The impact of artists' moral rights legislation on conservation practice in the UK and beyond

Conservators are increasingly concerned with the conservation of modern and contemporary artworks. They pose particular practical and ethical problems; recent legislation may also affect the way conservators think about contemporary works of art. This paper discusses legislation in the UK and other countries which may have a bearing on the way conservators treat contemporary artworks. The paper is a preliminary exploration of the issues raised as a result of considering the options for the conservation of a textile artwork by Robert Rauschenberg

Behaving badly? The conservation of modern textile art

Textile conservators are increasingly likely to be asked to treat modern textile artworks. These often present new challenges: they may be made of unusual materials whose deterioration patterns are unfamiliar, they may utilise traditional textile techniques in unusual ways. Modern artworks may be hung in unconventional ways, or be displayed in spaces which are not standard museum venues. It is commonly accepted that it is necessary to gain as much information as possible in order to preserve the artist’s intent when treating modern artworks. Legislation also gives the artist moral rights over his or her work. The issues involved in the conservation of modern textile artworks are illustrated with examples of pieces treated at the Textile Conservation Centre, UK, among others, and with particular reference to a piece by Robert Rauschenberg

The future of Internet governance: should the U.S. relinquish Its authority over ICANN?

How ICANN and the Internet domain name system are ultimately governed may set an important precedent in future policy debates over how the Internet should be governed, and what role governments and intergovernmental organizations should play. Overview Currently, the U.S. government retains limited authority over the Internet’s domain name system, primarily through the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract between the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). By virtue of the IANA functions contract, the NTIA exerts a legacy authority and stewardship over ICANN, and arguably has more influence over ICANN and the domain name system (DNS) than other national governments. On March 14, 2014, NTIA announced the intention to transition its stewardship role and procedural authority over key Internet domain name functions to the global Internet multistakeholder community. To accomplish this transition, NTIA has asked ICANN to convene interested global Internet stakeholders to develop a transition proposal. NTIA has stated that it will not accept any transition proposal that would replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an intergovernmental organization solution. Currently, Internet stakeholders are engaged in a series of working groups to develop a transition proposal. Their goal is to submit a final proposal to NTIA by summer 2015. NTIA must approve the proposal in order for it to relinquish its authority over the IANA functions contract. While the IANA functions contract expires on September 30, 2015, NTIA has the flexibility to extend the contract for any period through September 2019. Concerns have risen in Congress over the proposed transition. Critics worry that relinquishing U.S. authority over Internet domain names may offer opportunities for either hostile foreign governments or intergovernmental organizations, such as the United Nations, to gain undue influence over the Internet. On the other hand, supporters argue that this transition completes the necessary evolution of Internet domain name governance towards the private sector, and will ultimately support and strengthen the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. Legislation has been introduced in the 113th and 114th Congresses which would prevent, delay, or impose conditions or additional scrutiny on the transition. In the 113th Congress, a provision in the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235) provides that during FY2015, NTIA may not use any appropriated funds to relinquish its responsibility with respect to Internet domain name system functions. In the 114th Congress, H.R. 805 (the DOTCOM Act of 2015) would prohibit NTIA from relinquishing its authority over the Internet domain name system until the Government Accountability Office (GAO) submits a report to Congress examining the implications of the proposed transfer. The proposed transition could have a significant impact on the future of Internet governance. National governments are recognizing an increasing stake in ICANN and DNS policy decisions, especially in cases where Internet DNS policy intersects with national laws and interests related to issues such as intellectual property, cybersecurity, privacy, and Internet freedom. How ICANN and the Internet domain name system are ultimately governed may set an important precedent in future policy debates—both domestically and internationally—over how the Internet should be governed, and what role governments and intergovernmental organizations should play

Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response: The SAFER Grant Program

[Excerpt] In response to concerns over the adequacy of firefighter staffing, the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Act—popularly called the “SAFER Act”—was enacted by the 108th Congress as Section 1057 of the FY2004 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 108-136). The SAFER Act authorizes grants to career, volunteer, and combination local fire departments for the purpose of increasing the number of firefighters to help communities meet industry-minimum standards and attain 24-hour staffing to provide adequate protection from fire and fire-related hazards. Also authorized are grants to volunteer fire departments for activities related to the recruitment and retention of volunteers. The SAFER grant program is authorized through FY2010. Concern over local fire departments’ budgetary problems have framed debate over the SAFER reauthorization, which is included in S. 550, the Fire Grants Authorization Act of 2011(introduced on March 10, 2011). Previously in the 111th Congress, reauthorization legislation for SAFER was passed by the House, but was not passed by the Senate. As part of the reauthorization debate, Congress may consider whether some SAFER rules and restrictions governing the hiring grants should be permanently eliminated or altered in order to make it economically feasible for more fire departments to participate in the program

Assistance to Firefighters Program: Distribution of Fire Grant Funding

The Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program, also known as fire grants or the FIRE Act grant program, was established by Title XVII of the FY2001 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 106-398). Currently administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the program provides federal grants directly to local fire departments and unaffiliated Emergency Medical Services (EMS) organizations to help address a variety of equipment, training, and other firefighter-related and EMS needs. A related program is the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Firefighters (SAFER) program, which provides grants for hiring, recruiting, and retaining firefighters. The fire grant program is now in its 13th year. The Fire Act statute was reauthorized in 2012 (Title XVIII of P.L. 112-239) and provides new guidelines on how fire grant money should be distributed. There is no set geographical formula for the distribution of fire grants—fire departments throughout the nation apply, and award decisions are made by a peer panel based on the merits of the application and the needs of the community. However, the law does require that fire grants be distributed to a diverse mix of fire departments, with respect to type of department (paid, volunteer, or combination), geographic location, and type of community served (e.g., urban, suburban, or rural). For FY2012, P.L. 112-74, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, provided $675 million for firefighter assistance, including$337.5 million for AFG and $337.5 million for SAFER. The Administration’s FY2013 budget proposed$670 million for firefighter assistance, including $335 million for AFG and$335 million for SAFER. The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013 (P.L. 112-175), funds firefighter assistance programs through the first six months of FY2013 at an increase of 0.612% of the FY2012 level. Therefore, under the FY2013 continuing resolution, AFG is funded at $339.5 million and SAFER is funded at$339.5 million through March 2013. The 113th Congress will likely consider FY2013 and FY2014 budget appropriations for AFG and SAFER. As is the case with many federal programs, concerns over the federal budget deficit could impact budget levels for AFG and SAFER. At the same time, firefighter assistance budgets will likely receive heightened scrutiny from the fire community, given the local budgetary cutbacks that many fire departments are facing

CF6 performance improvement

Potential CF6 engine performance improvements directed at reduced fuel consumption were identified and screened relative to airline acceptability and are reviewed. The screening process developed to provide evaluations of fuel savings and economic factors including return on investment and direct operating cost is described. In addition, assessments of development risk and production potential are made. Several promising concepts selected for full-scale development based on a ranking involving these factors are discussed