Author: joly

NTIA RFC on IoT – deadline 5/23

NTIA[You may have heard this mentioned in]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration [Docket No. 160331306–6306–01] RIN 0660–XC024

The Benefits, Challenges, and Potential Roles for the Government in Fostering the Advancement of the Internet of Things

AGENCY: National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice, request for public comment.

SUMMARY: Recognizing the vital importance of the Internet to U.S. innovation, prosperity, education, and civic and cultural life, the Department of Commerce has made it a top priority to encourage growth of the digital economy and ensure that the Internet remains an open platform for innovation. Thus, as part of the Department’s Digital Economy Agenda, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is initiating an inquiry regarding the Internet of Things (IoT) to review the current technological and policy landscape. Through this Notice, NTIA seeks broad input from all interested stakeholders—including the private industry, researchers, academia, and civil society—on the potential benefits and challenges of these technologies and what role, if any, the U.S. Government should play in this area. After analyzing the comments, the Department intends to issue a ‘‘green paper’’ that identifies key issues impacting deployment of these technologies, highlights potential benefits and challenges, and identifies possible roles for the federal government in fostering the advancement of IoT technologies in partnership with the private sector.

DATES: Comments are due on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 23, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted by email to iotrfc2016@ Comments submitted by email should be machine-readable and should not be copy-protected. Written comments also may be submitted by mail to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4725, Attn: IOT RFC 2016, Washington, DC 20230. Responders should include the name of the person or organization filing the comment, as well as a page number on each page of their submissions. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http:// without change. All personal identifying information (for example, name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NTIA will accept anonymous comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Travis Hall, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 4725, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–3522; email Please direct media inquiries to NTIA’s Office of Public Affairs, (202) 482–7002.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: As part of the Department of Commerce’s Digital Economy Agenda, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is requesting comment on the benefits, challenges, and potential roles for the government in fostering the advancement of the Internet of Things (IoT). Description of IoT and its Impact on the Economy: IoT is the broad umbrella term that seeks to describe the connection of physical objects, infrastructure, and environments to various identifiers, sensors, networks, and/or computing capability.[1]

In practice, it also encompasses the applications and analytic capabilities driven by getting data from, and sending instructions to, newly-digitized devices and components. Although a number of architectures describing different aspects or various applications of the IoT are being developed, there is no broad consensus on exactly how the concept should be defined or scoped. Consensus has emerged, however, that the number of connected devices is expected to grow exponentially, and the economic impact of those devices will increase dramatically.[2]

While some types of devices will fall into readily identifiable commercial or public sectors in their own right—for example, implantable health devices—most will serve the function of enabling existing industries to better track, manage, and automate their core functions. The potential health, safety, environmental, commercial, and other benefits of IoT are enormous, from reducing the risk of automobile-related injuries and fatalities to enabling micro-cell weather forecasting. IoT has the potential to catalyze new user applications and give rise to new industries. For example, IoT is the foundation for ‘‘Smart Cities’’ efforts, which use pervasive connectivity and data-driven technologies to better manage resources, meet local challenges, and improve quality of life. However, the IoT also presents challenges,[3] which in turn have begun to generate initial thinking and policy responses both inside and outside of government. A number of Federal agencies—for example, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—have already begun grappling with potential health, safety, and security issues arising from the connection of cars and medical devices to the Internet.[4] The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has identified privacy and cybersecurity aspects of IoT, and proposed some possible best practices.[5]

Pursuant to the White House Smart Cities Initiative, the U.S. Government is providing $35 million in new grants and nearly $70 million in new spending on Smart Cities across several departments.6 Additional activities at the federal level seek to take advantage of the potential opportunities as well as address any possible issues raised by the deployment of IoT in relation to agency missions. IoT has also garnered interest by other national governments, standards organizations, and intergovernmental organizations that are interested in understanding how to engage in the IoT ecosystem to encourage economic growth and innovation.[7] Unfortunately, country specific strategies threaten the possibility of a global patchwork of approaches to IoT, which would increase costs and delay the launch of new products and services, dampening investment. The U.S. government will need to work with stakeholders to develop industry-driven solutions; however, thus far no U.S. government agency is taking a holistic, ecosystemwide view that identifies opportunities and assesses risks across the digital economy.

The Department’s Digital Economy Initiatives: More than six years ago, the Department created the Internet Policy Task Force (IPTF) to identify and address leading public policy and operational challenges in the Internet ecosystem. The IPTF collaborates across bureaus at the Department, seeks public comment, and has produced policy papers on a variety of important topics. In recognition of the broad impact that the Internet and digitization are having across the economy, in 2015 the Department created the Digital Economy Leadership Team (DELT). Comprised of senior officials from across the Department, the DELT provides highlevel guidance and coordination, leveraging the substantial expertise within the agency to promote initiatives that have a positive impact on the digital economy and society. The DELT currently focuses on the four pillars of the Department’s 2015–16 Digital Economy Agenda: promoting a free and open Internet worldwide; promoting trust and confidence online; ensuring Internet access for workers, families, and companies; and promoting innovation in the digital economy. Working closely together, the DELT and IPTF ensure that the Department is helping businesses and consumers realize the potential of the digital economy to advance growth and opportunity. Given the cross-cutting nature of the IoT landscape, the Department of Commerce—through the DELT and IPTF—is able to provide important perspective and expertise on IoT. The mission of the Department is to help establish conditions that will enable the private sector to grow the economy, innovate, and create jobs.

The Department also has statutory authority, expertise, and ongoing work streams in numerous areas that are critical to the development of IoT, including: cybersecurity, privacy, cross-border data flows, spectrum, international trade, advanced manufacturing, protection of intellectual property, standards policy, Internet governance, big data, entrepreneurship, and worker skills. For example:
• The Department has long standing technological and policy expertise and experience that it is applying to IoT. The Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has coordinated the development of a draft reference architecture for CyberPhysical Systems and is conducting a Global City Teams Challenge to foster the development of Smart Cities and promote interoperability. NTIA’s spectrum planning and management activities contemplate the growth of IoT and its Institute for Telecommunications Sciences (ITS) has begun testing the possible effects of IoT on spectrum usage. Both NIST and NTIA have been actively engaged with international standards bodies and international organizations on aspects of IoT and other related areas (e.g., cybersecurity), and have been further engaged with other Federal agencies.
• The Economic Development Administration (EDA) provides grants to communities around the country to build up their technology-focused innovation ecosystems in order to grow their local economies and create jobs.
• The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) continues to improve its patent quality, especially in new technological domains, including IoT. USPTO also plays a key role in the alignment of intellectual property policies around the world, so that U.S. inventors of IoT technology can have access to the protections they need to continue innovating and sell their products and services everywhere.
• The International Trade Administration (ITA) is an active promoter of IoT and Smart Cities on the international stage, including participation in the CS Europe Smart Cities Initiative and working with the other Federal agencies to consider innovative financing mechanisms for Smart City projects. ITA hosts roundtables on an ad hoc basis with the private sector and federal partners to discuss Smart Cities and infrastructure financing. In addition, ITA’s Office of Textiles and Apparel is holding a Smart Fabrics Summit (http:// on April 11, 2016. The Department, through this RFC and subsequent green paper, will capitalize on the Department’s experience and holistic economic perspective to craft an approach to IoT and its potential impacts that will best foster IoT innovation and growth. Where relevant, comments received may also inform the work of other federal initiatives, such as the recently created Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity.

Request for Comment: Instructions for Commenters:
The Department invites comment on the full range of issues that may be presented by this inquiry, including issues that are not specifically raised in the following questions. Commenters are encouraged to address any or all of the following questions. To the extent commenters choose to respond to the specific questions asked, responses should generally follow the below structure and note the number corresponding to the question. Comments that contain references to studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include copies of the referenced materials with the submitted comments. For any response, commenters may wish to consider describing specific goals or actions that the Department of Commerce, or the U.S. Government in general, might take (on its own or in conjunction with the private sector) to achieve those goals; the benefits and costs associated with the action; whether the proposal is agency-specific or interagency; the rationale and evidence to support it; and the roles of other stakeholders.

1. Are the challenges and opportunities arising from IoT similar to those that governments and societies have previously addressed with existing technologies, or are they different, and if so, how? a. What are the novel technological challenges presented by IoT relative to existing technological infrastructure and devices, if any? What makes them novel? b. What are the novel policy challenges presented by IoT relative to existing technology policy issues, if any? Why are they novel? Can existing policies and policy approaches address these new challenges, and if not, why? c. What are the most significant new opportunities and/or benefits created by IoT, be they technological, policy, or economic?
2. The term ‘‘Internet of Things’’ and related concepts have been defined by multiple organizations, including parts of the U.S. Government such as NIST and the FTC, through policy briefs and reference architectures.8 What definition(s) should we use in examining the IoT landscape and why? What is at stake in the differences between definitions of IoT? What are the strengths and limitations, if any, associated with these definitions?
3. With respect to current or planned laws, regulations, and/or policies that apply to IoT:
a. Are there examples that, in your view, foster IoT development and deployment, while also providing an appropriate level of protection to workers, consumers, patients, and/or other users of IoT technologies?
b. Are there examples that, in your view, unnecessarily inhibit IoT development and deployment?
4. Are there ways to divide or classify the IoT landscape to improve the precision with which public policy issues are discussed? If so, what are they, and what are the benefits or limitations of using such classifications? Examples of possible classifications of IoT could include: Consumer vs. industrial; public vs. private; device-to-device vs. human interfacing.
5. Please provide information on any current (or concluded) initiatives or research of significance that have examined or made important strides in understanding the IoT policy landscape. Why do you find this work to be significant? Technology: Technology is at the heart of IoT and its applications. IoT development is being driven by a very diverse set of stakeholders whose expertise in science, research, development, deployment, measurements and standards are enabling rapid advances in technologies for IoT. It is important to understand what technological hurdles still exist, or may arise, in the development and deployment of IoT, and if the government can play a role in mitigating these hurdles.
6. What technological issues may hinder the development of IoT, if any? a. Examples of possible technical issues could include: i. Interoperability ii. Insufficient/contradictory/proprietary standards/platforms iii. Spectrum availability and potential congestion/interference iv. Availability of network infrastructure v. Other b. What can the government do, if anything, to help mitigate these technical issues? Where may government/private sector partnership be beneficial?
7. NIST and NTIA are actively working to develop and understand many of the technical underpinnings for IoT technologies and their applications. What factors should the Department of Commerce and, more generally, the federal government consider when prioritizing their technical activities with regard to IoT and its applications, and why? Infrastructure: Infrastructure investment, innovation, and resiliency (such as across the information technology, communications, and energy sectors) will provide a foundation for the rapid growth of IoT services.
8. How will IoT place demands on existing infrastructure architectures, business models, or stability?
9. Are there ways to prepare for or minimize IoT disruptions in these infrastructures? How are these infrastructures planning and evolving to meet the demands of IoT?
10. What role might the government play in bolstering and protecting the availability and resiliency of these infrastructures to support IoT? Economy: IoT has already begun to alter the U.S. economy by enabling the development of innovative consumer products and entirely new economic sectors, enhancing a variety of existing products and services, and facilitating new manufacturing and delivery systems. In light of this, how should we think of and assess IoT and its effects? The questions below are an effort to understand both the potential economic implications of IoT for the U.S. economy, as well as how to quantify and analyze the economic impact of IoT in the future. The Department is interested in both the likely implications of IoT on the U.S. economy and society, as well as the tools that could be used to quantify that impact. 11. Should the government quantify and measure the IoT sector? If so, how? a. As devices manufactured or sold (in value or volume)? b. As industrial/manufacturing components? c. As part of the digital economy? i. In providing services ii. In the commerce of digital goods d. In enabling more advanced manufacturing and supply chains? e. What other metrics would be useful, if any? What new data collection tools might be necessary, if any? f. How might IoT fit within the existing industry classification systems? What new sector codes are necessary, if any?
12. Should the government measure the economic impact of IoT? If so, how? a. Are there novel analytical tools that should be applied? b. Does IoT create unique challenges for impact measurement?
13. What impact will the proliferation of IoT have on industrial practices, for example, advanced manufacturing, supply chains, or agriculture? a. What will be the benefits, if any? b. What will be the challenges, if any? c. What role or actions should the Department of Commerce and, more generally, the federal government take in response to these challenges, if any?
14. What impact (positive or negative) might the growth of IoT have on the U.S. workforce? What are the potential benefits of IoT for employees and/or employers? What role or actions should the government take in response to workforce challenges raised by IoT, if any? Policy Issues: A growing dependence on embedded devices in all aspects of life raises questions about the confidentiality of personal data, the integrity of operations, and the availability and resiliency of critical services.
15. What are the main policy issues that affect or are affected by IoT? How should the government address or respond to these issues?
16. How should the government address or respond to cybersecurity concerns about IoT? a. What are the cybersecurity concerns raised specifically by IoT? How are they different from other cybersecurity concerns? b. How do these concerns change based on the categorization of IoT applications (e.g., based on categories for Question 4, or consumer vs. industrial)? c. What role or actions should the Department of Commerce and, more generally, the federal government take regarding policies, rules, and/or standards with regards to IoT cybersecurity, if any?
17. How should the government address or respond to privacy concerns about IoT?
a. What are the privacy concerns raised specifically by IoT? How are they different from other privacy concerns?
b. Do these concerns change based on the categorization of IoT applications (e.g., based on categories for Question 4, or consumer vs. industrial)? c. What role or actions should the Department of Commerce and, more generally, the federal government take regarding policies, rules, and/or standards with regards to privacy and the IoT?
18. Are there other consumer protection issues that are raised specifically by IoT? If so, what are they and how should the government respond to the concerns?
19. In what ways could IoT affect and be affected by questions of economic equity? a. In what ways could IoT potentially help disadvantaged communities or groups? Rural communities? b. In what ways might IoT create obstacles for these communities or groups? c. What effects, if any, will Internet access have on IoT, and what effects, if any, will IoT have on Internet access? d. What role, if any, should the government play in ensuring that the positive impacts of IoT reach all Americans and keep the negatives from disproportionately impacting disadvantaged communities or groups? International Engagement: As mentioned earlier, efforts have begun in foreign jurisdictions, standards organizations, and intergovernmental bodies to explore the potential of, and develop standards, specifications, and best practices for IoT. The Department is seeking input on how to best monitor and/or engage in various international fora as part of the government’s ongoing efforts to encourage innovation and growth of the digital economy.
20. What factors should the Department consider in its international engagement in: a. Standards and specification organizations? b. Bilateral and multilateral engagement? c. Industry alliances? d. Other?
21. What issues, if any, regarding IoT should the Department focus on through international engagement?
22. Are there Internet governance issues now or in the foreseeable future specific to IoT?
23. Are there policies that the government should seek to promote with international partners that would be helpful in the IoT context?
24. What factors can impede the growth of the IoT outside the U. S. (e.g., data or service localization requirements or other barriers to trade), or otherwise constrain the ability of U.S. companies to provide those services on a global basis? How can the government help to alleviate these factors? Additional Issues:
25. Are there IoT policy areas that could be appropriate for multistakeholder engagement, similar to the NTIA-run processes on privacy and cybersecurity?
26. What role should the Department of Commerce play within the federal government in helping to address the challenges and opportunities of IoT? How can the Department of Commerce best collaborate with stakeholders on IoT matters?
27. How should government and the private sector collaborate to ensure that infrastructure, policy, technology, and investment are working together to best fuel IoT growth and development? Would an overarching strategy, such as those deployed in other countries, be useful in this space? If the answer is yes, what should that strategy entail? 28. What are any additional relevant issues not raised above, and what role, if any, should the Department of Commerce and, more generally, the federal government play in addressing them?

Dated: April 1, 2016. Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information.

[FR Doc. 2016–07892 Filed 4–5–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–60–P


1] The term was initially coined by Kevin Ashton in 1999 in a presentation at Proctor and Gamble in reference to radio-frequency identification tags (RFIDs). See Kevin Ashton, That ‘Internet of Things’ Thing, RFID Journal (June 22, 2009), http://

2] In 2003, there were only around 500 million connected devices, but by 2015 there were around 25 billion connected devices. Devices now outnumber people by 3.5 to 1. (Intel, A Guide to the Internet of Things Infographic, available at http:// It is expected by 2020 that there will be up to 200 billion connected devices and these devices will outnumber people by 26 to 1. The McKinsey Global Institute estimates that the cross-sector impact of IoT technologies will be between $3.9 trillion and $11 trillion by 2025. See James Manyika et al, Unlocking the Potential of the Internet of Things, McKinsey & Co. (June 2015), http:// the_internet_of_things_the_value_of_digitizing_the_ physical_world.

3] See, for example, the concerns laid out by the National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) in NSTAC Report to the President on the Internet of Things (Nov. 2014), pg. 21–22. publications/NSTAC%20Report%20to%20the %20President%20on%20the%20Internet%20of %20Things%20Nov%202014%20%28updat %20%20%20.pdf.

4] See U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Radio Frequency Wireless Technology in Medical Devices: Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff (Aug. 14, 2013), http:// RegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ ucm077272.pdf; see also NHTSA, Vehicle-toVehicle Communications (last accessed March 9, 2016),

5] Federal Trade Comm’n, FTC Report on Internet of Things Urges Companies to Adopt Best Practices to Address Consumer Privacy and Security Risks, FTC (Jan. 27, 2015),

6] The White House, FACT SHEET: Administration Announces New ‘‘Smart Cities’’ Initiative to Help communities Tackle Local Challenges and Improve City Services, The White House Office of the Press Secretary (Sept. 14, 2015), https:// fact-sheet-administration-announces-new-smartcities-initiative-help.

7] For example, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), and ISO and IEC’s Joint Technical Committee 1 (ISO/IEC JTC1) and the International Telecommunications Union’s Standardization Sector (ITU–T) have initiated discussion and work related to IoT.

8] Federal Trade Comm’n, Internet of Things: Privacy and Security in a Connected World, FTC (Jan. 2015), documents/reports/federal-trade-commission-staffreport-november-2013-workshop-entitled-internetthings-privacy/150127iotrpt.pdf; Abdella Battou, CPS PWG: Reference Architecture, National Institute of Standards and Technology (accessed March 9, 2016), refarch.cfm


ICANN 55ICANN’s 55th Meeting takes place this week in Marrakech, Morocco. ISOC-NY, in partnership with Civic Hall, will host a NYC remote hub for the two Public Forum sessions. The hub will be fully interactive, with 2-way video, and refreshments will be supplied. This is an important opportunity to participate in the Internet Governance process at a critical time in ICANN’s development – not just the finalization of the IANA transition, casting off the reins of the US Government, but also other critical issues, such as the further advancement of the TLD expansion, what to do with the millions of revenue from same, how to resolve the conflicts between privacy and transparency in determining a new WHOIS framework, and much more. The issues will be broadly defined at the first Public Forum session (Noon-1:30pm EST Monday March 7) where there will be some time for clarifying questions, and then fully discussed at the second Public Forum session (8:30am-11am Thursday March 10). You will be able to address the entire ICANN Plenary from the remote hub. Please join us at Civic Hall and have your say!

What: ICANN 55 Public Forum NYC Remote Hub
Where: Civic Hall, 156 5th Ave NYC, 2nd Floor (at 20th st)
When: Public Forum 1 – Monday Mar 7 noon-1:30pm EST
?Public Forum 2 – Thursday Mar 10 8:30-11:00 am EST
Register: Monday –
Twitter: #ICANN55 + NYC


Wikiday NYC 2016On Saturday January 16, 2016 Wikimedia NYC will celebrate Wikipedia’s 15th Birthday with a miniconference, hosted by NYU’s Interactive Telecommunications Program at the Tisch School of the Arts,  supported by the Free Culture Alliance NYC (including ISOC-NY). Topics include Wikidata, Education & Editathons, Lightning Talks, and many inconference sessions. From 4pm-5pm there wil be a live link up with some of the many other similar events taking place worldwide. Attendance is free. Food will be provided. Please register at if you plan to attend in person. There will also be a livestream via the Internet Society Livestream Channel.

What: Wikipedia Day 15th Birthday Bash NYC
Where: NYU ITP, 721 Broadway, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10003
When: Saturday, January 16, 2016 10:00 am – 7:00 pm EST (UTC-5)
Twitter: #Wikipedia15


IGF 2015 in Brazil

The 2015 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) will take place on 10-13 November 2015 in João Pessoa, Paraíba, Brazil and in a series of remote hubs located around the world.

Quick Links


Featured Blog Posts


Focused on the theme of “Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development“, the 2015 IGF focuses on eight primary themes:

  • Cybersecurity and trust
  • The Internet economy
  • Inclusiveness and diversity
  • Openness
  • Enhancing multistakeholder cooperation
  • The Internet and human rights
  • Critical Internet resources
  • Emerging issues

The Internet Society has strongly supported the IGF from its launch after the original World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).

In 2015 Internet Society staff and chapter leaders will be active in João Pessoa – ISOC chapters are also providing some of the remote hubs.

2015 IGF Ambassadors

The Internet Society will once again be sponsoring a set of “Ambassadors” to the IGF. Please read their biographies.

More Information

Please see these websites for more information about the IGF 2015:

Continue reading

Internet Society Trustees meeting in Yokohama – Remote Participation details

ISOC logoToday Friday October 30 2015 and tomorrow Saturday October 31 2015 the Internet Society’s Board of Trustees is meeting in Yokohama prior to IETF 94. Proceedings will include planning for InterCommunity 2016 and a 25th Anniversary event in 2017. Remote participation is available. Japan is UTC+7) 13 hours ahead of NYC.

What: Internet Society Board of Trustees meeting
Where: Yokohama, Japan
When: Friday October 30 2015 – Saturday October 31 2015
Remote Participation:
Twitter: #ISOCBOT
Continue reading

WEBCAST MONDAY 8/1: Fed-State Joint Conference on Advanced Telecom Services – Best Practices in Changing Times

Best PracticesOn Monday August 3 2015 at 10 am the Internet Society Livestream Channel will present a webcast of the entire proceeding of the Federal-State Joint Conference on Advanced Telecommunications Services public forum Best Practices in Changing Times on July 15 at the Marriott Marquis in New York. The program comprises three panels:

10:00am  PANEL 1: High-Speed Broadband Technology – Availability
Moderator: Gregg Sayre, Commissioner, New York Public Service Commission. Speakers: David Salway, Executive Director, NYS Broadband Office; Deb Socia, Director, Next Century Cities; Robert Mayer, Vice President – Industry and State Affairs, USTelecom Association; Brittny Saunders, Deputy Counsel to the Mayor of New York City. (Panel includes Welcome/Introduction from Catherine J.K. Sandoval, Commissioner, California Public Utilities Commission)

11:30am PANEL 2: Broadband Services Adoption
Moderator: Gregg Sayre, Commissioner, New York Public Service Commission, Speakers Thomas Kamber, Older Adults Technology Services (O.A.T.S.); Phillip Jones, Commissioner, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission; Luke Swarthout, Director of Adult Education Services, NY Public Library; Louis Zacharilla, Intelligent Community Forum. (Panel includes keynote from late-arriving Travis Littman, Legal Advisor, Office of FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel)

1:00pm  PANEL 3: 21st Century Technology & Broadband Innovations
Moderator: Clayton Banks, New York City COPIC Commissioner & Co-Founder of Silicon Harlem. Speakers: Dazza Greenwood, Founder and Principal, and Visiting Scientist, M.I.T; John T. Chapman, Engineering Fellow & Chief Technical Officer, Cable Access Business Unit, Cisco; Dr. Lawrence Jones, Alstom Grid; Ed Donelan, Telecom Infrastructure Corp.; Michael B. Shear, Strategic Office Networks.

What: Federal-State Joint Conference on Advanced Telecommunications Services – Best Practices in Changing Times
When: Monday August 3 2015 10:00am – 3:00pm EDT | 14:00-19:00 UTC
Twitter: #broadband + #bestpractices 

Continue reading

MEETUP TUESDAY: InterCommunity 2015 Global Member Meeting New York node

Next Tuesday/Wednesday July 7-8 2015 the Internet Society will be holding InterCommunity2015 – the first online meeting of our entire 70k+ global members. Session 1 on Tuesday will be optimally timed for participation in the Western Hemisphere and iComm2015 ISOC-NY will be one of several Chapters setting up “nodes” (= remote hubs) to participate. We will meet at Civic Hall starting at 2pm, and the session will run 3pm-6:30pm. After which there will be a reception. We are honoured to be joined in person by ISOC VP of Global Engagement Raúl Echeberría, who will address the global meeting via our node. Space is limited but all ISOC NY members are invited to attend. Please register via our meetup. It is also possible to individually participate remotely in the Global Meeting (including the Session 2 – 2:00am EDT on Wednesday).

What: InterCommunity 2015 Global Member Meeting New York node
Where: Civic Hall, 156 5th Ave, NYC 10010
When: Tuesday July 7 2015 2pm-7pm
2:00pm Doors Open
3:00pm Node Interactions / Chapter Updates (not available remotely)
4:00pm Welcome, Introductions
4:20pm Launch of 2nd annual Global Internet Report
4:30pm Access & Development
5:00pm Internet Governance
5:40pm Collaborative Security
6:10pm Conclusions & Wrap Up
6:30pm Reception (not available online)
Register (in person):
Register (remote):
Twitter: #iComm2015
Facebook: #iComm2015

Continue reading

Thoughts On Today’s FCC Net Neutrality Ruling

[From Sally Shipman Wentworth , Internet Society VP of Public Policy]

Today the eyes of many people around the world have been focused on Washington, DC, as ( the U.S. Federal Communications Committee (FCC) held an Open Meeting where they voted on a Report and Order around  “Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet”.  More commonly known as  the ruling on “Network Neutrality”, the vote today represents what is a potentially major shift in the longstanding policy of the United States with regard to regulation of Internet services.

The Internet Society has always supported the fundamental values of a global, open Internet grounded in transparency, access and choice. We believe that openness should be the guiding principle that continues to enable the success and growth of the Internet. The goals of the U.S. Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) Open Internet Order – providing U.S. consumers with meaningful transparency, addressing concerns over blocking and discrimination, clarifying the role of reasonable network management, and enabling the permissionless innovation that has led to the success of the Internet today – are all really important.

However, if we look at this in light of a range of proposals around the world that aim to apply policies designed for telecommunications networks and services to the Internet, we consider it possible that such an approach could result in the opposite consequences.  We realize that there are unique legislative and procedural challenges in the U.S., but we are concerned with the FCC’s decision to base new rules for the modern Internet on decades-old telephone regulations designed for a very different technological era.

Regulatory approaches that could affect the sustainability of the global, open Internet need to take into account the technical reality of how networks are operated and managed. Allowing the necessary technological flexibility to keep pace with rapid innovation is integral to ensuring the continued growth and success of the Internet. We believe we need to be careful that this flexibility is not undermined by the use of a regulatory framework designed to govern the old telecommunications system.

The explosive innovation that has occurred over the last two decades has allowed for communities across the world to participate in and benefit from connectivity, both socially and economically. Promoting Internet access and availability is integral to the success of our digital future, and global public policies should continue to be guided by ( the fundamentals that have contributed to the Internet’s growth.  We believe a regulatory paradigm ill-suited for the current and future Internet ecosystem could have severe implications on this continued success.

As a global organization, we recognize that the FCC’s decision today applies only to the United States, but we also realize that other nations may look to the FCC’s ruling as a model for their own regulations. For that reason it’s critical to us that regulations of this nature be compatible with the principles that have led to the innovation and opportunity that are the hallmarks of today’s global Internet.

We know that these are complex issues and that working to maintain the benefits of an open Internet presents us all with an ongoing challenge. We look forward to reviewing the full text of the FCC’s Order once it’s released.


Continue reading

Internet Society Board of Trustees Encourages Continued Trust in the Multistakeholder Process for IANA Transition

ISOC logo[Singapore – 15 February 2015] – The Internet Society Board of Trustees, during its Board meeting 14-15 February 2015, applauded the progress made by the global Internet community on the IANA stewardship transition and encouraged continued momentum to ensure a robust and successful proposal that leads to globalization. Acknowledging the milestones that have been reached to date, the Board stressed that a successful transition will reinforce the value of the collaborative, multistakeholder model.

The Internet Society recognizes the complexity of this transition and that core issues of accountability, security and stability are at stake. The Board noted that it is encouraged by the transparency employed by the IANA operating communities and by the broad engagement of the Internet community in the process.

The Board of Trustees also welcomed the proposals submitted by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and is encouraged by the solid progress being made on the names’ community proposal. Furthermore, it congratulates ICANN on the effective operation of the IANA functions.

Internet Society Board of Trustees Chair, Bob Hinden, noted, “This process is a true reflection of the power of the multistakeholder approach to bring parties together to solve complex problems. We encourage all parties to stay focused on the goal of achieving a globally interoperable Internet that continues to evolve as a platform for permissionless innovation.”

In this regard, the Internet Society underscores the importance of the following key principles to support the sustainable evolution of the Internet ecosystem:

• Accountability – Robust measures are essential in ensuring that no single group captures the IANA functions.

• Transparency – A multistakeholder, bottom-up framework is the most appropriate model for the operation of the IANA functions.

Recognizing the success that ICANN has had in uniting the community to discuss the issues at hand, the Board of Trustees urges all participants to maintain momentum in the process and to continue to work together to ensure the successful transition of the IANA functions to the global multistakeholder community.

Kathryn Brown, Internet Society President and CEO, emphasized that globalization of the IANA functions is a critical step in providing additional confidence in the collaborative and inclusive Internet governance model. “Smooth operation of the Internet depends upon a global, coordinated approach to managing these shared resources. The process to transition and globalize the IANA functions is a demonstration of global multistakeholder community cooperation in action.”

Continue reading

MEETUP: Bitcoin for Rockstars – a fireside chat with D.A. Wallach – Sunday Jan 25

Bitcoin for RockstarsOn Sunday 25 January 2015, at 4pm the Internet Society’s New York Chapter(ISOC-NY) will present “Bitcoin for Rockstars – a fireside chat with D.A. Wallach” at TurnToTech NYC. The traditional existing methods of registering works and distributing music royalties are archaic, arcane, inefficient, and unsuited to the global networked marketplace. D.A. Wallach recently proposed thata decentralized, open, global ledger, based on bitcoin style blockchain technology, as an optimal solution for credits and rights information about music. Then a system of “smart contracts” could facilitate the distribution of funds. Thus:

In the proposed music rights network, each song, recording, rights-holder, creator, and payor would have its own unique address on the ledger. And complimenting this ledger would be “smart contracts,” programmatic rules defining how the addresses relate to each other and automating their interactions. For example, Katy Perry’s “Dark Horse” would have its own address, as would Katy Perry herself, each of her collaborators, and each of the companies entitled to royalties from the song. One set of “smart contracts” could connect all of these addresses to one another.

Spotify, YouTube and other services could then issue all-in royalty micro-payments (aggregating all negotiated fees) directly to the “Dark Horse” address every time the song is played. The smart contracts connected to the “Dark Horse” address would recognize the source of the payment—say, Spotify—and then instantly split and redirect royalties to all the addresses entitled to payments from the service for the song. Katy Perry, her label, her publisher, and her collaborators would all have total visibility into payments received by the “Dark Horse” address, and each would receive its shares instantly in its own wallet. This software-based relay station for royalty and licensing payments would put creators at the center of the action, allowing them to understand how much money their works were generating, and from which services or licensees. It would also give artists and songwriters instant access to the funds generated by their work, obviating the long waiting periods they currently endure.

We invite you, on a Sunday afternoon, to join D.A. Wallach and ISOC-NY to explore this fascinating concept! Our interlocutor will be Aram Sinnreich of Rutgers University. Please RSVP via ISOC-NY’s meetup.

What: Bitcoin for Rockstars – a fireside chat with D.A. Wallach
Where: TurnToTech, 184 5th Ave, 4th Floor, NYC (@22nd St)
When: Sunday January 25 2014 – 4pm-6pm | 2100-2300 UTC
Twitter: #bitcoinforrockstars

Continue reading

MEETUP: NYC Remote Hub for ICANN 51 – Thursday Oct 16 2014 – Register Now!

NYC ICANN 51On Thursday October 16 2014 the Internet Society’s New York Chapter (ISOC-NY), Connecting .nyc, and the Brooklyn Law Incubator & Policy Clinic (BLIP) will host a Remote Hub for the 51st Meeting of the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers aka ICANN 51, taking place in Los Angeles. The hub will be fully interactive, with 2-way video, and participate in 3 sessions. Plentiful refreshments will be supplied, courtesy of ICANN. Please register via ISOC-NY’s meetup, or by emailing

What: NYC Remote Hub for ICANN 51
Where: Blip Clinic Dumbo Outpost, 55 Washington St #321, Brooklyn, NY 11201 (map)
When: Thursday October 16 2014 11am-8pm EDT
1. Enhancing ICANN Accountability 11:30am-12:45pm EDT
2. Community Discussion with the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) 1pm-3pm EDT
3. Public Forum 4:30pm-8pm EDT
Twitter: #icann51 | #remotehub

Continue reading

Message from Internet Society President Kathy Brown

Kathy BrownTo my ISOC Colleagues,

I am writing as I fly to Istanbul with much anticipation for a week of important work. I understand that more than 3000 people have registered for the IGF. This past year, as a diverse Internet community, we have given much thought and energy on how to best “govern” ourselves. In Istanbul, we will have an opportunity, with our colleagues from around the world, to, once again, demonstrate the power of collective collaboration and action. As we know, collaboration is essential to ensure the future of the Internet. If decisions related to the Internet and its future are not in the hands of the many, they will only be in the hands of the few. I will post some further thoughts this weekend on IGF before the panels, workshops, lunches and dinners begin.

I wanted, however, to take a few moments before we land to report back on my observations of the WEF event yesterday.

I applaud the leadership of the World Economic Forum for highlighting and recognizing the enormity of the effect of the Internet on the global economy and the benefits and challenges inherent in its adoption in much of the world. It is, of course, entirely legitimate that it seeks to understand and participate in the debate on internet governance. When given the opportunity to comment during the morning session, I urged that its thinking about governance include as its central tenet the continuing investment, innovation and access to the Internet to and for everyone, particularly for those who do not yet have access and for the “unborn innovator”.

Many of us in and around the Internet Society–on Staff, on the Board, in our organizational members and Chapters, in the IETF and the IAB have been deeply committed and involved in working with our extended communities to address the threats to the Internet as well as to develop, manage and deploy the ever-evolving technology of the Internet throughout the world. We revel in inventing the future. Together, we have adopted a bottom up culture and method of decision making around numerous, local and global, technical, social and legal issues that arise in the decentralized, distributed ecosystem which is the Internet.

We were delighted with the cooperative spirit in Brazil at Net Mundial as well as our collective ability to reach rough consensus on the principles that should govern our governing. Olaf Kolkman, ISOC’s new CITO, enthusiastically said, lets tack these principles on the door and, for all who are ready to embrace them, come on in.

Many of us are busy implementing features of the NetMundial roadmap. ISOC has developed toolkits for spam and IXPs; our regional offices hold INETs throughout the world to demonstrate and teach technical skills; our Leadership program creates and administers online courses and sponsors leadership seminars, ambassadorships and internships; we take active leadership in policy development for governance issues; and our staff has worked tirelessly to introduce best practices workshops to the IGF, while our Chapters have actively supported Regional and National IGFs around the Globe. The Internet Society is a party to the NTIA Transition Coordinating Committee. Our representatives and Chapters are intimately involved in the ICANN accountability dialogue. We believe that we are well along the Internet Governance journey.

We welcome any and all people and groups of good will to work with us and the broader Internet Community in a multi-stakeholder effort to deepen and broaden this effort. We certainly invite WEF to get acquainted with our collective work that is serious and ongoing. I heard some intention to do that.

I was disturbed, however, as others have expressed, with the opaque way the meeting came about; about what seemed to be established agendas; talk of some new single entity and top down models that purport to represent organic community processes that could be hobbled by definitions and artificial role expectations.

I frankly do not know enough to know whether my concerns are justified. I look forward to hearing more from WEF, and perhaps, from the ICANN leadership, this week, about the initiative. I hope, too, that the folks at WEF who are coming to the IGF soak up the energy, creativity, work and sweat of the community that will gather this week. A constructive dialogue and the collaborative spirit of NetMundial may just cause us to join forces for the good of the Internet and the good of the world.

So, on to Istanbul. We have work to do.

Continue reading

VIDEO: Avri Doria receiving first ICANN Multistakeholder Ethos Award

Internet Society New York Chapter (ISOC-NY) member Avri Doria is the recipient of the inaugural
ICANN Multistakeholder Ethos Award, which she received in June 2014 at ICANN50 in London. Video of the award ceremony is below.

View on YouTube:
Transcribe on AMARA:
Twitter: @Avri

Continue reading


libtech nycOn Wednesday May 21 2014 at 3pm the Internet Society’s New York Chapter (ISOC-NY) and RECLAIM.CC, as part of Internet Week NY, will present Libtech NYC 2014 – a half-day conference to “envision, learn, share and build robust, decentralized networks through participatory systems.” There is a voluntary fee of $12+ to attend in person, and a free webcast via the Internet Society Chapters YouTube channel.

What: Libtech NYC 2014
Where: Courant Institute, Warren Weaver Hall, 251 Mercer St, NYC
When: Wednesday May 21 2014 3pm-9pm EDT | 1900-0100 UTC
Twitter: #libtechnyc
• Save the internet: net neutrality protestors camp out against FCC ruling
• Create the people’s intelligence agency with Robert David Steele, author of Open Source Everything manifesto
• Learn from veteran attorney Stanley Cohen on criminalization of dissent
• Explore how a new Internet Bill Of Rights might function
Reclaim: where communities of practice connect around projects
• Build and transform social capital, diy liberation technology + you
Groucho Fractal and Scott Beibin; Beyond The Grid with video artist Paul Garrin with Nicole Brydson of Misfit Media; Veteran attorney activist Stanley Cohen; Cyber-reformer and intelligence professional Robert David Steele on intelligence in the public interest; Nate Heasley with goodnik; Sandra Ordonez with Open Internet Tools Projects (openitp); Nick Farr – hackers on planet earth; Reactor (Josephine Dorado and Jeremy Pesner); David Solomonoff with the Internet Society of New York; Bruce Lincoln & Clayton Banks envisioning the technological future with Silicon Harlem; Thomas Lowenhaupt of; Ted Schulman and the open source imperative; Ted Hall and seedball; culture change campaigns with Fred Sullivan and the man-up campaign and communities of practice including arc 38 and Brooklyn the Borough.
Continue reading