1

From: William Kirsch <email>

Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 6:59 AM

To: eo-commission; cybercommission

Subject: Open Meeting of the Commission on Enhancing National Cyber-security-Texas

Please include my comments below to the June 30, 2016 Meeting of the North American Numbering 

Council in the written record for the July 2016 Open Meeting of the Commission on Enhancing 

National Cyber-security. 

Thank you. 

William J. Kirsch 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Thank you for your service on the North American Numbering Council (NANC) 

Please note that as a matter of U.S. national security the NANC cannot and must not proceed with 

the transfer of the administration of U.S. telephone numbers to a Swedish company. 

Sweden, while a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Partnership for Peace, 

shares this distinction with other U.S. partners such as Russia. 

Sweden has no obligation under Article 5 of the NATO treaty. See, e.g. NATO 22 U.S.C. 1928. 

In 2012 the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) stated that "[n]early every aspect of 

American society increasingly depends on information technology systems and networks." 

GAO also stated that '[p]ervasive and sustained attacks against the United States could have 

potentially devastating impact on federal and non-federal systems." See Cybersecurity: Threats 

Impacting the Nation, U.S. GAO, April 24, 2012. 

The Securities and Exchange Commission has stated that "electronic mail (e-mail) is not 

secure...." See U.S. SEC Electronic Mailboxes at the Commission. 

Earlier this year we learned that U.S. telephone networks are not secure even for telephone 

conversations considered particularly sensitive under the FTC privacy guidelines. See Dan Goodin, 

How hackers eavesdropped on a U.S. Congressman using only his phone number, Ars Technica, 

April 18, 2016. 

The transfer of U.S. administration of U.S. telephone numbers to a Swedish-owned corporation 

represents a clear and present danger to U.S. national security and to personal privacy. 

There is no FCC rate regulation of some of the largest U.S. broadband providers, including the 

Japanese/People's Republic of China's SoftBank Sprint, See 28 FCC Rcd 9658 (2013) now operating 

unlawfully in the United States in light of the D.C. Circuit Court decision in U.S. Telecom v. FCC.

The NANC should not provide for a transfer of administration of the North American Numbering Plan 

based on the thin reed of lower price to U.S. telephone companies given the absence of rate 
2

regulation of these much larger companies and the much more lucrative nature of data mining done 

by many companies including the top 5 U.S. internet companies worth $2 trillion often based solely or 

primarily based on advertising revenues. 

It would be unlawful for the NANC to proceed with the proposed North American Numbering Plan 

telephone number administration transfer to a Swedish-owned corporation in light of the inadequate 

(i.e. not secure) nature of the network under 47 U.S.C. 34-39, 151, 152, 214, 251, 310 and 1001 et 

seq. and given the possibility that this might be a violation of the deceptive practices requirements 

under the Federal Trade Commission Act as well as the non-feasance requirements for government 

officials established by M'Cluny v. Silliman. 

Please therefore provide for proper and additional notice and comment under the Administrative 

Procedure Act in the Federal Register before proceeding with any NANP transfer. 

Thank you. 

William J. Kirsch 
1

From: William Kirsch <email>

Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 7:03 AM

To: eo-commission; cybercommission

Subject: Open Meeting of the Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity-Texas

Attachments: reconpetition.pdf; erratumandsupplementpage1.pdf; erratumandsupplementpage2.pdf; 

ustr13082776page1.pdf; ustr13082776page2.pdf; state2014-21465page1.pdf; 

state2014-21465page2.pdf; state2014-21465page3.pdf; state2014-21465page4.pdf; 

state2014-21465page5.pdf

Please my Petition for Reconsideration and Erratum and Supplement in the Open Internet 

Proceeding, GN Docket 14-28, Federal Communications Commission in the record of the Open 

Meeting of the Commission on Enhancing National Cyber-security-Texas. 

Thank you. 

William J. Kirsch 



I 

.J 

t 

. I 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508 

VIA EMAIL 

Mr. William Kirsch 

Dear Mr. Kirsch: 

June 17, 2015 

This letter is the Office of the United States Trade Representative's (USTR) response to your 

request under the Freedom oflnformation Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. §552, dated August 26, 2013, 

for all information that USTR has to demonstrate whether the World Trade Organization 

( WTO) on Agreement on Basic Telecommunications Services (ABT) has been a success or 

failure in USTR's view. 

After a search of our files, we have determined that the information you seek can be found on 

our website at the link below: 

hllps:/ /ustr. i!Ov/issue-areas/services-investment/telecom-e-comrnerce/section-13 77-rc\ iew 

This constitutes a complete response to your request. Pursuant to 15 C.F.R §2004.6(d), if you 

are not satisfied with this decision, then within sixty (60) days you may appeal it in writing to: 

USTR FOIA Appeals Committee 

GSD/RDF; Jacqueline Caldwell 

Phone number: 202-395-3419 

Anacostia Naval Annex 

Bldg.410/Door 123 

250 Murray Lane, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20509 

Both the letter and the envelope should be clearly marked: "Freedom of Information Act 

Appeal" and should include a reference to the FOIA Case File number listed below. Heightened 

security in force may delay mail delivery; therefore we suggest that you also email any such 

appeal to foia@ustr.eop.gov. In the event you are dissatisfied with the results of any such 

appeal, judicial review will thereafter be available to you in the United States District Court for 

the judicial district in which you reside or have your principal place of business, or in the District 

of Columbia, where we searched for the records you requested. 






1

From: William Kirsch <email>

Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 7:06 AM

To: eo-commission; cybercommission

Subject: Open Meeting of the Commission on Enhancing National Cyber-security-Texas.

Attachments: wc16-106page1.jpg; wc16-106page2.jpg; wc16-106page3.jpg

Please include my comments in WC Docket 16-106, Federal Communications Commission, 

Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services in the 

meeting record. 

Thank you. 

William J. Kirsch 



1

From: William Kirsch <email>

Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 7:09 AM

To: eo-commission; cybercommission

Subject: Open Meeting of the Commission on Enhancing National Cyber-security, Texas

Attachments: cpnicann.rtf

Please include my reply comments in the record of the Open Meeting in Texas of the Commission on 

Enhancing National Cyber-security. 

Thank you. 

William J. Kirsch 
BEFORE THE 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PROTECTING THE PRIVACY OF

CUSTOMERS OF BROADBAND AND WC DOCKET 16-106

OTHER TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES FCC 16-39

REPLY COMMENTS OF WILLIAM J. KIRSCH

In Self-Reliance (1841) Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote that a foolish consistency is the 

hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen. The Federal Communications Commission 

(FCC) is seeking to demonstrate its high-mindedness by proposing a privacy regime for 

Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) that is inconsistent with what a judge from 

the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia referred to as an "anomalous" FCC 

forbearance from regulation of so-called "edge providers" or common carrier resellers of data 

services. The FCC forbearance extends to any regulation of the Internet Corporation for 

Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) despite the statement of Chairman Wheeler, under oath, 

at a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing that the Internet is a successor network to the 

telephone network and the statement of Assistant Secretary Strickling that NTIA has no statutory 

authority or legal responsibility for ICANN. 

The FCC has failed to ensure nondiscriminatory access to an adequate nationwide and 

worldwide network at just and reasonable rates despite the clear statutory direction of the 

Communications Act of 1934 and the time-tested principles applied to common carriers under 

common law since Magna Carta era Thames ferries. The issue of trust of the Internet arises 

again and again in a way that U.S. consumers never experience with regard to telegraph, telex, 

telephone or television services. Nevertheless, the FCC has proposed an assymetrically 

intrusive and burdensome regulatory approach for broadband providers, like AT&T, Comcast 

and Verizon, that account for only $600 billion in market capitalization. The Commission 

would not apply ANY regulation to resellers, such as Amazon, Facebook and Google that have a 

market cap of $1.2 trillion, nor would it require them to contribute to a broadband universal 

service fund that benefits them as much or more than legacy providers.

While the perfect must not be the enemy of the good, Supreme Court precedent, which 

rejected the right to privacy formulated by Justice Brandeis in 1928, permits privacy regulation 

only for real harm. Unfortunately, the FCC proposal does not rise to the standard of a good 

approach and, in fact, does more harm than good.

Until the FCC's 2015 Open Internet order re-classified broadband providers as common 

carriers the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) provided a privacy standard that focused on the 

harm associated with sensitive information, such as financial and medical information, shared 

with third parties. The FTC approach often permits an implied consent or opt-out approach. 

This has given the United States a comparative trade advantage in advertising. Today, 

advertising accounts for as much as one in six of U.S. sales annually. In contrast, Europe faces a 

Brexit and possible dissolution of the European Union.
The FCC's proposed opt-in approach, already used in Europe, led to to a drop there in 

advertising effectiveness by almost two-thirds. And although touted as a move to protect data 

security, the FCC proposal does not protect consumers from unscrupulous interconnectors 

stealing social security numbers from the Office of Personnel Management or engaging in 

identity theft from safe havens in places like Russia or Nigeria. Advertising is an essential 

element of future economic growth.

Simply put, the FCC has failed to provide for encrypted email and domains and therefore 

failed to provide for an adequate network under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 

The FCC failure puts us all at risk. The FCC proposal treats U.S. broadband access providers as 

more of a threat to privacy than foreign governments and criminals. 

Rather than promoting the U.S. comparative advantage in advertising and making 

improvements in security, including information sharing that would improve network 

management and management of protective firewalls, the FCC proposes new burdens on 

broadband facilities providers that individually account for only a third of the U.S. market rather 

than common carrier resellers that command market shares of fifty to ninety percent of their 

advertising supported markets. 

The Communications Workers of America note in comments to the FCC that the three 

largest regulated providers of broadband have 600,000 workers, but that the three unregulated 

big three resellers or "edge providers" have only 77,000. The FCC approach is not only an 

assault on our personal and national security, but also is an assault on the working class. 

Experts filing comments note that information sharing critical to protecting users from 

abusive, fradulent and other unlawful acts means that the privacy proposals fall far short of 

protecting children, teens and the elderly. These experts also note that the FCC failed to 

consider less burdensome solutions, such as encryption, de-identification of individually 

identifiable information, and a nutrition label-like format for privacy disclosure. This is odd, 

perhaps, given that the FCC cannot be unfamiliar with the legendary late Jack Valenti's enduring 

PG solution for the motion picture industry. 

Nor can the FCC be unfamiliar with industry and consumer concerns with the potential 

monetary losses and loss of privacy and reputation associated with criminals fraudulently taking 

over a customer's mobile devices. Congress has already publicized security flaws associated 

with the use of mobile numbers. This makes the FCC indifference to the Department of 

Commerce's deregulation of ICANN all the more baffling despite clear Senate interest in a more 

cautious approach. The FCC cannot protect consumers' broadband privacy and wave goodbye 

to oversight of U.S. telephone and internet numbers. 

The FCC ignores emerging best practices, such as two factor authentication, when almost 

two-thirds of all data breaches result from weak, default or stolen passwords. The FCC failed to 

make the case that by the FTC's own standard of real harm regulation of domain name queries, 

which are almost never encrypted, requires regulatory oversight. For that would require FCC 

regulation of politically favored Silicon Valley and of ICANN. And it risks bursting the 

dotcom bubble 2.0.
The Department of Commerce, which has stated that it has no statutory authority or legal 

responsibility for internet numbering has just announced that it will nevertheless de-regulate the 

already privatized ICANN. The FCC, which does have statutory authority and legal 

responsibility proposes to forbear from regulation of ICANN despite the transfer of control to a 

Swedish President. Sweden, while a member of the European Union, is not a full member of 

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and there is no legal basis for a transfer of 

control that would include a national security exception under the World Trade Organization 

(WTO) General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Therefore, both the ICANN transfer 

of control and the control of the administration of telephone numbers from Neustar to Swedish 

owned Telcordia mean that the United States may be required to transfer control in the future to 

state owned enterprises from the People's Republic of China, or Russia, or Saudi Arabia, or be 

subject to trade sanctions under the WTO dispute resolution proceedings.

The United States Trade Representative (USTR) which negotiated a TransPacific 

Partnership (TPP) text in secret ostensibly to protect an open internet failed to address the 

security issues in TPP and instead focused on a Silicon Valley agenda associated with a concern 

about data localization requirements. That issue, however, cuts both ways. As the PRC and the 

oil states meet in Dubai to discuss possible future purchases related to the $3.5 trillion in PRC 

foreign currency reserves and a new Saudi-Aramco-related $2 trillion Saudi sovereign wealth 

fund, the TPP opens the door for a flag of convenience approach by Brunei that might subject 

U.S. data to sharia law. 

The magnificent Wizard of Oz warned us of the dangers that New Deal era corruption 

posed to a heartland home. 

Absent the re-establishment of President Wilson's "same footing as regards privileges" 

standard used successfully through the Second World War and the Cold War and market access 

for U.S. broadband providers and U.S. allies in the TPP, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and 

Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), the most likely 

legacy of ObamaTrade appears to be a Brexit and a dissolution of the European Union. It is 

not too late, however, for TPP side letters or for the publication of the draft TTIP and TiSA 

agreements to make much needed improvements required by the Trade Act of 2015. 

Otherwise, like the wicked witch, TPP, TTIP and TiSA are not only dead on arrival, but 

most sincerely dead. This would be a tragedy of the commons that is avoidable through 

mid-course corrections now that would promote new digital trade in the Pacific and an expansion 

of the successful post-war European economic integration essential to future global peace and 

prosperity. 

As the emerging record in the FCC's privacy proceeding already makes clear, however, 

the promise of future Information Age innovation, including the Internet of Things that make 

possible enormous savings in areas such as home energy management, will only be possible with 

a secure and trusted Internet subject to minimal, but essential, regulation. To make that happen 

the FCC will have to do a Presidential year pivot and make it clear that although its intentions are 

good, Emerson was correct. To be great is to be misunderstood.
William J. Kirsch

June 12, 2016
1

From: William Kirsch <email>

Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 7:13 AM

To: eo-commission; cybercommission

Subject: Open Meeting of the Commission on Enhancing National Cyber-security-Texas

Attachments: ntia16-21page1.jpg; ntia16-21page2.jpg; ntia16-21page3.jpg; ntia16-21page4.jpg; 

ntia16-21page5.jpg; ntia16-24page1.jpg; ntia16-24page2.jpg; ntia16-25page1.jpg; 

ntia16-25page2.jpg; ntia16-26page1.jpg; ntia16-26page2.jpg; ntia16-26page3.jpg; 

ntia16-27page1.jpg; ntia16-27page2.jpg; ntia16-28page1.jpg; ntia16-28page2.jpg; 

ntia16-36page1.jpg; ntia16-36page2.jpg; ntia16-36page3.jpg; ntia16-38page1.jpg; 

ntia16-38page2.jpg; ntia16-38page3.jpg; ntia16-38page4.jpg; ntia16-38page5.jpg; 

ntia16-38page6.jpg; ntia16-38page7.jpg; ntia16-38page8.jpg; ntia16-38page9.jpg; 

ntia16-38page10.jpg; ntia16-38page11.jpg; ntia16-38page12.jpg; ntia16-45page1.jpg; 

ntia16-45page2.jpg; ntia16-58page1.jpg; ntia16-58page2.jpg; ntia16-64page1.jpg; 

ntia16-64page2.jpg; ntia16-64page3.jpg

Please include the Freedom of Information Act responses from the National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration attached below in the record of the Open Meeting of the Commission on 

Enhancing National Cyber-security in Texas. 

Thank you. 

William J. Kirsch 






































1

From: William Kirsch <email>

Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 7:17 AM

To: eo-commission

Subject: Open Meeting of the Commission on Enhancing National Cyber-security-Texas

Attachments: euttipjuly2015.jpg; euttiparticle3-1.2.jpg; berceropage1.jpg; berceropage2.jpg; iscap.jpg; 

mullaneypage1.jpg; mullaneypage2.jpg; tisapage1.jpg; tisapage2.jpg; tppage1.jpg; tpppage2.jpg; 

ustr15080381page1.jpg; ustr15080381page2.jpg; ustr16021746page1.jpg; ustr16021746page2.jpg; 

ustr16030352page1.jpg; ustr16030352page2.jpg

Please include the United States Trade Representative Freedom of Information Act replies and 

information obtained from USTR replies in the record of the Texas Open Meeting of the Commission 

on Enhancing National Cyber-security. 

Thank you. 

William J. Kirsch 

















1

From: William Kirsch <email>

Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 7:29 AM

To: eo-commission; cybercommission

Subject: Open Meeting of the Commission on Enhancing National Cyber-security-Texas

Attachments: gn15-236fcc15-137.jpg

Please include my comments in GN Docket No. 15-236 Review of Foreign Ownership Policies For 

Broadcast, Common Carrier and Aeronautical Radio Licenses, Federal Communications Commission 

in the hearing record. 

Thank you. 

William J. Kirsch