The results of the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) show the West must find ways to enable developing-world participation in the current multistakeholder Internet governance model, said Philip Verveer, U.S. coordinator for international communications and information policy and a member of the U.S. WCIT delegation, at an Internet Governance Forum event Friday.
The results of the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) show the West must find ways to enable developing-world participation in the current multistakeholder Internet governance model, said Philip Verveer, U.S. coordinator for international communications and information policy and a member of the U.S. WCIT delegation, at an Internet Governance Forum event Friday.
Amazon delayed captioning several dozen terrestrial TV shows once they became available to view online for an average of a few days, research by seven groups representing the hearing-impaired said they found. An FCC complaint seeks the maximum fine, a commission injunction requiring the rules be followed and per-day forfeitures for future violations by the video service.
Amazon delayed captioning several dozen terrestrial TV shows once they became available to view online for an average of a few days, research by seven groups representing the hearing-impaired said they found. An FCC complaint seeks the maximum fine, a commission injunction requiring the rules be followed and per-day forfeitures for future violations by the video service. Those groups, in a non-random survey of major video programming distributors, found most other VPDs met FCC Internet Protocol captioning rules (CD Jan 17 p3). There was an overall 82 percent compliance rate for non-live programs, which VPDs and some other companies were required by the FCC to caption starting Sept. 30, when it aired after then.
Amazon delayed captioning several dozen terrestrial TV shows once they became available to view online for an average of a few days, research by seven groups representing the hearing-impaired said they found. An FCC complaint seeks the maximum fine, a commission injunction requiring the rules be followed and per-day forfeitures for future violations by the video service. Those groups, in a non-random survey of major video programming distributors, found most other VPDs met FCC Internet Protocol captioning rules (WID Jan 17 p3). There was an overall 82 percent compliance rate for non-live programs, which VPDs and some other companies were required by the FCC to caption starting Sept. 30, when it aired after then.
The revised International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) that emerged last week from the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) may have contained “poison pills” on the Internet and other controversial issues, but that does not mean the U.S. should stop advocating for its vision on such issues, said Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. WCIT delegation, Wednesday during an Internet Society event. “There’s a bigger discussion here about the benefits of the Internet that will carry the day I believe fundamentally,” he said in his first public comments since WCIT concluded Friday. “It is a long game that has to be played. We need to see the commercial benefits, the human benefits, et cetera."
Multichannel video programming distributors and CEA urged the FCC not to require “video programming apparatus” to include text-to-speech technology to make emergency alert information provided in on-screen “crawls” and messages more accessible to the blind and visually impaired. In comments submitted to the agency this week, there was little support for a text-to-speech mandate. “Even if text-to-speech technologies were reliable, it is unnecessary to require an apparatus to make textual information through audible use of the text-to-speech software,” AT&T said (http://xrl.us/bn68by). But parties generally supported using the secondary audio programming (SAP) channel to provide accessible alert information.
The revised International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) that emerged last week from the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) may have contained “poison pills” on the Internet and other controversial issues, but that does not mean the U.S. should stop advocating for its vision on such issues, said Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. WCIT delegation, Wednesday during an Internet Society event. “There’s a bigger discussion here about the benefits of the Internet that will carry the day I believe fundamentally,” he said in his first public comments since WCIT concluded Friday. “It is a long game that has to be played. We need to see the commercial benefits, the human benefits, et cetera."
Legal and political gaps are hampering national/governmental computer emergency response teams (n/g CERTs) from handling their core duties as well as they should, the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) said in two reports published Monday. The first (http://bit.ly/T436R1) looked at the current situation in Europe regarding CERTs’ capabilities in mandate and strategy, service portfolios, operations and cooperation. It found that CERTs’ roles are usually backed by government mandates whose details and form vary widely across the EU. But the mandate isn’t always clear enough, and CERTs often have problems of limited authority when requiring ISPs to handle incidents, it said. And “a great deal of work needs to be done regarding the proper inclusion of n/g CERTs in national cyber-security strategies” because fewer than half of EU members even have such strategies now, ENISA said. CERTs’ services vary based on which constituents they serve, it said. Governmental bodies get the full scope of CERT services, end-users and other customers only a subset, it said. Many CERTs have expertise that’s highly sought after by law enforcement agencies, it said. But when they handle incidents internationally, partnering CERTs don’t act in accordance with the information provided, it said. Moreover, CERTs often don’t develop their own tools and services, don’t make general incident statistics public, and usually aren’t involved in disaster recovery planning, it said. Operationally, many teams have only minimal staffing levels, and they report difficulties in hiring highly qualified staff in areas such as digital forensics and reverse engineering, it said. Money is a problem because many CERTs rely on national funding. Moreover, there aren’t many opportunities in Europe for training in deep technical aspects, it said. In the area of cooperation, ENISA said, CERTs are increasingly visible on the world stage and there’s a good deal of bilateral and regional cooperation among them. But stakeholders at the national level often aren’t sufficiently aware of the existence of CERTs and their responsibilities, and ISPs aren’t willing to share information with competitors, it said. Recommendations in ENISA’s second report (http://bit.ly/VLZosC) for remedying the situation include: (1) Better clarification of the role of CERTs, including funding provisions. (2) Identification of best practices and development of templates to comply with data protection rules. (3) Creation of a standardized approach to information exchange among CERTs. (4) Determination of alternate funding sources. (5) Hiring of PR experts to give CERT activities more visibility. Despite clear progress in putting their baseline capabilities in place, CERTs “still have a number of obstacles mainly (but not exclusively) of a political, legal and financial nature,” ENISA said.
Legal and political gaps are hampering national/governmental computer emergency response teams (n/g CERTs) from handling their core duties as well as they should, the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) said in two reports published Monday. The first (http://bit.ly/T436R1) looked at the current situation in Europe regarding CERTs’ capabilities in mandate and strategy, service portfolios, operations and cooperation. It found that CERTs’ roles are usually backed by government mandates whose details and form vary widely across the EU. But the mandate isn’t always clear enough, and CERTs often have problems of limited authority when requiring ISPs to handle incidents, it said. And “a great deal of work needs to be done regarding the proper inclusion of n/g CERTs in national cyber-security strategies” because fewer than half of EU members even have such strategies now, ENISA said. CERTs’ services vary based on which constituents they serve, it said. Governmental bodies get the full scope of CERT services, end-users and other customers only a subset, it said. Many CERTs have expertise that’s highly sought after by law enforcement agencies, it said. But when they handle incidents internationally, partnering CERTs don’t act in accordance with the information provided, it said. Moreover, CERTs often don’t develop their own tools and services, don’t make general incident statistics public, and usually aren’t involved in disaster recovery planning, it said. Operationally, many teams have only minimal staffing levels, and they report difficulties in hiring highly qualified staff in areas such as digital forensics and reverse engineering, it said. Money is a problem because many CERTs rely on national funding. Moreover, there aren’t many opportunities in Europe for training in deep technical aspects, it said. In the area of cooperation, ENISA said, CERTs are increasingly visible on the world stage and there’s a good deal of bilateral and regional cooperation among them. But stakeholders at the national level often aren’t sufficiently aware of the existence of CERTs and their responsibilities, and ISPs aren’t willing to share information with competitors, it said. Recommendations in ENISA’s second report (http://bit.ly/VLZosC) for remedying the situation include: (1) Better clarification of the role of CERTs, including funding provisions. (2) Identification of best practices and development of templates to comply with data protection rules. (3) Creation of a standardized approach to information exchange among CERTs. (4) Determination of alternate funding sources. (5) Hiring of PR experts to give CERT activities more visibility. Despite clear progress in putting their baseline capabilities in place, CERTs “still have a number of obstacles mainly (but not exclusively) of a political, legal and financial nature,” ENISA said.