December 2012

Try to imagine the United States today without interstate highways. With no way to get from one state to the next without driving local roads, interstate commerce would be slow, aggravating, and problematic, as it would be unfeasible to ship parts and equipment around the country quickly and easily. It would be a far cry from the United States of today, and I shudder to think of how it would work if we had regional monopolies building and controlling those roads. Perhaps we should start to think about the future, much as Eisenhower did, and determine that a ubiquitous, extremely high-speed Internet is an absolute requirement to continue our economic and scientific growth. Based on recent history, we should determine that an interstate Internet system has to be funded by the taxpayers and built by private contractors. Admit it: Bringing gigabit fiber to every doorstep would be far cheaper than a decade, or even a year of war -- and vastly more rewarding.

If there’s one toy guaranteed to captivate toddlers this holiday season, it’s the iPad. What’s more appealing to a tot than blinking lights, fun sounds and touch screens that allow them to move things with the swipe of a tiny, sticky finger? A 2011 survey of parents by Common Sense Media, an organization that provides media education for families, found that 39 percent of 2-to-4-year-olds have used digital media such as smartphones and iPads. James Steyer, chief executive and founder of the group, is confident that number has risen in the past year. To make things easier on parents, kids and the iPad itself, Fisher-Price has a line of iPad and iPod protectors. But Steyer has stern advice for adults considering buying toddlers their very own iPads this Christmas: “No. Ridiculous idea.” Among parents and experts, the idea of giving a toddler an iPad is a fraught subject. There are some obvious drawbacks. For one thing, they’re expensive — as much as $829 for the most recent version. They’re also fragile. But the science on how the iPad affects young children isn’t yet clear, and while some experts see them as developmentally inappropriate, others see some benefits to the technology — and not just in keeping a parent’s sanity (if not guilt) in check.

Rep Dan Lungren (R-CA), the outgoing chairman of the cybersecurity subpanel on the House Homeland Security Committee, said it's "an absolute necessity" for Congress to move forward on legislation in 2013 that's designed to help the private sector share data about cyber threats with the federal government.

"Look, the facts are the facts and the facts are we have a legitimate, clear and present threat we need to respond to," Rep Lungren told The Hill. "We are not in the best position to respond to it now, and there is a path forward I think and we ought to work on it." A cybersecurity bill by Rep Lungren was sidelined this spring after industry players complained to House GOP leadership that it was too regulatory, even after the California Republican watered down provisions that would have required critical infrastructure to boost the security of its networks. The measure would have placed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a hub for information sharing about cyber threats with private sector companies.

The International Telecommunications Union’s (ITU) 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai has concluded after a busy two weeks. While we had hoped for a more constructive outcome, we look forward to participating in ongoing discussions from the conference. Pundits are weighing in as industry experts are continuing to deconstruct the conclusions of the conference. The lack of consensus from the conference underscores the important fact that the Internet isn’t owned by anybody.

There isn’t an ‘off’ switch and there isn’t a set of standards that anyone can dictate. Over time, ‘multistakeholder’ groups, like ICANN, IESG, IANA, IETF, and IAB, have stepped in to take over ‘management’ of certain aspects of the Internet, however these organizations achieved that management as part of social contract, not as mandate. If they cease to provide value to the Internet, they will no longer be listened to or be taken seriously. No one group dictates the whole Internet. Instead the Internet is made up of a whole series of conversations, with anybody who has a stake able to join in. That means businesses, engineers, security minded people, governments, civil society groups, and users. The quality of their engagement and arguments dictate whether their ideas and work are accepted or rejected. Many countries face development challenges in bringing the full benefits of the Internet to their citizens. If you take what they were saying at face value, a lot of those countries tried to use the ITU process to try to get that help. But the ITU isn’t a place where Internet governance should work. The Internet should remain compartmentalized and the domain of expert multistakeholder groups working on a lot of different parts. That doesn’t mean those governments, and perhaps even groups like the ITU itself can’t engage directly in various multistakeholder processes, where the effectiveness of their work and its benefit to the Internet will dictate its usefulness. Are existing multistakeholder groups working well? There’s definitely room for improvement, but I’m reminded of this quote: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” – Winston Churchill. Certainly there’s room for improvement and there always will be – as is true with most things.