Shane Tews

Broadband accessibility has rapidly transformed into a modern-day essential, integral to our nation’s economy.  However, some still do not have access to basic internet connectivity, which became more evident during COVID-19. As a result, government programs like the $42 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program were created to expand internet connectivity to unserved and underserved areas.

[Commentary] Those who look at Washington and see only gridlock and bickering should look to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as an exception. By implementing improved transparency and review processes in the past months, the FCC has achieved far more transparency than ever before. A shining example of improved transparency at the Commission is the current review of regulations that are hindering innovation and investment through policies tethered to the past.

[Commentary] Earlier in Dec the 11th Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was held in Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico. The IGF, a multi-stakeholder forum convened by the United Nations (UN) Secretary General, allows over 2000 delegates from 83 countries to convene and discuss a wide range of internet policy issues including internet governance, cybersecurity, and internet access issues. The theme of IGF 2016 was how the internet could enable inclusive and sustainable growth to help meet the UN’s goals in its 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, an effort to “eradicate poverty in all its forms and dimensions.”

From an internet policy perspective, in its efforts to increase internet connectivity and fight poverty, the UN has prioritized finding ways to support the development of local content in developing countries and making sure the “next billion” of unconnected people around the world get connected to the internet. One local content success story that was highlighted at IGF 2016 was that of “An African City,” a Ghanaian internet video series that went viral. This story shows the potential and importance of local content, which can serve as an important incentive for internet adoption in developing countries.

[Shane Tews is also a consultant for Vrge Strategies.]

[Commentary] Google and Yahoo announced that they will both be creating secure, encrypted, spy-free email services by early 2015. One reason e-mail has not been encrypted until now is that there has not been market demand for it.

Living in a post-Snowden world where serious attention is paid to who is seeing what and why may have the positive effect of Internet operators, as they differentiate their levels of security services.

I look forward to the Internet giants implementing even more tools to keep our communications safe from hackers and governments. Hopefully the next step for these companies will be to train their over 600 million users in multi-factor authentication, a tool that would add another level of protection.

[Tews is Chief Policy Officer at 463 Communications]

[Commentary] The House of Representatives placed four cybersecurity bills -- all pieces of a larger cybersecurity legislative puzzle -- on the House suspension calendar.

The core bill, sponsored by House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mike McCaul (R-TX), would establish the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center, a coordination point for civil information sharing between sector-specific coordination groups and federal, state, and local government agencies. Should the bill pass, will its provisions be enough to bring cybersecurity to the top of the agenda in corporate America?

Chairman McCaul’s effort establishes a baseline for the importance of cooperating and coordinating the efforts of owners and operators of critical infrastructure. Cross-sector facilitation is needed to get to the next step in managing cybersecurity. Similar to the creation of the baseline organization of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention almost 60 years ago, cybersecurity information sharing could create benefits that would prevent and minimize incidents that affect multiple networks.

Creating the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center would be the first major step towards creating such a system of prevention, preparation, and planning, and would likely be one that we would all benefit from.

[Tews is the Chief Policy Officer at 463 Communications]

[Commentary] The recent Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) meeting in London highlighted two issues that appear unrelated on the surface but link current concerns about how to manage Internet Governance going forward.

One is the transition of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) stewardship away from the US Government, and the second is the Government Advisory Committee’s multi-meeting, dragged out discussion on .wine/.vin new Top Level Domains (TLDs).

We need to know that the European Commission and its government colleagues understand this is a technical coordinating organization. If governments are willing to bring an issue from outside of the technical functions of the Internet into ICANN, how do we trust them to keep the IANA function purely technical and to stay away from the temptation to use it as a political lever?

If France wants to protect its geographic indicators on wine labels, for instance, it needs to continue negotiations with its global partners in the world of trade agreements, not technical Internet functions. The temptation to settle a commercial trade issue through Internet Governance will be just the beginning of mass political misappropriation of the largest economic tool that we have seen in this century -- the Internet.

[Tews is Chief Policy Officer at 463 Communication]

[Commentary] What is the future of cybersecurity policy? How do we maintain the innovative Internet ecosystem, protect consumer privacy, and ensure national security?

The Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy took its first steps towards answering those questions with its conference at AEI: “After Snowden: The Road Ahead for Cybersecurity.”

Two key steps to lead us down the right path emerged from our conference: 1) we need more effective public-private partnerships with freer opportunities for sharing information and 2) the government needs to educate the public about cyber threats.

Achieving these goals will require rapid, legislative action. The success of any cybersecurity policy will hinge on the effectiveness of the relationships between government and industry and the open exchange of information between the two -- as well as both inter- and intra-agency communication. Any effective cybersecurity policy must entail legislation, such as the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, which Chairman Rogers and his ranking member, Rep Dutch Ruppersberger (D-CA) have championed.

As General Keith Alexander (ret) explained, legislation should ensure that companies are able to share information with each other and with the government, while protected from liability. The challenge will be identifying the limits on that liability, on the extent of corporate responsibility, and on government engagement.

[Tews is the Chief Policy Officer at 463 Communications; Cunningham is a Research Assistant at the Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy]

[Commentary] Developers do not typically create software based on regulatory requirements; rather, they orient their efforts towards solving a specific problem or providing functionality not otherwise available to consumers. So why should regulation created for an industry built decades ago govern their designs?

Allowing regulations to dictate how new programs will operate and be delivered runs counter to the principles of technological innovation. Requiring the developers of the innovation economy to adhere to decades old telephone company regulations is a large step in the wrong direction for technology advancement.

Potential obligations to regulatory burdens like federal, state, and local reporting requirements, service level agreements, direct consent agreements, and privacy regulations could be an expensive and cumbersome burden to both large and small start-up technologies. Not to mention the deleterious effects of subjecting innovative businesses to the tariff regimes of an analog business model that is struggling to move forward into a digital world.

[Tews is also the Chief Policy Officer at 463 Communications]

[Commentary] Recently, the Administration released a report on big data that highlighted both the positive opportunities of big data collection and how it dangerously compromises privacy, but failed to address the challenge of consumers willfully forfeiting their personal information.

The report emphasized big data’s potential to enhance lives through large scale information gathering. In particular, it noted the ability to create more efficient economic outcomes by identifying ways that industry and individuals can better use their time and materials. But the report also acknowledged that the mass collection of personal information creates significant privacy and security concerns.

Basically, big data can be good, we just need to reconsider how and why we use it and find ways to maximize the outcome while managing the risks. The White House Big Data report failed to pursue one crucial question: if all this personal information is so valuable, why do people give it away so readily and freely? An individual’s personal information is one of his or her most valuable assets. Before blindly signing away their information to the multi-billion dollar industry of consumer data analytics, consumers ought to consider the full cost of their actions.

[Tews is Chief Policy Officer at 463 Communications]

[Commentary] Wikileaks has posted a draft outcome document created by the Executive Stakeholder Committee of the NetMundial Internet Governance conference to be held in Brazil April 23 – 24.

Before the first multi-stakeholder invited to attend had taken a seat, the organizer had already decided what principles they were going to agree to and a road map for implementation. The main challenge of the document is this: while the principles may seem reasonable, even laudable, the roadmap for implementation has many challenges and potential hidden agendas. The Internet as a “Human Right”, access to information, free flow of data, freedom of association, expression, privacy, accessibility, etc., all sounds like principles we want to embrace.

And a governance process encouraged to be “open, participatory, multi-stakeholder, technology-neutral, sensitive to human rights and based on principles of transparency, accountability and inclusiveness”, sounds like a good idea we should be able to support. But now I’m wondering who will have the capacity to implement all this pro-free rhetoric?

Most likely, that job would fall to governments around the world. It would be up to them to let us know when we have hit our Internet Governance metric. Many of the items in the leaked outcome document are good aspirational goals. It’s deciding on the path to achieve them that will be the major challenge for the multi-stakeholders engaged in this process. Continuing to seek balance between governments, industry partners, content providers, and the end user will be an ongoing challenge.

[Tews is the Chief Policy Officer at 463 Communications]