BITAG Blog

Some Thoughts on How the Technical Working Group (TWG) will Operate

2010-10-07T07:00:00.000-06:00

Since my first blog post announcing that broad consensus on BITAG’s organizational structure had been achieved, we have received a number of responses and questions. The most frequent questions have concerned: 1) how BITAG’s Technical Working Group (TWG) will operate; and 2) how to join. Both are valid questions, and let me try to respond to each in turn. In this post, I will focus on the first item, how the TWG will operate, and in the next post I will focus on how to join.

Before I do so, however, I want to thank everyone for their enthusiasm and support for the BITAG. I also want to apologize profusely to those that have emailed us and we have not responded to directly. I assure you, we are not ignoring you.

Over the past several months, in developing the operational procedures for the BITAG, I consulted with people from every part of the Internet ecosystem, including all of the companies listed on the initial press release, representatives from the Internet user community and other Internet service providers, application providers, equipment manufacturers and the content community. The consensus organizational structure reflects the input received from each and every one of these groups.

The Technical Working Group (“TWG”) will be the core of the substantive workings of the BITAG. As indicated in the previous post, the BITAG will be open to any person or entity interested in the mission of the BITAG who has, or can appoint an employee that has, the necessary technical expertise to serve on the TWG. To help maintain a balanced review of substantive issues, any participating member in the BITAG will have one and only one technical representative appointed to the TWG, and any TWG representative will have the ability to participate in the review of any technical issues brought before the TWG.

To understand how I envision the TWG will practically operate, it might be best to use a hypothetical example:

Say, an Internet Connectivity Provider is contemplating a new or revised network management practice. It could submit a “review request” to the BITAG asking for a review of the practice. To be clear, anyone – whether a BITAG member or non-member – can submit a technical review request to the TWG. If the review request falls within the mission of the TWG, a subcommittee of the TWG would be established and all TWG representatives would be invited to join the subcommittee. The subcommittee would be tasked with conducting an objective engineering analysis of the proposed practice (new or revised) or other technical issue presented to the TWG. As Executive Director, I personally – or someone I designate – would chair the subcommittee.

The subcommittee would study the practice in order to determine how it might affect a “users’ Internet experience, including the impact on applications, content, or devices.” The subcommittee would then prepare a technical report on its findings. While there are provisions in the bylaws for weighted voting by the subcommittee, our hope and expectation is that we will be able to issue consensus-based reports in the vast majority of cases. If the technical report is submitted to a vote, the vote would be weighted such that each member category (Application Providers, Community Representatives, Content Producers, Equipment Manufacturers and Internet Connectivity Providers) would have an equal say in the technical report and no one member category could dominate the outcome.

While we will need to develop the details of how the TWG will go about its analysis (and adjust as necessary), turning back to the hypothetical, one could imagine a process in which the TWG first makes sure it understands how the new or revised network management technique would work from a technical perspective. Then, based on its understanding of how the technique would work and the applicant’s statement of what network management problem the applicant was trying to solve, the TWG would assess whether the technique would accomplish its intended purpose and, critically, assess whether “any unintended, adverse consequences on applications, content, or devices would result.”

Based upon engineers working in a “problem solving” rather than adversarial process, the TWG would publicly issue a consensus report that, among other things, sets forth both the intended and unintended consequences of the network management practice in question. Hopefully, this engineering process and resulting report would reduce the chance of miscommunications/ misunderstanding and the chance of litigation or regulatory complaint. However, if someone chose to go the FCC or other governmental body with a complaint or to file a lawsuit about the technique, the agency involved would have, in the TWG report, relevant technical information with which it could then address any normative decisions that might be necessary. That is, the agency would be in a much better position to expeditiously determine whether or not the intended public benefits of the new or revised technique sufficiently outweigh any adverse impact on applications, content, or devices.

The hypothetical above is just one example of how the TWG could be presented with a technical issue for review. As I mention above, anyone – whether a BITAG member or non-member – can file a review request with the TWG. Therefore, it is conceivable that anyone at any layer of the Internet stack who believes his or her network, application or content is being adversely impacted could submit a review request. In such a case, the TWG would then form a subcommittee to review a request and the process would likely follow a similar path to that described above. There will be some screening of review requests of course, for example for completeness, comprehensibility, and whether the request is germane to the mission of the BITAG.

I hope this helps you understand how the TWGnitty-gritty details of the operations of the TWG, and we will post the actual procedures as they are developed. Again for clarity's sake, this is merely an take on how I think things will operate – the TWG itself will evolve to meet the needs of its members, and the Internet community. Ultimately, the BITAG will succeed based on its integrity, rigor and the good faith efforts of those participating.

Broad Consensus Achieved on BITAG’s Structure

2010-10-04T07:09:00.000-06:00

The Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group (BITAG) has taken another major step forward.

Since initial plans for the BITAG were announced in June (Press Release), I’ve sought input from a variety of stakeholder groups, including academics, standard setting organizations, non-profit and Internet user communities, broadband providers, applications developers, equipment manufacturers and content producers. Following a series of meetings held last week at the Silicon Flatirons Center in Boulder, Colorado, a broad consensus emerged on the BITAG’s organizational structure, operational procedures and membership guidelines. I am very pleased with the progress we’ve made through collaboration.

We have reached an understanding that the BITAG will be an independent non-profit organization, with membership open to any person or entity interested in furthering its mission and able to bring the requisite technical expertise. The BITAG’s primary purpose will be to support a balanced and diverse technical working group (TWG) of volunteer engineers and other experts tasked with analyzing and developing consensus on network management practices and other related technical issues that can affect the experience of Internet users. As the BITAG’s Executive Director, I am strongly committed to shepherding an open, transparent, and collaborative expert technical forum that will enable engineers to do what they do best: solve problems.

There is more to do before the BITAG is operational. Shortly, I will post for everyone’s information the BITAG’s organizational and governance documents and other background material at www.bitag.org. I will continue to seek stakeholder input and support, and I hope that the BITAG will commence operations before the end of the year.

If you have questions or are interested in joining the BITAG, please contact BITAG’s Program Director, Kaleb Sieh or me, Dale Hatfield.

Initial Plans for Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group Announced

2010-09-30T16:56:00.001-06:00

Would provide advice and guidance on broadband network management practices and other technical practices that can affect users’ Internet experience

Washington, D.C., June 9, 2010:

A group of leading broadband and high-tech companies joined Adjunct Professor Dale Hatfield of the University of Colorado at Boulder today in announcing initial plans for a voluntary Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group (BITAG or TAG). The TAG’s mission is to bring together engineers and other similar technical experts to develop consensus on broadband network management practices or other related technical issues that can affect users’ Internet experience, including the impact to and from applications, content and devices that utilize the Internet. Participants agreed that the TAG’s mission could also include: (1) educating policymakers on such technical issues; (2) attempting to address specific technical matters in an effort to minimize related policy disputes; and (3) serving as a sounding board for new ideas and network management practices.

With Professor Hatfield, a former Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chief Technologist, as facilitator, the group will continue to develop the operational and organization structure of the TAG over the coming weeks. Specifically, the group will assess specific functions for the TAG, including: promoting outreach within the Internet technical community; identifying “best practices” by broadband providers and other entities; interpreting “safe harbor” practices; providing technical guidance to industry and to the public; and/or issuing advisory opinions on the technical issues germane to the TAG’s mission that may underlie disputes among discrete parties.

“The TAG will function as a neutral, expert technical forum and promote a greater consensus around technical practices within the Internet community,” said Hatfield. “The TAG would consider a number of factors in looking at technical practices, including whether a practice is used by others in the industry; whether alternative technical approaches are available; the impact of a technical practice on other entities; and whether a technical practice is aimed at specific content, applications or companies.”

The participants in these initial founding efforts for the TAG expressed their desire that the group would advise on technical issues, attempt to resolve disputes over network management and related issues outside of an adversarial context, and help inform federal agencies (e.g., the FCC, Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice) in their industry oversight functions. Staff from these agencies would be encouraged to observe and provide suggestions for the TAG’s area of focus.

The structure of the TAG will be formalized in the very near future. The group stated its commitment to a diverse membership composed of engineers and other similar technical experts from academia, non-profit and Internet user communities as well as participating companies representing a diverse range of industry views (e.g., broadband providers, applications developers, content developers, and equipment manufacturers).

“This joint effort by industry leaders provides an exciting opportunity to address key operational challenges facing the Internet user experience,” said Leslie Daigle, Chief Internet Technical Officer of the Internet Society. “The Internet Society believes this activity is an important contribution to the ongoing global, open technical dialog and looks forward to seeing its output appropriately integrated with the work of existing Internet standards activities.”

Participants in the initial efforts to formulate the TAG have included representatives from AT&T Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Comcast Corporation, DISH Network, L.L.C., EchoStar Corporation, Google Inc., Intel Corporation, Level 3 Communications, LLC, Microsoft Corporation, Time Warner Cable and Verizon. The organizations unanimously expressed their appreciation to Professor Hatfield, one of the most respected engineers in the communications policy field, for his willingness to organize and chair the effort.

Hatfield is currently Executive Director, Silicon Flatirons Center; Adjunct Professor in the Interdisciplinary Telecommunications Program at the University of Colorado at Boulder; as well as an independent consultant. He has nearly four decades of experience in telecommunications policy and regulation. Prior to joining the University of Colorado at Boulder, Hatfield was the Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology at the FCC and, immediately before that, he was Chief Technologist at the Agency.

For further information about this release or participation in the BITAG please contact Kaleb Sieh at ksieh@bitag.org.