Monday, October 24, 2016

Why the Internet is the way it is (and why it will be very different in ten years) - David Clark

The History of the IANA Transition

NANOG 68: Scott Bradner will discuss the history of Internet Governance leading up to the transition of oversight of the IANA function from NTIA to the internet's multistakeholder community.

Geoff Houston, How Did We Get Here? A Look Back at the History of IANA, CIRCLEID Oct. 23, 2016 ("At the start of the month, the United States Government let its residual oversight arrangements with ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) over the operation of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) lapse. No single government now has a unique relationship with the governance of the protocol elements of the Internet, and it is now in the hands of a community of interested parties in a so-called Multi-Stakeholder framework. This is a unique step for the Internet and not without its attendant risks. How did we get here?")

Tuesday, October 04, 2016

✏️ NTIA, NSF Seek Comments to Shape National Broadband Research Agenda

Broadband is increasingly playing a central role in the lives of Americans. Job searches, education, entertainment, health care services, business ventures - those with access to reliable, high-speed broadband gain tremendous opportunities in almost every facet of life.
The Obama Administration has made expanding broadband access and adoption a top priority. While we have made good progress, more work needs to be done. In March 2015, President Obama established the Broadband Opportunity Council and tasked it with producing recommendations to increase broadband deployment, competition and adoption through executive actions.
In the Broadband Opportunity Council's ensuing report, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) committed to developing a National Broadband Research Agenda to help shape the future of broadband by outlining a strategic plan for research into promising new technologies and applications, as well as promoting federal coordination in data collection practices and policies.
Of course, there is already ongoing research in important areas related to broadband. For example, NTIA, in conjunction with the U.S. Census Bureau, has for the last two decades surveyed Americans about their computer and Internet use, including reasons why some households do not use the Internet. Studies like NTIA's own Digital Nation reports, among many others, help shed light on the digital divide and other important policy challenges. With the National Broadband Research Agenda, we aim to identify new opportunities for cutting-edge research and analysis, and pathways to foster a collaborative research environment that includes stakeholders both within and outside of government.
Today, NTIA and NSF are requesting public comments that will inform the National Broadband Research Agenda. The public's input will help to improve data collection, analysis and research for the benefit of broadband policy development, program implementation and program evaluation.
We are seeking input in four areas:
  1. Broadband technology
  2. Broadband access and adoption
  3. Socioeconomic impacts
  4. Opportunities for federal leadership
Some of the questions we're asking are: What research proposals regarding broadband access should be prioritized? How can cross-disciplinary collaboration in broadband research be enhanced? What is needed to understand how to reach population groups that have traditionally under-utilized broadband technology?
We encourage all who wish to advance broadband in America through new or improved research and data collection to weigh in. Those who want to provide input should submit comments to by Oct. 11.

Sunday, October 02, 2016

Ancillary Jurisdiction

The Communications Act of 1934 gives the Federal Communications Commission jurisdiction over interstate wireline and radio communications. For example, Title II of the Act gives the FCC jurisdiction over telecommunications services. Title III gives the FCC jurisdiction over wireless services.

But communications evolve, and by-and-by the FCC confronts a question not anticipated by the Communications Act. Nascent innovations storm the market and present policy issues prior to Congressional action. The classic example of this is the introduction of CableTV, placing a broadcast signal on a cable and bringing it over the mountain to a community that could not otherwise get reception. There was no Cable Act giving the Commission authority to act. Nevertheless, the FCC promulgated regulations which addressed the geographic footprints of cable TV networks. The Supreme Court upheld the FCC's exercise of jurisdiction, finding that it was reasonably ancillary to the agency's jurisdiction over broadcast TV.

The reach of the Commission's ancillary jurisdiction is not unbounded. While courts have recognized that the Communications Act grants the FCC broad authority, the Commission cannot use ancillary authority to justify anything. According to the courts,
"The Commission . . . may exercise ancillary jurisdiction only when two conditions are satisfied:
(1) the Commission's general jurisdictional grant under Title I [of the Communications Act] covers the regulated subject and 

(2) the regulations are reasonably ancillary to the Commission's effective performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities."
It has to be interstate communications and it has to be ancillary to something (ancillary to a mere policy statement is insufficient). The FCC exercising jurisdiction over cable TV as ancillary to its Broadcast TV authority - sure, that is sound. But the courts, expressing anxiety that the FCC has no more authority than that which Congress grants it, gets jittering on the boundary of clearly articulated expressions of authority. The further astray the FCC acts from expressed statutory authority, the more anxiety is expressed by the courts. Where it is clear that the FCC is filling in gaps not anticipated by Congress, and which fulfill its mandate for promoting interstate communications, the Courts have tended towards affirming that authority. Where the FCC strains to tie its actions to expressed authority, however, the courts have stated that ancillary jurisdiction is not "unbounded."

Ancillary Jurisdiction
No Ancillary Jurisdiction
  • CableTV: regulation of geographic footprint of cable TV service ancillary to jurisdiction over broadcast TV
  • CableTV: cable TV requirement of creation of original programming ancillary to jurisdiction over broadcast TV
  • Enhanced Service Providers (Internet): Computer Inquiries safeguards ancillary to jurisdiction over telecom service
  • Universal Service: creation of universal service fund ancillary to title II authority to set reasonable interstate telephone rates
  • CableTV: regulations that required cable systems to make certain channels available for public use not ancillary to broadcast TV authority
  • Broadcast Flag: jurisdiction over broadcast flag to protect copyright is post-transmission and not ancillary to FCC authority
  • Broadband Internet Access Service: jurisdiction over BIAS cannot be ancillary to a policy statement

Thursday, September 29, 2016

✏️ LOC NOI :: Sec. 1201 Copyright Circumvention Protection Systems :: Comments Due Oct. 27

AGENCY:U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

ACTION:Notice of Inquiry.

The United States Copyright Office is requesting additional written comments in connection with its ongoing study on the operation of the statutory provisions regarding the circumvention of copyright protection systems. This request provides an opportunity for interested parties to address certain issues raised by various members of the public in response to the Office's initial Notice of Inquiry.

Written comments must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on October 27, 2016. Written reply comments must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on November 16, 2016.

The Copyright Office is using the system for the submission and posting of public comments in this proceeding. All comments are therefore to be submitted electronically through Specific instructions for submitting comments are available on the Copyright Office Web site at​policy/​1201/​commentsubmission/​. If electronic submission of comments is not feasible, please contact the Office using the contact information below for special instructions.

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

❕Notice of 09/30/2016 Digital Economy Board of Advisors Open Meeting

"This notice announces an open meeting of the Digital Economy Board of Advisors. The Board advises and provides recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce, through the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), on a broad range of issues concerning the digital economy and Internet policy.
"The meeting will be held in two sessions on September 30, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., Pacific Daylight Time (PDT), and from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. PDT.
"The meeting will be held at Mozilla, 331 E. Evelyn Avenue, Mountain View, CA94041. Public comments may be mailed to: Digital Economy Board of Advisors, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4725, Washington, DC 20230 or emailed to
"For further information contact Evelyn Remaley, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), at (202) 482-3821 or; and/or visit NTIA’s Web site at category/ digital-economy-board-advisors.
 "Federal Register Notice of 09/30/2016 Digital Economy Board of Advisors Open Meeting

Department of Commerce--Property Implications of Proposed Transition of U.S. Government Oversight of Key Internet Technical Functions

"The Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) proposes to transition its oversight of key Internet technical functions (the IANA functions) and the Internet domain name system to a global multistakeholder community.  We addressed whether U.S. Government property will be transferred or otherwise disposed of in connection with the transition in violation of the Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV).  We find it is unlikely that either the domain name system or the authoritative root zone file (the “address book” for the top-level domain) is U.S. Government property under Article IV.  We also find the Government may have certain data rights, and has limited intellectual and tangible property, all of which constitute Article IV property, but that property will be retained and not disposed of in connection with the transition. Finally, the Government has a contractual right to continued performance by the entities carrying out the IANA functions and related services. That right, which also constitutes U.S. Government property, would be disposed of if NTIA terminates the agreements rather than allowing them to expire, but NTIA has the requisite authority to dispose of this Government property interest."
B-327398: Sep 12, 2016

Friday, August 19, 2016

RFC :: NTIA The Incentives, Benefits, Costs, and Challenges to IPv6 Implementation

"SUMMARY Recognizing the exhaustion of Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) address space and the imperative for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) implementation and use, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is seeking input to guide NTIA in future IPv6 promotional activities. Through this Notice, NTIA invites adopters and implementers of IPv6 as well as any other interested stakeholders to share information on the benefits, costs, and challenges they have experienced, as well as any insight into additional incentives that could aid future adoption, implementation, and support of IPv6. After analyzing the comments, the Department intends to aggregate input received into a report that will be used to inform domestic and global efforts focused on IPv6 promotion, including any potential NTIA initiatives.

"DATES: Comments are due on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 3, 2016.

Fed Reg Notice: Request for Comments on the Incentives, Benefits, Costs, and Challenges to IPv6 Implementation

RFC :: NIST Report on Lightweight Cryptography

NIST Released Draft NIST Internal Report (NISTIR) 8114, Report on Lightweight Cryptography, for public comment.
Link to the DRAFT NISTIR 8114 document and also to the announcement can be found on the CSRC Drafts Publications page:
Send comments to:

Deadline to submit comments: October 31, 2016.