Subject: I'm with the Government .. I really need your help.

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 17:44:32 -0400

>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