May 2016

[Commentary] Over the past 10 weeks we have featured 22 ideas that represent outdated practices or modes of thinking when it comes to public sector information technology (IT) management. In this closing post, we would like to draw out five salient points to move the conversation ahead.

1) Evidence-driven decisionmaking is required: Several of our posts suggest that we might get a greater return on our technology investments if we relied on evidence as a basis for our decisionmaking rather than relying on outdated ideas masquerading as conventional wisdom.
2) Experimentation and risk-taking is essential: Just like in the private sector, risk-taking is something that we need to instill and value in the public sector.
3) Collaboration across sectors matters: We need to design and harness better collaboration platforms that go beyond the traditional models. Importing rock star CIOs, relying on outsourcing, or engaging students to think meaningfully about IT in the public sector only after they graduate have reached their limits of value. These are all mutually exploitative relationships and need to be redesigned.
4) Governance modes matter: We need to revisit how we govern and become comfortable with balancing goals when it comes to governance. Security is not the enemy of innovation but has to peacefully coexist with it. This calls for more agile governance models that force us to think holistically about the IT programs in our agencies from multiple perspectives.
5) Solving procurement issues: Few things raised as much anger as our discussions on procurement issues, and it is clear: procurement must be solved for government to move forward.

[Commentary] Microsoft and Google, two of the world’s greatest monopolies, have been bitter rivals for nearly 20 years. But suddenly, in late April, they announced a startling accord. The companies have withdrawn all regulatory complaints against one another, globally. Rather than fighting their battles in public courts and commissions, they have agreed to privately negotiate. This is a gentleman’s agreement.

The common corporate line is that the companies want to compete on products, not court cases. But this public relations gambit masks two far more interesting tales. One is about Microsoft and its desperate chase for relevance. The other is about Google, money and power. Both are part of a broader, deeply worrying narrative – a story about how tech companies are busy redrawing the lines around our lives, and facing little resistance in doing so. Microsoft and Google’s new deal to stop fighting each other is an interesting, strategic corporate move. But it is a move accompanied by a much stronger, deeper play: to collect and capitalize data – including data about us, our behaviors, and our interactions. The challenge for regulators and citizens is complex but essential – and has only just begun.

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission’s latest attempt at Open Internet rules may soon be struck down in the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Litigation may continue unless Congress intervenes. It is thus worthwhile to review the history of network neutrality in Congress over the past decade. Why did Congress’s many attempts at creating rules ultimately fail? Why have advocates focused on regulatory rulemaking rather than legislation? Moreover, are so-called “bright-line” approaches even necessary and proven to ensure an Open Internet? And if the FCC’s rules succeed in court, does the will of the people truly align with the agency’s plans to regulate the Internet?

There is considerable evidence that a multistakeholder approach can effectively ensure Internet openness, foster transparency, and deter blocking and throttling. The multistakeholder model is particularly helpful in creating a “middle ground,” where concerns about net neutrality can be addressed and resolved without hard rules that lead to litigation. In fact, hard, “bright-line” rules can actually increase litigation, as evinced by the ongoing lawsuits in the Netherlands, Canada, Slovenia, and the US. Many aspects of Internet policy are already governed through a multistakeholder model, in which shared principles, norms, and decision-making processes are developed. It incorporates a multitude of actors including nation-states, companies, standards organizations, academics, and members of civil society. That the Internet can be managed using this process suggests that the issue of Open Internet may well benefit from this approach in the US. Indeed, such models have been successfully used to promote an open Internet in Sweden since 2009 and in Denmark since 2011 — two countries praised by Title II advocates.

[Roslyn Layton studies Internet economics at the Center for Communication, Media, and Information Technologies (CMI) at Aalborg University in Copenhagen, Denmark.]