e., human rights organizations, other non-governmental organizations, and individuals), academia (professorial types) and the technical community (wonks from all walks of life), and the "Executive Multistakeholder Committee," consisting of 8 Brazilian representatives and 2 representatives from each of the stakeholder groups. The High Level Committee is supposed to be responsible for strategy and "fostering international participation," while the Executive Committee is responsible for the agenda, designing the meeting and inviting a balanced slate of participants.

NETmundial put out a call for submissions discussing "Internet Governance principles or and/or the Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem." 188 submissions were received from organizations, coalitions, countries and individuals around the world, representing a wide spectrum of views. The Executive Committee prepared an "Outcome Document" based on these submissions, which was then reviewed and revised by the High Level Committee and the NETmundial chairs. On April 14, 2014, the Outcome Document was put out for a week of public comment.

The public comment period has revealed a continuation of the ideological "tug of war" that clearly took place during the initial preparation of the Outcome Document by the Stakeholder Committees.

One of the glaring omissions from the Outcome Document, in the list of "Human Rights," was any mention of intellectual property rights of any kind. This was the case, even though intellectual property rights are expressly articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which formed the basis of this list. The section on Human Rights had no fewer than 83 comments, and the vast majority were in favor of adding intellectual property rights, such as the following, from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author."

Another contentious area is the relative position of governments to all other stakeholders. This issue has a long and tortured history. At meetings of the ITU (International Telecommunications Union), a UN body, the government role has been defined as one in which governments are more equal than others, and have the final say on public policy. There are two "code phrases" that came out the ITU – "enhanced cooperation" and participation of stakeholders "in their respective roles and responsibilities." These phrases were both in the Outcome Document. While the casual reader would not know that these are "loaded words," well-informed members of non-governmental stakeholder groups picked up on these points right away.

One more point of controversy is worth mentioning. The original Outcome Document demanded adherence by all participants to the principles agreed in NETmundial. As one might expect, this was criticized by many participants – some who thought the Outcome Document went too far, and others who thought the Outcome Document didn’t go far enough. This statement was sufficiently controversial that it was publicly "corrected" shortly after the Outcome Document was posted.

During the NETmundial meeting, the Outcome Document will certainly receive further intense massaging. Positions have been revealed in the processes leading up to NETmundial, and through other means (including WikiLeaks). There are "working sessions" scheduled for Wednesday afternoon and Thursday morning, and it’s a fair bet that Wednesday’s session will extend in to the evening, either formally or informally. As befits a gathering with so many public and private dignitaries, Wednesday morning is entirely occupied by an "Opening Ceremony" and "Welcoming Remarks," bracketed by coffee and lunch. Thursday afternoon features two panels under the heading "Beyond NETmundial" – one on "NETmundial and the Internet Governance Ecosystem" and the other claiming to be a "Public consultation session with stakeholders about the transition of stewardship role of USG over the IANA functions."

The entire proceeding should be fascinating – part negotiation, part circus, part theatre, part debate. If you are not one of the lucky few to be in Sao Paulo for NETmundial, you can follow the festivities in a number of ways, detailed at http://netmundial.br/remote-participation/.

While some of this may seem rather obscure or technical, the stakes for users of the Internet have never been higher. While the "private sector" should be well-represented at NETmundial, it is unclear who exactly will be there (for reasons unknown, the published list of attendees excluded the "private sector" participants). If the past is any guide, a majority of private sector participants will be businesses that provide services largely or exclusively over the Internet, domain name registries and registrars (who may also be in the "technical community), content providers and technology companies.

I expect relatively few representatives of the "brick and mortar" non-tech world, and that’s a shame. Consumer products, companies, food and beverage producers, financial services companies and other "brick and mortar" companies that increasingly depend on the Internet to reach their customers and future customers have as much at stake as any other stakeholder. Depending on the changes that result from NETmundial, the IANA transition and other shifts in Internet Governance, the business world could find itself hampered and harmed in diverse ways. Unfortunately, Internet Governance issues have not pierced the boardroom, the executive suites, the sales floor or the shop floor. It’s high time that the general business world focuses on Internet Governance, so that business can help shape the future. If it doesn’t it risks living with an Internet shaped by the visions of others – many of whom do not have the concerns of business first, or even last, on their agendas. We will continue to watch, participate in and report on the (bumpy) road that governance of the Internet is going down, and we hope that you will look to Reed Smith for information and assistance in de-mystifying and dealing with the future as it happens.

Teleseminar This Week - Heartbleed Heartburn: What Your Company Needs to Know

Please join us for a teleseminar this Wednesday, April 23 at 12 Noon ET on what you need to know about the Heartbleed security bug, presented by Khurram Nasir Gore and Timothy J. Nagle of Reed Smith's Data Privacy, Security, and Management group, and leading internet security company, IID.

REGISTER NOW for this teleseminar.

Key information to be presented includes:

  • Heartbleed - it's not just about your website. What are your full risks and exposures with any software, be it open source libraries or other code you deploy widely? Custom apps, networking gear, email servers, mobile apps - they can all be affected.

  • Taking advantage of this opportunity to do a full inventory and understand your exposures/risks ahead of the next major vulnerability announcement, so you can prepare ahead of time.

  • Who is taking advantage of Heartbleed or the next incident like this to penetrate your network or steal your protected information? In the hours after Heartbleed was announced, several companies and organizations were attacked with usernames/passwords syphoned. How can you find out about these kinds of attacks and defend yourself while mitigating the problem, since you can't take everything offline?

  • What kinds of tools, techniques, processes do you need to minimize damage from wide-ranging issues like this that affect entire industries or ecosystems?

  • How can you get quality information about wide-impact issues like this as they unfold, and collaborate with your peers to react responsibly and appropriately?

Date and Time:
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
12:00 p.m. ET / 11:00 a.m. CT / 9:00 a.m. PT  

Presenters:
Rod Rasmussen, President and Chief Technology Officer, IID
Khurram Nasir Gore, Reed Smith LLP, New York
Timothy J. Nagle, Reed Smith LLP, Washington, D.C.

About Heartbleed:
On April 7, 2014, the Heartbleed bug came to light as a massive blow to the security of the Internet, and all things connected. The Heartbleed bug is not a virus, but a security vulnerability caused by an error in the software writing of OpenSSL, an open-source implementation of the SSL and TLS protocols. Preliminary analyses indicate that up to two-thirds of all web servers were exposed to this security vulnerability. While the first response clearly should be to update all affected corporate systems, corporate counsel and information security officers will also have an opportunity to step back and consider the sufficiency of their incident-response procedures and configuration-management processes.

Straight from Singapore #3 (Jet Lag Edition) - Monday: ICANN Begins, For Those Who Think ICANN Begins on Monday

(Between jet lag and the pace of ICANN-related events, it’s taken a while to summarize the events at ICANN 49 in Singapore…)

Monday, March 23, began with the Opening Ceremony, even though the work of ICANN started on Saturday for many attendees. This ICANN meeting is freighted with history – Singapore was the site of ICANN 1, and also the site of ICANN 41 in 2011, where the New gTLD Program was officially approved. And now it has become the official kick-off for the IANA transition, the biggest change in the structure of Internet governance in many a year.

Steve Crocker, Chairman of the ICANN Board – himself freighted with history – kicked off the Opening Ceremony, then ceded the floor to Fadi Chehade, President and CEO of ICANN. Not surprisingly, much of the Opening, after the Ceremony, was devoted to Internet Governance – the IANA transition and the upcoming NETmundial meeting.

Immediately after the Opening, the room was turned over to a meeting that wasn’t even on the schedule two weeks ago – "IANA Accountability Transition." After touching on other developments at ICANN, Fadi walked through a series of slides, showed ICANN’s vision of how the transition process should go – and subtly pushed a plan where oversight of the IANA function is transferred to a global "multistakeholder mechanism" (not a separate entity), while the IANA function remains ensconced within ICANN, functionally separate and insulated from the policy business of ICANN. While this may be the wish list for ICANN management, others definitely disagreed on both points. An active discussion followed. The community made it clear, in comments from the floor, that ICANN needed to respect the bottom-up, consensus-driven multistakeholder process in facilitating the discussion and process of development.

Continuing the theme, I next went to the public meeting of the Cross-Community Working Group on Internet Governance (CCWG-IG). The CCWG-IG is a particularly broad group, with representatives from the GNSO stakeholder organizations, the ccNSO, the ALAC, the SSAC and the ASO – just about every group except the GAC. Given the timely subject matter, the meeting was well attended. The CCWG-IG submitted a contribution to NETmundial to provide the ICANN stakeholder perspective, and to counterbalance the inaccuracies in a number of contributions. As part of this meeting, the CCWG-IG asked for comments from the community on the CCWG-IG contribution, the IANA transition, and Internet Governance issues generally. Comments from the floor and the committee underscored the importance of bottom-up, consensus-driven decisionmaking and transparency and accountability in any multistakeholder process.

I next went to a session on ICANN Strategy Panels & the Planning Process. These four panels were assembled, in a rather top-down fashion, by Fadi Chehade last July. Each of these panels prepared reports that were published a few weeks prior to the meeting. The results were rather uneven. Given the importance of the multistakeholder process in the IANA Transition, the Strategy Panel on Multistakeholder Innovation could have been particularly pertinent. Unfortunately, it seemed to suffer from an emphasis on "crowdsourcing" ideas – which appears to mean that ideas good and bad are given equal weight – and a lack of study of the actual ICANN multistakeholder process, which gave the results a rather disconnected and uninformed feel. Further, Beth Simone Noveck was the only panel chair not to attend in person, instead participating by phone and joining only for her part. With that, and her status as an ICANN "newbie," she was probably unaware of the robust "give and take" that took place during questioning after the other presentations (and which is typical of ICANN meetings). By comparison, her presentation and responses to questions seemed evasive and uninformative, which might have been avoided if she participated more fully in the meeting. The future of these Strategy Panel reports seemed unclear as well – Fadi indicated that the panels would not be moving forward, although it seemed as if they might revise their reports based on the public comment period currently underway.

My last meeting of the day was "ICANN Accountability." Considering how important ICANN’s accountability will be, given the IANA transition, this is a significant topic. A fair amount of time was spent summarizing and discussing ICANN’s current accountability mechanisms. Key to ICANN’s accountability responsibilities is the "Affirmation of Commitments," a non-contractual document executed by the United States and ICANN, which sets out a number of ICANN’s responsibilities. The AoC is expected to evolve as part of the IANA transition. The United States will remain a party; however, other nations and possibly other stakeholders are expected to sign on to the AoC, and the content of the AoC may change as well – possibly significantly. The floor was opened for comments. A number of these comments reflected concerns that these mechanisms needed improvement.

While a great deal of attention was paid to the IANA transition and other Internet Governance issues, additional issues of considerable significance were covered on Monday. The overall progress of the New gTLD Program was discussed. In short, it’s full speed ahead for New gTLDs, with nearly 200 now open for business and nearly twice that number of registry contacts signed. Most of the objections have been resolved, and many of the contention sets have been resolved as well.

Name Collisions were also the subject of a very well-attended session. A report on name collision mitigation is now out for public comment, but unfortunately the underlying data is not available, ostensibly because the data would reveal a number of current vulnerabilities. The good news is that the name collision issue is being given fairly serious treatment; the bad news is that much of the work to mitigate the problem must be done by operators of existing enterprise networks, many of whom may not even know that the issue exists. Affected registries are impatient to move forward, but there are no shortcuts.

The last "official" event of the day was the Gala, held in the "Gardens by the Bay," a botanical garden that features huge domed indoor gardens, as well as outdoor "supertrees" – huge tree-like structures lit up against the night sky. The combination of nature in an artificial setting, and artificial trees in a natural setting, seemed fitting for an ICANN meeting, an organization rife with contradictions.

Tuesday is "Constituency Day" at ICANN, where the various constituencies, stakeholder organizations and supporting organizations work in their groups, which are open to public oversight and comment. Given all the change in the air, it was an interesting day….

Stay in Tune with SAG-AFTRA - Town Hall Meeting in Los Angeles

Joint Policy Committee’s LA Town Hall Meeting, Hosted by Talent Partners

Join us on Tuesday, April 29th to find out what’s new in 2014, including the following hot topics:

  • Resolution of SAG-AFTRA CBA Issues
  • Overview of the Audit Process
  • Recent SAG-AFTRA Arbitration
  • Ad-ID
  • Discussion of the Experimental Waiver for Made Fors
  • AFM Update

Register Now by RSVP'ing directly to Michelle Elliott at melliott@talentpartners.com. (Space is limited)

Date:
Tuesday, April 29th
10:00am - 10:30am: Breakfast & Networking
10:30am - 12:00pm: Stacy Marcus, JPC - LA Town Hall Meeting

Location:
JW Marriott Santa Monica Le Merigot
1740 Ocean Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Map and Directions

FTC Has User Generated Content on the Run

In a recent letter to shoe retailer Cole Haan regarding its Wandering Sole Pinterest contest, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) signaled a major change for promotional contests conducted through social media platforms.  In the letter, the FTC determined that the Pinterest contest sponsored by the company was a form of product endorsement, subject to Section 5 of the FTC Act, which requires the disclosure of a material connection between a marketer and an endorser when their relationship is not otherwise apparent from the context of the communication that contains the endorsement.

In the Wandering Sole Pinterest contest at issue, participants were asked to post five pictures of their favorite Cole Haan shoes and five pictures of their favorite places to wander, tagging each picture with #WanderingSole. Cole Haan promised to award $1,000 to the participant with the most creative pictures.

Cole Haan’s contest was a pretty straightforward Pinterest promotion, similar to others commonly run by advertisers. However, in this case the FTC determined that participants’ posts featuring Cole Haan products were endorsements of the company and that viewers of the posts would not reasonably expect that the posts were incentivized by the chance to win $1,000. The FTC expressed additional concern that Cole Haan did not instruct contestants to label their posts and Pinterest boards to make it clear that they had pinned Cole Haan products as part of a contest.

The FTC acknowledged that prior to the letter to Cole Haan, it had not publicly addressed whether entry into a contest is a form of material connection, nor whether a pin on Pinterest constitutes an endorsement, so the FTC opted to send the letter and not commence any further proceedings.

What does this mean for advertisers wishing to conduct Pinterest contests and social media promotional contests in general?

Importantly, the letter does not challenge the legality of such promotions and contests, but rather imposes additional disclosure requirements. Unfortunately, the FTC letter did not include guidance on disclosures that would have been sufficient. Until further guidance is issued, marketers and advertisers should take extra care in promotional contests across all social media platforms that rely on user generated content.

ANA Submits Comments on Big Data in Response to Request for Information

In January, President Obama called on senior government officials to lead a review of the implications of Big Data for privacy, the economy and public policy. A Federal Register Notice by the White House’s Science and Technology Policy Office sought comments from industry participants on a variety of issues related to Big Data. Earlier this week, the ANA submitted its comments in response to the Notice, focusing on the public policy implications of the collection, storage, analysis, and use of Big Data. In determining what the potential concerns of Big Data are, the ANA said that the focus should be on the sensitivity and potential vulnerability to harm of the data, not the amount of data in and of itself. As an example, the ANA pointed out that, “[c]ommercial privacy issues must not be allowed to be conflated with government surveillance and potential reforms at the NSA. These issues must not be confused with interest-based advertising or online behavioral advertising (OBA).” The ANA also urged that any governmental decisions about commercial data collection and use be made “carefully, correctly and judiciously.” In its comments, the ANA highlighted the progress made over the past few years by the private sector to enhance privacy protections for consumers, making specific reference to the self-regulatory efforts by the Digital Advertising Alliance. To view the ANA’s submission in full, please click here.

Why This Matters: The ANA’s views are shared by many in the advertising industry. Whatever measures (if any) the government takes in this space should be commensurate with the type of data at issue and in coordination with the ongoing efforts by the private sector to develop self-regulatory solutions.

Arbitrator Finds for SAG-AFTRA in Allocation Dispute: Signatory Ordered to Pay Additional Pension and Health Contributions to the SAG Plans

This post was written by Stacy K. Marcus and Frederick Lah.

On March 18, an arbitrator ordered a signatory to the SAG 2009 Commercials Contract -- Talent Direct ("TD") -- to pay additional pension and health contributions to the SAG-Producers Pension and Health Plans (the "SAG Plans") after allocating less than the amounts set forth in the Allocation Guidelines.  This arbitration ruling is the first of its kind since the institution of the Allocation Guidelines in 2009.

On March 15, 2007, model/performer Andy Lucchesi ("Lucchesi") entered into an agreement with the clothing company, Tommy Bahama, for the right to feature Lucchesi in print ads, TV commercials, and in-store promotional materials (the "2007 Agreement").  Tommy Bahama engaged Talent Direct ("TD") to serve as signatory and to make P&H contributions pursuant to a 10% allocation to covered services.  Following a dispute with the SAG Plans as to the appropriateness of the 10% allocation in the 2007 Agreement, in January 2009 TD and the SAG Plans entered into a settlement agreement providing for a 20% of the model/performer's total compensation was allocated to covered services (the "Settlement").  On April 16, 2009, Lucchesi and Tommy Bahama entered into a new contract (the "2009 Agreement") for the right to feature him in print ads, TV commercials, and in-store promotional materials.  Relying on the Settlement, the 2009 Agreement provided for a 20% allocation to covered services.  Months later, the 2009 Commercials Contract was made effective on April 1, 2009.  Under the Allocation Guidelines added to the 2009 Commercials Contract, Guideline B requires a 40% allocation to covered services for multiple service contracts if the performer's principle income is derived from modeling services.  Because the model/performer worked primarily as a model, SAG-AFTRA believed that the 40% allocation should be applied.  TD denied any contribution beyond the original 20% allocation insisting that the Settlement took precedence over the Allocation Guidelines. The arbitrator held that the Settlement was limited to resolution of the allocation dispute of the 2007 Agreement, and that it did not contain language that provided for a 20% allocation in future contracts.  Therefore, the arbitrator sided with SAG-AFTRA and held that the model/performer was entitled to the 40% allocation, along with liquidated damages for late payment. 

This case is the first decision to be handed down by an arbitrator regarding interpretation of the 2009 Allocation Guidelines.  This decision serves as an important reminder that settlements of prior allocation disputes may not necessarily be relied upon in determining future allocations, and that much depends upon the specific language of the settlement agreement.  It also seems as though the arbitrator did not engage in any analysis of whether a 20% allocation was fair and  reasonable based upon the services rendered/rights granted under the 2009 Agreement.  In fact, the arbitrator even acknowledged that no covered services were even rendered by Lucchesi under the 2009 Agreement.  Nonetheless, the arbitrator held that "[t]he most reliable indicator of mutual intent is the words used by the parties in their labor contract."  The arbitrator then applied the language of the 2009 Allocation Guidelines and held that "[t]he 40% allocation sought by [SAG-AFTRA] is required by Section 46.E of the [2009 Commercials Contract]."

Straight from Singapore: Special Edition on the IANA Transition

House Republicans have introduced a bill to block the IANA transition.  These are the same Republicans behind the quickly-called hearings set for April 2. "America shouldn’t surrender its leadership on the world stage to a ‘multistakeholder model’ that’s controlled by foreign governments," said Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.).  This seems to ignore a number of the points set out in the NTIA announcement, which specifically says that any government-led or intergovernmental-led solution will be rejected.  On top of that, an implementation of the multistakeholder model to assume the IANA oversight functions hasn’t been proposed yet.  The process of developing that implementation hasn’t even been proposed yet.  Yet somehow, these lawmakers believe they need to pull out jingoistic rhetoric to support wild-eyed claims that the Internet could turn into "another Russian land-grab."

Granted, the IANA functions, the NTIA’s oversight role and the parameters set for the transition of this oversight role to a multistakeholder mechanism takes a little while to understand.  They eyes of the world are on the United States, and these eyes are skeptical right now. An ill-informed move like this damages United States credibility.  Many people will understand that this is naked political grandstanding – a fine old American tradition.  But many others will not.  And even those who know what this is, may well use it to demonstrate that U.S. oversight of the IANA functions is not benign, but rather is subject to the political whims of ill-informed American lawmakers.

There are real reasons to be careful and concerned about out the IANA transition.  These should be identified and discussed and debated by all stakeholders – and we are all stakeholders.  But these are not good reasons, and this type of knee-jerk bill-introducing and hearing-calling does not help the process or the United States' role in that process.  I believe this bill will fail, and the debate will come back to the real issues.  Let’s hope this sideshow does not do real damage to the process.

ANA Webinar Make Up Session: Monday, March 31

For those of you who were unable to participate or are interested in joining the make up session of the ANA's complimentary webinar, SAG-AFTRA Commercials Contract: Common Myths and Mistakes, presented by Stacy Marcus, here is the information:

Monday, March 31 at 3:00 pm EDT

Access the webinar using this login link.

To access the audio:
Phone number: 866.302.7047
Access code: 5434704902

The information to access the audio will also be displayed once you click the link above. You will be able to access the seminar room up to one-half hour before the session.

Webinar Overview: Covering public service announcements, the P&H cap, and the ever-sticky issue of B-roll, this webinar will illuminate the common legal and regulatory missteps advertisers and agencies make when producing under the SAG-AFTRA Commercials Contract. 

Also, just a reminder that Stacy Marcus will be speaking on the SAG-AFTRA commercials contract at the upcoming ANA Advertising Law & Public Policy Conference, April 23-24 in Washington, D.C.

SAG-AFTRA Commercials Contract - Residual Payments for THIS TV and Antenna TV

SAG-AFTRA and the Tribune Company have come to an agreement on residual payments to be made under the 2013 SAG-AFTRA Commercials Contract for commercials airing on Antenna TV and THIS TV.

The payment structure is the same as the terms applicable to payments for commercials aired on PAX/ION, BounceTV and MeTV.

Download the SAG-AFTRA agreement letter with the specific payment provisions.

SAG-AFTRA Commercials Contract - Update on Running Footage: Drivers

Special provisions for payment for drivers who are employed to provide services for “running footage” or “wild footage” for motor vehicle commercials have been in existence since 1992.

Download an updated joint JPC/SAG-AFTRA bulletin, providing a recap of those provisions, which have been updated to reflect the current on-camera principal rate and the current number of extra zones.