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 |