"GOOD ENGAGEMENT" IS COMMON REFRAIN AT U.S.-INDIA

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 10 NEW DELHI 009400

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

DEPT FOR SA/RA, SA/INS,
USDOC FOR BIS AND ITA, DOE FOR NNSA
DEPT PASS USTR FOR AWILLS/BSTILLMAN

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ETRD ETTC KSTC OTRA PREL KNNP PARM TSPA IN
SUBJECT: "GOOD ENGAGEMENT" IS COMMON REFRAIN AT U.S.-INDIA
HIGH TECHNOLOGY COOPERATION GROUP MEETING IN NEW DELHI

REF: A. NEW DELHI 9260

B. USDOC 5048

C. USDOC 5024

D. USDOC 4506

E. USDOC 1184

F. NEW DELHI 7436

NEW DELHI 00009400 001.2 OF 010



1. (SBU) SUMMARY: U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce David
McCormick and GOI Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran led U.S. and
Indian delegations in the fourth meeting of the High
Technology Cooperation Group (HTCG) in New Delhi on November
30 - December 1. The HTCG was formed in November 2002 to
provide a standing framework for discussing high-technology
issues of mutual interest. Each meeting of the HTCG has
consisted of two separate days of discussions. The first day
consists of a public-private forum in which U.S. and Indian
industry develop recommendations for both governments to
consider to reduce barriers to high-technology trade and
cooperation. The second day consists of a
government-to-government forum in which the U.S. and Indian
Governments discuss export control and strategic trade and
consider recommendations made by industry on ways to reduce
barriers to high-technology trade.


2. (U) On November 30, the HTCG held the public-private forum
with participation by U.S. and Indian industry and government
officials sponsored by the US-India Business Council (USIBC),
Confederation of Indian Industry (CII),Federation of Indian
Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI),and AmCham. Areas
of discussion included sector-specific sessions on
biotechnology, nano-technology, and defense technology. On
December 1, the two sides held the government-to-government
meetings, which included a morning session on export controls
followed by four sector-specific breakout sessions on defense
trade, biotechnology, nanotechnology and information
technology. Both Indian and USG officials and private sector
participants characterized the HTCG meetings as very positive
and encouraging. Most important to ensuring a successful
outcome and preparing for the next HTCG will be follow-up by
both governments on agreed upon recommendations/action items
detailed below. END SUMMARY.

-------------- --
DAY 1: HTCG PUBLIC-PRIVATE SECTOR DIALOGUE
-------------- --


3. (U) The public-private sector dialogue was launched by U/S
McCormick and FS Saran in a plenary session attended by the
Indian press and a large audience of U.S. and Indian private
sector companies as well as government officials from both
countries. Following the plenary session, sector-specific
breakout sessions were held on biotechnology, nanotechnology,
and defense technology, with the parties reconvening in a
concluding session to review the following set of
recommendations from U.S. and Indian industry for
consideration during the government-to-government meetings on
December 1:

Defense
--------------

-- The Government of India should consider the views of
Indian and U.S. industry on implementation of the GOI,s
defence offset policy, particularly related to the role of
defense public sector undertakings, and development of the
GOI,s national offset policy. Specifically consideration
should be given to &best practices,8 clarity of
definitions, direct and indirect offsets, and private sector
involvement. Industry and the GOI should continue their
dialogue on this issue;

-- Work towards better understanding of the licensing regimes
on the US side and to work towards the evolution of a
mechanism that could address Indian concerns regarding
multi-layered licensing, delays and denials, including

NEW DELHI 00009400 002.2 OF 010


broader licenses;

-- Deputy Assistant Secretary for Industry and Security in
the U.S. Department of Commerce, Matthew Borman, will
identify a point of contact, to whom Indian industry could
refer individual cases where difficulties and delays in
obtaining licenses from the US government occur;

-- Note that technologies that are related to
counter-terrorism, disaster management, homeland security,
and are not critical and strategic are of special interest to
Indian industry. These technologies could be identified for
cooperative efforts to strengthen bilateral partnership;

-- Harness Indian strength in IT and manufacturing along with
procurement with Indian industry to galvanize the partnership
and provide the necessary impetus in partnership;

-- Seek better understanding of US procurement procedures for
the Indian industry to facilitate its participation in US
procurements is to be promoted and encouraged through
organization of events on the sidelines of the regular
industry events;

Biotechnology
--------------

-- Establish a task force/joint working group on
biotechnology by private sector to keep the agenda moving
faster;

-- Agree on protocols and guidelines for conducting clinical
trials to expedite USFDA' s approval (For development of
CROs(Clinical Research Organizations);

-- Create a Bi-national fund (maybe with DBT on Indian side
and appropriate body on U.S. side) for supporting early stage
risk ventures in biotechnology;

-- Set up an Indo-US innovation promotion center;

-- While appreciating the Patent Protection Act of India
passed in 2005, U.S. industry members recommended putting a
plan of action for capacity building and training of
personnel to implement the Act;

-- Establish a pilot project in one of the port/airport in
India for employing best practices in the supply chain
integrity of biotech products;

-- Set up a program for capacity building in drug discovery
and clinical research.

-- US Side expressed the need for data exclusivity;

-- Embrace the need for cooperation in area of agriculture
with specific reference to transgenic plants with features
such as drought/insect/pest resistance and plant seeds
varieties with higher nutritional value;

-- Recognize the need for transparent, predictable and
equitable policy on price control of pharmaceuticals, with
focus on the Development of Infrastructure, Promotion of
Innovation, and Accountability and Transparency.

Nanotechnology
--------------

-- Share Nanotechnology information and infrastructure by the
researchers/scientists of the two sides;

-- Exchange information and joint studies to assess the
impact of nanomaterials on human health, environment and the
implications of nanotechnology on society; Encourage contact
building through exchange visits, technical meetings and

NEW DELHI 00009400 003.2 OF 010


workshops.

-- Stimulate long-term collaboration in basic research in
nanotechnology, including in nanostructured materials,
nanoscale devices and systems, metrology, and modeling and
simulation in nanotechnology;

-- Encourage partnerships between research and development
centers in both countries to conduct research and education
in nanoscale science and engineering. Establish a US-India
nanoscience and nanoengineering study institute;
-- Undertake exchanges in the areas of metrology, patents,
and societal implications of nanotechnology, as well as in
precompetitive research in the areas of mutual interest such
as health, energy, and sensors.
--------------
DAY 2: GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNMENT SESSIONS
--------------


4. (SBU) U/S McCormick and FS Saran kicked off the HTCG
government-to-government dialogue on December 1 with brief
opening statements in a plenary session. Saran reviewed
progress in bilateral high-technology trade since the last
meeting of the HTCG in November 2004. This included:
completing the next steps in strategic partnership (NSSP),
passing key regulations upgrading the export control system,
and concluding a framework agreement on defense cooperation.
Saran said that the GOI was ahead of industry in anticipating
and creating regulations that promote a free and friendly
environment for FDI. He added that now it is the
responsibility of the U.S. government to promote the message
to U.S. industry that India is a good place in which to
invest. Saran advocated several actions by the USG to
encourage greater bilateral economic activity, especially in
the area of High Technology: review of U.S. licensing
procedures post NSSP, review of the U.S. entity list, and
continued outreach programs.


5. (SBU) Saran identified several areas where progress was
achievable before President Bush's visit to India. These
include: concluding a commercial space launch agreement,
including an Indian launch date for carrying a US commercial
package, establishing working groups in pharmaceuticals and
medical equipment, and expanding clinical trials and testing
in India. Saran stressed the importance of expanding the
availability of temporary work permits in the U.S. for
Indians, especially in the high technology sector. Limiting
these opportunities dampens public enthusiasm for deepening
economic and political relations with the U.S..


6. (SBU) Under Secretary McCormick then responded with a
comprehensive review of U.S. licensing trends for exports of
dual-use technology to India, emphasizing the positive impact
the HTCG has had on dual-use trade. With regard to Indian
policy changes, McCormick welcomed the passage of the WMD law
as a major achievement in strengthening India,s export
control system. He emphasized the need for the GOI to show
that it was effectively implementing the law as part of its
nonproliferation commitments. This is particularly important
in light of the July 18 announcement. As part of the
completion of the NSSP, McCormick noted that the Department
of Commerce has removed export and reexport license
requirements for items controlled unilaterally by the United
States for nonproliferation reasons ) that is, items not
subject to control under the NSG ) to most end users in
India. The rule also removed six Indian end users from the
Entity List, including subordinate entities of the Indian
Space Research Organization (ISRO) primarily involved in
commercial space projects, and those Department of Atomic
Energy civil nuclear power facilities under International
Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. Finally, and with regard to
high-technology trade development, McCormick stressed the
importance of looking for concrete results in the day's
sessions that could be followed-up on before the next HTCG.


NEW DELHI 00009400 004.2 OF 010



7. (U) A session on strategic trade and afternoon breakout
sessions on biotechnology, information technology,
nanotechnology, and defense technology followed the plenary.


STRATEGIC TRADE SESSION
--------------


8. (U) At the Strategic Trade session on December 1, MEA J/S
(Americas) S Jaishankar outlined areas where India would like
to make progress for the US delegation led by DAS Matthew
Borman (Ref A). The delegations exchanged suggestions for
facilitating trade, and agreed on a list of action items to
direct future efforts. Jaishankar requested that the USG
review the 1984 Memorandum of Understanding on high tech
trade with an eye to retiring it, consider removing GOI
entities from the Entities List, determine whether exports to
India should continue to be controlled for regional stability
reasons, review requiring support documentation for
government end-users. He also requested more frequent
provision of licensing data related to end-use visits and
information on license applications returned without action.
Jaishankar also observed that U.S.-India hi-tech trade
continues to fall short of its potential due to
misperceptions among potential buyers of the difficulties
involved in purchasing from the United States.


9. (U) The participants also discussed the value of starting
consultations on licensing early in a transaction,s design,
so that the American and Indian partners could prepare.
However, Defense Trade Controls Director Ann Ganzer pointed
out that talks must include the US vendor, as ultimately it
is the vendor's decision on how to apply for a license.
Borman and Ganzer agreed to provide a simplified summary of
licensing options for use by Indian customers when planning
procurements from the US.

Cybersecurity: Waiting for Answers
--------------


10. (U) National Security Council Secretariat Joint
Secretary Arvind Gupta pointed out that the GOI is still

SIPDIS
awaiting answers from the US on proposals made at the last
cybersecurity working group for a Joint Fund and Joint
Research and Development Center. He also reiterated India's
desire for technical exchanges of experts in cybersecurity,
to include new areas such as transportation and financial
services.


11. (U) Wrapping up the meeting, Jaishankar and Borman
agreed to the following plan of action for progress:

For Both Governments
--------------

-- Review the 1984 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to
determine whether it would be useful to formally end the MOU.
(Timeline: US review to be completed by January 31, 2006.
Need GOI due date; Action: GOI)

-- Discuss joint outreach to other GOI agencies to explain US
licensing requirements. (Timeline: USG proposal to GOI by
January 31, 2006; Action: BIS, State)

For the USG
--------------

-- Verify that new regulations will be published in the
Federal Register in the first week of December that eliminate
the import certificate requirement for certain exports to GOI
end users. (Timeline: This rule was published on December
1, 2005.)

-- Review whether India can be removed from the list of
countries for which supporting documents are required for

NEW DELHI 00009400 005.2 OF 010


government-owned purchasers under Section 748.9(a)(2).
(Timeline: See above: Rule published December 1, 2005.)

-- Determine whether the Department of Commerce can provide
data on end-use checks on a more frequent basis to the GOI.
(Timeline: USG provides this data monthly. Action: GOI
needs to determine what additional frequency it desires.)

-- Take note of the GOI,s request to remove the remaining
Indian entities from the Entities List.

-- Provide two non-papers (dual-use and munitions) giving a
simplified overview of the possibilities for licensing to
explain to Indian users. (Timeline: USG to provide by
January 31, 2006; Action: BIS, State)

-- Give to the GOI the USG comparison of the revised SCOMET
lists to the NSG and MTCR lists. (Timeline: USG to provide
by January 31; Action: State, Energy)

-- Consider providing to the GOI data on reasons for which
license applications have been returned without action (RWA).
(Timeline: USG to provide response by January 31, 2006;
Action: BIS)

For the GOI
--------------

-- Review the USG analysis of the SCOMET lists and respond to
perceived variances from the NSG and MTCR lists. (Timeline:
GOI to provide date after analysis provided; Action: GOI)

BREAKOUT SESSION ON DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY
--------------


12. (U) Ministry of Defense (MoD) Joint Secretary Atul Patni
led the GOI in this session and reviewed HTCG discussions on
Defense Technology over the past one and a half days, noting
that MoD officials had discussed at length the GOI's evolving
offset policy and its new defense procurement system. He
observed that Dr. Vijay Kelkar, a highly respected Indian
authority on government reform who was commissioned to study
the defense procurement process, had issued wide-ranging
recommendations for reform in the procurement process. Some
of these recommendations had been accepted and are in the
process of being implemented, according to Patni.


13. (U) USDOC DAS Matthew Borman led the U.S. side and
agreed that much progress had been made during the HTCG
meetings. He defined the goal of the panel as developing
recommendations for future courses of action by both
governments for the HTCG. This would constitute a road map
for the HTCG to pursue in the coming months and beyond. It
would also prove useful in developing deliverables for
President Bush's visit to India next year. Borman suggested
that the panel discuss the suggestions of private industry
and refine and develop these into recommendations for the two
governments. In his view, the suggestions of private
industry fell into two baskets: those that related to export
licensing; and those that dealt with defense procurement.


14. (U) Following two hours of discussion, the Defense
Technology panel agreed to the following recommendations for
the HTCG:

-- The GOI agreed to take into account international known
best practices in offsets in formulating the National offsets
policy and address concerns involving the monitoring of
offset obligations within the provisions of the 2005 Defense
Procurement Procedures; (Timeline: ongoing; Action: GOI)

-- Take note of the Defense Production and Procurement
Group,s (DPPG) action item regarding Request for Procurement
(RFP) response time (GOI agreement to consider methods for
extending the RFP response time). The GOI agreed to notify

NEW DELHI 00009400 006.2 OF 010


the USG of high-profile RFP response dates through the Office
of Defense Cooperation at the American Embassy in New Delhi;
(Timeline: ongoing; Action: GOI)

-- The GOI also agreed to follow up on the Defense
Acquisition University (DAU) offer during the DPPG for a
delegation from the American Embassy to visit DAU to learn
more about programs in &life cycle costs8 and other
opportunities that are available. The USG reiterated its
commitment to arrange training programs for Indian officials
on defense acquisition policies; (Timeline: ongoing; Action:
GOI, Defense)

-- The USG agreed to provide a nonpaper on export licensing
options that addresses concerns with obtaining numerous
license approvals for single projecQs; (Timeline: This is
the same action item as the fifth USG action item in the
strategic trade area. (Timeline: USG to provide papers by
January 31, 2006 Action by: BIS, State)

-- The USG agreed to identify a single point for Indian
industry to obtain information and guidance regarding defense
procurement and export licensing procedures. Timeline:
(Timeline: USG will provide point of contact by January 6,
2006; Action: BIS).

-- The USG agreed to identify venues for procurement outreach
to U.S. and Indian defense industries, such as the February
U.S.-India Defense Industry Symposium. (Timeline: by USG to
provide by February 3, 2005; Action: Defense)

BREAKOUT SESSION ON BIOTECHNOLOGY
--------------


15. (U) The session on biotechnology was chaired by GOI
Director of Biotechnology at the Ministry of Science and
Technology, Mr. Tripathi, and USDOC Director, Office of
Policy, David Bohigian. The discussion started with GOI
providing summary of new guidelines and regulations, which
included: 1) GOI allows 100 percent FDI in the Biotech (BT)
sector; 2) GOI is providing fiscal incentives to the BT
sector, which includes Small Business Innovative Research
(SBIR) grants to the industry; 3) the issue to data
exclusivity has been addressed at an inter-ministerial
meeting, and the proposal is with the Ministry of Chemicals
and Fertilizer at this time. GOI also has regulations for
the transfer of biological material. The Indian Council of
Medical Research (ICMR) has the responsibility for reviewing
Indo-U.S. proposals and for granting approval for transfer of
biological material. U.S. Embassy Health Attache Lal
responded by stating that there is a need to revisit ICMR's
review procedures and guidelines for transfer of specimen as
the present process is long and the outcome is unpredictable.
DBT's Tripathi stated India needs to develop a regulatory
system for clinical trials, a need that U.S. could help
fulfill. Health Attache stated that HHS is in discussion
with the Ministry of Health on this topic, and HHS/FDA is
considering MOH's request.


16. (U) In response to a question on Indian airports/ports
that have freezer facilities, DBT's Tripathi stated there are
14 ports with cold storage facilities and 4 ports (Mumbai,
Hyderabad, Chennai, and Bangalore) have -20 C freezer
facilities; however, the size of the cold rooms or freezers
may be small to accommodate large shipments. On the issue of
price control, DBT's Tripathi stated that their only 74 drugs
are under price control and no biotech product is under price
control. The Indian biotech industry is marketing their
products in India and other unregulated markets without any
GOI set pricing criteria. Dr. Gupta and DBT shared details
of Indo-U.S. collaboration in agriculture biotechnology,
including the agreement that was signed between USAID and
DBT. Gupta added that "India has high-level of competence in
agriculture biotechnology and we can clone genes of economic
importance". India has a national facility for plant

NEW DELHI 00009400 007.2 OF 010


quarantine for transgenic plant material, and making plants
resistant to drought and salinity as well as increasing
nutritional quality is the focus of GOI's agricultural
biotech program.


17. (U) Following the afternoon discussions, the
biotechnology panel agreed to the following recommendations
for follow-up action by the HTCG:

-- Promote the establishment of the Joint Working Group by
the private sector, which will lay the strategy for promoting
Indo-US collaboration in product development, testing,
manufacturing and marketing of biotech products. (Timeline:
by February 2006; Action by: MEA & BIS)

-- Establish a trained workforce in clinical research/trials
and laboratory assays, who will conduct product evaluation
and testing in both countries.
(The first workshop on this topic has been scheduled on the
first week of April 2006; Action by: DBT & HSS)

-- Initiate an Indian delegation to visit the US Port
facilities to establish a pilot project in one or more
ports/airports in India for employing best practices in the
supply chain integrity of biotech products. Indian side to
provide information to the Indian and US Industry on
refrigeration facilities at existing ports.
(Timeline: by May 2006; Action: MEA & US Homeland Security)

-- Organize a U.S. Government-sponsored series of technical
trainings and exchanges for Indian patent examiners, IP
experts, IP attorneys and judges to address patent
examination, IPR infringements, alternate dispute resolution
and IP rights more generally with a view to facilitate
enhanced commercial collaboration in biotechnology.
(Timeline: The first of such trainings or exchanges will take
place in May 2006; Action: MEA & USPTO)

-- Provide information to USPTO about the Indian policy to
protect of regulatory data for biotech products against
disclosure and reliance.
(Timeline: by February 2006; Action: DBT)

-- Make best efforts to clarify, for Indian and US Industry,
issues from the Indian Patent Act of 2005 related to
biotechnology.
(Timeline: May 2006; Action: DBT/MEA)

-- Develop a series of well-focused workshops for capacity
building in biotechnology and biomedical research, biosafety,
regulatory affairs and anti-counterfeiting in
bio-pharmaceuticals.
(Timeline: by February 2006; Action: DBT & DOC)

-- Reaffirm that biotech products are not under price control
in India at this time and that any future policy for price
controls on biopharmaceuticals should be transparent,
predictable and equitable.
(Action: DBT)

BREAKOUT SESSION ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
--------------


18. (U) The afternoon IT Breakout Session of the HTCG Working
Group was chaired by Dr. A.K. Chakravarti, Group Coordinator,
Department of Information Technology (DIT),Ministry of
Communications and Information Technology (MCIT) and Jamie
Estrada, USDOC Deputy Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing,
International Trade Administration (ITA).

Amendments to the IT Act and Data Privacy


19. (U) The GOI made a presentation on the current status of
proposed amendments to the Information Technology Act of
2000, which include data privacy provisions. The Indian

NEW DELHI 00009400 008.2 OF 010


industry association NASSCOM (National Association for
Software and Service Companies) was fully involved during the
whole amendment drafting process. The Experts, Committee
report was put on the MCIT/DIT website -- www.mit.gov.in;
Department of Information Technology (DIT),Ministry of
Communications and Information Technology (MCIT); Government
of India (GOI) ) for public comments, which were analyzed
and appropriately incorporated into the amendments. The
amendments are now under consideration by the Cabinet and the
ministries for subsequent submission to the Indian
Parliament. The updated executive committee,s executive
summary, along with the whole text of the proposed amendments
to the IT Act are now on the website.

Status of the Indo-U.S. Cybersecurity Forum


20. (U) Participants agreed that the Third Plenary of the
Indo-U.S. Cybersecurity Forum will be held in New Delhi n
January 16-17, 2005. The U.S. side clarified that issues
related to the bilateral Indo-U.S. cyber-security
relationship are led through the Indo-U.S. Cybersecurity
Forum.

Certification Requirements for Refurbished Computer Parts.


21. (U) The USG raised U.S. industry concerns regarding the
certification requirements for refurbished computer parts for
maintenance and warranties as a non-tariff barrier that
should be examined within the HTCG, as well as in other
appropriate working groups such as the Indo-U.S. Trade Policy
Forum. It was noted that the issue was discussed at the
first meeting of the Indo-U.S. Trade Policy Forum.


22. (U) Following discussions, the parties tentatively
agreed to the following:

Data privacy
--------------

-- The IT breakout session noted the executive summary as the
initial non-paper. After the Cabinet approves the proposed
amendments for placement before Parliament, an updated
non-paper will be made available.

-- Hold an initial DVC, including U.S. and Indian industry
representatives, on the subject of the amendments to the IT
Act, after they are approved by parliament. Hold other DVCs
on an ad hoc basis to discuss other appropriate issues.

Cybersecurity
--------------

-- Agreed to explore possibilities for: (a) Creating a joint
fund for information security; holding exchange programs for
cybersecurity experts; creating joint training and R&D
centers of excellence.

-- The GOI put forward three non-paper proposals for future
HTCG consideration:
-- "U.S.-India Collaborative Activities in
Tele-medicine and E-Health Technologies;
-- "U.S.-India Collaborative Activities in
Bio-informatics application research and training;
-- Industry-led workshop on ICT R&D initiatives focused
on emerging countries.

-- USG will respond by March 1, 2006 to these three GOI
proposals.

Refrubished Computer Parts

-- The GOI Ministry of External Affairs will respond by
January 15, 2006.

Retail-Level E-Commerce

NEW DELHI 00009400 009.2 OF 010



-- The GOI MEA will respond by January 16, 2006 to the USG
request for clarification of scope, conditions, and level of
FDI allowed in India,s Retail-Level E-Commerce sector.

BREAKOUT SESSION ON NANOTECHNOLOGY
--------------


23. (U) Dr. Y.P. Kumar, Head, International Division,
Department of Science & Technology (DST),led the Indian side
of the HTCG Nanotechnology (NT) government-to-government
breakout session with Dr. Mihail Roco of the National Science
Foundation leading the US side, supported by Dr. Minoo
Dastoor, Exploration Systems Directorate, NASA. The session
revolved around trying to merge the draft statements of both
sides. Dr. Kumar proposed that future NT work center around
three overlapping phases of activity: 1) building contacts,
2) facilitating collaborative arrangements, and 3) providing
direction for commercial/industrial application of NT. He
also probed for interest in using Small Business Innovative
Research (SBIR) activities to accelerate commercialization
opportunities. Dr. Roco provided a significantly more
detailed set of cooperative activities that nicely fleshed
out Kumar's first two, with the U.S. also requesting that a
mechanism for periodic review of IPR concerns be inserted.
Dr. Roco took great pains to explain to Dr. Kumar that the
USG would not be able to recommend industrial solutions or
select particular NT applications or solutions for
commercialization. Most of the meeting consisted of Dr.
Kumar's fruitless attempts to insert language supporting
government guidance on industrial applications. When asked
if the US was ready to make the commitments suggested in Dr.
Roco's draft language (which would include a variety of lead
agencies, from NSF and DOC/NIST to EPA and FDA),he replied
that this language would need to be staffed interagency
first.


24. (U) Following discussions, the parties agreed to the
following:

-- Encourage contact building through exchange visits,
technical meetings, workshops on research and development
activities in the field on nanoscale science & engineering
and other issues such as societal, ethical, public
perception, environment, health, training on development of
metrology, toxicology standards, nomenclature, IPR and other
protocols (Action: NSF, GOI; Timeline: Ongoing);

-- Stimulate long term collaboration in research/application
in nano science and engineering focusing on nano systems,
nano devices, nano materials, including modeling and
simulation in nanotechnology (Action: NSF, GOI; Timeline:
Ongoing);

-- Encourage participation of industry in advancing
development and application of nanotechnology in priority
areas of mutual interest such as Health, Energy. India
suggested to create a dedicated fund for this purpose;
(Action: GOI to provide more specific proposal);

-- Establish an India-U.S. nanotechnology collaborative
program with a working group comprising of representative
from both sides. (Action: NSF, GOI; Timeline: Within the
next six months)


25. (U) HTCG PARTICIPANTS:

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
--------------

Shyam Saran, Foreign Secretary
Raminder Jassal, Deputy Chief of Mission, Embassy of India,
Washington DC
Dr. S. Jaishankar, JS(AMS),MEA
Hamid Ali Rao, JS(D&ISA),MEA

NEW DELHI 00009400 010.2 OF 010


Mrs. Gaitri I. Kumar, Dir(AMS),MEA
Dr. Rajeev Lochan, Asst Scientific Secy ISRO, Department of
Space
Dr. Jacob Ninan ISRO, DOS
Dr. K. Raghuraman, Head (ISD) Department of Atomic Energy
Additional Secretary, Ministry of Defense
Alok Perti, JS (Defence Production),MOD
Anup K. Chatterjee, Dir(Int. Coop.),DRDO
Dr. K.K. Tripathi, Adviser, Deptt. of Biotechnology
Dr. Y. P. Kumar, Adviser, Deptt. of Science & Technology
Dr. B. K. Jain, Adviser (IC),DST
Sudhir Kumar, Joint Secretary, Council for Scientific and
Industrial Research
Dr. Arabinda Mitra, Executive Director, India-US S&T Forum
Dr. A. K. Chakravarti, Adviser, Deptt. of Information
Technology
Arvind Gupta, Joint Secretary, National Security Council
Secretariat

SIPDIS
Cdr. Mukesh Saini, ISS, NSCS
Ashutosh Jindal, Joint DGFT DGFT
Vipin Saxena, Export Commissioner, DGFT
Naveen Srivastava, DS (D&ISA),MEA
Santosh Jha, DS (AMS),MEA
Raj Srivastava, US (AMS),MEA
Viraj Singh, US (AMS),MEA

U.S. GOVERNMENT
--------------

David McCormick, Under Secretary of Commerce, BIS
Matthew S. Borman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export
Administration, BIS
Michael DiPaula-Coyle, Special Assistant, BIS
Mark Webber, Sp. Assistant, BIS
David Bohigian, Assistant to the Secretary and Director,
Office of Policy, Office of the Secretary
Jamie Estrada, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Manufacturing, International Trade Administration
Eric Holloway, Industry Analyst, ITA
Art Stern, India Desk Officer, ITA
Dominic Keating, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
John Schlosser, Director, Office of South Asian Affairs,
State Dept.
Ann Ganzer, Director for Policy, Directorate Defense Trade
Controls
Kathryn Schultz, Bureau for International Security and
Nonproliferation
Anatoli Welihozkiy, Office of Nonproliferation and Int.
Security, Of. of Exp. Control Policy & Coop., National
Nuclear Security Admin.
Brent H. McConnell, Senior Foreign Policy Analyst, Office of
the Secretary of Defense, Defense Technology Security
Administration
Anne Smoot, Country Program Director, Asia-Pacific Division,
Defense Security and Coop. Agency
Dr. Paolo Miotti, Senior Clinical Researcher, NIH
Dr. Mike Roco, Senior Advisor for Nanotechnology
Dr. Minoo Dastoor, Exploration Systems Mission Directorate,
NASA Headquarters

U.S. EMBASSY
--------------

Ambassador David Mulford
Deputy Chief of Mission Robert Blake
Political Minister Counselor Geoff Pyatt
Economic Minister Counselor Lee Brudvig
Health Attache Altaf Lal



26. (U) This cable has been cleared by Under Secretary
McCormick and U.S. HTCG delegation.
MULFORD