Showing posts with label privacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label privacy. Show all posts
04 March 2016
16 November 2015
NTIA's Larry Strickling at Internet Governance Forum, João Pessoa, Brazil
Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling, U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, at IGF2015, the Internet Governance Forum 2015, at João Pessoa, Brazil, on November 10, 2015–as prepared for delivery–(emphasis added):
Thank you. At the outset, let me congratulate our host nation, Brazil, as the first country to have hosted two meetings of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). It is fitting that Brazil, with its strong tradition of supporting multistakeholder Internet governance, be the first country to earn this honor.
Over the past 10 years, the IGF has proven itself to be an indispensable platform for addressing Internet issues. I look forward each year to attending the IGF and meeting with this diverse collection of stakeholders to tackle the challenges facing the Internet. This year I am pleased to see important innovations in the IGF’s intersessional work on items such as the best practices forums and the IGF policy options document on connecting the next billion. These and other innovations will enrich the conversations this week in Brazil.
As we mark the 10-year anniversaries of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the IGF, it is important to take stock of where we have come and the challenges ahead. There is much to celebrate in how the Internet has evolved into a platform for global economic growth, innovation and free speech. The open Internet is helping the economies and societies of both developed and developing nations. Not only has it created a dynamic and growing digital economy, it has transformed just about every facet of our day-to-day lives. Every one of us has a stake in ensuring the continued growth, job formation and wealth creation that an open Internet brings.
In the United States, we attribute that success in large part to the bottom-up, multistakeholder approach to resolving technical and policy challenges facing the Internet. This is why we are such strong supporters of the IGF – one of the preeminent international examples of this approach – and have called for an extension of the IGF that is consistent with its original mandate. We are pleased that so many countries have echoed this call. If collectively, we continue to support multistakeholder Internet governance, if we make it more inclusive of developing countries and more responsive to all stakeholders, then we can truly achieve the Information Society we envisioned 10 years ago.
In the United States, we are committed to multistakeholder Internet governance, as convincingly demonstrated by our announcement in March 2014 that the U.S. government would transition its historical stewardship role over the Internet Domain Name System to the multistakeholder community. Since that time, the response from the community of technical experts, academics, civil society and industry has been inspiring. Over the past year and a half, stakeholders have worked hundreds of hours to complete a transition proposal that meets the criteria we have outlined. We are hopeful the working groups will complete their work in the coming weeks.
This work is tiring; sometimes contentious; perhaps exasperating. No doubt, this is not an easy task. But it is an important one. All of us should appreciate the effort and level of commitment demonstrated by all the participants in this process. Most importantly, the process is working and I am confident it will be successful. It will be a testament to the strength of the multistakeholder process when the transition is completed.
But even with the growth of international support for multistakeholder governance, there is continued cause for concern. Freedom House’s 2015 report on Internet freedom finds that Internet freedom around the world is in decline for a fifth consecutive year. More governments are censoring information from their citizens and attempting to put up barriers to the open Internet within their borders.
The growth of sophisticated malware and other cyber security threats, the need to protect the privacy of Internet users and the mounting online theft of intellectual property online have challenged governments’ ability to balance these important interests with the equally important need for openness. Governments increasingly feel compelled to do something they see as meaningful – if not outright drastic – to protect their citizens and their businesses from these threats.
Regrettably, in their attempts to do something to protect their citizens and businesses, governments sometimes rush to put up digital walls between their countries and the rest of the world, between their citizens and people abroad. In recent years, we have seen governments institute data localization laws, as well as impose limitations on data storage and data transfer.
Historically, these kinds of restrictive policies have tended to be pursued by authoritarian governments that want to try to control information and monitor the activities of their citizens. In recent years, however, even democratic countries have considered restrictions on data flows.
Such proposals do far more harm than good. Restricting data flows and competition between firms increase costs for Internet users and businesses, retard technological innovation, and may curb freedom of expression.
This assessment may seem like common sense to many of us in this room. But it is not accepted by everyone. And that is why it is imperative that we continue multistakeholder venues like the IGF. They allow us – as representatives of diverse stakeholder communities – to come together, to offer our unique perspectives, to work through our most difficult problems, and to make a case for policies and practices that encourage the development of an open and innovative Internet.
In closing, I urge all nations to step up in support of the free and open Internet and the multistakeholder process that has led to its success. If we want to maintain a vibrant and growing Internet, we must all take action to ensure that the multistakeholder approach continues to define the future of Internet governance. Thank you for listening.
Source: US Government - NTIA
Thank you. At the outset, let me congratulate our host nation, Brazil, as the first country to have hosted two meetings of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). It is fitting that Brazil, with its strong tradition of supporting multistakeholder Internet governance, be the first country to earn this honor.
Over the past 10 years, the IGF has proven itself to be an indispensable platform for addressing Internet issues. I look forward each year to attending the IGF and meeting with this diverse collection of stakeholders to tackle the challenges facing the Internet. This year I am pleased to see important innovations in the IGF’s intersessional work on items such as the best practices forums and the IGF policy options document on connecting the next billion. These and other innovations will enrich the conversations this week in Brazil.
As we mark the 10-year anniversaries of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the IGF, it is important to take stock of where we have come and the challenges ahead. There is much to celebrate in how the Internet has evolved into a platform for global economic growth, innovation and free speech. The open Internet is helping the economies and societies of both developed and developing nations. Not only has it created a dynamic and growing digital economy, it has transformed just about every facet of our day-to-day lives. Every one of us has a stake in ensuring the continued growth, job formation and wealth creation that an open Internet brings.
In the United States, we attribute that success in large part to the bottom-up, multistakeholder approach to resolving technical and policy challenges facing the Internet. This is why we are such strong supporters of the IGF – one of the preeminent international examples of this approach – and have called for an extension of the IGF that is consistent with its original mandate. We are pleased that so many countries have echoed this call. If collectively, we continue to support multistakeholder Internet governance, if we make it more inclusive of developing countries and more responsive to all stakeholders, then we can truly achieve the Information Society we envisioned 10 years ago.
In the United States, we are committed to multistakeholder Internet governance, as convincingly demonstrated by our announcement in March 2014 that the U.S. government would transition its historical stewardship role over the Internet Domain Name System to the multistakeholder community. Since that time, the response from the community of technical experts, academics, civil society and industry has been inspiring. Over the past year and a half, stakeholders have worked hundreds of hours to complete a transition proposal that meets the criteria we have outlined. We are hopeful the working groups will complete their work in the coming weeks.
This work is tiring; sometimes contentious; perhaps exasperating. No doubt, this is not an easy task. But it is an important one. All of us should appreciate the effort and level of commitment demonstrated by all the participants in this process. Most importantly, the process is working and I am confident it will be successful. It will be a testament to the strength of the multistakeholder process when the transition is completed.
But even with the growth of international support for multistakeholder governance, there is continued cause for concern. Freedom House’s 2015 report on Internet freedom finds that Internet freedom around the world is in decline for a fifth consecutive year. More governments are censoring information from their citizens and attempting to put up barriers to the open Internet within their borders.
The growth of sophisticated malware and other cyber security threats, the need to protect the privacy of Internet users and the mounting online theft of intellectual property online have challenged governments’ ability to balance these important interests with the equally important need for openness. Governments increasingly feel compelled to do something they see as meaningful – if not outright drastic – to protect their citizens and their businesses from these threats.
Regrettably, in their attempts to do something to protect their citizens and businesses, governments sometimes rush to put up digital walls between their countries and the rest of the world, between their citizens and people abroad. In recent years, we have seen governments institute data localization laws, as well as impose limitations on data storage and data transfer.
Historically, these kinds of restrictive policies have tended to be pursued by authoritarian governments that want to try to control information and monitor the activities of their citizens. In recent years, however, even democratic countries have considered restrictions on data flows.
Such proposals do far more harm than good. Restricting data flows and competition between firms increase costs for Internet users and businesses, retard technological innovation, and may curb freedom of expression.
This assessment may seem like common sense to many of us in this room. But it is not accepted by everyone. And that is why it is imperative that we continue multistakeholder venues like the IGF. They allow us – as representatives of diverse stakeholder communities – to come together, to offer our unique perspectives, to work through our most difficult problems, and to make a case for policies and practices that encourage the development of an open and innovative Internet.
In closing, I urge all nations to step up in support of the free and open Internet and the multistakeholder process that has led to its success. If we want to maintain a vibrant and growing Internet, we must all take action to ensure that the multistakeholder approach continues to define the future of Internet governance. Thank you for listening.
Source: US Government - NTIA
22 October 2015
Study Reveals Privacy Gaps in EU Data Protection Regulation
source: Study Reveals Privacy Gaps in EU Data Protection Regulation
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
07 October 2015
EU Court Invalidates EU-US Safe Harbor Agreement in Data Privacy Case
source: EU Top Court’s Safe Harbor Decision Invalidates Safe Harbor and Sends Facebook Case Back to Irish Data Protection Authority | Mintz Levin - Privacy & Security Matters - JDSupra
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
10 August 2015
Ambassador Sepulveda Remarks at Conference on the Information Society
Remarks for the Fifth Ministerial Conference on the Information Society in Latin America and the Caribbean:
Ambassador Daniel A. Sepulveda
Deputy Assistant Secretary and U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs
Mexico City, Mexico
August 5, 2015
Remarks As Prepared (emphasis added):
Thank you Coordinator Lagunes. The United States is honored to share this podium with you and our dear friends from ECLA, Brazil, ICANN, ISOC, and the EU. We appreciate the opportunity to hear your perspectives and share ours. As we collectively strive to seize the opportunities that the digital economy creates and address the challenges it poses, we believe that we must use a 21st century approach – collaborative, cooperative, and multistakeholder in its orientation.
Across the borderless Internet and the borders between our nations, we are all working to make the most of the digital revolution for our children and our people. We believe it is an enabler of progress and human development as well as the latest example of how human ingenuity, when left free to invent and explore, can change our world for the better, making all of us more productive, more informed, and more connected than ever before.
The Internet is a general purpose technology, like the combustion engine, railroads and electrical generation. That is, Internet-based technologies and services are not isolated ends in and of themselves. All sectors benefit and grow and are transformed by those technologies.
A recent McKinsey study addressed the question that Alicia (ECLAC Executive Secretary) posed -- who is capturing the value the Internet generates? Well, according to that study 21% of GDP growth in mature countries in the next five years came from connecting to and using internet digitalization not producing it. And 75% of the value from Internet digitalization actually went to traditional industries other than the four or five specific Internet companies some commentators choose to focus on.
So, net/net the Internet is making everyone who is connected to it better off, not just the platform developer using the platform.
Nonetheless, like every leap forward in technology, the information and communications technologies and networks that enable the global Internet have created a complex mixture of opportunities and challenges – from job creation to privacy concerns to the return to intellectual property creation, the apps economy, the Internet of Things, e-commerce, the sharing economy, and new technologies unforeseen and little understood are changing the relationship between people and their governments, employers and employees, and buyers and sellers of goods.
We must seize the opportunities that the digital economy creates and overcome new challenges together, through cooperation and collaboration, mutual respect and civil discourse.
The United States values the partnerships that we have all built together across the Americas and we strongly believe that this region can and should lead the world in promoting and protecting the free flow of commerce, speech, and association that the modern global communications system enables and facilitates.
At its core, this region is committed to democracy and freedom. And a healthy information society is the key to the preservation of those values and the promotion of shared prosperity.
As we discuss over the next few days the positive impact, challenges, and opportunities of the digital economy, as well as the future of the Information Society, let us remember how far we have come in a very short time.
Consider the facts:
We have work left to do. Too many people in the region are still on the wrong side of the digital divide and too many lack the skills and opportunity to make the most of the access available to them. We can do more and we can do better. And together we will.
But that does not diminish what we have achieved to date. We are committed to progress. We are committed to working together. And we recognize our responsibility to contribute to inclusive growth and development built on open networks, open societies, and an open, interconnected, global Internet.
The Americas have stepped up and become a leader in Internet issues. From NETMundial in Brazil and our work together in CITEL to prepare for the ITU Plenipotentiary in 2014, to the Internet Governance Forum in Brazil this year, the Freedom Online Coalition conference in Costa Rica next year, the OECD Ministerial and the IGF next year here in Mexico, we are together creating an open, collaborative, and inclusive space for problem solving and open dialogue.
In November, Brazil will host the annual Internet Governance Forum where a major theme will be “Policy Options for Connecting the Next Billion” and there we will continue to exercise and hone the multistakeholder approach to Internet governance. This annual gathering, the IGF, has over the past few years grown in stature, in the diversity of participants, and in substance. And at the ten-year review of the World Summit on the Information Society this year, we must ensure that the mandate for the IGF is renewed, so the community can continue to invigorate it as the premier, global, multistakeholder forum for international dialogue on Internet issues for the decade to come.
More than any specific policy or the future of any specific firm or any special interest, we are advocates for the preservation of open, inclusive, and multi-stakeholder processes for examining and addressing questions and constructing policies for the digital economy. We live in an age where the key ingredients for innovation and growth are cooperation and collaboration, flexibility and ingenuity.
Governments that have not embraced multistakeholder processes for Internet governance and policymaking have invariably missed out on the creativity and dynamism that industry, civil society, and the technical community bring to bear.
Traditionally intergovernmental institutions that have incorporated stakeholders into their process and proceedings often note and emphasize the benefits that stakeholders bring to the conversation, reaping benefits and producing better outcomes. Institutions that exclude nongovernmental participants will remain subjected to rigid procedures, bureaucracy, captured by incumbents and political stalemate.
Governments and communities need the participation of the multistakeholder community because non-governmental stakeholders bear the largest share of the burden towards inventing and implementing solutions. It is this community that operates, interconnects, uses, and builds on the ICT platforms. They are the subject matter experts, and they are the ones driving the evolution and growth of the Information Society as providers, creators, and users.
Governments should take steps to empower their citizens to participate meaningfully in that evolution and growth, and the multistakeholder community should encourage those efforts. Policies should likewise respect human rights and social groups that are too often excluded from participating in the Information Society, including women, minorities, and rural and poor communities. But in meeting these challenges, we should always guard against unintended consequences or the concentration of power and authority in the hands of any one stakeholder group.
When the history is written about the 21st Century, it will tell a story of how collaborative, cooperative and multistakeholder approaches drove innovation that launched the digital economy. The Americas is leading that story.
Thank you and I look forward to working with you during the Ministerial.
Source: US Department of State
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
Ambassador Daniel A. Sepulveda
Deputy Assistant Secretary and U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs
Mexico City, Mexico
August 5, 2015
Remarks As Prepared (emphasis added):
Thank you Coordinator Lagunes. The United States is honored to share this podium with you and our dear friends from ECLA, Brazil, ICANN, ISOC, and the EU. We appreciate the opportunity to hear your perspectives and share ours. As we collectively strive to seize the opportunities that the digital economy creates and address the challenges it poses, we believe that we must use a 21st century approach – collaborative, cooperative, and multistakeholder in its orientation.
Across the borderless Internet and the borders between our nations, we are all working to make the most of the digital revolution for our children and our people. We believe it is an enabler of progress and human development as well as the latest example of how human ingenuity, when left free to invent and explore, can change our world for the better, making all of us more productive, more informed, and more connected than ever before.
The Internet is a general purpose technology, like the combustion engine, railroads and electrical generation. That is, Internet-based technologies and services are not isolated ends in and of themselves. All sectors benefit and grow and are transformed by those technologies.
A recent McKinsey study addressed the question that Alicia (ECLAC Executive Secretary) posed -- who is capturing the value the Internet generates? Well, according to that study 21% of GDP growth in mature countries in the next five years came from connecting to and using internet digitalization not producing it. And 75% of the value from Internet digitalization actually went to traditional industries other than the four or five specific Internet companies some commentators choose to focus on.
So, net/net the Internet is making everyone who is connected to it better off, not just the platform developer using the platform.
Nonetheless, like every leap forward in technology, the information and communications technologies and networks that enable the global Internet have created a complex mixture of opportunities and challenges – from job creation to privacy concerns to the return to intellectual property creation, the apps economy, the Internet of Things, e-commerce, the sharing economy, and new technologies unforeseen and little understood are changing the relationship between people and their governments, employers and employees, and buyers and sellers of goods.
We must seize the opportunities that the digital economy creates and overcome new challenges together, through cooperation and collaboration, mutual respect and civil discourse.
The United States values the partnerships that we have all built together across the Americas and we strongly believe that this region can and should lead the world in promoting and protecting the free flow of commerce, speech, and association that the modern global communications system enables and facilitates.
At its core, this region is committed to democracy and freedom. And a healthy information society is the key to the preservation of those values and the promotion of shared prosperity.
As we discuss over the next few days the positive impact, challenges, and opportunities of the digital economy, as well as the future of the Information Society, let us remember how far we have come in a very short time.
Consider the facts:
- There were 309.5 million Internet users in Latin America in 2014, amounting to 51% penetration. That’s an 8.5% growth rate from 2013 to 2014.
- The number of people in the region who regularly went online via a mobile phone increased 25% from 2013 to 2014. And,
- By 2018, there will be 378.3 million Internet users in the region bringing Internet penetration to 60%.
We have work left to do. Too many people in the region are still on the wrong side of the digital divide and too many lack the skills and opportunity to make the most of the access available to them. We can do more and we can do better. And together we will.
But that does not diminish what we have achieved to date. We are committed to progress. We are committed to working together. And we recognize our responsibility to contribute to inclusive growth and development built on open networks, open societies, and an open, interconnected, global Internet.
The Americas have stepped up and become a leader in Internet issues. From NETMundial in Brazil and our work together in CITEL to prepare for the ITU Plenipotentiary in 2014, to the Internet Governance Forum in Brazil this year, the Freedom Online Coalition conference in Costa Rica next year, the OECD Ministerial and the IGF next year here in Mexico, we are together creating an open, collaborative, and inclusive space for problem solving and open dialogue.
In November, Brazil will host the annual Internet Governance Forum where a major theme will be “Policy Options for Connecting the Next Billion” and there we will continue to exercise and hone the multistakeholder approach to Internet governance. This annual gathering, the IGF, has over the past few years grown in stature, in the diversity of participants, and in substance. And at the ten-year review of the World Summit on the Information Society this year, we must ensure that the mandate for the IGF is renewed, so the community can continue to invigorate it as the premier, global, multistakeholder forum for international dialogue on Internet issues for the decade to come.
More than any specific policy or the future of any specific firm or any special interest, we are advocates for the preservation of open, inclusive, and multi-stakeholder processes for examining and addressing questions and constructing policies for the digital economy. We live in an age where the key ingredients for innovation and growth are cooperation and collaboration, flexibility and ingenuity.
Governments that have not embraced multistakeholder processes for Internet governance and policymaking have invariably missed out on the creativity and dynamism that industry, civil society, and the technical community bring to bear.
Traditionally intergovernmental institutions that have incorporated stakeholders into their process and proceedings often note and emphasize the benefits that stakeholders bring to the conversation, reaping benefits and producing better outcomes. Institutions that exclude nongovernmental participants will remain subjected to rigid procedures, bureaucracy, captured by incumbents and political stalemate.
Governments and communities need the participation of the multistakeholder community because non-governmental stakeholders bear the largest share of the burden towards inventing and implementing solutions. It is this community that operates, interconnects, uses, and builds on the ICT platforms. They are the subject matter experts, and they are the ones driving the evolution and growth of the Information Society as providers, creators, and users.
Governments should take steps to empower their citizens to participate meaningfully in that evolution and growth, and the multistakeholder community should encourage those efforts. Policies should likewise respect human rights and social groups that are too often excluded from participating in the Information Society, including women, minorities, and rural and poor communities. But in meeting these challenges, we should always guard against unintended consequences or the concentration of power and authority in the hands of any one stakeholder group.
When the history is written about the 21st Century, it will tell a story of how collaborative, cooperative and multistakeholder approaches drove innovation that launched the digital economy. The Americas is leading that story.
Thank you and I look forward to working with you during the Ministerial.
Source: US Department of State
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
05 August 2015
Data, Privacy, Security, Lessons from FTC Enforcement Actions
Data, Privacy, Security, Lessons from FTC Enforcement Actions - source: Davis Wright Tremaine LLP - JDSupra
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
21 July 2015
NTIA Larry Strickling's Remarks at the Internet Governance Forum USA
Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at the Internet Governance Forum USA 07/16/2015 | NTIA:
Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information
The Internet Governance Forum USA [IGF-USA]
Washington, D.C.
July 16, 2015—As Prepared for Delivery—
Thank you, Shane, for the introduction. I also want to thank the U.S. IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Planning Committee for planning this event and George Washington University for hosting. I have enjoyed having the opportunity to speak at each of these IGF-USA events since they started back in 2009.
When I look at your agenda for the day, much of it mirrors our agenda at NTIA. Rather than devoting my remarks to one specific issue, I will use my time this morning to take stock of the multistakeholder process as a tool for addressing the key issues that exist in the Internet policy space and to reaffirm our strong support for the model in the work we do.
An appropriate starting point for these remarks is the ongoing work of the global Internet community to develop the plan to transition NTIA’s stewardship role with respect to the Internet Domain Name System [DNS].
In a testament to the success of the multistakeholder model, technical experts and representatives of private industry, academia, civil society and governments are working around-the-clock to complete a transition proposal that meets the criteria we have outlined. This work is tiring; sometimes contentious; perhaps exasperating. No doubt, this is not an easy task. But it is an important one, and I greatly appreciate the effort and level of commitment demonstrated by all the participants in this process. Most importantly, it is working and I am confident it will be successful.
The effort is a compelling demonstration that bringing together all stakeholders, including businesses, technical experts, civil society and government, to resolve issues on a consensus basis is the best way to set the future direction of the Internet. Over the past 20 years, the Internet has flourished. It has driven economic growth, innovation and free expression around the globe. And a big part of its success can be attributed to this multistakeholder approach to resolving technical and policy challenges.
It is not hard to understand why this has been the case. Like the Internet itself, the multistakeholder model is characterized by its open participation and decentralized processes. The Internet thrives only through the cooperation of many different parties. The multistakeholder model reflects this fact by enabling a diversity of stakeholders to participate, fostering a diversity of opinions and ideas. The result is more creative problem solving. It is a nimble, flexible approach, much better suited to rapidly changing technologies, business practices, and markets than traditional regulatory or legislative models.
This is not to say that multistakeholder processes are easy. They can be chaotic and they do require a serious commitment of time and energy from participants. But they have a record of success. The Internet works seamlessly today because a cadre of technologists, policy wonks and others through such groups as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) put their heads together to standardize voluntary programming languages, security protocols, and other web technologies.
Stakeholders continue to update these standards on an ongoing basis. If these technological challenges had been handed off to the typical Washington regulatory or legislative processes to resolve, we might still be waiting for a resolution. Worse, we might have technical protocols that are hopelessly out of date, hamstringing technologists and users from creating the robust, evolving Internet we enjoy today. One shudders to imagine an HTML standard drafted by a government committee.
And of course we have seen the model work in the context of ICANN, where the Internet community has come together to resolve technical and policy issues related to the Internet Domain Name System for nearly 17 years. This system ensures that users are able to easily access content by typing in simple names like www.doc.gov rather than confusing numeric addresses.
So we know this model can work. That’s why we continue to embrace it as the best tool to meet our mission at NTIA to preserve and protect the Internet as a platform for economic growth, innovation, and the free flow of information. This mission places us front and center at every major Internet policy debate today – privacy, Internet governance, cybersecurity and more. We are committed to making progress where we can to ensure that our digital economy continues to grow and thrive. But we cannot do it by ourselves. We need you to come to the table, roll up your sleeves and work with us to find solutions to these complex issues.
In the next several weeks, NTIA will be kicking off two new multistakeholder processes. The first will tackle issues related to privacy, transparency and accountability regarding unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). Our first meeting is scheduled for August 3.
The second new process will focus on cybersecurity vulnerability disclosures and will get underway in September. We will also be reconvening the facial recognition privacy multistakeholder process on July 28. In all three instances, we selected the topics after soliciting broad input from the community. In any multistakeholder process, the community must decide when a topic is ripe for discussion and possible consensus in order for it to be successful.
We are putting our time and resources in the multistakeholder process because we know it can help build trust in the digital ecosystem. For the sustainability and continued growth of the Internet, it is imperative that we preserve the trust of all actors on the Internet. The multistakeholder process has the ability to produce – in a timely way – meaningful guideposts for industry and consumers in this rapidly evolving technological environment. That cannot be said for the legislative or regulatory processes in Washington.
As we continue to engage the community in these multistakeholder efforts, we are constantly reassessing how we employ the process. We welcome the community’s ongoing feedback on how to improve our processes. That’s part of the beauty of the model – it’s adaptable and flexible in a way that regulatory approaches could never be.
We are particularly concerned about identifying and reducing the barriers to participation in these processes. For example, we have heard concerns about the time it takes to reach consensus. I grant you that reaching consensus on challenging policy issues does not happen overnight. In our first multistakeholder process on privacy, it took over one year to reach consensus on a code of conduct aimed at improving disclosures on mobile devices. But today, enhanced privacy notices based on the code are now live in apps used by 200 million consumers and the numbers are growing.
A one-year process to make substantial progress on a policy issue impacting millions of consumers – that’s lightning speed in Washington. Complex policy issues typically take years to make their way through the regulatory and legislative morass of Washington. Most efforts end in failure. The few that do reach a conclusion inevitably solve a problem that no longer exists or has been overtaken by newer issues that themselves need to be addressed.
Washington policymakers have struggled mightily to update laws impacting core technology policy issues – even when nearly everyone agrees updates are desperately needed. For example, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) was enacted in 1986 – almost 30 years ago. It governs a range of key issues regarding electronic communications, but it has not been significantly revised since its enactment. ECPA has created frustrations for law enforcement, judges and advocates for decades. All key stakeholders agree that the law should be updated to take account of developments -- like the development of powerful mobile devices, widespread email use, and cloud computing – that were unforeseen in the mid-80s and are handled clumsily by ECPA. Experts have called for Congress to amend ECPA to ensure the standard of protection for online, digital content is consistent with that afforded to data in the physical world. Proposal after proposal has been floated over the years. Despite the best of intentions, lawmakers have not been able to break the logjam and update a law that is sorely in need of revision.
So in evaluating the time it takes to reach consensus in a multistakeholder process, consider the alternatives. They are no faster.
Some stakeholders have also shared their concerns that multistakeholder processes are too resource-intensive. I understand that participants have to pick and choose their battles. Meetings can be lengthy. And some participants have spent countless hours working through drafts of documents. We want to encourage broad participation in the three multistakeholder efforts that will be proceeding on parallel tracks this summer. We suggest to those companies and organizations that find it hard to attend all of these events to find a way to pool resources with other like-minded organizations to lighten the load of direct participation.
But, as with the concern about the time the process takes, some of the concerns may simply reflect that it takes time to acclimate to this new style of dealing with policy issues. Our processes are still less burdensome than working through regulatory proceedings or preparing for litigation. Every important proceeding at the FCC attracts thousands of pages of comments, which then require hundreds of hours for participants to read and digest and prepare their own filings. But people are used to that process and perhaps do not question it the same way as they might a new and less familiar process.
So in evaluating the resources it takes to reach consensus in a multistakeholder process, consider the alternatives. They are no less burdensome.
Nonetheless, we want to improve our process. If the community feels our process takes too long and uses too many resources, perhaps we should ask ourselves, are we setting the bar too high for consensus agreement? At the outset of each process, we need a shared understanding of consensus. Should the stakeholder community consider whether “rough consensus” is good enough in some instances? When stakeholders reach a point of exhaustion – where they have come to a place that the output could be operationalized in the marketplace, and later improved upon – it could be time to press pause and move forward. Stakeholders in IETF often commit themselves to “rough consensus and running code” – there could be a lesson there for our stakeholder engagements. At the end of the day, we leave it up to the community to decide when the work is done and we look forward to your input on that issue as our multistakeholder work starts up or resumes this month.
The last aspect of the multistakeholder process I will address is also perhaps the toughest. For these efforts to succeed, we need players to come to the table with open minds, committed to collaborating fully in the process. Everyone needs to be committed to reaching a consensus outcome and be willing to compromise to achieve that goal.
The strategy of some participants in legislative and regulatory proceedings may be simply to preserve the status quo – that approach will not work in a multistakeholder process. Moreover, I suggest to you that a strategy of accepting the status quo as an outcome of the discussions on the Internet policy issues we face today is not a strategy for success for your company or organization.
Just as the Internet economy is constantly evolving and disrupting existing business models, our policy responses also need to evolve. We cannot leave issues untended – all that will do is slow down innovation on the Internet and perhaps leave our businesses at a disadvantage in the global marketplace. Alan Deutschman’s business adage, “Change or Die,” applies just as aptly to Internet policy debates as it does to companies trapped in business models that are rapidly becoming obsolete.
Where does this discussion leave us? We have to ask ourselves whether we are better off playing the legislative and regulatory waiting game where progress perhaps never occurs. Or are we better off taking up these issues in discussions where we might reach consensus on some critical issues? Are we better off with laws and regulations that are obsolete when they are passed, or even a patchwork quilt of state rules and regulations, leaving millions of consumers subject to different protections depending on where they reside? Or are we better off with a process that is flexible and allows businesses to adjust in response to the rapid changes in their environments? I think the answers are clear.
So I encourage everyone who works on Internet policy issues to join in our multistakeholder processes. And when discussions get tough – as they inevitably do – double down to work past disagreements. Do not sit on the sidelines – observing but not participating in discussions. Multistakeholder processes work best when a broad range of stakeholders with differing viewpoints fully participate. Most importantly, stay in the room.
I realize these multistakeholder processes collide with the culture of Washington. It is more comfortable for companies to hire a team of lobbyists to work the regulatory agencies, lobby the Hill, and hire litigation specialists to represent their interests. It is how things have been done in this town for decades.
But we’re talking about the Internet here. The Internet has disrupted many entrenched industries from newspapers to travel to taxicabs. Perhaps it’s time for some Internet thinking by businesses to disrupt how business is done in Washington. Imagine what could be accomplished with the brightest technologists, policy makers and academics who come together in good faith to debate and reach consensus on the solutions for our most important policy challenges in the Internet age. That’s the promise of the multistakeholder model.
Come join us. And thank you for listening.
source: US Department of Commerce, NTIA (emphasis added)
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information
The Internet Governance Forum USA [IGF-USA]
Washington, D.C.
July 16, 2015—As Prepared for Delivery—
Thank you, Shane, for the introduction. I also want to thank the U.S. IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Planning Committee for planning this event and George Washington University for hosting. I have enjoyed having the opportunity to speak at each of these IGF-USA events since they started back in 2009.
When I look at your agenda for the day, much of it mirrors our agenda at NTIA. Rather than devoting my remarks to one specific issue, I will use my time this morning to take stock of the multistakeholder process as a tool for addressing the key issues that exist in the Internet policy space and to reaffirm our strong support for the model in the work we do.
An appropriate starting point for these remarks is the ongoing work of the global Internet community to develop the plan to transition NTIA’s stewardship role with respect to the Internet Domain Name System [DNS].
In a testament to the success of the multistakeholder model, technical experts and representatives of private industry, academia, civil society and governments are working around-the-clock to complete a transition proposal that meets the criteria we have outlined. This work is tiring; sometimes contentious; perhaps exasperating. No doubt, this is not an easy task. But it is an important one, and I greatly appreciate the effort and level of commitment demonstrated by all the participants in this process. Most importantly, it is working and I am confident it will be successful.
The effort is a compelling demonstration that bringing together all stakeholders, including businesses, technical experts, civil society and government, to resolve issues on a consensus basis is the best way to set the future direction of the Internet. Over the past 20 years, the Internet has flourished. It has driven economic growth, innovation and free expression around the globe. And a big part of its success can be attributed to this multistakeholder approach to resolving technical and policy challenges.
It is not hard to understand why this has been the case. Like the Internet itself, the multistakeholder model is characterized by its open participation and decentralized processes. The Internet thrives only through the cooperation of many different parties. The multistakeholder model reflects this fact by enabling a diversity of stakeholders to participate, fostering a diversity of opinions and ideas. The result is more creative problem solving. It is a nimble, flexible approach, much better suited to rapidly changing technologies, business practices, and markets than traditional regulatory or legislative models.
This is not to say that multistakeholder processes are easy. They can be chaotic and they do require a serious commitment of time and energy from participants. But they have a record of success. The Internet works seamlessly today because a cadre of technologists, policy wonks and others through such groups as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) put their heads together to standardize voluntary programming languages, security protocols, and other web technologies.
Stakeholders continue to update these standards on an ongoing basis. If these technological challenges had been handed off to the typical Washington regulatory or legislative processes to resolve, we might still be waiting for a resolution. Worse, we might have technical protocols that are hopelessly out of date, hamstringing technologists and users from creating the robust, evolving Internet we enjoy today. One shudders to imagine an HTML standard drafted by a government committee.
And of course we have seen the model work in the context of ICANN, where the Internet community has come together to resolve technical and policy issues related to the Internet Domain Name System for nearly 17 years. This system ensures that users are able to easily access content by typing in simple names like www.doc.gov rather than confusing numeric addresses.
So we know this model can work. That’s why we continue to embrace it as the best tool to meet our mission at NTIA to preserve and protect the Internet as a platform for economic growth, innovation, and the free flow of information. This mission places us front and center at every major Internet policy debate today – privacy, Internet governance, cybersecurity and more. We are committed to making progress where we can to ensure that our digital economy continues to grow and thrive. But we cannot do it by ourselves. We need you to come to the table, roll up your sleeves and work with us to find solutions to these complex issues.
In the next several weeks, NTIA will be kicking off two new multistakeholder processes. The first will tackle issues related to privacy, transparency and accountability regarding unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). Our first meeting is scheduled for August 3.
The second new process will focus on cybersecurity vulnerability disclosures and will get underway in September. We will also be reconvening the facial recognition privacy multistakeholder process on July 28. In all three instances, we selected the topics after soliciting broad input from the community. In any multistakeholder process, the community must decide when a topic is ripe for discussion and possible consensus in order for it to be successful.
We are putting our time and resources in the multistakeholder process because we know it can help build trust in the digital ecosystem. For the sustainability and continued growth of the Internet, it is imperative that we preserve the trust of all actors on the Internet. The multistakeholder process has the ability to produce – in a timely way – meaningful guideposts for industry and consumers in this rapidly evolving technological environment. That cannot be said for the legislative or regulatory processes in Washington.
As we continue to engage the community in these multistakeholder efforts, we are constantly reassessing how we employ the process. We welcome the community’s ongoing feedback on how to improve our processes. That’s part of the beauty of the model – it’s adaptable and flexible in a way that regulatory approaches could never be.
We are particularly concerned about identifying and reducing the barriers to participation in these processes. For example, we have heard concerns about the time it takes to reach consensus. I grant you that reaching consensus on challenging policy issues does not happen overnight. In our first multistakeholder process on privacy, it took over one year to reach consensus on a code of conduct aimed at improving disclosures on mobile devices. But today, enhanced privacy notices based on the code are now live in apps used by 200 million consumers and the numbers are growing.
A one-year process to make substantial progress on a policy issue impacting millions of consumers – that’s lightning speed in Washington. Complex policy issues typically take years to make their way through the regulatory and legislative morass of Washington. Most efforts end in failure. The few that do reach a conclusion inevitably solve a problem that no longer exists or has been overtaken by newer issues that themselves need to be addressed.
Washington policymakers have struggled mightily to update laws impacting core technology policy issues – even when nearly everyone agrees updates are desperately needed. For example, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) was enacted in 1986 – almost 30 years ago. It governs a range of key issues regarding electronic communications, but it has not been significantly revised since its enactment. ECPA has created frustrations for law enforcement, judges and advocates for decades. All key stakeholders agree that the law should be updated to take account of developments -- like the development of powerful mobile devices, widespread email use, and cloud computing – that were unforeseen in the mid-80s and are handled clumsily by ECPA. Experts have called for Congress to amend ECPA to ensure the standard of protection for online, digital content is consistent with that afforded to data in the physical world. Proposal after proposal has been floated over the years. Despite the best of intentions, lawmakers have not been able to break the logjam and update a law that is sorely in need of revision.
So in evaluating the time it takes to reach consensus in a multistakeholder process, consider the alternatives. They are no faster.
Some stakeholders have also shared their concerns that multistakeholder processes are too resource-intensive. I understand that participants have to pick and choose their battles. Meetings can be lengthy. And some participants have spent countless hours working through drafts of documents. We want to encourage broad participation in the three multistakeholder efforts that will be proceeding on parallel tracks this summer. We suggest to those companies and organizations that find it hard to attend all of these events to find a way to pool resources with other like-minded organizations to lighten the load of direct participation.
But, as with the concern about the time the process takes, some of the concerns may simply reflect that it takes time to acclimate to this new style of dealing with policy issues. Our processes are still less burdensome than working through regulatory proceedings or preparing for litigation. Every important proceeding at the FCC attracts thousands of pages of comments, which then require hundreds of hours for participants to read and digest and prepare their own filings. But people are used to that process and perhaps do not question it the same way as they might a new and less familiar process.
So in evaluating the resources it takes to reach consensus in a multistakeholder process, consider the alternatives. They are no less burdensome.
Nonetheless, we want to improve our process. If the community feels our process takes too long and uses too many resources, perhaps we should ask ourselves, are we setting the bar too high for consensus agreement? At the outset of each process, we need a shared understanding of consensus. Should the stakeholder community consider whether “rough consensus” is good enough in some instances? When stakeholders reach a point of exhaustion – where they have come to a place that the output could be operationalized in the marketplace, and later improved upon – it could be time to press pause and move forward. Stakeholders in IETF often commit themselves to “rough consensus and running code” – there could be a lesson there for our stakeholder engagements. At the end of the day, we leave it up to the community to decide when the work is done and we look forward to your input on that issue as our multistakeholder work starts up or resumes this month.
The last aspect of the multistakeholder process I will address is also perhaps the toughest. For these efforts to succeed, we need players to come to the table with open minds, committed to collaborating fully in the process. Everyone needs to be committed to reaching a consensus outcome and be willing to compromise to achieve that goal.
The strategy of some participants in legislative and regulatory proceedings may be simply to preserve the status quo – that approach will not work in a multistakeholder process. Moreover, I suggest to you that a strategy of accepting the status quo as an outcome of the discussions on the Internet policy issues we face today is not a strategy for success for your company or organization.
Just as the Internet economy is constantly evolving and disrupting existing business models, our policy responses also need to evolve. We cannot leave issues untended – all that will do is slow down innovation on the Internet and perhaps leave our businesses at a disadvantage in the global marketplace. Alan Deutschman’s business adage, “Change or Die,” applies just as aptly to Internet policy debates as it does to companies trapped in business models that are rapidly becoming obsolete.
Where does this discussion leave us? We have to ask ourselves whether we are better off playing the legislative and regulatory waiting game where progress perhaps never occurs. Or are we better off taking up these issues in discussions where we might reach consensus on some critical issues? Are we better off with laws and regulations that are obsolete when they are passed, or even a patchwork quilt of state rules and regulations, leaving millions of consumers subject to different protections depending on where they reside? Or are we better off with a process that is flexible and allows businesses to adjust in response to the rapid changes in their environments? I think the answers are clear.
So I encourage everyone who works on Internet policy issues to join in our multistakeholder processes. And when discussions get tough – as they inevitably do – double down to work past disagreements. Do not sit on the sidelines – observing but not participating in discussions. Multistakeholder processes work best when a broad range of stakeholders with differing viewpoints fully participate. Most importantly, stay in the room.
I realize these multistakeholder processes collide with the culture of Washington. It is more comfortable for companies to hire a team of lobbyists to work the regulatory agencies, lobby the Hill, and hire litigation specialists to represent their interests. It is how things have been done in this town for decades.
But we’re talking about the Internet here. The Internet has disrupted many entrenched industries from newspapers to travel to taxicabs. Perhaps it’s time for some Internet thinking by businesses to disrupt how business is done in Washington. Imagine what could be accomplished with the brightest technologists, policy makers and academics who come together in good faith to debate and reach consensus on the solutions for our most important policy challenges in the Internet age. That’s the promise of the multistakeholder model.
Come join us. And thank you for listening.
source: US Department of Commerce, NTIA (emphasis added)
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
24 June 2015
Internet of Things, IoT, FTC Data Privacy And Security Enforcement
FTC Commissioner Says That The FTC’s Data Privacy And Security Enforcement Authority Applies To The “Internet of Things” | King & Spalding - JDSupra:
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
09 June 2015
Privacy, Cybersecurity, Updates
Privacy & Cybersecurity Update - May 2015 | Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP - JDSupra:
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
15 April 2015
FCC Broadband Consumer Privacy Workshop, April 28
FCC Announces Broadband Consumer Privacy Workshop – April 28 | Davis Wright Tremaine LLP - JDSupra:
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
23 March 2015
Internet of Things, Feds Offer Privacy and Data Security Best Practices
Internet of Things: Federal Agencies Offer Privacy and Data Security Best Practices | Ballard Spahr LLP - JDSupra:
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
17 February 2015
FTC Landmark Report on Internet of Things, Privacy, Security
FTC Issues Landmark Report on Internet of Things | Morrison & Foerster LLP - Social Media - JDSupra:
FTC Landmark Report on Internet of Things:
Federal Trade Commission Staff Report On the November 2013 Workshop Entitled The Internet of Things: Privacy and Security in a Connected World
Bureau of Consumer Protection January 2015
DOCUMENT:
FTC Staff Report on the Workshop "Internet of Things: Privacy and Security in a Connected World" (655.54 KB)
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
FTC Landmark Report on Internet of Things:
Federal Trade Commission Staff Report On the November 2013 Workshop Entitled The Internet of Things: Privacy and Security in a Connected World
Bureau of Consumer Protection January 2015
DOCUMENT:
FTC Staff Report on the Workshop "Internet of Things: Privacy and Security in a Connected World" (655.54 KB)more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
09 January 2015
Top five shifts in Internet law in 2014
Top five shifts in Internet law in 2014 | Thompson Coburn LLP - JDSupra:
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
13 September 2014
Why Yahoo Faced Massive Fines for Opposing the NSA (video)
Yahoo: Why It Faced Massive Fines for Opposing the NSA: Video - Bloomberg:
(Allow video to load after clicking play or go to link above)
IDC Chief Research Officer Crawford Del Prete discusses NSA requests for internet users’ data and expectations for privacy. He speaks on “Bloomberg West.” (Source: Bloomberg, Sept 12, 2014)
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
(Allow video to load after clicking play or go to link above)
IDC Chief Research Officer Crawford Del Prete discusses NSA requests for internet users’ data and expectations for privacy. He speaks on “Bloomberg West.” (Source: Bloomberg, Sept 12, 2014)
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
23 July 2014
International Safe Harbor Privacy Compliance, What You Need to Know
International Safe Harbor Privacy Compliance: What You Need to Know | Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP - JDSupra:
"If you are not Safe-Harbor certified, review your website content, especially your privacy policy, and delete any language, including images of the Safe Harbor seal, that would express or imply your company’s claiming to participate and to comply with the Safe Harbor Framework. This is the only surefire way to ensure your company does not violate the FTC Act by misrepresenting participation."(source supra)
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
"If you are not Safe-Harbor certified, review your website content, especially your privacy policy, and delete any language, including images of the Safe Harbor seal, that would express or imply your company’s claiming to participate and to comply with the Safe Harbor Framework. This is the only surefire way to ensure your company does not violate the FTC Act by misrepresenting participation."(source supra)
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
27 April 2014
The Only Significant Thing That Happened at NETmundial 2014
The NETmundial2014 final text (pdf) sidestepped all of the major issues of "internet governance," particularly the "IANA transition" as well as issues of internet surveillance, and is of little use--as the document itself states: "This is the non-binding outcome of a bottom-up, open, and participatory process ..." After all the bold talk of multistakeholderism, and an open and transparent process, the final text was the result of a process that was debated in secret, in a closed meeting where special interests and lobbyists prevailed, and pretty much watered-down and butchered the earlier drafts that had been discussed.
No, the only thing of significance to come out of NETmundial2014 was the Brazilian President signing into law the "Marco Civil"-- Brazilian president signs internet civil rights law • The Register: "In a theatrical flourish, Rousseff signed the "Marco Civil" at the podium before giving a speech at the opening ceremony of the NetMundial Internet Governance conference ... The bill protects privacy and freedom of expression online and enshrines net neutrality as [Brazilian] law. It is locally referred to as the "internet constitution". Five years in the making, the legislation recently gathered some political urgency after rogue sysadmin Edward Snowden's revelations of spying by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and particularly the monitoring of President Rousseff herself."
As for ICANN itself, flush with millions in cash from its money-making venture a/k/a the new gTLDs program, it financed a big junket and party in São Paulo, for its own staff and insiders.
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
When #netmundial drafting process moved from plenary to small room the lobbyists started to dominate.
— Milton Mueller (@miltonmueller) April 24, 2014
No, the only thing of significance to come out of NETmundial2014 was the Brazilian President signing into law the "Marco Civil"-- Brazilian president signs internet civil rights law • The Register: "In a theatrical flourish, Rousseff signed the "Marco Civil" at the podium before giving a speech at the opening ceremony of the NetMundial Internet Governance conference ... The bill protects privacy and freedom of expression online and enshrines net neutrality as [Brazilian] law. It is locally referred to as the "internet constitution". Five years in the making, the legislation recently gathered some political urgency after rogue sysadmin Edward Snowden's revelations of spying by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and particularly the monitoring of President Rousseff herself."
As for ICANN itself, flush with millions in cash from its money-making venture a/k/a the new gTLDs program, it financed a big junket and party in São Paulo, for its own staff and insiders.
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
