60068 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 

Type of Request: Regular submission. 

Burden Hours: 160. 

Number of Respondents: 30. 

Average Hours per Response: 3 hours, 

Application for TRQ License; and 1 

hour, Request for Reallocation of Tariff 

Rate Quota. 

Needs and Uses: Title V of the Trade 

and Development Act of 2000 (‘‘the 

Act’’) as amended by the Trade Act of 

2002, the Miscellaneous Trade Act of 

2004, the Pension Protection Act of 

2006, and the Emergency Economic 

Stabilization Act of 2008 contains 

several provisions to assist the wool 

products industries. These include the 

establishment of tariff rate quotas (TRQ) 

for a limited quantity of worsted wool 

fabrics. The Act requires the President 

to fairly allocate the TRQ to persons 

who cut and sew men’s and boys’ 

worsted wool suits and suit-like jackets 

and trousers in the United States, and 

who apply for an allocation based on 

the amount of suits they produced in 

the prior year. The Department must 

collect certain information in order to 

fairly allocate the TRQ to eligible 

persons. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations. 

Frequency: Annually. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 

OMB Desk Officer: Wendy Liberante, 

(202) 395–3647. 

Copies of the above information 

collection proposal can be obtained by 

calling or writing Diana Hynek, 

Departmental Paperwork Clearance 

Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of 

Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 

dHynek@doc.gov. 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to Wendy Liberante, OMB Desk 

Officer, Fax number (202) 395–5167 or 

via the Internet at 

Wendy_L._Liberante@omb.eop.gov. 

Dated: September 24, 2010. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24375 Filed 9–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Office of the Secretary; National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration; International Trade 

Administration; National Institute of 

Standards and Technology 

[Docket No. 100921457–0457–01] 

RIN 0660–XA20 

Global Free Flow of Information on the 

Internet 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

Department of Commerce; National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce; International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce; and National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, U.S. 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Inquiry. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce’s Internet Policy Task Force 

is examining issues related to the global 

free flow of information on the Internet. 

Specifically, the Department seeks 

public comment from all stakeholders, 

including the commercial, academic, 

and civil society sectors, on government 

policies that restrict information flows 

on the Internet. The Task Force seeks to 

understand why these restrictions have 

been instituted; what, if any, impact 

they have had on innovation, economic 

development, global trade and 

investment; and how best to address 

negative impacts. After analyzing the 

comments responding to this Notice, the 

Department intends to publish a report 

which will contribute to the 

Administration’s domestic policy and 

international engagement on these 

issues. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

November 15, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

submitted by mail to the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration at U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Room 4701, Washington, DC 

20230. Submissions may be in any of 

the following formats: HTML, ASCII, 

Word (.doc and .docx), .odf, .rtf, or .pdf. 

Online submissions in electronic form 

may be sent to freeflow-noi2010@ntia.doc.gov. Paper submissions 

should include a three and one-half 

inch computer diskette or compact disc 

(CD). Diskettes or CDs should be labeled 

with the name and organizational 

affiliation of the filer and the name of 

the word processing program used to 

create the document. Comments will be 

posted at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ 

internetpolicytaskforce/gffi/index.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this Notice contact: 

Chris Hemmerlein, Office of 

International Affairs, National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Room 4706, Washington, DC 

20230; telephone (202) 482–1885; e-mail 

chemmerlein@ntia.doc.gov. Please 

direct media inquiries to NTIA’s Office 

of Public Affairs at (202) 482–7002. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Recognizing the vital importance of 

the Internet to U.S. prosperity, 

education and political and cultural life, 

the Department of Commerce has made 

it a top priority to ensure that the 

Internet remains open for innovation. 

The Department has created an Internet 

Policy Task Force (Task Force) to 

identify leading public policy 

challenges in the Internet environment. 

The Task Force leverages expertise 

across many bureaus at the Department, 

including those responsible for 

domestic and international information 

and communications policy, 

international trade, cybersecurity 

standards and best practices, 

intellectual property, business 

advocacy, and export control. This is 

one in a series of inquiries from the 

Task Force. Other reviews include 

Internet privacy, cybersecurity, and 

online copyright protection issues. The 

Task Force may explore additional areas 

in the future. 

The Department of Commerce 

launched the Internet Policy Task Force 

to identify and examine the impact that 

restrictions on the flow of information 

over the Internet have on American 

businesses and global commerce. 

Businesses, emerging entrepreneurs and 

consumers alike benefit from the ability 

to transmit information quickly and 

efficiently both domestically and 

internationally. The Department aims to 

assist industry, and other stakeholders 

to operate in varying Internet 

environments and to identify policies 

that will advance economic growth and 

create jobs and opportunities for the 

American people. 

Many countries have recognized that 

the free flow of information over the 

Internet is integral to economic growth 

and vibrancy, as well as to the 

promotion of democratic values that are 

essential to free markets and free 

societies. In 2008, members of the 

Organization for Economic Co-operation 

and Development (OECD) issued the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 60069 

1The Seoul Declaration was signed by Australia, 

Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech 

Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, 

France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, 

Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, 

Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New 

Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Senegal, Slovak 

Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, 

Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States of 

America, and the European Community. The Seoul 

Declaration for the Future of the Internet Economy, 

June 2008, available at http://www.oecd.org/ 

dataoecd/49/28/40839436.pdf. 

2U.S. Census Bureau, ‘‘E–Stats,’’ May 28, 2009. 

3 Id. 

4Mark Brohan, The Top 500 Guide, Internet 

Retailer, http://www.internetretailer.com/2009/05/ 

29/the-top-500-guide (June 2009). 

5U.S. Census Bureau, Quarterly Retail E– 

Commerce Sales: 4th Quarter 2008 (Feb. 16, 2010), 

Table 4. 

6 Katie Deatsch, U.S. M–Commerce Sales to Hit 

$2.4 Billion This Year, ABI Research Says Internet 

Retailer. http://www.internetretailer.com/2010/02/ 

16/u-s-m-commerce-sales-to-hit-2–4-billion-thisyear-abi-researc (Feb. 16, 2010). 

7 Id. 

8 Khan, et. al., Mobile Advertising: An In-Depth 

Look at the Future of Mobile Advertising, J.P. 

Morgan/North American Equity Research, https:// 

mm.jpmorgan.com/stp/t/c.do?i=E8283– 

B8&u=a_p*d_423260.pdf*h_2tvncakf (June 4, 

2010). 

9 Gartner Says Consumers Will Spend $6.2 Billion 

in Mobile Application Stores in 2010, Gartner 

Newsroom, http://www.gartner.com/it/ 

page.jsp?id=1282413 (January 18, 2010). 

10 Mobile VoIP Posed to Become the Principle 

Transport for Various Access Technologies, 

InfoTech, http://it.tmcnet.com/news/2010/05/20/ 

4799884.htm (May 20, 2010). 

Seoul Declaration on the Future of the 

Internet Economy. The Seoul 

Declaration, signed by 39 governments 

and the European Community, called 

for governments to foster creativity in 

the development, use and application of 

the Internet, through policies that 

‘‘maintain an open environment that 

supports the free flow of information, 

research, innovation, entrepreneurship 

and business transformation.’’ 1

Many governments continue to place 

restrictions on these flows despite 

recognizing the value of the free flow of 

information on the Internet. Some 

governments create specific restrictions 

based upon articulated reasons, 

including consumer protection and 

public safety. At times, however, such 

restrictions, or their implementation, 

may place undue burdens on businesses 

or Internet users. Governments may also 

restrict information flows as a way of 

promoting or protecting local 

businesses, such as by developing 

restrictions that mostly impact foreign 

competitors or by applying them on an 

unequal basis. In other cases, 

governments may wish to restrict 

information flows as a way of limiting 

access to certain types of information 

that are not themselves illegal, but that 

may contain objectionable political or 

social content. In some cases, laws, 

policies and rules restricting 

information flows may be vaguely 

articulated, inconsistently enforced, 

pretextual, or created without 

transparent and open processes. 

Government regulators may have 

difficulty in consistently applying laws 

or rules that are not clearly written or 

that have been developed without prior 

public comment. In such circumstances, 

business may also have difficulty 

ensuring their practices comply. 

Contribution of this NOI to the Internet 

Policy Task Force 

Responses to this Notice will assist 

the Task Force in preparing a report on 

the global free flow of information on 

the Internet. This report will examine 

the impact that restrictions on the free 

flow of information on the Internet have 

on innovation, global economic growth, 

trade, and investment. The Task Force’s 

report may include policy options and 

recommendations for general regulatory, 

legislative, self-regulatory and voluntary 

steps that will enhance the free flow of 

information online. The Task Force 

anticipates that the dialogue launched 

by this document and the research 

conducted will contribute to 

Administration-wide policy positions 

and global discussions related to the 

Internet economy. The work of the Task 

Force has been and will continue to be 

closely coordinated with other agencies, 

including the State Department, as 

described below. 

The Impact of the Global Free Flow of 

Information on Commerce 

The ability to freely and efficiently 

distribute information on the Internet is 

at the very core of modern consumer, 

business, political and educational 

activity. Between 1999 and 2007, the 

United States economy enjoyed an 

increase of over 500 percent in businessto-consumer online commerce.2 Taking 

into account business-to-business 

transactions, online commerce 

accounted for over $3 trillion dollars in 

revenue for U.S. companies in 2007.3

The economic benefits provided by the 

information economy increased even 

during the recent economic downturn. 

During 2008, industry analysts estimate 

that sales by the top 100 online retailers 

grew 14.3 percent.4 In contrast, the U.S. 

Census Bureau estimates a 0.9 percent 

decrease in total retail sales over that 

time period.5

In 2009, U.S. mobile commerce sales 

grew over 200 percent, reaching $1.2 

billion.6 Analysts expect this impressive 

growth in mobile commerce to continue 

in 2010.7 Businesses have found this 

growing market to be extremely 

lucrative, as evidenced by the estimated 

$3.8 billion that they will spend on 

mobile advertising in 2010.8

Likewise, the free flow of information 

on the Internet has a significant impact 

on the types of technologies that 

consumers use to communicate, absorb, 

and process data. For example, 

integrated application stores on 

handheld devices have simplified how 

individuals purchase software over the 

Internet, and are projected to accrue 

$6.2 billion in consumer spending in 

2010 alone.9 Similarly, mobile VoIP 

software is growing in popularity and is 

estimated to be responsible for nearly 

$29.57 billion in annual global sales by 

2015.10

The free flow of information on the 

Internet also has an impact on global 

commerce generally. Many small and 

medium sized businesses and 

entrepreneurs utilize new technologies 

and applications, such as VoIP, social 

networking and cloud computing 

services, to run their businesses more 

efficiently and to gain access to 

information, which allows them to 

compete effectively. 

The U.S. Government’s Involvement in 

the Information Flows Issue 

The Department of Commerce has 

played an instrumental role in 

developing policies that facilitate 

commerce over the Internet. Over the 

past two decades, the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA), in its role as 

principal adviser to the President on 

telecommunications and information 

policy, has worked closely with other 

agencies of the U.S. Government on 

these issues. In 1993, the White House 

formed the Information Infrastructure 

Task Force, chaired by the Secretary of 

Commerce, which was tasked with 

developing telecommunications and 

information policies to promote the 

growth of the Internet. Since then, NTIA 

has facilitated the U.S. Government’s 

participation in a variety of 

international agreements, including the 

OECD and the above-referenced Seoul 

Declaration on the Future of the Internet 

Economy, as well as the outcomes of the 

United Nations World Summit on the 

Information Society (WSIS), which aims 

to develop worldwide access to 

Information and Communications 

Technologies (ICTs) by 2015. In 

addition, NTIA continues to play a 

leading role in other international 

venues such as the International 

Telecommunication Union (ITU), the 

Internet Governance Forum (IGF), and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
60070 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 

the Internet Corporation for Assigned 

Names and Numbers (ICANN). 

The International Trade 

Administration (ITA) strengthens U.S. 

competitiveness abroad by helping 

shape industry-specific as well as 

general trade policy to assist U.S. 

companies and helps create trade 

opportunities through the removal of 

market access barriers. ITA also 

promotes U.S. exports, particularly by 

small and medium-sized enterprises, 

and provides commercial diplomacy 

support for U.S. business interests 

around the world. In addition to trade 

promotion, ITA enforces U.S. trade laws 

and agreements to prevent unfairly 

traded imports and to safeguard the 

competitive strength of U.S. businesses. 

ITA also works to improve the global 

business environment and helps U.S. 

organizations compete at home and 

abroad. 

The National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST) contributes 

significantly to the development of 

Internet security and interoperability 

standards, guidelines, best practices, 

and security measurement capabilities 

and tools. NIST actively engages with 

industry and academia to advance the 

state-of-the-art in information 

technology networking in such 

applications as cyber security and 

encryption, among the critical 

underpinnings of information flows 

over the Internet for American 

businesses and global commerce. NIST 

accelerates the development and 

deployment of Internet systems that are 

reliable, usable, interoperable, and 

secure, and conducts research to 

develop the measurement and standards 

infrastructure for the emerging Internet 

technologies and applications that will 

support future economic growth and 

vibrancy. 

The Commerce Department has 

worked in a number of international 

fora to develop guidelines that foster 

international trade. ITA administers the 

U.S.–European Union (EU) Safe Harbor 

Framework, which facilitates U.S. 

companies’ compliance with the 

requirements of the 1995 EU Directive 

on Data Protection for transferring data 

outside of the European Union. ITA also 

administers the U.S.-Swiss Safe Harbor 

Framework, which was implemented in 

2009. The Department played a 

significant role in launching the 

Trilateral Committee on Transborder 

Data Flows in 2009 and is involved in 

bilateral Internet commerce policy 

initiatives with India, Japan, China, 

Korea and other key countries. 

The United States Trade 

Representative (USTR) has addressed 

cross-border data issues in varying 

degrees in all recent major trade 

agreements, including World Trade 

Organization (WTO) agreements and 

Free Trade Agreements (FTA). One of 

the main ‘modes of delivery’ of services 

on which WTO members and FTA 

partners make binding trade 

commitments is cross-border trade, the 

importance of which has grown with the 

growth of globally interconnected 

broadband networks. The main 

commercial beneficiaries of such 

commitments have been data-centric 

services—telecoms, computer 

processing, and more recently, contentbased services, for whom data flows are 

at the heart of their commercial 

offerings. Accordingly, governmental 

prohibitions or restrictions on data 

flows significantly undermine the value 

of a trade commitment, and in some 

cases could be actionable under trade 

law. Drafters of the 1994 WTO General 

Agreement on Trade in Services 

recognized the importance of this issue 

and included a provision ensuring that 

service suppliers covered by a Member’s 

specific sectoral commitment (which 

vary country by country) would have 

the right to access public 

telecommunications networks in order 

to move information within and across 

borders and access data contained in 

data bases in the territory of any 

Member. To date, despite recognition of 

related problems in many countries, 

there has never been a case brought to 

formal dispute settlement. 

The Department of State’s Office of 

Communications and Information 

Policy (CIP) advocates international 

policies for expanded access to 

information and communications 

technologies, improved efficiency in the 

worldwide ICT and telecommunications 

market through increased reliance on 

free-market forces, and fair 

opportunities for U.S. companies to 

participate in this sector internationally. 

CIP leads U.S. delegations to 

multilateral organizations like the ITU 

and also coordinates bilateral 

consultations on Internet and telecom 

policies with several key countries, 

including India, Egypt, China, Japan and 

the EU. 

The Net Freedom Taskforce is the 

Department of State’s internal policy 

coordinating group on issues of global 

Internet freedom. The taskforce is cochaired by State’s Under Secretary of 

Economic and Agricultural Affairs and 

State’s Under Secretary of Democracy 

and Global Affairs. The NetFreedom 

Taskforce works to increase access to 

uncensored content over the Internet 

and other connection technologies, in 

addition to monitoring and responding 

to threats to Internet freedom as they 

arise. This is accomplished through 

frequent engagement with civil society 

and business, programming support for 

initiatives that improve Internet 

Freedom and government-togovernment consultations with both 

countries of concern and countries with 

similar perspectives on this issue. 

Request for Comment 

In developing this Notice, the Internet 

Policy Task Force conducted listening 

sessions with a range of companies and 

civil society organizations. Those 

conversations shaped the questions 

described below. The Task Force now 

seeks detailed comments from all 

stakeholders on their experiences in 

sharing and exchanging information 

through the Internet worldwide. It seeks 

to understand the specific nature of 

restrictions that exist with respect to the 

free flow of information, the rationale 

given for the restrictions, and whether 

and how these restrictions have 

influenced business decisions relating 

to innovation, trade or investment. It 

also seeks comment on how to best 

mitigate any negative impacts by using 

trade agreements and other tools that 

might foster international cooperation 

on Internet policy. 

The questions below are intended to 

assist in framing the issues and should 

not be construed as a limitation on 

comments that parties may submit. The 

Department invites comment on the full 

range of issues that may be presented by 

this inquiry. Comments that contain 

references, studies, research and other 

empirical data that are not widely 

published should include copies of the 

referenced materials with the submitted 

comments. 

1. Types of Restrictions on the Free 

Flow of Information on the Internet 

In the United States and numerous 

countries around the world, the Internet 

has flourished as an economic and 

social innovation motivated by the 

complementary goals of encouraging the 

free flow of goods and services and the 

commitment to freedom of expression. 

At the same time, governments may 

place restrictions on the types of 

information available over the Internet 

in their jurisdiction for a number of 

reasons, including protecting consumers 

or the property rights of users. 

Numerous countries, for example, have 

laws prohibiting certain activities 

online, including the dissemination of 

child pornography, intellectual property 

infringement and the sending of 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 60071 

11See, e.g., Italian Personal Data Protection Code 

(Legislative Decree no. 196 of 30 June 2003); 

Australia’s Spam Act 2003. 

12Overview of Internet Censorship, OpenNet 

Initiative, http://opennet.net/about-filtering (2010) 

(Last accessed Aug. 30, 2010). 

13 Deibert; Palfrey; Rohozinski; Zittrain, ed., 

Access Controlled: The Shaping of Power, Rights, 

and Rule in Cyberspace (MIT Press 2010), at 6. 

unsolicited email.11 Some governments 

restrict Internet access by only allowing 

access to the Internet through a 

government controlled access point, or 

by requiring the installation of filtering 

software on user computers.12 The most 

restrictive governments require Internet 

users to be registered or licensed by a 

government authority before being 

permitted access to the Internet. 

Governments can also impede the flow 

of information online by openly 

blocking particular websites, or by using 

technical measures, including 

infiltrating and exploiting computer 

systems with targeted viruses and by 

employing distributed denial-of-service 

attacks.13

Many restrictions on the flow of 

information on the Internet, both those 

accepted by stakeholders as legitimate 

and others, are implemented at the level 

of Internet intermediaries, such as 

Internet service providers (ISPs). Such 

restrictions may require ISPs or other 

intermediaries to take affirmative steps 

to block or filter information flows. 

Some countries require ISPs to block 

material, remove content in response to 

take-down notices, or remove search 

results. In some circumstances 

governments may also impose civil or 

criminal liabilities on intermediaries, 

including content hosts and Internet 

service providers. 

In addition to restrictions focused on 

illegal content, governments have also 

blocked or prohibited the presence of 

certain types of Internet services or 

applications within their borders. 

Governments may also ban or heavily 

regulate foreign service suppliers from 

establishing a commercial presence in 

their country. The widespread growth of 

new data distribution mechanisms, such 

as social networking applications and 

VOIP services, for example, have 

prompted some governments to block or 

restrict the services or underlying 

software. 

The Task Force seeks to understand 

what types of restrictions on the free 

flow of information on the Internet are 

present in different countries, what the 

stated policy objectives are when 

governments place restrictions on the 

flow of information and what impact 

such restrictions have on innovation, on 

trade and on investment in those 

countries. In particular, the Task Force 

seeks to understand the circumstances 

under which such restrictions become 

unduly burdensome on businesses and 

consumers in relation to the accepted 

public policy benefit, if any, of the 

restriction. 

• What restrictions are there on the 

global free flow of information on the 

Internet due to government laws or 

regulations? 

• What types of restrictions are most 

prevalent and in what markets? 

• What impact, if any, do these 

restrictions have on investment and 

trade? 

• What types of restrictions are most 

readily accepted as legitimate by the 

business community? 

• What impact, if any, do these 

restrictions have on the types of Internet 

services and applications available to 

consumers, both locally and globally? 

• Have such restrictions led 

companies to avoid certain markets 

altogether? 

• What are some of the articulated 

policies or governmental objectives used 

to support such restrictions? 

• Are the restrictions clearly linked to 

specific government objectives? Are the 

restrictions developed in a transparent 

manner? 

• In what countries have businesses 

experienced restrictions on Internet 

information flows? 

• Are such restrictions applied evenly 

to local and foreign businesses? 

• How can the Department of 

Commerce and the federal government 

as a whole assist U.S. entities in gaining 

greater access to new markets? 

• What role, if any, can the 

Department of Commerce play in 

helping to reduce restrictions on the free 

flow of information over the Internet? 

2. Identifying Best Practices 

Governments may attempt to pursue 

public policy objectives by placing 

restrictions on the free flow of 

information over the Internet. The 

challenge faced by every government is 

to strike a balance between the stated 

need for such action, the burden placed 

on stakeholders as a result of such 

restriction, and the social and economic 

benefits derived from the Internet. Most 

importantly, governments must craft 

national policies in a manner that 

recognizes the global nature of the 

Internet and therefore seek solutions 

that empower users to protect 

themselves where possible. The 

increasing accessibility of different 

types of information over the Internet as 

well as the development of new types of 

communications tools such as VoIP, 

social networking, blogging, and microblogging can provide businesses and 

entrepreneurs with valuable 

opportunities to engage in new business 

practices to stimulate economic growth 

and further innovation. 

• Are there alternatives to 

government-mandated restrictions on 

the flow of information on the Internet 

that can realize legitimate policy 

objectives? 

• Are there any best practices or 

baseline criteria for the development, 

articulation, and enforcement of policies 

restricting information flows that should 

be pursued by governments? For 

example, what are some best practices 

for governments to follow to secure their 

domestic Internet infrastructure, while 

minimizing restrictions on the free flow 

of information for their citizens? 

• How should governments assure 

adequate levels of procedural due 

process and transparency to users, 

publishers and intermediaries when 

there is a determination that restricting 

the free flow of information is 

necessary? 

• How effective are local restrictions 

given the global nature of the Internet 

and the possibility of individual users 

circumventing government regulations? 

3. Impact of Restricted Internet 

Information Flows on Innovation, 

Trade and Commerce 

Restrictions on the flow of 

information over the Internet may 

adversely impact service, content, and 

application providers and the Internet 

users who depend upon them. Some 

businesses, in the face of such 

restrictions, may opt to avoid or leave 

certain markets altogether. At times, 

businesses may limit or modify their 

product or service offerings in particular 

markets in order to comply with local 

requirements. In addition, if a 

government’s Internet policies are nontransparent or unclear, businesses may 

alter their product development, trade 

and investment strategies. 

The rise of globally-accessible cloud 

computing services—everything from 

Web-based mail and office productivity 

suites, to more general purpose 

computing, storage and communications 

services available through the cloud— 

raise a new set of questions regarding 

local restrictions that countries may 

impose on services accessible, though 

not physically located, in their country. 

Cloud services realize economies of 

scale and redundancy through flexible 

location of user data and processing 

capability. Internet users, in many 

circumstances, have no knowledge of or 

control over the precise location of the 

services they are receiving or the 

physical location of their data in cloud 

environments. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
60072 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 

14The Economic and Social Role of Internet 

Intermediaries, OECD (April 2010) at 10, available 

at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/49/4/ 

44949023.pdf. 

15Human Rights Challenges Facing the 

Technology Industry Before Subcomm. on Human 

Rights and the Law of the S. Comm. on the 

Judiciary, 111th Cong. (March 2, 2010) (Testimony 

of Daniel J. Weitzner, Associate Administrator for 

Policy Analysis and Development, National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, United States Department of 

Commerce), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ 

presentations/2010/Weitzner_Final_03022010.pdf. 

16Overview of Internet Censorship, supra at 

http://opennet.net/about-filtering (Last accessed 

Aug. 30, 2010). 

17See Daniel J. Weitzner, National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA) Position Paper, OECD 

Workshop, The role of Internet intermediaries in 

advancing public policy objectives, available at 

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/31/45543576.pdf; 

see also Comments of Representative Cox, 141 

Cong. Rec. H8469–70 (1995). 

18Public Law 104–104, codified at 47 U.S.C. 230. 

19See generally, Comments of Representative 

Cox, 141 Cong. Rec. H8469–70 (1995). 

20 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (Pub. L. 105– 

304, codified at 17 U.S.C. 512). 

• What are the economic impacts of 

government restrictions on the free flow 

of information? Please provide examples 

of the economic impact of such 

restrictions on individual businesses or 

on specific industries. 

• Is it possible to quantify the impact 

that such restrictions have had on 

specific businesses or industries and in 

what markets? 

• What role have individual 

countries’ restrictions on the free flow of 

information on the Internet played in a 

business’s decision to enter or remain in 

a market? 

• Are there examples of situations 

where businesses have not invested or 

conducted business in a country 

because of such restrictions? What 

impact, if any, do these restrictions have 

on the types of Internet services and 

applications available to consumers, 

both locally and globally? 

• Do local restrictions on Internet 

information flows impact the ability of 

businesses to innovate and to develop 

uniform products, services or standards? 

• How do local restrictions on the 

free flow of information affect the 

development of cloud computing 

services? 

• How are traditional notions of 

jurisdiction, venue and choice of law 

evolving as services are offered on a 

global basis and data storage varies 

based on efficiency, rather than only 

legal, considerations? 

• Are there specific examples of how 

local restrictions have impacted a 

business’s global practices? 

4. The Role of Internet Intermediaries 

Internet intermediaries play a vital 

role in the flow of information on the 

Internet by serving as a link between 

information producers and information 

users. Internet intermediaries provide 

access to, host, transmit or index 

information created by third parties, or 

provide Internet-based services to third 

parties.14 Internet intermediaries 

include website hosts, blogging site 

hosts, social media sites and other 

services that allow individuals to 

provide and post information to be 

hosted online. The services Internet 

intermediaries provide are integral to 

the growth and vitality of the Internet 

because they allow widespread user 

participation with minimal upfront 

costs or technical resources.15

Governments must balance the 

interests of users who post information 

on the Internet, and other parties who 

access the user-generated material. In 

seeking to prevent the distribution of 

objectionable or illegal material, many 

governments have looked to Internet 

intermediaries to serve a role in 

implementing governmental restrictions 

on information. However, the burden of 

screening, analyzing and carefully 

filtering each piece of user-generated 

information is a task beyond the 

resources available to most Internet 

intermediaries. Moreover, if 

governments burden intermediaries 

with excessive or ill-defined 

responsibility for content not their own, 

then they will have no choice but to 

exercise harmful restrictions on the free 

flow of information, goods and services 

online. Governments therefore need to 

consider the effectiveness of requiring 

intermediaries to enforce or implement 

information restrictions against the costs 

that may deter intermediaries from 

operating in particular jurisdictions or 

from creating new Internet business 

models. 

Governments have struck this balance 

differently in different countries. Some 

governments place affirmative 

obligations on Internet intermediaries to 

monitor or filter user posted content, 

while others provide an incentive for 

self-monitoring in exchange for 

immunity from otherwise applicable 

law.16 Some governments regulate the 

Internet with the same laws that apply 

to traditional print and broadcast media, 

and treat intermediaries like traditional 

publishers and thus as legally 

responsible for information posted on 

the Internet, even by third parties. 

Under U.S. law, traditional print and 

broadcast media may be liable for 

certain defamatory content in their 

publications only if a print or broadcast 

publisher exercised some editorial 

control. Congress was concerned that 

application of this law to Internet 

intermediaries would discourage 

Internet service providers from 

exercising any control over content 

posted on their services, such as 

removing profanity from chat room 

postings, for fear of being held liable for 

these postings.17

To address this issue, Congress passed 

Section 230 of the Communications 

Decency Act of 1996 (a common name 

for Title V of the Telecommunications 

Act of 1996).18 Prior to the enactment of 

Section 230, an intermediary could only 

be certain of avoiding liability if it 

exercised no oversight at all over 

material posted or accessed by users. 

Congress recognized that this 

discouraged content-filtering that users 

might want, such as the creation of 

pornography and profanity-free, childsafe spaces. Section 230 does not 

require intermediaries to determine 

whether information posted by users is 

illegal, rather the immunity granted by 

Section 230 encourages them to do so 

without fear of being held liable for 

content posted by third parties.19 There 

are, however, exceptions to the 

immunity rule and any intermediaries 

knowingly hosting illegal content can be 

held liable. Section 230 has spurred 

rapid growth in new Internet services 

and applications by allowing Internet 

service providers, Website hosts, social 

network sites, and others from worrying 

about potential liability for information 

stored on or moving across their 

networks, thus ensuring a flexible 

environment for innovation and growth. 

U.S. law provides similar protection 

for intermediaries in the context of 

federal copyright law. Section 512 of the 

Digital Millennium Copyright Act 

(DMCA) creates a conditional safe 

harbor from copyright infringement 

liability for qualified Internet 

intermediaries serving as ‘‘mere 

conduits’’ for content.20 While the 

DMCA does not require qualified 

Internet intermediaries to affirmatively 

ferret out each and every instance of 

copyright infringement on their 

services, it does require that Internet 

intermediaries comply with a ‘‘notice 

and takedown’’ system. This notice and 

takedown system is intended to provide 

a streamlined and effective way for 

copyright holders to notify Internet 

intermediaries of identified instances of 

infringement so that infringing content 

can be expeditiously removed. The 

notice and takedown system of the 

DMCA, like the immunity granted in 

Section 230, is one way a government 

may strike a balance where 

objectionable or illegal content is 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 60073 

21 Global Network Initiative, available at http:// 

www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/ (2010). 

removed, while preserving the ability of 

Internet intermediaries to continue to 

provide their vital services. 

• What is the impact of third party 

liability laws on businesses’ abilities to 

operate in global markets? How do 

businesses approach these differing 

liability regimes? 

• To what extent do various 

governments’ third party liability laws 

allow for immunity with exceptions for 

Internet intermediaries? How useful are 

such laws? 

• Are there specific principles or 

factors that governments should take 

into account when dealing with content 

restrictions and the intermediaries who 

might be in a good position to monitor 

postings and remove illegal or 

objectionable content? 

• How might governments promote 

innovation in the provision of new 

intermediary services (e.g., by granting 

immunities), while at the same time 

encouraging responsible conduct by 

those same intermediaries? 

5. Trade Agreements 

Trade and investment rules exist in 

WTO commitments, FTAs, and other 

international treaties or agreements. The 

WTO addresses the free flow of 

information in multiple ways. For 

example, Members currently abide by a 

moratorium on customs duties on 

electronic transmissions. In addition, 

WTO member governments allow crossborder trade in services through 

commitments made in the General 

Agreement on Trade in Services, FTAs, 

and other international treaties or 

agreements, which support trade in 

digital products or ease restrictions on 

market access for certain information 

communication technology products 

and services. 

• How might bilateral or multilateral 

trade or other agreements promote the 

free flow of information over the 

Internet? 

• How might these agreements 

promote transparency and the provision 

of due process in the creation and 

application of government restrictions 

to the free flow of information online? 

• With respect to cloud or other Webbased services, are there specific trade 

disciplines that can enhance market 

access for all providers and increase 

legal certainty for potential users? 

• What other affirmative trade 

obligations related to the free flow of 

information over the Internet should be 

considered? 

6. International Cooperation 

There are several intergovernmental 

bodies, including the International 

Telecommunication Union (ITU), 

OECD, Council of Europe, and AsiaPacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) 

forum, that attempt to guide the growth 

of the Internet and online commerce 

through policy negotiations and 

dialogues. Multi-jurisdictional 

governmental organizations such as 

these have the benefit of being inclusive 

(in that by definition they represent the 

interests of member governments) and 

the potential to be authoritative. By 

their nature however, these 

organizations move at a deliberate pace, 

which means that fast-moving Internet 

issues can be difficult for them to 

address. 

Over the past decade the private 

sector, civil society, and academia 

increasingly have engaged in regional 

and international activities focused on 

the development of cross-border 

Internet policy. The IGF, for example, is 

a multi-stakeholder forum that places 

private sector, civil society and 

academic stakeholders on an equal 

footing with their government 

counterparts for an open and spirited 

dialogue on Internet policy. Another 

case in point is the Global Network 

Initiative, which is a voluntary multistakeholder initiative, composed of 

several human rights organizations and 

three major Internet companies who 

together aim to address restrictions on 

the free flow of information on the 

Internet.21 Advocates of multistakeholder initiatives point out that a 

less formal structure can be more 

nimble and thus in a better position to 

address the fast-changing nature of 

Internet offerings. Multi-stakeholder 

initiatives can be formed around 

discrete issues and can be populated by 

interested parties on an ad hoc basis. 

While such organizations cannot 

establish law or regulation, they can 

accelerate the articulation of acceptable 

norms seen as good practices for large 

segments of the population. 

• Are there some multi-jurisdictional, 

governmental forums or multistakeholder, private-sector organizations 

that are better suited than others to 

develop proposals or principles to guide 

governments as they develop policies 

concerning the free flow of information 

on the Internet? 

• What attributes should multistakeholder organizations or initiatives 

possess in order to maximize their 

efficacy? What makes them well-suited 

to develop principles and best practices 

to guide the private sector? Are there 

examples of industry best practices or 

codes of conduct which provide useful 

guidance on how businesses should 

deal with restrictions on the free flow of 

information? 

• What are the pros and cons of 

turning to multi-stakeholder initiatives 

to accelerate norm development instead 

of international governmental bodies? 

• Has private-sector support for 

multi-stakeholder initiatives matured to 

the point where governments can rely 

on those initiatives for the long-term? 

Commenters should feel free to raise 

and address other governance questions 

as they see fit. 

Dated: September 23, 2010. 

Gary Locke, 

Secretary of Commerce. 

Lawrence E. Strickling, 

Assistant Secretary for Communications and 

Information. 

Francisco J. Sa ́nchez, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for 

International Trade. 

Patrick Gallagher, 

Director, National Institute of Standards and 

Technology. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24385 Filed 9–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–60–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

United States Patent and Trademark 

Office 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO) will submit 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for clearance the following 

proposal for collection of information 

under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). 

Agency: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO). 

Title: Initial Patent Applications. 

Form Number(s): PTO/SB/01 and 

01A, PTO/SB/02A and 02B, 02CN, 

02DE, 02ES, 02FR, 02IT, 02JP, 02KR, 

02NL, 02RU, 02SE, and 02LR, PTO/SB/ 

03 and 03A, PTO/SB/04 through 07, 

PTO/SB/13/PCT, PTO/SB/14 and EFSWeb, PTO/SB/16 and EFS-Web, PTO/ 

SB/17 through 19, PTO/SB/29 and 29A, 

and PTO/SB/101 through 110. 

Agency Approval Number: 0651– 

0032. 

Type of Request: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Burden: 11,553,888 hours annually. 

Number of Respondents: 513,221 

responses per year, with an estimated 

466,385 responses filed electronically. 

Avg. Hours Per Response: The USPTO 

estimates that it takes the public 

between 24 minutes (0.40 hours) and 33 

hours and 12 minutes (33.2 hours) to 

complete the applications, petitions, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES