Fourth, I would like to see additional focus to more accurately quantify current spectrum demand, usage and projections of future requirements - for both non-federal and federal use. Technologies and business models change rapidly. To ensure we keep up with these changes, we need to focus on actual needs. Wireless operators appear to be concentrating on expanding capacity in a localized fashion to address the most congested parts of their networks. How will we collectively ensure that more areas get covered by the latest technologies and dead zones are minimized? How granular does coverage need to be for emerging 5G applications? For IoT specifically? How important is reliability in an IoT environment? These are questions that will need to be considered in weighing future spectrum policy decisions."
Ah yes, Spectrum Sharing and Spectrum Monitoring again? I believe I have covered this aspect sufficiently previously and shall continue to so do in future. I have also mentioned the performance characteristics of radio receivers also as directed by the Presidential Report. As for interference and spectrum forensics and enforcement tools being built into the chip sets, readers shall know that I am well on top of matters. As for Surrey? I shall come back to Webb's Luddites another time.
Instead it is to that other vitally important contribution Lawrence made to ensure that an Open Internet is maintained and preserved: "The Self-Governing Internet". His speech to the Georgia Institute of Technology, on the 26th October addressed this subject in depth. It concerns a small matter of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). Citing from Lawrence's speech:
"First, let me provide some history. More than two years ago, NTIA tasked ICANN with convening stakeholders to develop a plan to transition the stewardship role NTIA played related to the Internet domain name system. We set out four key criteria. We said it must:
* support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet governance;
* maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;
* meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and
* maintain the openness of the Internet.
In addition, we said we would not accept a plan that replaced NTIA's role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution. Enhancing ICANN's accountability also was deemed by stakeholders to be a critical part of this process."
Next Laurence addresses the multi-stakeholder governance model itself:
"Perhaps the most important attribute is that a multi-stakeholder process must have legitimacy.
Participants must believe that a process has the legitimacy to reach a decision. They must have some trust in those convening the process and a sense that the participants are representative of the broader community.
So where does legitimacy come from? Often that legitimacy may come from a government or some other "official" entity that convenes the process. But that does not always have to be the case. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is an example of a successful multi-stakeholder body that has gained legitimacy organically over the years and did not require the blessing of a government agency like NTIA. Instead, it gained legitimacy by producing voluntary standards of the highest quality.
In the United States, the legitimacy of the domestic multi-stakeholder processes that NTIA has facilitated on privacy and cybersecurity have certainly been helped by our convening them and by their open and transparent manner. But government does not always need to be the legitimizing force. So while legitimacy is a crucial factor in the success of a multi-stakeholder process, there may be many different ways to obtain it.