is having a hearing at the health commission and that seems like an appropriate place to discuss the r.f. and the safety issues and has come up quite a bit at this commission. some of my concerns, though s that i feel like there are a lot of unknown factors and we had an earlier wireless facility that came up and that is not clear to me what the impact on the existing and the private wireless facilities with this legislation. and the concern of the overall existing sites and it is not clear how that would not happen if we are redirecting the antennas to private property away from public property. am i wrong in understanding that? >> well, there are two different process and they are for similar types of service, but i believe the private property installations will continue to be the primary forms of macroinstallations because the public utility poles cannot us a tan a macro facility. however, this is a way for the carriers to provide service and to increase their ability to handle capacity in residential neighborhoods that are quite honestly difficult to find appropriate private propert

the fact that our country was the first to get the right to create a national domain of the top level r.f. within the present framework of cooperation and we can hardly complain about the americans who are very good dialogue we hear each other but some threats are rising for the internet and internet technologies these threats can only be responded to internationally this technology in the world wide web doesn't brace the entire world therefore governments and even more so corporations simply cannot resolve internet related problems therefore russia among a number of other countries is proposing the development of international mechanisms that would help fight the problems that even the americans are concerned about. our american colleagues have been telling us that we should be working together against common threats opening our borders taking part in the international forums and so on so how does the u.s. explain its own refusal to expand international participation in the internet's administration. some of. their key argument is that this is a very dynamic resource therefore any attemp

will be rendering relative to the r.f. -- how the system works? that's basically what i'm asking. director day: right. we have work orders established with all of these departments except d.p.w. that reside at d.b.i. and we are looking into passing on all of the costs that d.b.i. has technically and historically absorbed internally. and we will be looking into that and dealing with the departments directly on the m.o.u.'s at the end of this year. commissioner hechanova: and similarly, the cost of the software? is that just fully d.b.i.'s out-of-pocket costs? director day: no. actually the general fund is contributing to the implementation of the software for the other city departments. we are contributing the hardware and the ongoing maintenance. however, the ongoing maintenance is also paid by committees by the department for the technology fee. and that's a charge that was implemented a couple of years ago by this commission so that we could actually pay for the ongoing maintenance and.-- and the enterprise lies yens for the software. -- license for the software. -- license for