State department5 or 6 public delegates in 100. Update Oct 15 New list has ~7 public delegates out of about 140. The public advocates were outnumbered something like 10-1 at WCIT, as usual. Some of the top lobbyists aren't even bothering to come. Verizon, Cisco and Google have cut back. The top people probably believe the even may have some loud talk but nothing important is going to happen. The U.S. is likely to be able to block anything we don't like. We essentially don't like the ITU doing anything of substance other than giving us some satellite slots. Hardly anything will get through. 

    The rest are from government, including some from DOD and other three letter agencies. On a similar article for WCIT, I wrote “Multi-stakeholder” is worthless if the only stakeholders are corporate.

   I know most of the top U.S. government people. I believe Danny, Larry, Julie and most of the rest genuinely are working to keep the Internet open and democratic. U.S. Ambassador Danny Sepulveda is hard driving and very capable. He was close to both John Kerry and Barack Obama. I expected very different choices from an Obama person respected by several mutual friends.

Here's the complete list, with a few details you might not find on Google.  

     I'll fill in more of the bios as I have time.

Possibly primarily serving in the public interest. (6)

Mr Farid BEN AMOR, Strategist, University of Southern California according to the latest bio I could find works in content for DirecTV, soon to be owned by AT&T. He is also a doctoral student with an interest in policy. It isn't clear whether he is essentially independent or representing his company. 

Ms Avri DORIA, Researcher, Dotgay LLC is an experienced Internet engineer long active in policy and clearly not corporate owned.

Mr Eli DOURADO, Research Fellow, Mercatus Center At George Mason University is an academic who created WCITleaks to distribute the ITU documents the U.S. didn't make public. I contributed several items to WCITleaks. His article "Protecting the open Internet may require defunding the ITU" in the Washington Post makes his position clear. I strongly disagree with many of his opinions but respect his independence.

Mr Gary FISHMAN, President, Pearlfisher International was a long time standards guy who worked for Lucent. Whether he is now completely independent or is representing clients is unclear.

Mr Gordon GOLDSTEIN, Director, Silver Lake, works on external affairs for an investment firm. He has been previously active in policy.

Ms Judith HELLERSTEIN, CEO, Hellerstein & Associates is a D.C. based consultant long active in ISOC and elsewhere.

In charge

Mr Daniel SEPULVEDA, Ambassador, Department Of State is the main public face. He's articulate, effective and personally has a liberal record. He's been personally very accessible to those who know to ask, myself included. He hasn't been holding press conferences. He's done a remarkable job reaching out to other nations in search of support. He had a great coup, breaking Brazil from the BRICs. He jokes he's setting a world record for number of miles flown in coach. Extremely dedicated to the mission he defines.

Mr Lawrence E. STRICKLING, Assistant Secretary, NTIA - Department Of Commerce. At WCIT, Larry and Ambassador Kramer worked very closely together but Larry stayed mostly behind the scenes. The most effective bureaucrat in telecom and Internet policy in D.C. the last six years. Strongly committed to the U.S. position, much of which he determined.

Mr Thomas WHEELER, Chairman, Federal Communication Commission. The previous chair put in only a token appearance at WCIT and quickly rushed out of town. I hope Wheeler at least does a press conference. He's more knowledgeable than any other FCC leader in a decade. The positions he's taken are generally quite reasonable, with an exception for sender pays. But nearly two years in, he's delayed most of the important decisions so we don't know how effective he'll be. 

Ms Julie ZOLLER, Senior Deputy Coordinator, Department of State. An engineer by training. Zoller's predecessor, Dick Beaird, essentially ran the division for a decade while the Ambassadors flew around. She's likely to do similar.

Three veterans of NTIA. I don't know how they divide the work.

Ms Fiona ALEXANDER, Associate Administrator, National Telecommunications And Information Administration, Department Of Commerce

Ms Vernita HARRIS, Deputy Associate Administrator, National Telecommunications And Information Administration, Department Of Commerce

Mr Christopher HEMMERLEIN, Telecommunication Policy Specialist, National Telecommunications And Information Administration, Department Of Commerce


Ms Mindel DE LA TORRE, Chief, International Division, Federal Communications Commission. Experienced and knowledgeable. Presumably representing the FCC when the Chairman isn't in town.

Mr Albert LEWIS, Senior Council, Federal Communication Commission. Day-to-liaision with State. Took a strong position against Net Neutrality when I raised the issue, despite Barack Obama's nominal support. Official line is "We don't think this belongs at ITU." 

The real powers:

Mr David GROSS, Partner, Wiley Rein, LLP is the former U.S. Ambassador. He led the multi-million dollar campaign against the WCIT. One of the nicest guys you can meet, gracious and knowledgeable. 

Ms Marilyn CADE, CEO, MCADE LLC is a former AT&T senior lobbyist who is coy about who is funding her today.  Knowledgeable, effective and efficient. She is on almost every governing body of the "multi-stakeholder" Internet, ICANN, IGF, Net Mundial, ISOC stuff and I don't know how many more. Folks at the State Department and ISOC look to her for guidance.

Ms Amy ALVAREZ, Executive Director, AT&T. When I jumped into Internet governance 3 years ago, a friend at the FCC told me that AT&T and Verizon were the real powers. Verizon is either joining late or decided why bother in Korea when the U.S. government will block anything they might be bothered by.

Ms Sarah FALVEY, Policy Manager, Google, Inc. I believe Larry, Sergei and Eric are genuine and benevolent but their policy people in D.C. are "by any means necessary" lobbyists. Their lead is veteran lobbyist Susan Molinari, who has a budget they are growing to buy power away from the Bells. After a nationwide campaign, Schmidt just pulled out of ALEC, the corporate tool of the Bells and the coal company climate deniers. Google's D.C. team is a cynical group, throwing money at some of the most neanderthal politicians. That's how D.C. works. At WCIT, Google had four people on the U.S. delegation and ran a worldwide campaign that they weren't represented. I don't know Sarah's personal work.

Other corporate


Ms Audrey ALLISON, Director, The Boeing Company


Ms Flavia ALVES, Senior Advisor, Telecommunications Management Group, Inc


Ms Ellen BLACKLER, Vice President Global Affairs, The Walt Disney Company


Mr James BLADEL, Senior Policy Director,, LLC


Ms Iren BORISSOVA, Director of International Policy, Verisign, Inc.


Mr Jared CARLSON, Director, Government Affairs and Public Policy, Ericsson


Mr Mike CHARTIER, Director Spectrum Technology, Intel Corporation


Dr William CHECK, Senior Vice President - Science & Technology, National Cable & Telecommunications Association


 Mr Mademba CISSE, Senior Vice President - Africa, Space Partnership International


Ms Danielle COFFFEY, Vice President and General Counsel - Government Affairs, Telecommunications Industry Association


Mr Jerry CONNER, Director, Spectrum Assurance, Exelis


Mr David FARES, Senior Vice President - Government Relations, 21st Century Fox


Mr Carl FRANK, Attorney, Wiley Rein, LLP


Ms Janet HERNANDEZ, President, Telecommunications Management Group


Mr Eric HOLLOWAY, Director - International and Government Affairs, Telecommunications Industry Association


Mr Kyung Yeop HONG, Principal Engineer, Cisco Systems


Notably missing, at least so far

Microsoft Paul Mitchell, Amazon Paul Misener, Cisco, Robert Pepper and Chip Sharp, Verizon Jackie Ruff, Leslie Martinkovics, and Kathy Brown. (Kathy is now in charge at the Internet Society.)


The quiet ones

Down from 14 at WCIT from security divisions. These people are not going to Korea to protect Freedom of Speech. 

Mr Kenneth TURNER, Deputy Director, Department of Defense


Ms Jabin VAHORA, Director for Technology and Security Policy, Department of State


Ms Erum WELLING, IG Strategist, Department Of Defense


Ms Katherine WISENER, International Affairs Analyst, Department of Homeland Security


Mr Lee KIMBLE, Lead Associate, Department Of Defense


Mr William HUDSON, Director, National Security Council


Ms Micaela KLEIN, International Affairs Analyst, Department Of Homeland Security


Ms Jordana SIEGEL, Director of International Affairs, Department Of Homeland Security


Particularly active in government.

Ms Marian GORDON, Foreign Affairs Officer, Department of State


Ms Roxanne MCELVANE, Senior Counselor, Federal Communication Commission


Mr Franz ZICHY, Electronics Engineer, Department Of State


Mr Paul NAJARIAN, Foreign Affairs Officer, Department Of State


Other Government 

Dr Pamela HAMAMOTO, Ambassador, U.S. Mission To Geneva - Department of State

Ms Elizabeth BACON, Telecommunication Policy Specialist, Department Of Commerce

Mr Manu BHARDWAJ, Senior Advisor, Department of State

Ms Lisa CARNAHAN, Computer Scientist, NIST, Department Of Commerce

Mr Rizwan CHOWDHRY, Attonrey Advisor, Federal Communication Commission

Ms Diane CORNELL, Special Counselor, Federal Communications Commission

Mr Kiran DUWADI, Senior Industry Economist, Federal Communications Commission

Mr Justin FAIR, Foreign Affairs Officer, Department of State

Mr Stephen FAROLE, International Policy Analyst, Department of Homeland Security

Mr Robert FAUCHER, Director, Department of State

Mr Glenn FELDHAKE, Senior Spectrum Engineer, NASA

Ms Sheila FLYNN, Policy Advisor, Department of State

Ms Sally GADSDEN, NASA Consultant, Department Of State

Mr Gordon GILLERMAN, Chief, NIST, Department Of Commerce

Mr Richard GREEN, Senior Counsel, Department of Justice

Mr Andrew HARRIS, Foreign Affairs Officer, Department of State

Mr Michael D. HOGAN, Standards Liaison, NIST - Department Of Commerce

Mr Cecily HOLIDAY, Director, Department Of State

Mr David HUITEMA, Attorney Advisor, Department Of State

Dr Ajitkumar JILLAVENKATESA, Senior Standards Policy Advisor, NIST - Department Of Commerce

Mr Richard JOHNS, Economic Officer, U.S. Mission To Geneva - Department Of State

Mr Bradford KAUFMAN, Deputy Director, NASA

Ms Adriane LAPOINTE, Senior Policy Advisor, Department Of State

Mr Gregory MANN, International Programs Specialist, NASA

Ms Megan MATTSON, Lead Public Affairs, Department Of State

Mr Brandon MITCHELL, Chief, Department Of Commerce

Ms Jessica NELSON, Economic Officer, U.S. Mission To Geneva - Department Of State

Mr Kathryn O'BRIEN, Assistant Chief, Federal Communication Commission

Mr Christopher PAINTER, Coordinator, Department Of State

Mr Gregory (greg) RATTA, Telecommunication Regulatory Policy Analyst, ASRC Federal (NASA Consultant)

Ms Mary B. RIOS, Senior Advisor, Department Of State

Ms Susan RITCHIE, Senior Advisor, Department of State

Ms Angela Marie SIMPSON, Deputy Assistant Secretary, NTIA - Department Of Commerce

Mr Victor SPARROW, Director, NASA

Mr John (Jack) SPILSBURY, Deputy Coordinator, Department Of State

Mr Charles SUN, Census IPv6 Transition Manager, U.S. Census Bureau

Mr Anthony TEELUCKSINGH, Senior Counsel, Department of Justice

Mr Gary THATCHER, Associate Director, U.S. International Broadcasting Bureau

Ms Joanne WILSON, Deputy Program Manager, ASRC Federal (NASA Consultant)

Mr Badri YOUNES, Deputy Associate Administrator for Space Communications and Navigation, NASA

Mr Robert LATTIN, Policy Analyst, U.S. House Of Representatives

Ms Nilmini RUBIN, Senior Professional Staff Member, U.S House Of Representatives

Mr Avis ALSTON, Office Management Specialist, Department of State

Ms Olivette HOOKS, Deputy Director, Department of State

Ms Roslyn JOHNSON, Budget Officer, Department Of State

Ms Pauline STONE, N/A, NASA




The world needs a good news source on Internet and telecom policy. I hope to create one. Catch a mistake? Email me please.  Dave Burstein


Professor Noam's "Many Internets"

Until about 2010, everyone agreed the Net was a "network of networks," not a monolithic entity. There was a central authority, ICANN, keeping track of domain names, but that was a minor administrative function.
Columbia Professor Noam suggests we might be better off accepting that some nations or groups might want to organize their networks differently. It's easy to see demand for an Internet with much more effective filters against material some think harmful to children. (Any 10 year old can easily find porn today. Many do.)
Internet translation is getting better very quickly. You might want an "Internet" that translates everything into your language. Google Chrome translation isn't perfect but I was able to research most of this story on Russian language sites. With a few more years progress, I might welcome an alternate that brings me everything in English, including caching for better performance.
De facto, Internet news is already split, as hundreds of millions only get their news from Facebook. Google AMP pages, including for news, also favor selected parts of the net
Centralizing the DNS doesn't prevent censorship, as the Chinese have demonstrated. There are many Jewish and Muslim fundamentalists who want to block what they consider blasphemy and limit free speech. See . More from Noam

Russia Orders Alternate Root Internet System
It's actually practical and not necessarily a problem.The Security Council of the Russian Federation, headed by Vladimir Putin, has ordered the "government to develop an independent internet infrastructure for BRICS nations, which would continue to work in the event of global internet malfunctions ... This system would be used by countries of the BRICS bloc – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa." RT
Columbia University Professor Eli Noam and then ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé have both said such a system is perfectly practical as long as there is robust interconnection.
Actually, the battle over ICANN and domain names is essentially symbolic. Managing the DNS is a relatively insignificant task, more clerical than governing. ICANN Chair Steve Crocker pointed out they had very little to do with policy.
Some will claim this is about blocking free speech but that's rhetoric. Russia doesn't need to fiddle with the DNS for censorship, as the Chinese have demonstrated. The wonders of the Internet will continue so long as the resulting nets" are robustly connected. The ICANN and U.S. policy goal should be to help create that system for interconnection.
I expect contentions that “The Russians are taking over our Internet” and “They are splitting the Internet.” The Internet is a “Network of Networks.” It is not a monolith so what would “splitting” it mean or do?
After the WCIT, China realized that ICANN and the DNS are side issues not worth bothering about. They have been building alternate institutions including the World Internet Summit in Wuzhan and the BRICs conferences.  The Chinese have put their main work where decisions that matter are made. Wireless standards are set by 3GPP, where nothing can be approved without China's consent.
The American battle at ITU is proving to be a historic mistake.
Why does Russia want an independent Internet?
They fear that Western sanctions on Russia could cripple the Russian Net. Communications minister, Nikolay Nikiforov, worries about, "a scenario where our esteemed partners would suddenly decide to disconnect us from the internet." I think that's highly unlikely but Nikiforov points out, “Recently, Russia is being addressed in a language of unilateral sanctions: first, our credit cards are being cut off; then the European Parliament says that they’ll disconnect us from SWIFT."
It makes sense for the Russians to be prepared for such a contingency as the Cold War has been warming up on both sides. "Britain's top military chief Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach just made headlines warning Russian subs "could CRIPPLE Britain by cutting undefended undersea internet cables." Much more

ICANN Continues Excluding Russia & China From the Board
No wonder Russia wants an alternate root. Three years ago, ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé promised "a seat at the table" to Chinese Premier Li. ICANN welched and this year added two more Americans.
Almost all the ICANN board is from the U.S. and close allies; only about 4 of the 18 board members are from countries on the other side of the North/South divide in Internet policy.  Claiming ICANN represents the Global Internet is inappropriate. China is 1/3rd of the Internet but has no representation on the board.
I know many of the board members. They are all basically honorable but generally share a strong opinion on North-South issues.
Larry Strickling of the U.S. government knew just what he was doing with the IANA transition. He handed over to a board with similar positions as the U.S. government.
"The system is unsustainable while it excludes half the world," I have been saying since 2012. More, including the transcript of Fadi's statements,

Sorry, Ajit Pai: Smaller Telcos Did Not Reduce Investment After NN Ruling
Pai justifies his NN choice with the claim, "The impact has been particularly serious for smaller Internet service providers." #wrong (Actually, NN has minimal effects on investment, up or down, I’m convinced. Competition, new technology, customer demand and similar are far more important.)
The two largest suppliers to “smaller ISPs” saw sales go up. Adtran's sales the most recent nine months were $540M, up from $473M the year before. 2016 was $636M, 2015 $600M. Calix the last nine months sold $372M, up from $327M. The full year 2016 was $459M, up from $407M in 2015. Clearfield, a supplier of fiber optic gear, was up 8% in sales in the smaller ISPs.
There is nothing in the data from others that suggests an alternate trend. Anyone could have found this data in a few minutes from the company quarterly reports.
The results in larger companies are ambiguous. I can "prove" capex went up or went down by selecting the right data. The four largest companies' capex - two/thirds of the total - went up from $52.7B in 2015 to $55.7B in 2016. The result remains positive after making sensible adjustments for mergers and acquisitions. That's as close to "proving" that NN led to increased spending as the facts chosen to prove the opposite.
Actually, whether capex went up or down in 2016 tells us almost nothing about the choice on neutrality. Everyone knows a single datapoint could be random or due to other causes. Much more, including the source of the errors

Elders Bearing Witness: Vint, Timbl, & Many More
Vint Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee, Steve Wozniak and more than a dozen true Internet pioneers wrote Congress to protect Neutrality. The best Congress money can buy didn't listen but I wanted to reproduce their letter.
I hope they are wrong believing "is an imminent threat to the Internet we worked so hard to create." My take is the impact will be moderate in the short run.
From the letter:
We are the pioneers and technologists who created and now operate the Internet, and some of the innovators and business people who, like many others, depend on it for our livelihood. ... The FCC’s proposed Order is based on a flawed and factually inaccurate understanding of Internet technology. These flaws and inaccuracies were documented in detail in a 43-page-long joint comment signed by over 200 of the most prominent Internet pioneers and engineers and submitted to the FCC on July 17, 2017.
Despite this comment, the FCC did not correct its misunderstandings, but instead premised the proposed Order on the very technical flaws the comment explained. The technically-incorrect proposed Order ... More, including the full list,