From the FCC Order.
Oh joy …
Multistakeholder Processes and Technical Advisory Groups
268. In the 2014 Open Internet NPRM, the Commission sought comment on
whether
enforcement of open Internet rules―including resolution of open Internet
disputes―could be supported
by multistakeholder processes that enable the development of independent
standards to guide the
Commission in compliance determinations. The Commission also asked whether
it should incorporate
the expertise of technical advisory groups into these determinations.690
269. We conclude that incorporating groups with technical expertise into our
consideration of
formal complaints has the potential to inform the Commission’s judgment and
improve our understanding
of complex and rapidly evolving technical issues. By requiring electronic
filing of all pleadings in open
Internet formal complaint proceedings,691 we will enable interested parties
to more easily track
developments in the proceedings and participate as appropriate. Although
formal complaint proceedings
are generally restricted for purposes of the Commission’s ex parte rules,692
interested parties may seek
permission to file an amicus brief. The Commission “consider[s] on a
case-by-case basis motions by nonparties
wishing to submit amicus-type filings addressing the legal issues raised in
[a] proceeding,”693 and
grants such requests when warranted.694 Thus, for example, the Commission
granted a motion for leave to
file an amicus brief in a section 224 pole attachment complaint proceeding
“in light of the broad policy
issues at stake.695
270. To further advance the values underlying multistakeholder
processes―inclusivity,
transparency, and expertise―we also amend our Part 8 formal complaint rules
by delegating authority to
the Enforcement Bureau, in its discretion, to request a written opinion from
an outside technical
organization. As reviewing courts have established, “[a] federal agency may
turn to an outside entity for
advice and policy recommendations, provided the agency makes the final
decisions itself.”696
271. In this instance, given the potential complexity of the issues in open
Internet formal
complaint proceedings, it may be particularly useful to obtain objective
advice from industry standard-
setting bodies or other similar organizations.697 Providing Commission staff
with this flexibility also will
enable more informed determinations of technical Internet issues that
reflect current industry standards
and permit staff to keep pace with rapidly changing technology.698 Expert
organizations will not be
required to respond to requests from the Enforcement Bureau for opinions;
however, any organization
that elects to do so must provide the opinion within 30 days of the
request―unless otherwise specified by
the staff―in order to facilitate timely dispute resolution. We find that
this approach will allow for the
inclusivity the multistakeholder process offers, while also providing the
predictability and legal certainty
of the Commission’s formal dispute resolution process.699
272. For informal complaints and investigations, the Enforcement Bureau’s
efforts will
continue to be informed by resolutions of formal complaints, and will also
continue to be informed by the
standards developed by existing multistakeholder, industry, and consumer
groups.700 The Enforcement
Bureau will also work with interested parties on an informal basis to
identify ways to promote compliance
with the open Internet rules.
―
―
Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC
Chairman of the Board SIP Forum
www.shockey.us
www.sipforum.org
richard<at>shockey.us
Skype-Linkedin-Facebook rshockey101
PSTN +1 703-593-2683