Michael Powell:

	IP based communication is good for consumers and we should recognize that there are no geographical/political boundaries. I translate this to say that our regulations should not undermine the ability to transcend geographical/political boundaries.
	As we consider regulatory policy, we should keep in mind that “first we should do no harm”; this translates to “every regulation must be imposed by first demonstrating its need”.
	Certain social policies like emergency service, legal intercept and universal service must be protected. This became “motherhood” statement for everyone in the meeting. Of course enough seeds were planted to dilute the sentiment in the future.
	Announced the formation of Internet Task Force

Kathleen Abernathy:

	Old regulations were put in place to restraint “granted” monopolies as quid pro quo. All of them? The three social policies identified by Powell have nothing to do with monopolies. Auto industry is under lots of regulation, even though it is a very competitive market.
	VoIP is fundamentally different from PSTN because of the blur between inter vs. intra state.

Michael Copps:

	It is time to address the need and level of regulation.
	VoIP should succeed on its own and not due to regulatory arbitrage.

Kevin Martin:

We must maintain the ability to provide core social functions.

Jonathan Adelstein:

	VoIP is a new gold rush in telecom.
	We shouldn’t create arbitrage opportunities, but at the same time shouldn’t kill new technologies. At least two of the commissioners have cautioned against regulatory arbitrage. So access charges are on the way.
	Support social policy functions.

Staff presentation on the definitions used by Computer Inquiry II, 1996 Telecom Act and Stevens Report; various petitions related to VoIP that have been submitted to the Commission.