[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NIST STRUCTURE AND AUTHORITIES, ITS ROLE
IN STANDARDS, AND FEDERAL AGENCY
COORDINATION ON TECHNICAL STANDARDS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 23, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-89
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
55-846PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
JOHN GARAMENDI, California MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JIM MATHESON, Utah BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PETE OLSON, Texas
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation
HON. DAVID WU, Oregon, Chair
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
PAUL D. TONKO, New York W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
MIKE QUEAR Subcommittee Staff Director
MEGHAN HOUSEWRIGHT Democratic Professional Staff Member
TRAVIS HITE Democratic Professional Staff Member
HOLLY LOGUE Democratic Professional Staff Member
DAN BYERS Republican Professional Staff Member
VICTORIA JOHNSTON Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
March 23, 2010
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Acting Chairman,
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 5
Written Statement............................................ 5
Statement by Representative Adrian Smith, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 6
Written Statement............................................ 6
Witnesses:
Hon. Patrick D. Gallagher, Ph.D. Director, National Institute of
Standards and Technology
Oral Statement............................................... 7
Written Statement............................................ 9
Biography.................................................... 14
Dr. James Serum, President, Scitek Ventures, LLC, and Past Chair,
NIST Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 16
Biography.................................................... 20
Mr. Craig Shank, General Manager, Interoperability at Microsoft
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Written Statement............................................ 23
Biography.................................................... 26
Mr. Philip Wennblom, Director of Standards, Intel Corporation
Oral Statement............................................... 26
Written Statement............................................ 27
Biography.................................................... 29
Mr. Andrew Updegrove, Partner, Gesmer Updegrove, LLP
Oral Statement............................................... 29
Written Statement............................................ 31
Biography.................................................... 34
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Andrew Updegrove, Partner, Gesmer Updegrove, LLP............. 48
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Statement of Vinton G. Cerf, Ph.D., Vice President and Chief
Internet Evangelist, Google.................................... 52
NIST STRUCTURE AND AUTHORITIES, ITS ROLE IN STANDARDS, AND FEDERAL
AGENCY COORDINATION ON TECHNICAL STANDARDS
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2010
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation
Committee on Science and Technology
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart
Gordon [Acting Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION
NIST Structure and Authorities, Its Role in
Standards, and Federal Agency Coordination on
Technical Standards
tuesday, march 23, 2010
10:00 a.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
1. Purpose
On Tuesday, March 23, 2010, the Subcommittee on Technology and
Innovation will hold a hearing to review the proposed re-alignment of
operational units at the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), examine the current role that NIST plays in technical
standards, and examine the need for Federal agencies and departments'
coordination on technical standards.
2. Witnesses
The Honorable Patrick Gallagher is the Director of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Dr. James Serum is the President of Scitek Ventures LLC, and
the past Chairman of the NIST Visiting Committee on Advanced
Technology.
Mr. Craig Shank is the General Manager for Interoperability
at Microsoft.
Mr. Andy Updegrove is a partner at Gesmer Updegrove LLC.
Mr. Phil Wennblom is the Director of Standards at Intel
Corporation.
3. Brief Overview
The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 provided the
basis by which the NIST technical program is currently organized into
ten operational units. The NIST Director has proposed reorganizing the
operational units and different offices within NIST to strengthen the
ties of the organization to better reflect existing and future
technologies and their multi-disciplinary nature.
Standards play a critical role in enabling commerce, trade,
innovation and competition. With the reduction in tariff-based bathers
through negotiations in bodies such as the World Trade Organization,
countries and regions are increasingly using standards as potential
technical barriers to trade. Staff from various Federal agencies and
departments participate in private sector led standards development
activities. In 2007, more than 3,300 Federal staff from 26 Federal
departments, agencies, and commissions participated in almost 300
private sector standards developing organizations.
4. Background
The importance of standards was recognized by the founding fathers,
who in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution noted that ``The
Congress shall have power to . . . coin money, regulate the value
thereof, and of foreign coins, and fix the standards of weights and
measures.'' NIST's traditional mission is to promote U.S. innovation
and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science,
standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and
improve our quality of life. Thus, NIST is the only technical Federal
agency with a constitutional mandate.
The National Bureau of Standards (NBS), the predecessor to current-
day NIST, was established in 1901. The Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988 changed the National Bureau of Standards to
the National Institute of Standards and Technology of today and
established the basis for the current laboratory structure. While this
laboratory structure has worked well for the past 20 years,
globalization is presenting unique challenges to U.S. industry and
manufacturing. The NIST laboratory re-alignment is an attempt to better
position NIST to meet U.S. industry and government's needs in
measurement science, standards and technology, and promote U.S.
innovation and industrial competitiveness. The proposed reorganization
will reduce the number of technical operating units from ten to six,
and will create three new positions of associate directors, with
responsibility for Laboratory Programs, Innovation and Industry, and
Management Resources.
NIST has a unique role in standards and conformity assessment
activities. Together with developing and disseminating various physical
and chemical standards, NIST staff develop tools that enable U.S.
interests to keep their physical standards (e.g. time, length, mass,
etc.) comparable to international standards through a chain of
traceability. Every day examples of this include the time signals on
cell phones, the precise operation of GPS units in cars, assurance of
accuracy of the annual laboratory test for cholesterol, and the
confidence in the quantity and quality of gasoline at gas stations. In
2008, Over 400 NIST staff participated in over 1,000 technical
(documentary) standards related activities in over 100 standards
developing organizations. This technical standards development work
covers numerous sectors, and ranges from standards defining the
security of our financial transactions at ATMs to standards improving
the fire resistance of building construction materials.
Agencies' participation in technical standards development
activities is consistent with their mission, statutory authority, and
where applicable, with their regulatory authority. The varied nature of
the standards system means that agencies participate in standards
developing organizations in very different ways. In numerous private
sector standards development activities, agencies participate
independently, while in some standards developing fora such as the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), they participate
through the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) as an
organization. In treaty based organizations developing standards they
participate through the State Department. Coordination and
communication among Federal agencies and with the private sector is
critical to ensure that technical standards issues that can impact U.S.
innovation and competitiveness are identified early on and that the
agencies with expertise are appropriately engaged.
To better understand the current situation about the effectiveness
of the public-private sector cooperation model in standards development
and issues confronting U.S. industry, the Chairman of the House
Committee on Science and Technology sent a letter to over 200 companies
asking for feedback on four different aspects of the U.S. government's
interaction in the standards system. The responses highlighted the
success of the public-private partnership that is the basis for the
U.S. standards system. A number of respondents also pointed to the
issue of Federal agency coordination on standards related matters, and
responded to questions about a potential NIST role in coordinating
Federal agencies on standards related issues. This hearing explores
those issues further.
Coordination among Federal agencies and departments on technical
standards issues is critical, as it directly impacts the ability of the
U.S. government to respond to technical standards issues that
potentially impact U.S. competitiveness and innovation ability. On
issues such as the Chinese promulgation of a China unique standard for
encryption of wireless communication (Wireless Local Area Network
(WLAN) Authentication Privacy Infrastructure (WAPI)) and biofuels
standardization issues with Brazil and Europe, questions were raised by
the U.S. private sector about U.S. government positions on the
underlying technical standards and coordination of different agencies
and departments in developing such positions.
5. Hearing Issues:
How will NIST operational units and offices be realigned and how
will the proposed new NIST structure better position NIST to adequately
support the needs of U.S. industry and government?
What role should NIST play in technical standards within the
Federal Government? What are the issues relating to Federal agencies
and departments' coordination in international technical standards?
The recently concluded Cyberspace Policy Review \1\ identified a
coordinated approach between Federal agencies and recommended a
strengthened and integrated interagency processes to formulate and
coordinate international cybersecurity related positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/
Cyberspace-Policy-Review-final.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions of particular interest are:
Why is Federal agency coordination and information
sharing and exchange important on issues relating to
international technical standards?
How well are current efforts by Federal agencies and
departments to coordinate and share information on technical
standards working?
What are the potential barriers to improved Federal
agency coordination and information sharing on international
technical standards issues?
What would be the impact of improved Federal agency
coordination and information sharing on international technical
standards issues?
Mr. Gordon. [Presiding] This hearing will come to order. As
I told our witnesses a little bit earlier, the scarcity of
Members here is not a lack of interest in this very, very
important issue, but there is a signing ceremony going on at
the White House, and the Republican Conference has got various
things going on, and so we are going in different places, but
the important thing is that you are here, that we have had a
period of time for minority and majority staff to talk with
you. We have gotten your written information. We are glad to
hear from you today.
Today's hearing is about the role of NIST [National
Institute of Standards and Technology] in supporting innovation
in the 21st century. As the only Federal technical agency with
a Constitutional mandate measurement and also the oldest
Federal technical agency with a statutory charter, NIST has
proven its worth to taxpayer investment for more than 100
years, and as technologies have evolved, so has NIST, from
developing the thread standards for the fire hoses to the
measurement of electricity and now the digitalization of
fingerprints, the list continues to grow.
However, the current lab structure dates from 1988, and the
technologies of today are much more multi-disciplinary and
integrated in scope and function. Dr. Patrick Gallagher has
announced his intention to restructure NIST to reflect the
trends of the past 20 years, to accommodate the trends of the
next 20. I agree that NIST structure needs to better reflect
the needs of the private sector communities it serves, and we
intend to make this a component of the America COMPETES
legislation.
NIST also has an important role beyond the measurement;
from its creation, the word, ``standards'' has always been a
key element of both its name and function.
As technologies have changed since 1903, so have standards
issues. Until the '80s, standards were considered to be a
purely domestic issue. With the growth of international trade
and technological corporations or international corporations in
new technology sectors, this began to change. Our understanding
of the importance of international impact of standards has
accelerated over the past 20 years with the globalization of
technological innovation. Today technical standards are a key
part of the innovation puzzle.
The focus of today's hearing is to ask what NIST's role
should be in coordinating Federal Government standards policy
development. I want to make it clear that this Committee has no
interest in telling private sector standards developers how to
do their jobs. This Committee has always been Congress's
strongest proponent for the public-private sector partnership
that defines the U.S. standards development system, and today's
hearing is addressing issues that we hope will streamline
Federal Government participation in the private-sector-led
standard system.
I would like to thank our witnesses for taking the time
from their busy schedules to appear before the Committee today,
and now I recognize Mr. Smith for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Acting Chairman Gordon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Acting Chairman Bart Gordon
Today's hearing is about the role of NIST in supporting innovation
in the 21St century. As the only Federal technical agency with a
constitutional mandate--measurement--and also the oldest Federal
technical agency with a statutory charter, NIST has proved its worth to
taxpayer investment for more than one hundred years. And as
technologies have evolved, so has NIST. From developing thread
standards for fire hoses, to the measurement of electricity, and now to
digitizing fingerprints, the list continues to grow.
However, the current lab structure dates from 1988, and the
technologies of today are much more multidisciplinary and integrated in
scope and function. Dr. Patrick Gallagher has announced his intent to
restructure NIST to reflect the trends of the past twenty years and to
accommodate the trends to the next twenty. Subcommittee Chairman Wu and
I are in complete agreement that the NIST structure needs to better
reflect the needs of the private sector communities it serves and we
intend to make this a component of the America COMPETES legislation.
NIST also has an important role beyond measurement: from its
creation, the word ``standards'' has always been a key element of both
its name and function.
As technologies have changed since 1903, so have standards issues.
Until the eighties, standards were considered to be purely a domestic
issue. With the growth of international trade and international
corporations in new technology sectors, this began to change. Our
understanding of the importance of international impact of standards
has accelerated over the past twenty years with the globalization of
technology innovation. Today technical standards are a key part of the
innovation puzzle.
The focus of today's hearing is to ask what NIST's role should be
in coordinating Federal Government standards policy development. I want
to make it clear that this committee has no interest in telling private
sector standards developers how to do their jobs. This committee has
always been Congress's strongest proponent of the public-private sector
partnership that defines the U.S. standards development system. Today's
hearing is addressing issues that we hope will streamline Federal
Government's participation in the private-sector-led standards system.
I would like to thank our witnesses for taking the time from their
busy schedules to appear before the subcommittee today.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Gordon. I
thank you for calling this hearing today on the structure and
authorities of NIST, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the
power of Congress to, ``fix the standard of weights and
measures.'' For over 100 years since its initial founding as
the National Bureau of Standards, NIST has been congressionally
authorized to fulfill this mission and is trusted domestically
and internationally as an unbiased arbiter of scientific
measurement. As we are continually reminded, scientific
innovation is never ending, and the infrastructure needed to
ensure continued advancement evolves likewise.
In light of this from time to time NIST has seen fit to
reorganize itself to better meet the needs of the scientific
and commercial communities. This evolution is entirely
appropriate, so long as NIST remains within its authorization
and is better able to meet its mission.
I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses on how
this reauthorization fits those parameters. With that said, in
the interest of hearing from our witnesses, I simply say thank
you to the panel for going a ways out of your way to join us
here today and share your expertise, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Adrian Smith
Thank you, Chairman Wu, for calling today's hearing on the
structure and authorities of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology.
Article one, section eight of the United States Constitution
enumerates the power of Congress to ``fix the Standard of Weights and
Measures.'' For over one-hundred years, since its initial founding as
the National Bureau of Standards, NIST has been congressionally
authorized to fulfill this mission, and is trusted domestically and
internationally as an unbiased arbiter of scientific measurement.
As we are continually reminded, scientific innovation is never-
ending, and the infrastructure needed to ensure continued advancement
evolves likewise. In light of this, from time to time, NIST has seen
fit to reorganize itself to better meet the needs of the scientific and
commercial communities.
This evolution is entirely appropriate, so long as NIST remains
within its authorization and is better able to meet its mission. I am
looking forward to hearing from our witnesses on how this
reauthorization fits those parameters.
With that said, in the interest of hearing from our witnesses, I
will simply say thank you to our distinguished panelists and yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Smith, and those Members that
aren't here today will have an opportunity to submit opening
statements for the record.
It is now my pleasure to introduce our witnesses. First,
the Honorable Patrick Gallagher is the Director of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology. Dr. James Serum is the
President of Scitek Ventures, LLC, and the Past Chair of the
NIST Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology. Dr. Craig Shank
is the General Manager of Interoperability at Microsoft. Dr.
Philip Wennblom is the Director of Standards at Intel
Corporation, and our final witness is Mr. Updegrove, who is a
Partner of Gesmer Updegrove, and I am sure I have garbaged all
your names and your businesses, but you are welcome to correct
the record as we go forward. And as you know, you will have
five minutes for your spoken testimony or anything within that
reason. Your written testimony will be included in the record
for the hearing, and when you complete your statements we will
begin some questions here.
So Dr. Gallagher, please begin.
STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK D. GALLAGHER, Ph.D. DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY
Dr. Gallagher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Smith, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be here
today. Since my written testimony has been submitted, what I
would like to do this morning is to briefly and rather
informally highlight some of the major points in that and I
look forward to questions.
There were two fundamental topics in today's hearing, and
for me they both deal with how NIST can most effectively carry
out its mission. So, first let me discuss the reorganization.
The reorganization that I have proposed for NIST actually
has two components to it. The first is the organization
reporting directly to the Director's office, if you will. The
current structure has 17 line organizations that all report to
the Director or Deputy Director of the agency. I have proposed
that this is an unyielding and unstable structure because of
significant turnover in those positions, and the new structure
proposes to organize NIST by eliminating the current Deputy
Director position and replacing it with three Associate
Directors, each with responsibility over major program elements
of the agency. So, one for the laboratory programs, an
Associate Director for our external programs, which includes
Baldridge, MEP [Manufacturing Extension Partnership], and the
Technology Innovation Program, and one for management
resources, which covers the administrative and support
functions of the agency.
This proposed reorganization has been approved by the
Department and by the Administration and is currently being
evaluated by our Appropriations Subcommittees.
The other reorganization that I have announced that I am
considering, and I have also initiated internal planning for,
is a realignment of the laboratory structure at NIST. As you
pointed out, Mr. Chairman, this structure has been in place
since the late 1980s, and I have been working in a very
unorthodox fashion here. Normally our reorganizations are
proposed and approved and not announced until they have gone
through this process. I wanted to seek broad input, and so I
have worked closely with the NIST Leadership Team, with the
Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology, with key stakeholder
organizations, with our own Department of Commerce, and with
your staff from this Committee as well.
After reviewing input from all of them, my initial
assessment is that it is time to realign the laboratories, and
what I have proposed is creating a structure that is based on
organizations that are organized by mission. This would create
vertically-integrated structure where a single laboratory would
be responsible not only for the basic R&D activities but also
for the measurement services that help carry out the mission of
the agency. This would make organizations much more customer-
focused and responsive.
A realignment of the type I am proposing will not change
the focus of the NIST programs. This does not set aside a new
direction. It is designed to make the agency more effective.
Nor does it result in any reductions in force.
I am working closely with all of our stakeholders to
develop a proposal that would go to the Department and the
Administration for approval, after which it would be sent, of
course, and shared with Congress for consideration.
On the standards issue, the National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act and its implementation under OMB [Office of
Management and Budget] Circular A-119 defines NIST's role and
tells Federal agencies that they are to, when possible, prefer
to use standards developed by the private sector through a
voluntary consensus process. This piece of legislation, which
this Committee played a key role on, has been remarkably
successful in having agencies replace government-written
standards with those developed in the private sector.
However, today the pace of technology is changing with
greater speed, the technology itself is becoming more complex,
and our solutions to major policy issues are dependent on
technology itself. So there are two major questions that we are
facing. One is how do we work more effectively with industry
and the private sector on developing standards, and how do we
work more effectively across agencies to coordinate our work.
And so in my written testimony I have discussed some of our
experience on Smart Grid. I think Smart Grid has broken new
ground as a public-private partnership that can be very
effective. It includes committed leadership by all the
participants, it is an effective partnership model with an
active governance, there is strong coordination among the
participating Federal agencies, and it brings outstanding
technical capability to bear.
We are also working to improve the interagency
coordination, and to that end I am working very closely with
the Executive Office of the President, especially OSTP [Office
of Science and Technology Policy] and OMB, to develop a more
strategically-focused interagency process where we can address
specific standards-related issues and policy topics.
So, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for this
hearing, and I look forward to our question-and-answer session
where I can address any other issues.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gallagher follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patrick D. Gallagher
Introduction
Chairman Wu, Ranking Member Smith, and members of the Subcommittee,
I want to thank you for this opportunity to discuss NIST's pending
reorganization, as well as our broader role in standards development.
With the growing importance of NIST's mission to the economy--and with
the Subcommittee's work to reauthorize the America COMPETES Act (P.L.
110-69)--this is an opportune time to consider how to make the agency
most effective.
The first question I'd like to address today is: what do these two
topics have in common with each other? I believe the answer is that
they both fundamentally deal with how NIST can most effectively carry
out its mission. As you know, NIST has many critical roles assigned to
it. NIST's Laboratories ensure U.S. leadership in measurement science,
documentary, and artifact standards. NIST supports other Federal
agencies in meeting U.S. Government needs for voluntary consensus
standards, and continually advances measurement science through
cutting-edge research.
Notwithstanding our continued success on these fronts, NIST finds
itself at a critical time in its history. In the current economic
environment, it is more important than ever that NIST be effective and
efficient in supporting the industrial competiveness and economic
prosperity of the United States. This is the main reason why I have
proposed a reorganization of the Director's Office, and am considering
a realignment of our laboratory programs. It is also why we are
embarking on an initiative to strengthen and better coordinate Federal
deployment of documentary standards.
Because these two topics--realigning NIST and strengthening our
standards coordination--are so important, I also have sought advice on
them from our Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology (VCAT). Over
this past year, the VCAT has been enormously helpful in providing input
on both of these issues, and I am very pleased that they have joined me
today in providing testimony to this Subcommittee.
Realignment of NIST Organizational Structure
Motivation
Why do I believe that the agency needs to be realigned? The answer
is simple: The proposed reorganization of NIST's management is designed
to allow me to effectively improve accountability by streamlining how
the responsibility to carry out our mission is delegated through the
organization.
Management Reorganization
Mr. Chairman, as you know, I have been honored to be a NIST
employee for over 16 years, and during my tenure the organizational
structure of NIST has remained relatively unchanged. In fact, the
current organizational structure of the agency originates from the late
1980s, shortly after the enactment of Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness
Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-418), when the National Bureau of Standards
became NIST and Congress added several new programs to our mission.
Since that time, NIST has been organized into a relatively flat
organization with a Presidentially appointed Director, a career Deputy
Director, and a collection of line organizations covering all of the
various laboratory activities plus the Hollings Manufacturing Extension
Partnership, the Baldrige National Quality Program, and the Technology
Innovation Program (TIP was created in the America COMPETES Act (P.L.
110-69) in 2007, and the Advanced Technology Program--its predecessor--
was repealed), plus all of the support organizations. At the time I
became Director, there were 17 of these major line organizations, all
reporting to the Director through the Deputy Director position.
I believe this overall structure is unstable for two reasons.
First, the Director's Office (comprised of Director and Deputy
Director) is too small to effectively manage and integrate the diverse
programs that carry out the mission of the agency. In other words, the
agency didn't ``come together'' until it got up to the Director's
office. This structure tends to drive the management of any activity
that crosses line organizations up to the Director's office. This is an
unwieldy approach. Second, NIST has experienced substantial turnover in
both the Director and Deputy Director positions since the early 1990s.
These frequent departures result in changes in management focus and
direction for the many activities managed at this level. This has
negatively impacted those activities requiring an agency-wide
management approach, including strategic program planning, program
evaluation, and an integrated safety management approach. These
weaknesses have been areas of concern for both the VCAT and for this
Subcommittee, and I believe that they must be addressed as an urgent
priority.
The proposed reorganization of the Director's Office will better
distribute the operational responsibilities for NIST. I have proposed
to eliminate the current Deputy Director position and establish three
Associate Directors (AD): the AD for Laboratory Programs, which will
have responsibility for the scientific and technical laboratories and
services, as well as have the functions of a Deputy Director for
purposes of succession; the AD for Innovation and Industrial Services,
which will have responsibility for our external programs, including the
Baldrige National Quality Program, the Hollings Manufacturing Extension
Partnership, and the Technology Innovation Program; and the AD for
Management Resources, which will have responsibility for NIST's
administrative and operational support activities.
Since the line organizations currently report to me through the
Deputy Director position, this change does not add a new layer of
management. It does, however, provide a core management team for the
agency with executives directly responsible for the major program
elements. I also believe that this structure will make NIST more stable
when there are changes in any of these AD positions, or in the Director
position. The proposed reorganization of the Director's Office has
already been approved by the Department of Commerce and by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), and is awaiting evaluation by the
Appropriations Committees.
Laboratory Realignment
On a separate track, NIST is working with its stakeholders,
including the VCAT, on ways our laboratory programs might be realigned
by mission to improve service delivery. The NIST Laboratory Program is
currently organized into ten laboratory or center line organizations
(these are the same line positions that would report to the Associate
Director for Laboratory Programs). There are two user facilities (the
NIST Center for Neutron Research, and the Center for Nanoscale Science
and Technology) and eight laboratories, seven of which are organized by
discipline area (Physics, Chemical Sciences and Technology, Electronics
and Electrical Engineering, Materials Science and Engineering,
Manufacturing Engineering, Building and Fire Research, and Information
Technology) and one for measurement services (Technology Services).
Increasingly, the technological and scientific challenges tackled
by NIST are multidisciplinary. Examples of our multidisciplinary work
include initiatives on Smart Grid, advanced photovoltaics, climate
change, and bioscience and health. Currently all major
multidisciplinary NIST programs involve more than one laboratory, and
several programs involve as many as seven. Coordination of these major
programmatic responsibilities increases the ``friction in the system,''
making it more difficult to address these challenges efficiently and
effectively.
In addition, by organizing by disciplinary area of research, the
current structure emphasizes the role of these organizations in
managing their research portfolios, not the dissemination of this
research into our mission-based activities. Currently a laboratory that
conducts research leading to a new or improved measurement capability
or service is often not directly responsible for delivering the
resulting product or service to government or industry, which divides a
single mission across operational boundaries. This diminishes the
responsibility of the laboratory management over these services. This
is a major concern for me because it can make us less customer focused,
since many of our industry stakeholders interact with NIST through
these measurement, standards, and technology activities.
Therefore, in November I asked my senior leadership to undertake an
assessment of the NIST organizational structure with a goal of
answering three important questions:
1. Is NIST's current organizational structure aligned to best
accomplish the important missions that the Congress and the
Administration continue to entrust to us and which distinguish
NIST from other scientific research laboratories?
2. Can we improve the integration of operational
responsibilities into NIST's laboratory programs, with clear
roles and responsibilities defined?
3. Can we improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the
Institute?
As part of their assessment, the NIST leadership considered
multiple approaches and principles under which a national scientific
laboratory program might best be aligned. In February they provided me
with an analysis of these options, outlining the pros and cons of each
alternative. At the same time, I asked the NIST Visiting Committee on
Advanced Technology for input on these proposed changes. This was the
major focus of the February VCAT meeting. Additionally, I held a Town
Hall meeting with NIST staff in December and announced my intention to
review the agency's structure and seek input from NIST employees on the
organization. I have received, and continue to receive, very thoughtful
input from the NIST staff on the potential realignment, with their
suggestions of what would be most effective for the agency. I am
continuing to work closely with senior Department officials, other
organizations and key stakeholders on this process.
After carefully reviewing this input, my initial assessment is that
alignment by mission would be the most effective way to structure the
laboratories. The benefits of such realignment should outweigh any
disruption that it would inevitably entail. A mission-based alignment
would enhance our ability to accomplish NIST's missions, improve the
integration of operational responsibilities into the laboratory
programs, and enhance our efficiency and effectiveness both now and in
the future. Aligning the Institute along mission lines would create a
vertically integrated structure in which a single laboratory will be
responsible for everything from delivery of products and measurement
services to customers all the way to the basic and applied research and
development upon which these services depend.
In a mission-based organization the realigned measurement
laboratories would be responsible not only for fundamental measurements
and advancing the state-of-the-art for measurement science, but also
for the dissemination of measurements into industry. This means that
they include measurement services and programs, such as calibrations,
Standard Reference Materials and data, legal metrology, metric program,
etc. The technology laboratories would assume responsibility for our
sector-specific programs in technology and technology infrastructure,
including NIST mission activities in: cybersecurity, health IT, voting
technology, building and fire research, and manufacturing process and
automation technology, as well as specific responsibilities given NIST
by legislation such as the Federal Information Security Act of 2002
(P.L. 107-347), the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-252), the
National Construction Safety Team Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-231), and the
National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (P.L. 108-360).
Impact and Status
A realignment of this type would not change the focus of NIST
programs. Rather, it would make NIST more effective in delivering its
products and services to its customers. Critical functions performed by
the current laboratories would continue under a mission-based
structure. For example, the President's FY 2011 budget request for NIST
includes about $70 million in increased funding for manufacturing
related research and support services. In a mission-based alignment
manufacturing would be a central mission focus of all our laboratories.
NIST is also in the fortunate position of being able to realign at
a time of growth for the agency. This means we are able to avoid any
adverse impacts on existing staff--in particular, there would be no
Reductions in Force (RIFs).
Where are we now? Compared to the Director's Office reorganization,
a change in laboratory structure is more complex and requires careful
planning. NIST is now working with all its stakeholders to develop a
proposal for Departmental and Administration review. I hope to continue
working closely with this Subcommittee to ensure that any changes to
NIST result in a more effective agency that can meet its mission
responsibilities. In terms of process, we are following procedure which
would be to provide a proposal to the Congress after the Department and
the Administration have received and approved it.
NIST's Historical Role in Standards
Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn to the larger picture.
NIST scientists and engineers have played an important government
role in standards development and use for most of its 109 year history.
NIST staff support the development of documentary standards through
their technical participation in standards development organizations--
ensuring standards that are based on sound science and supported by
effective measurements and testing that promotes conformity to and
acceptance of the standards. Last year over 400 technical experts from
NIST participated in almost 1100 standards related activities, in more
than 100 standards development organizations. NIST brings to the table
a breadth and depth of technical expertise, a reputation as an unbiased
and neutral party, and a long history of working collaboratively with
the private sector. NIST values that collaborative relationship and
looks to its continued success. This is one of our primary roles under
the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act or NTTAA (P.L.
104-113).
The NTTAA, and its implementation under OMB Circular A-119, guide
Federal agencies on the use of standards and conformity assessment
practices. This seminal piece of legislation aimed to reduce the
development of government-centric standards and promote the adoption
and use of consensus based private sector standards to meet government
needs, and was principally focused on the use of standards by Federal
agencies in procurement and regulation. The Act also charged NIST with
the role of coordinating Federal, state and local technical standards
and conformity assessment activities and coordinating these activities
with the private sector.
In terms of reducing the use of government specific standards in
procurement, the NTTAA has been remarkably successful. Since 1997, over
3000 government-specific standards have been replaced with private
sector standards. In addition, NIST has identified over 9,000 citations
of standards incorporated by reference in regulatory documents and a
similar number used in procurement actions. These citations are
available in an interactive database which illustrates the extensive
use of private sector standards by the U.S. Government.
New Models for Engagement
Nevertheless, today there is increased urgency in discussions about
how we can strengthen the coordination and engagement of Federal
agencies on the use of private sector standards as called for by the
NTTAA.
Why is this the case? I believe it is because the technical
standards needed today cover more complex technologies and are playing
an increasingly important role beyond procurement by individual
agencies. Whether as a basis for Federal regulations, or as a
requirement for recipients of Federal assistance, agencies increasingly
want to look towards effective private sector standards to meet policy
goals. In addition, the needed standards often deal with complex
system-level performance, such as interoperability or security, rather
than component level performance or specification. This can greatly
increase the complexity of the needed standards. For example, our Smart
Grid efforts have focused on the development of a model framework of
private sector standards to support a secure and interoperable
electrical infrastructure, one of the most complex systems in use
today. Larger efforts like the Smart Grid often involve multiple
Federal agencies and can involve hundreds of different private sector
standards.
These changes are driving two urgent goals:
(1) How do we work more effectively with industry and private
sector standards developers on the development of timely and
effective standards, and;
(2) How do we work more effectively across agencies to make
sure that Federal efforts to work with the private sector are
effectively planned and coordinated?
I'd like to follow up and discuss how we are working on these two
issues.
NIST' s Smart Grid related work could be looked at as a model for
future standards development activities in areas of significant
government interest and national need. The Smart Grid effort was
characterized by a stronger Federal leadership role in convening the
appropriate government stakeholders, and private-sector players to
coordinate their activities, define objectives and reference
architectures, and establish priorities for work towards mutually
acceptable goals on an accelerated timescale.
The Smart Grid program has broken new ground, marshalling a massive
public/private sector effort to create standards for the transformation
of one of the largest and most complex infrastructures ever built--the
electric grid. In less than a year's time, building upon the
foundational work of the Department of Energy and its National Lab
partners, this effort has created a ``Release 1.0'' standards framework
for the Smart Grid that is providing a roadmap to align the efforts of
over 3100 electric utilities and thousands of suppliers. Our experience
in leading the development of interoperability standards for the Smart
Grid over the last year has demonstrated a number of principles and
best practices that can be applied in leading the development of
standards for other major national initiatives where the government has
a well defined interest. Key elements for success include:
Committed leadership from the top. Standards
activities are usually driven bottom up--rarely from the top
down. In the case of a national infrastructure, top down
leadership is essential. The President led this effort with a
meeting at the White House, chaired by two Cabinet Secretaries
and involving nearly 70 industry CEOs and senior executives.
This high-level engagement and leadership is continuing, and is
essential to keep the efforts of the hundreds of companies and
organizations involved aligned and the momentum going.
A broad partnership that involves all the critical
players--For example the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel, now
numbers more than 550 companies and organizations and 1700
individual participants, which represents a novel
organizational model for public/private collaboration on
standards.
Strong coordination among Federal agencies--well
defined roles and responsibilities has been critical to the
success of the ongoing Smart Grid efforts. Strengthening NIST's
role as a convener and coordinator of Federal standards
activities will be critical for future success.
Strong technical capability.
NIST, with its broad technical capabilities and infrastructure for
conformity assessment, close ties to the standards development
community and industry, and reputation as a neutral and honest third
party positioned it well to catalyze and improve the efficiency of the
U.S. government's engagement on Smart Grid. I believe that this is a
model approach for other similar standards efforts. The government has
a wide spectrum of standards needs, so it should have a wide variety of
approaches to working with the private sector. Traditionally, this has
meant either limited government involvement in private sector led
efforts, or government written standards. I think the approach taken
with Smart Grid offers a middle approach of strategic and focused
engagement of the private sector community to put in place an effective
standards framework to address public need.
Improved Interagency Coordination
More effective Federal engagement in standards development, use,
and standards promotion will require more effective interagency
coordination as well. This is a role specifically called out for NIST
under the NTTAA. Interagency coordination on standards related issues
is also a primary function of the Executive Office of the President,
especially the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and The United States Trade
Representative (USTR.) OMB Circular A-119 specifically addresses
interagency coordination on the development and use of standards by
Federal agencies, and OMB and NIST have a long track record of working
closely on this topic. A more strategically focused interagency process
to tackle specific standards related issues or to address emerging
standards related policy topics would require a more robust interagency
coordination process. I am currently working closely with OSTP and OMB
to explore specific mechanisms that would allow the coordination to be
strengthened in specific ways: to provide leadership level coordination
and decision making regarding policy or agency or Department
participation; to provide a working-level coordination process that is
tasked by the leadership group on specific topics and which can monitor
and report on standards related activities, including implementation of
the NTTAA; and a collection of issue-specific working groups to develop
and implement plans for engaging on specific standards needs, or for
developing possible policy positions for consideration by the
leadership group. I am very aware of the strong interest in standards
related topics by this Subcommittee and the full Committee. I would
like to continue to work closely with you on this topic so that we can
ensure that government-needed standards are in place when needed, and
are effective in carrying out their intended purpose.
Chairman Wu, Ranking member Smith and members of the Subcommittee,
I have approached the reorganization of NIST with extreme care, and I
believe there is a unique opportunity to strengthen and improve NIST. I
also believe that our efforts in standards related to Smart Grid and
Health IT can serve as a model for future standards challenges to
address critical national needs. I look forward to working with you
closely and I am happy to answer any questions that you might have.
Biography for Patrick D. Gallagher
Dr. Patrick Gallagher was confirmed as the 14th Director of the
U.S. Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) on Nov. 5, 2009. Gallagher provides high-level
oversight and direction for NIST. The agency promotes U.S. innovation
and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science,
standards, and technology. NIST's FY 2009 resources total $1.6 billion
and the agency employs about 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians,
support staff and administrative personnel at two main locations in
Gaithersburg, Md., and Boulder, Colo. in addition to $819 million in FY
09 appropriations and $125 million from other agencies, the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides a total of $610 million
to NIST for building critically needed research facilities, expanding
fellowships and research--grants, and addressing important national
priorities critical to the nation's future.
Gallagher had served as Deputy Director since 2008. Prior to that,
he served for four years as Director of the NIST Center for Neutron
Research (NCNR), a national user facility for neutron scattering on the
NIST Gaithersburg campus. The NCNR provides a broad range of neutron
diffraction and spectroscopy capability with thermal and cold neutron
beams and is presently the nation's most used facility of this type.
Gallagher received his Ph.D. in Physics at the University of Pittsburgh
in 1991. His research interests include neutron and X-ray
instrumentation and studies of soft condensed matter systems such as
liquids, polymers and gels. in 2000, Gallagher was a NIST agency
representative at the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC).
He has been active in the area of U.S. policy for scientific user
facilities and was chair of the Interagency Working Group on neutron
and light source facilities under the Office of Science and Technology
Policy.
Mr. Gordon. Dr. Serum is recognized.
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES SERUM, PRESIDENT, SCITEK VENTURES, LLC,
AND PAST CHAIR, NIST VISITING COMMITTEE ON ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
Dr. Serum. Thank you, Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member
Smith, for the opportunity to testify today on matters related
to the organizational realignment and the future role of NIST
in coordinating Federal agencies in standards. My name is James
Serum, and I am President of Scitek Ventures, a science and
technology consulting firm. I have been engaged in developing
and commercializing measurement technologies for about 40
years, having spent most of my career with Hewlett Packard.
I have associated with NIST for about 12 years, having
first served as a member of the NRC [National Research Council]
Assessment Panel and in 2004, I was appointed to NIST's
Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology [VCAT], and for the
last two years have served as its chairman.
In most cases the comments expressed in this testimony are
my own, but in some cases, especially related to NIST's role in
standards, I also reflect the opinions of the VCAT as
represented in the recently-submitted annual report.
I will begin by addressing the topic of the proposed NIST
organizational realignment. The first question that must be
asked is why do a realignment. NIST is a broad-based, diverse
organization involving fundamental research technology,
standards development, and managing programs for research
funding and quality management. These activities have evolved
over the years, but the underlying NIST organizational
structure that supports them has not seen major change in, as
you have said, about 20 years.
Much of the organization is discipline-focused, for
example, in physics and in chemistry, yet many of the current
goals and priorities are application or mission-focused. An
effective, efficient organization must have clearly-defined
responsibilities, single ownership of goals, and accountability
for achieving results. Key priority programs must have
visibility in all levels of the organization. The head of the
organization needs to clearly understand the business
priorities, desired outcomes, and capabilities both in people
and other assets and then optimize the organizational structure
to best meet its goals. I believe that Dr. Gallagher well
understands these criteria, and his proposed realignment
reflects this understanding.
Dr. Gallagher has proposed a reorganization that I believe
will result in a more effective operation and accountability
for all departments. Laboratories will report to one Associate
Director, and within the laboratories a mission-based structure
will bring all elements of the mission together, including
technology development, standards, calibration services, and
reference data. High-priority industry-focused programs and
cross-cutting programs would gain top-level visibility and
coordination through a program office under the Associate
Director for Laboratory. I am fully supportive of Dr.
Gallagher's proposed restructuring.
I was also asked to address the question of my support for
the Director of NIST to also hold the rank of Under Secretary,
similar to the structure at NOAA [National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration]. In general I think this is a very
positive change both for the NIST organization and for the
Director in that it brings parity with his peers in the
Commerce Department and allows the Director to participate in
all the activities afforded to an Under Secretary.
I would only be concerned if the Director receives
significant additional responsibilities with a new title that
diverted his attention from the very important challenges that
NIST faces in the coming years.
Finally, I would like to express a high degree of
confidence in the NIST Director and his ability to structure
the organization to meet its goals and objectives. Dr.
Gallagher has a deep understanding of emerging technologies,
the organization's strengths and weaknesses, and a clear plan
to meet the challenges that NIST faces in the coming years.
VCAT also has affirmed their confidence in support of Dr.
Gallagher in their annual report.
In consideration of the role of NIST in coordinating
Federal agency activities, it seems natural that they would
play a major role. The development and maintenance of standards
is not only a core competency at NIST, it is a major element of
their mission statement. Together with their competency in
measurement technology, NIST drives and coordinates standard
practices and processes throughout much of the U.S. industries.
For example, documentary standards are recognized as a
critical element in the successful implementation of the Energy
Smart Grid, Healthcare Information Technology, and the
Cybersecurity Programs. NIST is already deeply engaged in
coordinating standards activities in these industrial segments,
and the VCAT has described these activities and its
recommendations in its 2009 annual report.
The VCAT believes that the coordination role taken on by
NIST in the area of Smart Grid should be used as a model and
applied to other areas of national priority where standards
development is required. It is clear from my examples in my
written testimony that NIST technical expertise, its reputation
as an unbiased and neutral party, and its extensive
participation in standards and conformity assessment activities
strongly positions NIST to address the standards-related
challenges of the 21st century in helping the U.S. maintain a
competitive advantage.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Serum follows:]
Prepared Statement of James W. Serum
Thank you Chairman Wu and members of the House Subcommittee on
Technology and Innovation for the opportunity to testify before you
today on matters related to the NIST Organizational Realignment and a
future role for NIST in coordinating Federal agencies in international
technical standards.
My name is James W. Serum and I am the President of Scitek
Ventures, a science and technology consulting firm focused on helping
young companies commercialize innovative ideas and early stage
technology. I have been engaged in developing and commercializing
measurement technologies and applications for over 40 years, having
spent most of my career with Hewlett Packard Company. Upon retirement
in 1999, I founded an information technology business, Viaken Systems
Inc. and a technology consulting firm, Scitek Ventures LLC, both
focused on measurement systems. I have been associated with NIST for
the past 12 years, having served first as a member of the National
Research Council Assessment Panel for the Chemical Science and
Technology Laboratory (CSTL) and in 2004 I was appointed to NIST's
Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology (VCAT). In 2008 I was elected
to chair that organization.
The two subjects being addressed today are very diverse so I will
treat them as independent topics.
In most cases, the comments expressed in this testimony are my own
but in some cases, especially related to NIST's role in standards; I
also reflect the opinions of the VCAT as represented in the recently
submitted Annual Report.
NIST ORGANIZATIONAL REALIGNMENT
I will begin by addressing the topic of the proposed NIST
Organizational Realignment. The first question which must be asked is
``Why do a realignment?'' NIST is a broad-based, diverse organization
with activities that include; the development of pioneering
technologies executed both within their own laboratories and with
external collaborators; the creation of national and international
standards, and the management of external research funding and quality
recognition programs. These activities have evolved over the years but
the underlying NIST organizational structure that supports them has not
seen major change for about twenty years. Much of the organization is
discipline focused, (for example, Physics, Chemistry, etc.) yet many of
the current goals and priorities are application or mission focused.
Based on my long experience in industry, I would say that there is
no single organizational structure that can ideally meet all of the
diverse NIST goals and priorities. In general, the head of an
organization needs to clearly understand his/her business priorities,
desired outcomes, and capabilities both in people and other assets and
then optimize the organizational structure to best meet its goals. I
believe that Dr. Gallagher well understands these criteria and his
proposed realignment reflects this understanding. Any organization must
have clearly defined responsibilities, single ownership of goals and
tasks, and accountability for achieving results. Key priority programs
must have visibility in all levels of the organization. Every
department must understand its priorities, goals, deliverables and
measures of success. These are the factors upon which I judge the
effectiveness of a NIST organizational realignment with regard to being
able to accomplish its goals and objectives. It is common for an
organization that has highly diverse goals to implement a ``matrix''
structure. Although this type of structure typically provides more
visibility for each program, it often suffers from confusing ownership
of tasks and insufficient accountability.
In an effort to respond to the various chartered NIST activities,
Dr. Gallagher has initially proposed a top level reorganization of
NIST's management structure. This reorganization would replace the
current structure which has each Operating Unit reporting directly to
the NIST Director, with a streamlined executive management team
consisting of three Associate Directorships. This new management
structure will streamline the management and planning within the agency
and put in place the decision making structure necessary for more
effective operations and accountability for all aspects of the
individual departments. It means that all laboratories will report into
one Associate Director and within the laboratories, Dr. Gallagher is
proposing a structure that brings all elements of a mission together
including technology development, standards, calibration services, and
reference data. He has proposed a structure that includes four
laboratories including Physical Measurements, Materials Measurement,
Engineering, and Information Technology, as well as two Centers for
Nanoscale Science and Technology and Neutron Research. I am fully
supportive of this initial top level management restructuring.
I believe that bringing together both technology development and
standards programs into a single laboratory will significantly improve
organizational effectiveness. It is also important to consider how high
priority, industry focused programs such as Smart Grid would be managed
in the proposed realignment. It is imperative that these critical
programs receive sufficient management visibility throughout the
organization and that trade-off decisions are made at a level where the
entire organizational resources and expertise is taken into account.
Under the proposed realignment, the healthcare activities would be
structured as programs, for example, for quantitative diagnostic
imaging in the Physical Measurement lab, the biologics and lab testing
program in the Materials Measurement Lab, and Health IT in the
Information Technology Lab. Dr. Gallagher also proposes a program
office with the Associate Director for Laboratory Programs that will
provide for high level management visibility and coordination for
crosscutting research programs (e.g. Quantum-based measurements) or for
the development of new application areas that have program activities
in multiple programs.
The ability for an organization to respond to cross-cutting
technologies, technologies with rapid development cycles, and
technologies which have been developed in non-traditional countries,
depends mostly on assigning clear ownership, accountability and
measures of success. It needs visibility at the highest level and a
nimble decision making process. I have already described how cross-
cutting programs would logically fit into the new organization and I
believe that the NIST has often demonstrated its nimbleness in
responding to urgent needs such as the World Trade Center disaster and
assisting the Election Assistance Commission with the development of
voluntary voting system guidelines under the Help America Vote Act of
2002 (HAVA).
There appears to be a good understanding within NIST for balancing
the needs of program management with internal people development and
external constituencies. As such, the realignment evaluation process is
being designed to take into account the views of various stakeholders
inside and outside of NIST including, of course the researchers in the
laboratories. Although the VCAT did not formally review a specific
proposal for organizational realignment, we strongly supported the
process that the Director has used to develop his proposal including
getting involvement and input from a broad spectrum of the
organization.
I was asked to address the question of my support for a NIST
structure that would make the Director of NIST both a Director and an
Undersecretary with responsibility for standards and technology,
similar to the structure at NOAA, where the NOAA Administrator is also
an Undersecretary. In general, I think that this is a very positive
change both for the NIST organization and for the Director in that it
brings parity with his peers in the Commerce Department and allows the
Director to participate in all of the activities afforded to an
Undersecretary. I would only be concerned if the Director received
additional responsibilities with the new title that significantly
diverted his attention from the very important challenges that NIST
faces in the coming years.
Finally, I would like to express a high degree of confidence in the
NIST Director and his ability to structure the organization to meet its
goals and objectives. Dr. Gallagher has a deep understanding of the
emerging technologies, the organization's strengths and weaknesses, and
a clear plan to meet the challenges that NIST faces in the coming
years. The VCAT has also affirmed their confidence and support of Dr.
Gallagher in their Annual Report.
FUTURE ROLE FOR NIST IN COORDINATING FEDERAL AGENCIES IN INTERNATIONAL
STANDARDS:
In consideration of The Future Role for NIST in Coordinating
Federal Agencies in International Standards, it seems natural that they
would play a major role. The development and maintenance of Standards
is not only a core competency at NIST, it is a major element of their
Mission Statement. Together with their competency in measurement
technologies, NIST drives and coordinates standards practices and
processes throughout most of our U.S. Industries. I can think of few
industrial segments or emerging technology areas that do not require
standardization processes or standardized materials of some type to
achieve success. For example, ``documentary standards'' are recognized
as a critical element in the successful implementation of the Energy
Smart Grid, development of Healthcare Information Technology and
Cybersecurity advanced technologies. The NIST team is already deeply
engaged in coordinating standards activities in these industrial
segments. During the past year, the VCAT focused much of its attention
to examining NIST's activities in the coordinated development of
documentary standards for these critical national priorities. The VCAT
has described these activities and its recommendations in its 2009
Annual Report and I will simply highlight a few relevant points in this
testimony.
A couple of examples of the unique role in which NIST is already
engaged related to coordinating documentary standards activities within
the Federal Government include, The National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA) which charges NIST with the role of
coordinating ``Federal, State, and Local technical standards activities
and conformity assessment activities, with private sector technical
standards activities, and conformity assessment activities, with the
goal of eliminating unnecessary duplication and complexity in the
development and promulgation of conformity assessment requirements and
measures:''
Furthermore, in support of this act, the Office of Management and'
Budget (OMB) Circular A-119 on ``Federal Participation in the
Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity
Assessment Activities'' assigns NIST the responsibility of chairing the
Interagency Committee on Standards Policy (ICSP), an inter-agency group
of Standards Executives from Federal Agencies and Commissions. Thus,
both statute and supporting policy, charge NIST with significant
responsibility for coordination of standard's interests among Federal
agencies and the private sector. In FY 2009, under the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007, NIST was assigned ``primary
responsibility to coordinate development of a framework that includes
protocols and model standards for information management to achieve
interoperability of smart grid devices and systems.''
NIST is also playing a significant role in supporting the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in development and
deployment of standards and conformance systems in Healthcare IT, a
major administration priority. The Federal Information Systems
Management Act (FISMA) charges NIST with the responsibility for
developing standards and guidelines for all Federal, non-national
security, information systems. Other examples of NIST leadership and
coordination of Federal Government agencies in standards and conformity
assessment includes assisting the Election Assistance Commission with
the development of voluntary voting system guidelines under the Help
America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). Based on NIST's investigations of the
collapse of the World Trade Center structures on Sept. 11, 2001, NIST
has proposed various changes to model building codes, some of which
have been adopted in recent revisions to the building codes, and other
are still being discussed.
It is clear from these examples, among numerous others, that NIST's
technical expertise, its reputation as an unbiased and neutral party,
and its extensive participation in standards and conformity assessment
activities, strongly positions NIST to address the standards related
challenges of the 21st century, and helping the U.S. maintain a
competitive edge.
The VCAT has recommended that NIST seek executive branch authority
to serve as the principal inter-agency convener for documentary
standards affecting national, international and/or inter-agency
interests of the U.S. Government. The VCAT strongly urges that the
Department of Commerce sanction and endorse such a role for NIST. It is
noted that as convener, NIST may not always carry out all tasks
associated with the development of documentary standards but would
serve to coordinate the development of actions plans and assure that
overall architectural integrity of the standard is preserved. NIST
would coordinate the application of expertise across relevant agencies
in pursuit of the highest quality and timeliness of the documentary
standard in question.
To cite one example in greater detail, Ill reference the NIST role
in Smart Grid Interoperability Standards. Smart Grid interoperability
is a major priority for the administration, and one where standards
development is critical. It illustrates the important leadership and
active coordination role that NIST can play in standards development.
The development and deployment of a Smart Grid presents a major
interoperability challenge as the Nation must work within an electrical
grid that consists of more than 3100 power utilities using 9200 power
generation plants that are connected to more than 300,000 miles of
transmission lines supplying electricity to residential and business
consumers all over the country to say nothing of the millions of
business, industry and residential devices that have to interwork with
each other and power generation and distribution systems. The
introduction of distributed renewable energy sources such as solar
panels, wind turbines, and fuel cells bring additional challenges in
integrating these systems seamlessly into the grid, through the use of
smart meters. It is also important to comprehend the impact of plug-in
vehicles on the grid. Clearly defined interoperability requirements,
and standards to support such implementations will be critical not only
in the creation of a Smart Grid, but also in engendering innovation and
competition amongst the suppliers, supplying components to the systems
thereby reducing costs of implementation, and providing a greater
choice to consumers.
NIST has taken a number of steps to fulfill its role as defined
under the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, which
gives NIST the ``primary responsibility to coordinate development of a
framework that includes protocols and model standards for information
management to achieve interoperability of Smart Grid devices and
systems . . .'' KIST has made significant progress according to the
three-phase plan outlined by Dr. Gallagher and the Smart Grid team at
NIST and I'll refer you to the VCAT Annual Report for greater detail on
the progress that they have made.
From my perspective, this is also an outstanding example of a
public/private sector working together for a successful standards
foundation upon which to implement the Smart Grid. The SGIP (Smart Grid
Interoperability Panel) is composed of over 550 member organizations,
most of whom are private companies. The governing Board is chaired by
an executive from General Electric and all stakeholder elements are
represented.
The NIST staff also undertook to assure the creation of a reference
model of the Smart Grid system that will serve as the basis for
standards architecture development and articulation. The importance of
this initiative would be hard to overestimate. The absence of a
comprehensive reference model would disable the development of a
coherent architecture for the Smart Grid system. The reference model
itself emerges out of the broad spectrum of use cases contributed by
the participants in the Smart Grid Interoperability Pane!.
The successful efforts thus far reflect well on NIST and the EEEL
Laboratory through which the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel activity
is managed. The importance of this work is underscored by the planned
use of the SGIP technical guidelines in the Smart Grid funds-granting
plans of the Department of Energy.
The VCAT observes that the broad spectrum of smart appliances
expected to enter the consumer market in consequence of the Smart Grid
program will inevitably highlight consumer demand for easy to install
and use equipment taking advantage of ``plug and play'' features that
can only arise in the presence of a strong interoperability standards
framework. This same avalanche of new consumer equipment will also
awaken interest in and concern for consumer safety, leading to the need
for the Consumer Product Protection Agency to engage in standards
development and conformance testing capabilities.
The VCAT believes that the coordination role taken on by NIST in
the area of Smart Grid should be used as a model and applied to other
areas of National priority where standards development is required. The
VCAT would like to emphasize that NIST's Smart Grid Program encompasses
more than coordinating the interoperability standards framework for
Smart Grid devices and systems. The capabilities of the NIST
laboratories in measurement science, modeling, and conformance
assessment provide unique resources that contribute to Smart Grid
standards development. The technical outputs of the NIST laboratories
can help accelerate the implementation and improve the effectiveness
and security of the Smart Grid especially in the key areas of power
system monitoring, power meters and sensors, electromagnetic
interference, conformity assessment programs, and cybersecurity.
Continued increased support for NIST's research programs in measurement
characterization of electrical systems, data networking, cybersecurity,
building energy management, and industrial control systems will be
critical for future success. The VCAT strongly urges Congress and the
Administration to support increased funding for these activities.
Given the core competencies at NIST for standards and advanced
measurement technology, their industrial credibility and proven track
record for coordinating standards both within the Federal Government
and with the private sector, I strongly support the consideration for
broadening NIST's responsibility for Federal agency standard's
coordination.
Biography for James W. Serum
Dr. Serum received a B.A. in Chemistry from Hope College and was
awarded a Ph.D. degree in Organic Chemistry in 1969 from the University
of Colorado. His doctorate research was directed toward studies in Mass
Spectrometry. Following his graduate studies, he taught and did
research at the University of Ghent, Belgium. He spent a year at Rice
University as a Welch Fellow, and then joined the staff at Cornell
University as Director of the National Institutes of Health High
Resolution Mass Spectrometry Facility.
Dr. Serum joined the Hewlett-Packard Company in 1973 as
Applications Chemist for Mass Spectrometry. Since then he has held a
number of management positions, including Technical Support Manager for
Mass Spectrometry in Europe (Paris, France); Marketing Manager for Mass
Spectrometry and Spectroscopy at the Scientific Instruments Division;
R&D Manager at the same division; and R&D Manager for the Avondale
Division (Laboratory Automation and Chromatography Instrumentation).
Since 1984 he has held business unit level positions as Operations
Manager for Laboratory Automation Systems, Automated Chemical Systems
Operation and Analytical Group Research and Development Manager. In
1992 Dr. Serum was named General Manager for Mass Spectrometry,
Infrared, and Protein Chemical Systems. He was the founder of HP's
Bioscience Products business. He has served as chairman of HP's
Bioscience Council, co-chairman of the Hewlett-Packard R&D Council and
the Pharmaceutical Business Council. He retired from Hewlett Packard in
August 1999 to co-found Viaken Systems Inc, where he was a Director and
served as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. Dr.
Serum has been a Venture Partner with Flagship Ventures and currently
serves as President of Scitek Ventures, a science and technology
consulting firm that he founded in 2002. In 2002 he was elected as a
lifetime National Associate of the National Academy of Sciences and in
2004 he was elected to serve on the Visiting Committee for Advanced
Technology of NIST. In 2005, Dr. Serum was named to the President's
Advisory Board for Advanced Technology at the Research Corporation. In
2008 he was elected Chairman of NIST's Visiting Committee on Advanced
Technology. Dr. Serum has served or currently serves as a member of the
Board of Directors for a number of emerging technology based companies.
OTHER PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
Member of National Academy of Sciences task force on
the Future of Analytical Chemistry in the U.S.(1986)
Member of National Science Foundation task force to
Review Policy for Science Education in the U.S. (1987)
Invited speaker at numerous educational meetings and
conferences on Science Education
Past member of Hewlett-Packard Education Relations
Board
Review Panel for Hewlett-Packard Grants Program for
Analytical Chemistry (1989-1992)
Member of Science & Technology Board, College of
Letters and Science, James Madison University (1988-93)
Member of Board of Directors, Biotechnology Research
and Development Corporation (1988-94)
Member of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) technology assessment panel (1990-1992)
Counselor (alt), Analytical Chemistry Division,
American Chemical Society (1992-95)
Member of the Board, Center for Photochemical
Sciences, Bowling Green State University (1994-Present)
Member of ACS subcommittee for improvement of
chemistry curriculum (1994-95)
Member of National Research Council, Committee on
Undergraduate Science Education (1996-2001)
Member of National Research Council, Committee on A
National Digital Library (1997)
Chairperson, NRC Review committee on National Math
Standards (1999)
Member & Vice Chairman of Board of Assessment for
Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory, NIST ('97-'01)
Chairman of Board of Assessment for CSTL, National
Institute of Standards and Technology ('01-'03)
Member National Research Council Committee on
Undergraduate Science Education (02-03)
National Associate (life), National Academy of
Sciences (2002)
Member of Visiting Committee for Advanced Technology,
NIST (2004-09, Vice Chair 2007-08, Chair 2008-10)
President's Advisory Board for Advanced Technology,
Research Corporation (2005-09)
Chairman, Visiting Committee for Advanced Technology,
NIST (2008-10)
Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Serum, and now we will hear from
Mr. Shank.
STATEMENT OF MR. CRAIG SHANK, GENERAL MANAGER, INTEROPERABILITY
AT MICROSOFT
Mr. Shank. Thank you, Chairman Gordon. Chairman Gordon,
Ranking Member Smith, my name is Craig Shank. I am the General
Manager of the Interoperability Group at Microsoft.
As a global innovator with over two decades of experience
in the development and implementation of technical standards,
Microsoft appreciates the opportunity to participate in this
important hearing.
Effective technical standards can help promote innovation,
fuel market growth, and drive corresponding job development.
The information and communication technology, ICT, marketplace
changes rapidly. New and competing standards that are
responsive to the marketplace needs enable deployment of new
solutions and encourage development of innovative products and
services.
Microsoft plays a dual role in standardization activities.
We actively contribute innovative technology to standardization
in many technology areas. As an example, we have recently
contributed a Microsoft technology called User Interface
Automation that helps developers build products like screen
readers and voice recognition that provide essential
accessibility to computers and the internet to those with
significant vision, hearing, or other learning needs.
In addition, we sit on the other side of the table as our
products from Windows to X-box and beyond implement thousands
of standards that are formulated by a broad diversity of
standards bodies. This balance, sitting on both sides of the
standards fence, frames our perspective. A diverse standards
ecosystem that supports multiple technologies is good for U.S.
and global economic growth.
It is also worth noting that the computing experience
itself is undergoing a powerful transformation as consumers,
governments, and businesses are harnessing computing power in
what is called the cloud, with new innovative products and
services and broad-based communications. New businesses will
form because any small group of developers at this stage can
create content or software and have it available
instantaneously in the global marketplace.
With this new opportunity comes corresponding new
responsibility, including the need to protect privacy of users,
the security of their data, and to enable interoperability
between systems; all areas where standards can play an
important role.
NIST has already provided engineering taxonomies that have
been important in helping support cloud standardization
efforts. We see NIST as a key player in the standards
ecosystem. Its expertise and involvement are highly valued by
the private sector.
With regard to NIST, the Subcommittee posed two related
questions for this hearing. The Subcommittee's first question
seeks perspectives on the proposed NIST realignment. NIST will
be placing standards professionals within each of its labs so
they will be linked to the relevant technology experts. We also
understand that NIST will create a coordination team among
these standards professionals. NIST is also proposing broadly a
more effective executive management structure.
We believe that the proposed reorganization of NIST will
enhance NIST's overall effectiveness in meeting its mission and
objectives, including in the standards system.
The Subcommittee's second question asks what role NIST
should play in technical standards within the Federal
Government. As background, President Obama's Administration has
identified a number of very complex technology policy areas
such as Smart Grid, Healthcare IT [Information Technology], and
Cybersecurity that impact many different stakeholder groups.
All of those are areas where standards can play an important
supporting role.
The current voluntary market-driven standard system has the
tools it needs to create standards to help accomplish these
policy objectives. At the same time, in these key policy areas
there is a role for an active convener of the key stakeholders,
so together they can assess standards-related needs, and frame
solutions to address these challenges. We believe that NIST,
based on its standards expertise and its reputation as a
neutral, science-based organization, can serve as this
convener.
As a convener seeking to develop a standards framework to
support U.S. Government technology objectives, NIST should
define the problems using specific use cases and scenarios,
identify and bring together relevant stakeholders to build
consensus on frameworks and outcomes, and then report back to
those stakeholders. NIST's work in developing its framework and
roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards exemplifies
this approach.
NIST can also serve in a separate convener role to
facilitate the exchange of information and collaboration among
Federal agencies on domestic and international standards policy
issues and on Federal agency engagement in international
technical standards development efforts. It would be helpful
for the U.S. Government to articulate a unified position or be
mindful of differing viewpoints, especially when engaging in
international standards bodies.
In closing, I would like to thank you for giving us the
opportunity to testify today. Microsoft appreciates NIST's
valuable contributions to standardization, and certainly we at
Microsoft look forward to working with you and the broader
standards community, including my colleagues here at this
table, to preserve and promote a vibrant, collaborative, and
effective standards ecosystem.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shank follows:]
Prepared Statement of Craig Shank
Chairman Wu, Ranking Member Smith, and Members of the Subcommittee,
my name is Craig Shank and I am the General Manager of the
Interoperability Group at Microsoft. In this capacity, I have executive
responsibility for Microsoft's corporate standards activity on a global
basis. Microsoft believes strongly that the best standards emerge from
voluntary processes and public-private partnerships that allow for
dynamic, market-led innovation.
As a global innovator with over two decades of experience in the
development and implementation of technical standards, Microsoft
appreciates the opportunity to participate in this important hearing on
the structure of the National Institute for Standards and Technology
(NIST) and its future role in technical standardization.
At their most fundamental, technical standards are tools that
promote efficiency and innovation by making it easier to create
products and services that work together--or ``interoperate''--better.
This is equally true in the information and communications technology
(``ICT'') environment. With an increasingly diverse and competitive ICT
marketplace, and new ICT solutions, services and vendors appearing in
the market almost daily, interoperability has become a market
imperative. The development and implementation of standards is one of
the ways in which the technology industry is able to meet consumer
demand for interoperability.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Microsoft's commitment to standardization to help further
interoperability is reflected in our Interoperability Principles,
available at http://www.microsoft.com/interop/Principles/default.mspx
Additional information about Microsoft's standards policies and
activities can be found at: http://www.microsof.com/standards/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By helping to enhance interoperability among products or services
within a market, and being responsive to real marketplace needs,
standards can help promote innovation, fuel market growth, and protect
investments in new technologies. The ICT marketplace changes rapidly.
As a result, ICT standards must be able to change in response. New
standards must be permitted to compete in order to respond to these
needs, further additional competition, and encourage the development of
innovative solutions.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Given the dynamic nature of innovation and ICT standards
development, government should be cautious about mandating adherence to
any particular standard without demonstrating sufficient need and
without support from the impacted industry and relevant stakeholders.
Mandated standards can divert normal marketplace outcomes, lock the
industry into a less-than-optimal solution, and reduce incentives to
innovate in that technology area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft plays a dual role in standardization activities. First,
we actively contribute innovative technology to standardization related
to computing hardware, software and associated devices, the Internet
and its infrastructure, consumer electronics devices, and
telecommunications systems. Second, we are an active implementer of
standards. Microsoft supports a very large number of standards in our
products that are formulated by a broad diversity of standards bodies.
Ultimately, both of these roles are deeply informed by the market, and
in particular feedback on the way customers use ICT products and
services in their day-to-day lives.
Because of this dual role as contributor and implementer, Microsoft
takes a balanced approach to standards development and policy. We
understand the particular needs and concerns of those contributing
time, resources and technologies to the development of standards, but
we are equally sensitive to the needs of those who are implementing the
resulting standards into their products and services. Our involvement
on both sides of the standards fence frames our perspective that a
diverse standards ecosystem that supports multiple technologies is good
for the U.S. and global economies.
The computing experience itself is undergoing a powerful
transformation that demonstrates the velocity of change in the ICT
marketplace and related technical standards. Increasingly consumers and
businesses alike are harnessing computing power in the cloud. People
are running applications and storing documents on powerful servers
located in massive data centers. They are using more powerful client
devices. And they are creating, accessing, and sharing more of their
personal information more frequently and with more people than ever
before. This new frontier opens up a whole new horizon of
possibilities, including new software investments that will create new
business models and opportunities to form and grow new businesses. For
instance, these technologies already enable any small group of creators
to develop content or software and to have it available instantaneously
in the marketplace around the globe. And with this new opportunity
comes corresponding new responsibility. This includes the need to
protect the privacy of users and security of their data and to enable
interoperability between systems--all areas where standards may play an
important role.
Cloud computing is a technology area with broad applicability for
the U.S. Government, not only to increase efficiency and reduce cost,
but also for communication between agencies and as a continuation of
efforts to increase citizen participation. As such, cloud technology
represents an ideal opportunity for beneficial participation by NIST.
Indeed NIST has already made an important contribution to the
advancement of cloud standards, essentially providing the engineering
taxonomies that help the industry discuss the various aspects of cloud
technology and deployment. NIST is a key player in the standards
ecosystem, and its expertise and involvement is highly valued by the
private sector.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Among other contributions, NIST's measurement standards
underpin many key technology standards, including those relating to
optical fibers and to a range of electronic devices. NIST also provides
key standards-related services, including the ``Notify U.S.'' program,
and participates in various standards development organizations (SDOs).
Equally important is NIST's role under the National Transfer and
Technology Advancement Act (``NTTAA'') and OMB Circular A-119 to help
coordinate U.S. Government's interests in coordinating U.S. Government
interests in standards and conformity assessment systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions Posed by the Committee
In connection with today's hearing, the Committee has posed three
inter related questions regarding NIST:
Why is coordination amongst Federal agencies and
departments on technical standards issues important? How can it
be improved?
The current Administration has identified a number of technology
policy areas of focus (such as smart grid, healthcare IT and
cybersecurity) where there is a need to understand what positive role
standards can play. We believe that NIST can undertake a convener role,
and thereby promote collaboration among both public and private sector
stakeholders aimed at developing an appropriate standards framework to
address U.S. Government objectives. This is important in connection
with certain technology policy objectives where the standards-related
needs involve several standards elements and cut across many different
technologies and stakeholder groups.
From an industry perspective, in this context we value effective
problem definition, particularly through scenarios and use cases. We
believe NIST is uniquely positioned to help bridge the gap between
complex U.S. Government objectives and the voluntary consensus-based
standards system by taking a proactive role in convening a wide breadth
of key stakeholders tasked with undertaking that problem definition
work.
What could a future NIST role in standards be? How
can NIST foster Federal agency collaboration on international
technical standards issues?
NIST can also serve in a separate convener role whereby it could
facilitate the exchange of information and collaboration among Federal
agencies on domestic and international standards policy issues and on
Federal agency engagement in international technical standards
development activities as appropriate. Typically, these types of
standards issues are of interest to more than one agency, and it would
be helpful for the U.S. Government to articulate a unified position or
be mindful of differing viewpoints, especially when engaging in
international standards bodies.
Further, the President's National Cyberspace Policy Review released
in May 2009 (see http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/
Cyberspace-Policy-Review
-final.pdf), stated that ``the sheer number, variety, and
differing focuses of these venues strain the capacity of many
governments, including the United States, to engage adequately.'' The
President also articulated the need ``to enhance the identification,
tracking, and prioritization of international venues, negotiations, and
discussions where cybersecurity-related agreements, standards,
activities, and policies are being developed.'' NIST is uniquely
positioned to play a central role in facilitating coordination among
the Federal agencies on international technical standards issues.
Please share any perspectives on the proposed NIST
alignment.
NIST appears to have taken a very thoughtful approach to its re-
organization that, among other things:
Seeks to ensure that the development of standards-
related strategies for a given technology is done in close
collaboration with the NIST staff and other stakeholders with
the appropriate subject matter expertise relating to the
technology area at issue.
Seeks to capture and address the different
perspectives of all internal stakeholders when developing and
refining positions or approaches.
Establishes what is likely to be a more effective
executive management structure. We would like to elaborate
further on these responses below.
Discussion
We believe that the U.S. Government should leverage NIST's
expertise on standards, the standardization ecosystem and technology
issues, as well as its well-deserved reputation as a neutral, science-
based organization that serves as an ``honest broker'', in helping to
enable further coordination among Federal agencies on issues relating
to technical standards.
This coordination is becoming increasingly important. While the
Federal agencies have all been assessing the use of private sector
standards (and participating in their development) whenever possible
under the NTTAA, many of these agencies are now considering standards
to address broader technology policy initiatives that cut across agency
missions and responsibilities.\4\ In addition, to the extent that
standards-related policy or technical issues arise that may have both
national and international implications impacting competition, trade
and innovation, Federal agencies should seek to share information and
collaborate to the extent possible on developing a unified U.S.
Government position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ If NIST is tasked with these roles, one of the key challenges
it will face will be to determine the factors that should trigger the
initiation of a ``NIST-coordinated'' standards planning process. These
processes can consume large amounts of public and private sector
resources, and they may not always be the best response to a given
technology policy challenge--so NIST will want to initiate them
strategically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that this approach will support the U.S. Government in
accomplishing its objectives. U.S. competitiveness is best served in an
environment where private and public stakeholders from around the world
can work to develop standards that meet the needs of the global
marketplace and foster global competition that in turn fuels further
innovation and new market development.
As a convener seeking to develop a standards framework to support a
U.S. Government technology objective, NIST should:
Define the problem. Questions that must be answered
include: What is the specific policy goal to be addressed? What
is the range of technologies that support this goal? What
standards already exist? How effective are existing standards
at solving the problem at hand? Accurately framing the answers
to these and other questions is essential for several reasons.
It helps to identify the full range of stakeholders who will be
relevant to the standardization effort; to establish the
parameters necessary for any effort involving different
industry players (particularly players with divergent agendas);
and to ensure that the outcome of the standardization effort is
focused, pragmatic, and is likely to be endorsed by key
stakeholders.
Identify and bring together relevant stakeholders.
Effective standardization framing requires input from multiple
stakeholders from the very beginning, particularly in complex
standards areas. Absent broad participation and open
consultation, there is the risk that some interests, including
government agencies and smaller companies who have invested
heavily in their own innovative products and systems, will be
shut out of the relevant market or otherwise disadvantaged.
Report progress to stakeholders and to other
interested or affected U.S. agencies.
In our experience focusing on interoperability, effective multi-
party engagement requires high-quality problem definition. For us, the
key element of this is a plain-language description of how a technology
or system might be used (sometimes called the ``scenario'', or ``use
case'') that needs to be defined for a given standard or specification.
Fundamentally, these scenarios are the foundation for efficient,
effective specification development and engineering work across
multiple parties. They tend to create a solid set of objectives that
different players--even players with somewhat differing agendas--can
work well with, creating solid, pragmatic results. Both of these
elements, in addition to a very effective public-private partnership,
have been a core part of the Smart Grid effort at NIST, and we believe
they are reflected in the positive response to the NIST Framework and
Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards.
We also see the need and value of NIST holding a convener role with
regard to U.S. Government interests in connection with national and
international standards-related technology and policy issues. Stating
the obvious, the ICT sector is becoming increasingly global. This trend
will only be heightened as we move toward next-generation computing and
communications technologies, which are often built to transcend
national boundaries. In a convener role, NIST could help facilitate
information exchange and seek to coordinate U.S. positions on
standards-related issues across the Federal Government as
appropriate.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ We recognize that each Federal agency has its own mission and
responsibilities, and we are not suggesting that NIST take on the role
of a mediator, arbiter or final decision maker on these types of
issues. In addition, we also see the need for the private sector to be
able to communicate directly on relevant issues with individual
agencies and to provide subject matter expertise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, with regard to NIST's proposed re-organization, it appears
that NIST will place standards professionals within each of its labs,
enabling NIST to better coordinate the needs of the lab and the needs
of standards body participants in the relevant technology areas. We
also understand that NIST will create a coordination team to facilitate
cooperation between the standards professionals in each of the labs;
this should help to ensure that the efforts of one lab do not
inadvertently disadvantage the interests or objectives of other labs.
We believe that the proposed reorganization will enhance NIST's
overall effectiveness in meeting its mission and objectives.
************************
In closing, I would like to thank you again for giving us the
opportunity to testify today. As I hope my testimony has demonstrated,
Microsoft believes strongly that the best standards emerge from
voluntary processes and public-private partnerships that allow for
dynamic, market-led innovation. We appreciate NIST's valuable
contributions to standardization and we support NIST undertaking a more
defined convener role to further enable Federal agency coordination on
issues relating to technical standards. We look forward to working with
you and the broader standards community to preserve and promote a
vibrant, collaborative and effective standards ecosystem.
Biography for Craig Shank
Craig Shank is the General Manager for Microsoft's Interoperability
Group, with executive responsibility across the company for standards
and interoperability from a business, technical, policy and legal
perspective. Microsoft's Interoperability Group is responsible for
corporate direction on interoperability and standards, as well as the
company's global team of standards officers.
Before joining Microsoft in 2003, Mr. Shank was an engineering and
business development executive at Linen, a venture-backed Linux
developer, with responsibility for teams in Japan, France, Australia,
the U.S. and Canada. Before he joined Lineo, Mr. Shank was an executive
with both business development and legal roles at NetManage and Wall
Data, both NASDAQ-listed software companies enabling cross-platform
interoperability for enterprise systems and connecting users and
applications on Windows, IBM mainframe and Unix systems. Mr. Shank also
was a partner in the technology law practice at the law firm of Perkins
Coie.
Mr. Shank graduated from Harvard College (1982) and Georgetown
University Law Center (1986).
Mr. Gordon. Mr. Wennblom.
STATEMENT OF MR. PHILIP WENNBLOM, DIRECTOR OF STANDARDS, INTEL
CORPORATION
Mr. Wennblom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today. I am Philip Wennblom, and I
manage the Corporate Standards Office at Intel Corporation.
Standards are important to Intel's business and to the
information and communication technology industry overall, and
as a result Intel has a strong interest in the health of the
standardization system in the United States and globally. Intel
and our industry are primarily interested in global standards,
standards that are developed to address global requirements and
which are ultimately adopted around the world.
The National Institutes of Standards and Technology has
very important roles in the standard system. NIST is an active
and expert participant in developing standards through
involvement by 400 or so of its employees, and the
participation of those employees is highly valued.
NIST has a role in public and private coordination on
priority areas of standardization, for example, the current
work on Smart Grid, and I would emphasize that these types of
efforts to convene the public and private sectors to coordinate
require a large amount of effort and should be considered
exceptional. They should represent areas where policy
priorities for the government, areas where NIST has strong
expertise, and where there is a need for public and private
coordination.
NIST also has an important role to coordinate among Federal
agencies on standardization development on policy topics, a
role that has been described in the NTTAA [National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act]. I support Dr. Gallagher's plans
for reorganizing NIST, and I believe these changes will
strengthen the important roles that NIST plays in
standardization. The changes should improve management
stability and customer orientation, and the Director's
examination of strengthening the interagency coordination role
is also well considered.
I would like to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity
to be here, and of course, I will be happy to take questions
when we get there.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wennblom follows:]
Prepared Statement of Philip Wennblom
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Smith, members of the Subcommittee, my
name is Philip Wennblom and I am Director of Standards for Intel
Corporation. In this capacity, I manage Intel's Corporate Standards
Office, that has responsibility for coordinating standards development
activity across the company, for setting Intel's standardization policy
positions, and for representing Intel in strategic standards
development organizations around the world. I am also a member of the
Board of Governors of the IEEE Standards Association, a member of the
Executive Board of INCITS and chair of the Information Technology
Industry Council Standardization Policy Committee. I am honored to
appear before this Subcommittee today on behalf of Intel Corporation.
Standards are critical to Intel and Intel has played a leading role
in standards development for many years. The importance of standards to
Intel can be illustrated by considering four areas of benefit. Intel
has found that standards can help create ecosystems of companies that
grow new markets--the Universal Serial Bus (USB) is an example. USB
allows many types of products, from cameras to cell phones to printers,
to connect easily to computers. Intel designs and manufactures complex
semiconductor products. By implementing standards in the design of
those products, Intel makes them easier for system manufacturers to
use--the PCI Express bus is an example. The PCI Express bus is a high
performance interface for connecting subsystems, such as graphics, in a
broad range of computers. Many standards in the Information Technology
industry enable interoperability among products, which is of great
value to consumers and businesses. IEEE 802.11, also called WiFi, is a
good example of such a standard. A laptop with IEEE 802.11/WiFi can be
counted on to work with wireless access points to gain Internet access
all over the world. Standards enable access to global markets. Intel's
products require large investments to develop-and the economics of
semiconductor manufacturing favors producing them in large volumes.
When standards supported by those products are accepted globally, it
provides for the most attractive market opportunity.
From an industry perspective, NIST is a very important contributor
to standards development in at least three principal ways. First, NIST
provides substantial expertise to standards development through the
involvement of its experts--some 400 people involved in 100 standards
development organizations. I've seen firsthand the contributions that
some of those experts make in the international standards area--
technical contributions and leadership that benefit the U.S. government
and U.S. industry. NIST has been a reliable partner, developing
standards in collaboration with industry for many years.
Second, NIST has proven to be a very capable convener on standards
development challenges that are of priority concern to government
policy makers and that present a unique need for coordination of public
and private sector interests. In those situations, NIST is in a
position to facilitate private and public sector collaboration to
identify relevant standards, technologies, and operational parameters
that support achievement of the government's policy goals and industry
and consumer goals of innovation, competition, and interoperability.
The ongoing work at NIST on Smart Grid is a good example of this
process at work. Under the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007, NIST has been assigned the ``primary responsibility to coordinate
development of a framework that includes protocols and model standards
for information management to achieve interoperability of Smart Grid
devices and systems'' to accelerate national Smart Grid deployments. In
this role, NIST has developed a structure (including web portal,
organized groups and conferences) that brings together a diverse group
of private and public sector technical, standards and market experts in
developing the Smart Grid roadmap/framework. I applaud NIST's efforts
to partner with other stakeholders in helping to determine the
technology and direction of this effort. I expect that NIST will
continue to play an important role in facilitating the discussions and
ensure the roadmap reflects consensus and supports evolving market
innovations for standards and interoperability. Health Care IT and
cybersecurity present similar challenges where NIST can play this
valuable role.
Third is the role that NIST can and does perform in coordinating
discussions on standards within the various agencies of the U.S.
government. NIST can be very effective in convening the public sector
interests in a priority area, and greater Federal coordination can
enhance the public-private partnership that is essential to the U.S.
standards system. Working with NIST in its role as the enquiry point
for World Trade Organization Technical Bathers to Trade Agreement
notifications, I have seen the benefit of NIST involvement in sharing
information among Federal agencies and in coordinating responses on
standards issues that impact global trade.
With regard to the proposed realignment of NIST, the changes that
Director Gallagher has outlined should make NIST even more efficient
and effective. The creation of . Associate Director positions should
improve the efficiency and stability of the organization, and the
directions that Director Gallagher has described for having laboratory
programs aligned by mission should make NIST more customer oriented and
ultimately more successful. The plans to examine NIST's role in
coordination of standards development and policy topics among Federal
agencies are well considered.
The standardization process in the U.S. relies on a partnership
between the stakeholders. This is especially true in areas of
collaboration between the government and the private sector. The key
guidance for the partnership is found in the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 and implementing regulations
contained in OMB Circular A-119. For international standardization, the
private sector, through the American National Standards Institute takes
the lead in representing the United States in the International
Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical
Commission. NIST, other Federal agencies and the private sector have
historically participated cooperatively in the process of developing
United States positions and in representing those positions. In my
view, that process has worked well and is a key strength of the U.S.
system of standardization. It is not in need of major reforms.
In sum, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the work of NIST and
recognize its contributions in the standards arena. I favor Director
Gallagher's proposed realignment strategies and believe they would
strengthen our standards development process.
Biography for Philip Wennblom
Phil Wennblom is Director of Standards for Intel Corporation. As
head of Intel's Corporate Standards Office, part of the Global Public
Policy organization, he has worldwide responsibility for direction and
coordination of Intel's standardization efforts. Phil is responsible
for company-wide standardization policy, training and coordination. His
team leads Intel representation in strategic standards setting
organizations world-wide.
Phil serves on the IEEE Standards Association Corporate Advisory
Group, on the IEEE Standards Association Board of Governors, and on the
INCITS Executive Board. He is chair of the Standardization Policy
Committee of the Information Technology Industry Council (ITT).
From 1989 to 2001, Phil held a number of positions in Intel's
Mobile Platforms Group, including engineering manager, director of
strategic planning and director of mobile technology development. Phil
joined Intel in 1984 as a design engineer in Technology Development
where he developed SRAM, EPROM and E2PROM products.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you, and finally, Mr. Updegrove.
STATEMENT OF MR. ANDREW UPDEGROVE, PARTNER, GESMER UPDEGROVE,
LLP
Mr. Updegrove. Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Smith, and
Subcommittee Members, thank you for the opportunity to testify
on this important topic. My name is Andrew Updegrove, and I am
a Partner in the Boston Law Firm of Gesmer Updegrove. I am also
on the Board of Directors of the American National Standards
Institute, but the opinions I will express today are mine
alone. Those opinions are primarily informed by my experience
in representing almost 100 non-profit membership organizations
that develop and/or promote standards over the last 22 years. I
will seek to frame my testimony today in the context of three
important areas where standards play a crucial role;
achievement of policy goals, maintaining national
competitiveness, and ensuring the efficient use of taxpayer
dollars.
Let me begin by addressing the standards-related
dependencies of public policy today. Over the last 100 years
our bottom-up, private sector-led standards development
structure has served this Nation well. This approach was wisely
affirmed as we all know and strengthened by Congress in 1995,
when it passed the Technology Transfer and Advancement Act.
But today the world is changing in ways that I believe
require us to optimize this bottom-up partnership to ensure
that it continues to be as effective as it has been in the
past. As we become evermore dependent on technology in general
and the internet in particular, thousands of new standards have
been required to simply make things work. Major policy
initiatives such as the Smart Grid and lowering the costs of
healthcare through the adoption of electronic health records
are reached depending on the availability of scores and often
even hundreds of standards, many of which did not exist when
these initiatives were launched.
Unfortunately, while the private sector is capable of
developing individual standards quickly for specific purposes
within a single sector, it lacks the will to tackle complex,
cross-sectoral challenges rapidly or at least as rapidly as we
need them to accomplish it today. This is important due to what
you would expect would be difficulties resolving competing
economic interests which will not always be closely aligned on
every standard that needs to be created.
While that cross-collateral, cross-sectoral solutions can
and usually do evolve over time, the urgent challenges such as
cybersecurity and the rising costs of healthcare do not permit
us the luxury to allow normal market forces to provide
solutions. As a result, when the national interest demands the
rapid deployment of a wide cross-sectoral range of coordinated
standards, I believe a catalyzing force is needed. I note this
as well. Challenges such as the Smart Grid and electronic
health records are but the advanced party of a host of
similarly cross-sectoral, complex standards dependent
challenges the policymakers will face in the future.
To whom can Congress turn when it determines that multiple
industry sectors must be motivated to provide the standards
tools needed to address ambitious policy goals? In the examples
noted above, the answer has been clear. To NIST.
Let me turn to national competitiveness. The development
and deployment of standards is essential to creating new
technologies and new product markets and therefore, to jobs
creation and maintaining a healthy balance of trade as well.
This lesson has not been lost on governments abroad. In
particular, policymakers in the European Union and China have
integrally woven standards development adoption into their
national strategies.
Indeed, in 2005, a U.S. Aerospace Industry working group
concluded, ``Without a clear strategy and support from industry
and government space agencies, the U.S. is in the process of
ceding the development of standards for the commercial space
industry to venues outside of our influence.''
The Chinese government has observed this process and today
is sponsoring the creation of more and more homegrown standards
for the benefit of its domestic industries. This is especially
worrisome because standards are essential to every emerging
area of potential managing growth, job growth on the horizon
today.
But how are we to achieve such sophistication without
abandoning our bottom-up model? The answer, I believe, is to
charge a single agency or department with the role of tracking
emerging needs for public-private coordination with marshalling
facts and data for lawmakers and the Administration to support
the development and deployment of standards-aware international
trade policy and with providing a coordinating function between
the public and private sectors.
Again, I would submit that NIST is the right tool for this
job.
Lastly, let me highlight the relevance of standards to the
efficient use of resources. There is no argument that widely-
adopted standards create competition, increase product choices,
and drive costs down. Hence, supporting the development of
standards can have a very material impact in lowering
government costs directly in procurement, especially where any
agency can buy products from a single vendor list. This same
support can also lower costs indirectly because government-side
standards adoption allows information to be entered once and
then exchanged widely, securely, and rapidly across departments
and agencies.
Because of the immense soft power of government purchasing,
government can also provide incentives to industry to move
rapidly in directions that are beneficial to society in
general, such as towards greater cybersecurity and towards
greater accessibility for those with disabilities.
Turning very briefly to the questions posed, why is
coordination among Federal agencies important? Achieving goals
such as protecting homeland security and making government more
open can only be achieved through standards. I can expand upon
that if necessary, but suffice it to say that without standards
these goals simply cannot be achieved.
What could the future role of NIST be? Quite clearly, NIST
can be capable of running policies such as the Smart Grid, and
I think if I were to leave you with one message today, the role
of NIST is essential in meeting these complex challenges such
as the Smart Grid, and I believe that it is important that that
be institutionalized in cooperation with private industry.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the Chairman and the
Subcommittee Members for inviting me to speak to you today, and
I look forward to the progress that you will make in these
areas. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Updegrove follows:]
Prepared Statement of Andrew Updegrove
Introduction
Chairman Wu, Ranking Member Smith, and Subcommittee Members. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify on this important topic.
I ask that my written testimony be accepted into the record.
My name is Andrew Updegrove, and I am a partner in the Boston law
firm of Gesmer Updegrove LLP. I am also on the Board of Directors of
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), but the opinions I
will express today are mine alone. Those opinions are primarily
informed by my experience in representing almost 100 non-profit
membership organizations that develop and/or promote standards over the
past 22 years.
I will seek to frame my testimony today in the context of three
important areas where standards play a crucial role: achievement of
policy goals, maintaining national competitiveness, and ensuring the
efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
Achievement of Policy Goals
Over the last hundred years, our ``bottom up,'' private sector-led
standards development structure has served this nation well. This
approach was wisely affirmed and strengthened by Congress in 1995 when
it passed the Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (TTAA). But
today, the world is changing in ways that I believe require us to
optimize this ``bottom up'' partnership.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ I have written at greater length on the need to upgrade our
``bottom up'' system in, Behind the Curve: Addressing the Policy
Dependencies of a ``Bottom Up'' Standards Infrastructure, Standards
Today, Vol. VIII, No. 4 (October-November, 2008), at: http://
www.consortiuminfo.org/bulletins/oct08.php#feature
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we have become ever more dependent on technology in general and
the Internet in particular, thousands of new standards have been
required to simply make things work, Major policy initiatives such as
the SmartGrid and lowering healthcare costs through national adoption
of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) are each dependent on the
availability of scores--and even hundreds--of standards, many of which
did not exist when these initiatives were launched.
Unfortunately, while the private sector is capable of developing
individual standards quickly for specific purposes within a single
sector, it lacks the will to tackle complex, cross-sectoral challenges
rapidly, in part due to the inherent difficulties of resolving
competing economic interests. While adequate cross-sectoral solutions
can, and .usually do, evolve over time, urgent challenges such as
cybersecurity and the rising costs of healthcare do not permit us the
luxury to allow normal market forces to provide solutions.
As a result, when the national interest demands the rapid
development of a wide, cross-sectoral range of coordinated standards, a
catalyzing force is needed. And note this well: challenges such as the
SmartGrid and EHRs are but the advance party of a host of similarly
cross-sectoral, complex, standards-dependent challenges that policy
makers will face in the future.
To whom can 'Congress turn when it determines that multiple
industry sectors must be motivated to provide the standards tools
needed to address ambitious policy goals? In the examples noted above,
the answer has been clear: to NIST.
National Competitiveness
The development and deployment of standards is essential to
creating new technologies and new product markets--and therefore to
jobs creation and maintaining a healthy balance of trade as well. This
lesson has not been lost on many governments abroad. In particular,
policy makers in the European Union and China have integrally woven
standards development and adoption into their national strategies.
Indeed, in 2005, a U.S. aerospace industry working group concluded:
Without a clear strategy and support from industry
and government space agencies, the U.S. is in the process of
ceding the development of standards for the commercial space
industry to venues outside of our influence.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, Hitchcock, Laura et al., The Future of Aerospace
Standardization, AIA (January 2005). http://www.aia-aerospace.org/
assets/aerospace-standa rdization010S.pdf.
The Chinese government has observed this process, and today is
sponsoring the creation of more and more ``homegrown'' standards for
the benefit of its domestic industries. This is especially worrisome,
because standards are essential to every emerging area of potential
manufacturing job growth on the horizon today.
But how are we to achieve such sophistication without abandoning
our ``bottom up'' model? The answer, I believe, is to charge a single
agency or department with the role of tracking emerging needs for
public-private coordination, with marshalling facts and data for
lawmakers and the administration to support the development and
deployment of standards-aware international trade policy, and with
providing a coordinating function between the public and private
sectors.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This is not to suggest that NIST will always be the appropriate
entity to act as the principal point of contact with private industry
on a given initiative. But it can act as the central clearinghouse,
developer of best practices, and resource assisting other agencies and
departments in establishing partnerships with appropriate industry
segments on specific initiatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who could provide such a function better than NIST, which is not
only the governmental domain expert in the area of standardization, and
has acted in this capacity in the past with respect to multiple
individual initiatives, but a part of the Department of Commerce as
well?
Efficient Use of Resources
There is no argument that Widely adopted standards create
competition, increase product choices and drive costs down. Hence,
supporting the development of standards can have a very material impact
in lowering government costs directly in procurement, especially where
any agency can buy products from a single approved list. The same
support can lower costs indirectly, because government-side standards
adoption allows information to be entered once, and then exchanged
widely, securely and rapidly across departments and agencies.
Because of the immense ``soft power'' of government purchasing,
government can also provide incentives to industry to move rapidly in
directions that are beneficial to society in general, such as towards
greater cybersecurity, and towards greater accessibility for those with
disabilities.
Questions Posed
With these observations as background, let me turn to the three
questions posed to me in your invitation.
1. Why is coordination amongst Federal agencies and
departments on technical standards issues important? How can it
be improved?
Achieving goals such as protecting Homeland Security and making
government more open, interactive and transparent requires the ability
to seamlessly and securely exchange data among agencies, and in a
consistent fashion with citizens, first responders and others
externally. In order to meet that goal, I believe that it will be
necessary to charge a single agency or department with the
responsibility of facilitating the exchange of information and the
coordination of action across agency and departmental boundaries. That
body should also be required to report back to Congress on compliance
with the program.
Given NIST's competence in the standards area, as well as its
experience in compiling and reporting Agency compliance data under the
TTAA, it appears to be the obvious candidate for this task.
2. What could a future NIST role in technical standards be?
How can NISI foster Federal agency collaboration on
international technical standards issues?
I believe that there are three ways in which our ``bottom up''
process needs to be optimized. In each case, NIST would be the logical
choice to act on behalf of government:
Most crucially, I believe that the role that NIST has
played in initiatives such as the SmartGrid and EHRs should be
institutionalized and optimized over time. The private sector
simply does not have the will to self-organize and drive large,
cross-sector, standards-based initiatives through to a rapid
conclusion without the support and, frankly, the prodding of
the government.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ While the private sector has not typically had the will to
undertake complex, cross-sector Initiatives rapidly, it does have the
means to do so. ANSI has formed ``panels'' around a number of complex
areas, including biofuels, homeland security, identity prevention and
management and healthcare information technology standards. Several of
these panels have operated in collaboration with Federal bodies such as
NIST and the Department of Homeland Security. Where this pairing has
existed, these panels have been particularly successful. A list of ANSI
panels can be found here: http://www.ansi.org/standards activities/
standards boards panels/overview.aspx? menuid=3.
In contrast to most other nations, there is no
government-appointed spokesperson for the United States in all
but one of the major formal international standards bodies,\5\
or in the hundreds of ``informal,'' but often more influential,
SSOs generally referred to as ``consortia.'' ANSI is
internationally recognized as the. United States representative
in several of the formal organizations, but it lacks an
explicit Congressional appointment to serve in that capacity.
In fact, NIST and ANSI have worked together productively on
many initiatives in the past, and I believe that this
relationship should be formalized as the principal conduit
between government and private industry, thereby ensuring an
ongoing and efficient flow of information. Among other
benefits, NIST and ANSI could facilitate formulating joint
positions between government agencies and relevant industry
sectors on international issues when such unanimity would be
useful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The exception is the International Telecommunication Union
(ITU). Unlike the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), where ANSI
represents U.S. interests, the ITU is a treaty organization.
With the convergence of technologies and the rising
importance of systemic concerns such as global warming, the
need to develop positions relating to standards will regularly
cross agency and departmental boundaries.\6\ NIST can act as a
clearinghouse for communication between agencies to help them
understand their respective needs and priorities. Similarly,
NIST can coordinate their participation in SSOs to minimize
cost, and maximize government input into the standards
development process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For example, both wireless and geospatial standards are
important to agriculture, Homeland Security, the environment, the
military, health monitoring, distanced learning--the list goes on and
on.
3. Please share any perspectives on the proposed NIST
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
realignment.
For historical reasons, NIST has become the custodian of a variety
of missions, each of which must compete for necessarily limited
resources. To the extent that realignment will help NIST support the
goals that I have highlighted above, I think that it is crucial for
Congress to support that realignment.
Conclusion
For decades, the United States has been a global leader in
standardization, led in large part by private industry. The leadership
of the private sector remains necessary, but it is no longer
sufficient. The U.S. needs a more empowered, more activist NIST to
bring our historical public-private partnership in the standards arena
up to the demands of the present and the future, and to assist the
Federal agencies and departments in efficiently managing the jobs that
they have been asked to perform.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For a full list of my standards-related recommendations to the
current administration, see 10 Standards Recommendations for the Obama
Administration, Standards Today, Vol. VIII, No 4 (October-November
2008) at http://www.consortiuminfo.org/bulletins/oct08.php#feature
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, ranking member Smith, and Subcommittee members, I
would like to thank you for committing your time to these important
matters, and for the opportunity to testify before you today.
Biography for Andrew Updegrove
Andrew Updegrove is a founding partner of Gesmer Updegrove LLP, a
Boston-based technology law firm. He has a broad range of experience in
representing both mature and emerging high technology companies of all
types in all aspects of their legal affairs. Since 1988, he has also
represented and helped structure more than 100 worldwide standard
setting, open source, promotional and advocacy consortia, including
some of the largest standard setting organizations in the world. He
spends a significant part of his time giving strategic advice to
clients of the firm.
His leadership in standards related matters is widely recognized.
in 2005 he was elected to the Boards of Directors of the American
National Standards Institute. (ANSI) and in 2005 to the Free Standards
Group (FSG), and in 2007 to the Board of Directors of the Linux
Foundation. He is also a member of the Board of Advisors of HL7, an
ANSI accredited developer of electronic health standards for clinical
and administrative data. in 2004, he was the sole representative of the
consortium community to be appointed as a member of the United States
National Standards Strategy Committee.
He has been retained by many of the largest corporations in the
world to assist them in setting up international standard setting and
technology promotional organizations, and by both multinational
companies as well as government agencies to advise them in setting
their standards-related policies and goals. He has also provided
testimony to the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission on
standard setting and intellectual property rights, and written and
filed pro bona ``friend of the court'' briefs in major standards-
related litigation before the Federal Circuit Court, the Supreme Court,
and the Federal Trade Commission.
In May of 2002, he conceived and launched ConsortiumInfo.org, an
extensive Web site intended to provide the most comprehensive and
detailed source of news and information on the Internet on standard-
setting, open source software project development, and forming and
maintaining consortia. The site serves up to a million page views a
month to a global audience, including up to 50,000 visitors a month
from China. In December of 2002, he conceived and launched the
Consortium Standards Bulletin (now Standards Today), a bi-monthly
eJournal of news, ideas and analysis on standard setting. Standards
Today is sent to a large and rapidly growing list of standards
professionals and other subscribers at major corporations, government
agencies and universities throughout the world. Other sections of the
site include the Standards MetaLibrary, with over 1,800 categorized and
abstracted articles, and the Standards Blog, which attracts up to
100,000 visitors a month. Besides his efforts at the Consortiuminfo.org
Web site, he writes and speaks frequently both domestically and
internationally on topics involving standards, open source software and
consortia. in 2005 he was selected to receive the ANSI President's
Award for Journalism for his work at ConsortiumInfo.org and Standards
Today.
Mr. Updegrove is a graduate of Yale University and the Cornell
University Law School. He is a certified mediator, and a member of the
Panel of Mediators of the Massachusetts -Technology Leadership Council.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you, and now we will begin the questions,
and the Chairman recognizes himself.
I think that Mr. Smith and I would hardly concur that there
ought not be a Federal office of winners and losers, and that
it seems to me that you are all saying that there does need to
be some coordination and that NIST is a good place for that,
and the word, convener, has been used.
Now, what I want to be able to understand is sort of this
chicken and the egg, you know, should NIST say, well, folks, we
need to convene, so you all come on over here, or does the
private sector go up and say, we are having some problems.
NIST, will you help us convene? How do we say that it looks
like some other countries are trying to get ahead of us in
setting international standards? So how should we, you know,
let us convene and take a lead in that.
So, you know, what is the chicken and the egg? Mr. Shank,
why don't we start with you?
Mr. Shank. Sure. Thank you, Chairman Gordon. It is tempting
to answer between those two. The answer is yes. Deciding which
things that NIST may play an active role is actually one of--
the convener's role in is actually one of the real challenges.
That is determining where one acts. I do think that in
anticipating how we may go about this, how NIST may play a
role, one of the key aspects of playing the convener across
stakeholders may be conducting periodic landscape reviews,
because I know that one of the things that is--that people are
focused on here is not just having a backward-looking approach
to the things, the problems that NIST may be able to help fix
but a forward-looking role in the areas where convening these
stakeholders can proactively help to initiate things.
I believe that--my slightly tongue-in-cheek answer yes
really actually does need to be the case, and that is that with
the ongoing capability to run landscape review comes engagement
with stakeholders where stakeholders may identify key areas. We
may also see NIST identifying or Congress identifying key
areas. An aspect that is important from Mr. Wennblom's
testimony is that these do take up significant public and
private resources, so we need to be thoughtful about the
specific areas that are--that we do engage in, that NIST
engages in because they can be very expensive. I think those
need to be largely exception-based, but there are areas that
are important enough to merit that.
Mr. Gordon. Well, why don't we let Dr. Gallagher--we will
get out of the hypothetical and why don't you tell us what
you--where is this chicken and egg, and then maybe the industry
folks could react to that.
Dr. Gallagher. Great. Thank you. Actually I think there are
two distinct cases. I think the question about when a
government takes a stronger role in convening or coordinating
on a standards effort actually touches on what is the purpose
of the standard, and I think in many cases where we are looking
at are standards that are needed for achieving government
goals.
In the case of Smart Grid, I think NIST took a proactive
lead in initiating the convening role because to address our
energy needs we had to stimulate and have a standard structure
in place that would be viable for, let us say, regulation or
for conditions under Federal grants and assistance and so
forth.
Mr. Gordon. And the same with health IT?
Dr. Gallagher. The same with health IT, the same with
cybersecurity. So I think there are many cases where the
government's need for technology is going to be manifested in
terms of needing to have a certain structure of standards in
place, and that is the case where we are going to want to be
more proactive.
I think there are also cases where industry is going to
drive this and be requesting of us a greater participation
because of an impasse or because of an international issue and
those types of scenarios play out as well. So I think we can be
both initiated by industry and initiated by government need.
Mr. Gordon. Anyone else want to comment on this?
Mr. Updegrove. If I may, please. I think that an important
thing to be realized is that the standard-setting
infrastructure is about 100 years old, and for most of that
time it was created to basically solve problems within silos.
It is currently faced now with the reality where silo solutions
don't work anymore, and private industry in my opinion has not
really figured out ways to do things that cross many different
sectors. It is getting better. It is coming up with a mechanism
of setting profiles, and you are increasingly seeing new
consortiums set up, not to set standards but to create profiles
of standards to address use cases. And if that sounds like the
Smart Grid, it should because it is basically the same type of
exercise.
The problem is is that private industry is good at coming
up with those to handle still fairly discrete problems. It
takes an enormous amount of impetuous and an enormous amount of
organization and an enormous amount of sometimes motivating
dollars to pull together something in the magnitude of the
Smart Grid. So I think that that is the first main area where
government realizes that without government it is just not
going to happen.
The second thing is I think that there will be standards
that are of special interest to government and maybe a good
example would be open government. I have spoken at times about
comparing standards to civil rights legislation, that if you
are disabled and you can't log onto a Web site, the more
government saves money by transitioning to a web-based
interface with the citizenry, you can effectively be
disenfranchised if you can't operate the technology to
interoperate with government. And that might be a second
category where the involvement of government might be
appropriate.
Mr. Gordon. Let me--before I run out of time here, let me
get to the threshold question. Really, we posed two questions
to you, and one was as Dr. Gallagher I think said, and I agree,
in a transparent way he is telling you upfront where he is
seeing this thing going, and so that is one question, you know,
having viewed that, would the panel, industry panel members
raise your hand if you think that this is the right direction.
Okay. So the record will show they all do, and then the
second one is do you think that the NIST Director should be
elevated to an Under Secretary position and raise your hand.
Once again we have a concurrence.
So I have some more areas of interest but----
Mr. Smith. Go ahead.
Mr. Gordon. Okay. I will get to one more.
One area that is a real theme, I think, in this Committee
has been competitiveness, and we recognize that we have a
global economy now. How do we compete in that area? And we
recognize that innovation, in this case sometimes, standards
lead to new technologies, and that leads to jobs.
We are seeing that governments abroad and policymakers
abroad, particularly in the EU and China, often integrate their
standards with their national strategies. I think that can be
dangerous sometimes, you know, in that if you think that the
government knows everything and they take the wrong course,
then that is a problem. But it also can get their assets
together well and make them, you know, be able to pull together
all their assets.
So let me ask you from your experiences in a global market,
what are you seeing the disadvantages and advantages of--well,
first of all, I guess we should say is--do you see EU and China
doing these things, and if so, what are the advantages and
disadvantages and what are the lessons that we should learn?
Whoever would like to start. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wennblom. It is a very important topic, and I would
agree with your characterization of the approach that we see in
Europe and China. It is more government-directed and
government-driven, and I suppose a benefit of that approach is
when the government would like to see a standard put in place,
there is a very direct way to make that happen.
However, if you step back and look at the results, I
believe that the system we enjoy in the U.S. has been quite
successful and continues to be successful despite this
different approach that we see taken in other places. As I
mentioned, our industry in information and communication
technology really relies on standards to be globally adopted.
So it is not enough to have a standard implemented in one
country. We need to see standards that nearly all countries
will adopt.
And the market-driven system in the U.S. where we have, you
know, industry and government standards, research, the market-
driven-oriented system has been very, very successful in taking
standards which have become popular in the U.S. and having them
adopted globally, and I don't believe it is under imminent
threat from more government-directed systems.
Mr. Gordon. I assume that a lot of that in the past has
been because we have been a dominant market, so if we are not
such a dominant market in the future, can we still rely in that
way?
Mr. Wennblom. We may not be as dominant a consumption
market but still industries which are based in the U.S. are
often very global companies that are participating in markets
around the world, and when those companies are participating in
a standards process that is market driven, I see impact
globally on aligning around technologies. And if a single
country wants to pursue its own agenda, it is difficult for
that to be successfully adopted globally.
Mr. Gordon. Okay. Does anyone--yes, sir. Go ahead.
Mr. Updegrove. I would take a slightly different approach,
but I agree that I think the private-sector system is working
extremely well in the standards area. So I think that there are
two discreet areas where optimization would be required.
In the first place I think you made a very good point about
the size of the American market. To date the United States has
had a very disproportionate impact on the setting of standards
in areas such as information communications technology. There
are in existence today something north of 500 standards
consortia, not counting the traditional standards bodies that
have been created to set standards in this area.
I have helped set up about 100 of them, and I would say
that out of that 100 two have been primarily led by foreign
companies, and every last single one of the rest of them, the
leadership came from major international corporations
headquartered in the United States.
I think we sometimes forget the enormous benefit that
American industry has had from having those standards efforts
launched to serve at the outset the strategic interests and
goals of American industry. People abroad are starting to
become aware that other people can play that game. China in
particular, with, you know, 1.3 billion people, has very much
realized that all the patents are owned in the west, and they
are tired of paying patent royalties to build products to sell
to their own people while they make 10 cents on a DVD player
and ship it off to the west where somebody makes $5 on the
patent royalties plus a markup on the device.
This is going to change, and when you have that many
consumers, the game is very clear to learn how to play. I saw
in the U.S. IT Report just last week three new standards
consortiums were formed in China. Last year there might have
been three in the entire year. So I think one of the things
that we might not realize until it is gone is when other people
start playing the same game, and when American companies that
used to start consortia here are looking at that big a market,
they won't have any choice but to play the Chinese game the
same way.
Mr. Gordon. Well, I see that problem, so my question is
what are the answers?
Mr. Updegrove. I think here is where we need to have better
communication between private industry and government so that
private industry can alert and frankly, I think, recruit
government to assist it in trying to stay ahead on the trade
policy ways, particularly I would say through enforcing our
rights under the WTO [World Trade Organization] and the
Technical Barriers to Trade Act, that these things don't get
ahead of us and get to the point where they were with the WAPI
[Wireless local area network Authentication and Privacy
Infrastructure] and Wi-Fi where we have to bring out the big
guns to help get us back to the centerline.
Mr. Gordon. Okay. Well, let us just complete this thought.
Anybody else want to weigh in here?
Mr. Shank. I think I would echo Mr. Updegrove's comments
about thinking about both the trade attribute and the
standardization attribute as related but not necessarily the
same thing going on.
In the trade side we do have the WTO as a vehicle. We would
like to make sure that we are alert, looking forward, looking
into those things proactively so that we don't end up too late
in the game.
On the standardization side I think one of the things that
is a theme that should run along with that is the effort to
draw some of these nations into the global standard system
where there is an opportunity to compete effectively using the
global competitive environment as opposed to a single country
environment. So that is where we see an opportunity to use the
existing private standard system but use it on a global basis
as a matter of global competitiveness.
Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir.
Dr. Serum. Just quickly back to the question of the
coordination of standards, very often once a technology comes
into play, it is the question of how long does it take for
companies, private sector and public bodies to come together to
think in one fashion before you dominate the industry, and I
think the very question of being nimble by coordinating
standards, and again, I reference the Smart Grid. A few years
ago it looked like an almost insurmountable problem to get
everybody to agree on an architecture and a model of how we
would go about it, and if we can use that as a model for other
high-priority opportunities, I think that can make a dramatic
difference in our competitiveness because we can be
standardized in a much faster pace.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you, and Mr. Smith is recognized for as
much time as he may consume.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks again to the
panel. You know, it reminds me of certainly my objective of
serving that is to create more opportunity or ensure
opportunity, not get caught up with the outcome necessarily,
and I see each and every one of you as having a vital role in
that, and I would say certainly within the private sector
represented here today you have probably given more opportunity
to people, whether it is the young people in the audience or
large companies, but I appreciate the prosperity that some have
experienced as a result of more opportunities along the way.
And so I think that certainly I would say we have the
existence of NIST as a way to not only ensure opportunity but
to ensure competition and not only to make sure that
competitors in the private sector compete because I think that
we have a good bit of that, I also think that we want to ensure
that we have a competitive industry domestically to compete in
the world marketplace. And I think that we can have discussion
not only today but in the future of how we can leverage that.
I do want to add that I am concerned that some of the
pending policies, and I won't get into those today, but I am
concerned that some pending policies that are out of the
control of each of you but they might stifle innovation, they
might stifle opportunity, and that concerns me a great deal,
not only for the future of our country but for the future of
every individual. So with that I might just touch on a few
things.
Dr. Gallagher, how will the proposed Director's office
reorganization support improving NIST's interaction with
industry and academia to support competitiveness, and what do
you have planned to help America compete, and will this
reorganization make a difference to American competitiveness?
Dr. Gallagher. Thank you for the question. I believe that
the reorganization will actually make a very substantial
difference in how NIST is interacting with industry, which is
its primary stakeholder, and the reason for that is simple. It
has to do with accountability. The real difference in the
organizational structure that I am proposing is not at the
technical level. The NIST scientists and engineers will
continue doing the world-class work that they have done, but
the leadership now will be directly held responsible for
carrying out a portion of our mission.
And since our mission is to work with industry, I think the
major outcome of this is to make them very acutely focused on
how their services, whether it is measurement services that
they are providing out of one of our technical laboratories, or
whether it is our technology services in promoting new
technologies, developing standards, their job description now
is really based on how well they carry that out.
And so what I think it does is it creates much stronger
ties between the NIST leadership and industry leadership. That
has been the relationship that I clearly wanted to strengthen.
And I think that as you have heard a little bit just in the
standards arena, I view the job of NIST as to allow the
conditions for competitiveness an opportunity to take hold.
So in many cases, what we are talking about is an enabling
infrastructure. In other words, it creates the business or
technology conditions for companies to innovate and generate
new products, to have global markets available to them, to have
a supply chain that they can work with. It is about putting
that trust into those relationships, and viewed that way this
is about creating an environment where we can make and compete
and still be the number one country in the world for developing
new products and services. I think that translates to jobs and
economic prosperity in a very direct way.
Mr. Smith. Very good. Thank you. Now, just a point of
clarification. It sounds like there would be a net increase of
senior-level positions at your shop.
Dr. Gallagher. Actually, no. It is not even a new layer of
management. Currently the existing organization has 17 line
organizations that report to me through a Deputy Director. So
while I am replacing a single Deputy Director with three
Associate Directors, there are going to be fewer line
organizations reporting in. So actually it is not an increase
in the number of executive positions.
Mr. Smith. Okay, or FTEs.
Dr. Gallagher. Not at all. There is no change.
Mr. Smith. Okay. I appreciate that, and, again, I don't
want to pretend to manager your shop there. I am not qualified,
number one, but certainly that is not what I see my role to be,
but budgetarily I just want to stay on top of things.
You did mention some interagency coordination process. If
you wouldn't mind elaborating on that and especially if you
might be able to share in your discussions with OSTP, OMB, and
USTR [United States Trade Representative], just to use a few
acronyms here today.
Dr. Gallagher. Thank you. So as I have looked at the
standards coordination effort, as I have said, it really has
two major components. One is having a more robust set of models
for how we work with the private sector. I mean, to
oversimplify, historically we had either a very hands-off, we
will participate at a technical level, but it is really not
managed at all, or we take over as a government, and we write
down standards ourselves. I think the real attractiveness of
the Smart Grid approach is that it represented a new type of
model where you had a much more active engagement, and it
really was a public-private partnership.
Is that going to be the right approach for every standards
question? The answer is definitely not, but I think in cases
where you need those attributes of being able to define your
needs very clearly and have some influence over the
architecture, for example, for security in the Smart Grid, over
the timeliness of the development, it is a very appropriate
model.
The other area has been how do you get--these technology
systems that are becoming very complex, and there is almost
always a large number of agencies who have a stake in the
outcome, and so we have been looking very carefully at how to
improve the interagency coordination. And I have reached the
conclusion that it has two ingredients. One is it has to have
an agency like NIST which has deep technical capabilities and
understands the standards process. We in some way become the
corporate memory for how to do standards-related activities.
The other part of interagency coordination, though, is
actually being able to direct agencies to get together, to
mediate discussions, and reach conclusions, and in my view that
is very much a White House function, and so what I have been
doing is trying to work very closely with OSTP and with OMB and
the U.S. Trade Rep to come up with a form where we tie together
the type of interagency process that we have had under the
NTTAA, so there is a Standing Interagency Coordination
Committee chaired by NIST, and couple it with a more strategic
policy leadership-level-driven interagency process that would
come out and be managed by the White House.
And I think by having NIST involved in both of those we tie
these processes together. It should give us the ability to have
the active leadership participation when we need it and not
lose any of the very active working level interaction that we
currently have with the agencies.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you, sir.
And a little bit outside the scope of the specific
questions that you were asked to answer in your prepared
testimony, if you wouldn't mind telling us what each of you,
excuse me, might believe are NIST's strongest contributions to
American competitiveness and any areas where you believe NIST
could use improvement, and especially as we reauthorize
American COMPETES, what recommendations would you make to
strengthen NIST?
Maybe alphabetically. I don't know. Whoever wishes to--go
ahead, Mr. Wennblom.
Mr. Wennblom. As I mentioned, Intel, and I believe
industry, appreciates when NIST comes to the table because
invariably the NIST representative is an expert and makes sound
contributions to the standards process. The area for
improvement that I hear discussed among my colleagues is we
want more of that, that there are some places where we would
like to have NIST participating in developing standards, and
they are not there. So I don't know if it is a criticism, but,
you know, if there is an opportunity to give NIST a bigger
opportunity to participate in the standards process, I think
that is something industry would appreciate, and it would
ultimately make the U.S. more competitive.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Dr. Serum.
Dr. Serum. I will refer back to the proposed reorganization
realignment in my comment. I think historically with a
discipline structure that has been in place NIST has done just,
well, world-class research and three Nobel Prizes have come out
of it as demonstration of that.
However, that research in the current structure is not as
closely aligned to its deliverables with industry as it could
be, and this is one of the reasons why I strongly support Dr.
Gallagher's realignment proposal because all elements of its
impact on industry, the pioneering measurement technology that
gets developed together with the necessary standards that the
industry needs to be competitive, all are accountable within
one organization, and the decisions can be made by a small
group of people, made much more rapidly, and made
synergistically with the outcome, the desired outcome closely
associated with the pioneering research.
So I think that is probably a significant advantage of the
new proposed structure.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. Mr. Shank.
Mr. Shank. Thank you. It is daunting to try to select
NIST's strengths, so rather than select specific strengths let
me perhaps--I will outline some general areas. Dr. Serum has
identified the existing body of basic research capabilities.
Certainly Mr. Wennblom spoke to the importance of NIST's role
in standards.
I think the way that many of these have developed is that
NIST has an independence that drives a credibility that allows
NIST to participate across different stakeholders. It is what
we sometimes call an honest broker's role. We do value that
very much across the different industry participants and the
other stakeholders. So we think that that is a key attribute to
being able to play this convener's role and to being able to
pull stakeholders together.
As I look to areas that one might leverage out of NIST,
certainly we have thought of rather than areas of improvement,
the capacity to leverage that convener's role that is some of
what we have spoken about here today. If I were looking to
align resources at any organization on standards issues, one of
the things that I would certainly think about is aligning the
standards professionals very closely with the specific
technology areas that are referenced, and it turns out that
that is one of the things that the NIST realignment is designed
to do. It will create that matrix of both close engagement with
the specific missions on a technology basis and then a capacity
to coordinate that across different groups at NIST.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
Mr. Updegrove.
Mr. Updegrove. First, I think the biggest strength of NIST
in the context of the discussion we are having today in one way
is just that there is an enormous pool of people that get
standards. That is not very common across other parts of
government, and all of the sudden standards matter a lot more
than they used to, and it is not the easiest thing to get up to
speed.
So it is the major resource available to government today
to educate government about what it needs to know to support
modern policy in the technology area. That would be--it is
unmatched everywhere else in government. There are islands of
competence on particular areas but not this broad
understanding.
I would couple that with one concern, which is that many
engineers are familiar with the traditional infrastructure
which is run through national standards bodies, and much of the
action today in the ICT sector is outside of that in the
consortia that I mentioned earlier. And I think that not
everyone in NIST is as conversant with that reality as they
might be and might be worth their while to be a bit more nimble
in understanding that area.
The last thing I would say is that it would ask NIST an
awful lot to be the expert on every area of technology, so I
guess I would sort of leave a hanging question whether
government either needs to really empower NIST much more or at
least realize there is only so much NIST can do to support
government in an era where technology is as important as it is
today and where something as relatively arcane as standards is
important to know how to play the game very well in order to
support the national interest.
I think it is absolutely the place to start. I am not sure
I see the end of the solution in how to make sure we can do
everything.
A final thought. When you look at Europe, Europe has spent
40 years trying to knit together an increasing number of
countries. One of the first things they had to do was to break
down the trade barriers between each individual country, and
one of the ways they did that was by breaking down the
standards barriers. So Europe had a huge problem that
government had to solve by understanding the standards. You
look at China. China very much understands it has a huge
problem it needs to solve by understanding the standards. They
are throwing billions of dollars and literally thousands of
people at that.
We have been rather lucky in that we haven't had a big
challenge that we needed to solve with standards. The Smart
Grid is maybe the first example, electronic health records. I
think that government should really use these as learning
experiences to understand what government needs and how NIST
can support it in understanding these, looking ahead, planning
for them, and then solving them as effectively as possible.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. I appreciate your comments and
certainly we oftentimes forget about consumers both
domestically and elsewhere, and I am glad that that is part of
the discussion. We won't get into a whole bunch of trade policy
here, but I know that competitiveness is a big issue because we
want folks to flourish here at home as they might be able to
provide a higher standard of living overseas and the stability
that comes along with that.
So with that I thank you.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Smith. That is a very good line
of questioning. As we mentioned earlier, competitiveness is a
big theme of this Committee, and I think to be competitive and
be successful we have to be worldwide competitive.
This Committee really works hard at trying to be a
committee of consensus, and I have heard the word consensus in
rulemaking there a lot, and I think, again, the minority,
majority, our staff, we all have to work together at this, and
we are, you know, reasonably successful.
But I think that both minority and majority both have
honorable folks, a couple of them on each side, that sort of
zig when everybody else zags, and you just can't always get
them on the same page. So you are trying to develop these
consensus standards and for parochial interests or for whatever
other reasons somebody just doesn't agree.
So how do you say tough luck and move on? Dr. Gallagher.
Dr. Gallagher. Well, I think in general the voluntary
consensus process that is used doesn't take consensus to mean
unanimity. In fact, it allows for a plurality of views. It is
really designed to make sure that different viewpoints,
different technologies, different solutions get to the table.
In other words, making sure that the process doesn't drive
exclusivity.
But, in fact, the process has shown itself to be very
capable of making decisions that, in fact, don't make everybody
happy, and otherwise I think you would resolve with the lowest
common denominator in the standards, and that is not to our
advantage either.
Mr. Gordon. Finally, another thing that we have talked
about here a lot is as we invest in R&D, as we invest in
workforce development, and we have innovation that comes out
with new technologies and new products, how do we keep those
here? And I know you didn't say that much in your oral
statement but in the written statement you talked more about
NIST's interests in the manufacturing sector and trying to
coordinate it across.
Tell us what you are going to do to keep those dollars that
we have invested in R&D here, how we are going to keep those
products here also, or at least the manufacturing of those
products here.
Dr. Gallagher. Yes. I agree. I believe that the innovation
framework we all discuss is the basis for our deep investments
in R&D ultimately depend on economic action at the other end,
and so in my view I see that as culminating in manufacturing,
making and developing new products and services. And I think,
in fact, there is a relationship between our manufacturing
ability and our research capacities, and it is very important
to this country that we be very competitive in that arena
I don't know that NIST will solve all of the problems
there, my approach is basically to take every NIST authority
and program I have and focus it on this issue. So I think, for
example, in standards we can do everything we can to make sure
that the conditions are right for companies to develop new
technologies and that those standards are adopted as widely as
possible on an international basis so those markets that they
build products to are available globally.
I think we can work to make sure that the measurement
infrastructure is in place so that companies can work with
their supply chains, and we have trust in the system that
components and things that are purchased, in fact, meet
specification. I think we can work to drop barriers to
technology transfer and made sure that ideas are getting out of
the labs and into manufacturers and creating opportunities for
them so that that can be a basis for growth.
Basically, making sure that the playing field is as fair as
possible, as advantageous as possible, and I think Americans
have shown when those are the conditions, we step up, and we do
very well, and I have no reason to believe that won't be the
case.
I really do view this as a broad spectrum approach at NIST.
I would like to look at every program we have from our
Manufacturing Extension Program to our measurement services to
our Technology Innovation Program and make sure they are
working in concert to try to maximize these opportunities for
manufacturers.
Mr. Gordon. Let me just conclude somewhat on this theme. I
think there is a strong Federal role for basic research that
the private sector is not willing to invest or doesn't have the
type of resources to invest in, particularly when you have
quarterly returns and all these sort of things. That then is
made available for the applied research where the private
sector takes it and moves forward.
Any more thoughts on how we could make that better, how we
can get this information to you, to the private sector, to be
more productive? Or I guess maybe more particularly how NIST--
any role they could play there? If there isn't, that is fine.
Dr. Serum. That is a tough question, but it is an age-old
question of who are the right people to do the fundamental
research, but in my association with NIST for the past 12 years
I see areas where--and I understand in coming from industry
that many times it is just impossible to get the industry
players together with a common cause that is bigger than
themselves. And so by NIST playing that technology role in
certain areas of driving new technologies that the other ones
won't have or won't do, it can then get done. So I think it is
a little bit of chicken, egg problem again, but there is
definitely a role for pioneering technologies in the
government.
Mr. Gordon. Yes, Dr. Gallagher.
Dr. Gallagher. Mr. Chairman, just one thought as the
Committee works on reauthorizing America COMPETES. The one
thought I would leave you with is that this process of
translating the ingenuity coming out of our labs into economic
output for me is characterized by participation. In other
words, at the basic research side we have a pretty good idea of
who does that work and who funds it, and at the commercial side
where it is actually being manufactured we know that that is
done in industry.
I don't think there is one answer in the middle, and I
think this has been something people have focused on for many,
many years, the whole notion of tech transfer and
commercialization, and I think we will continue to look for a
variety of solutions, and it may turn out that there is not one
answer.
But the one thing I do know is that the magic seems to
happen when we have mechanisms where there can be a mix of
participation. So when government and university, national labs
and industry can work together in a variety of ways, that is
what is happening in the middle, and so as the Committee looks
at the authorization language, one of the important issues that
was in COMPETES was the role that the different agencies play
and in particular, making sure that the vehicles are there
where we can form those partnerships as appropriate to work
together, because that is, I think, the key ingredient.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you.
Mr. Smith, do you have anything else?
Well, let me thank our witnesses for appearing here today.
I think this was a very interesting hearing, and, again, thank
you for your work for this and I am sure that we will be
getting back with you as we try to put final touches on the
COMPETES bill.
Other Members will have an additional two weeks to submit
any type of questions and answers from you, and with that the
witnesses are excused, and the hearing is adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Andrew Updegrove, Partner, Gesmer Updegrove, LLP
Questions submitted by Chairman David Wu
Q1. In your testimony, you note that lessons about the importance of
development and deployment of standards being essential to creating
new. technologies and new product markets, and thus, to job creation
has not been lost in many governments abroad, and that policy makers in
the EU and China have integrated standards development and adoption
into their national strategies. Has this helped innovation and
competitiveness of the countries/regions which have adopted this
approach? Is the U.S. at a disadvantage because we do not have such a
formal integration of technical standards strategy into our national
strategies on innovation and competition?
A1. The question has two separate parts, which I will address
independently.
Q1a. Has the integration of standards development and adoption into
the national strategies of countries/regions such as China and Europe
helped innovation and competitiveness in those areas?
A1a. The motivations for incorporating standards development and
adoption have varied, and therefore the impacts on innovation and
competitiveness have differed as well. Europe and China provide
instructive examples.
Europe: Prior to the creation of the European Union, many
standards-based barriers to foreign competition existed within European
countries, as they did (and do) elsewhere in the world. For example, if
each country develops its own standard for a given product and
justifies that standard for safety or interoperability reasons, and
forces all vendors to not only conform to that standard, but to be
tested for compliance, then domestic vendors that comply to that
standard, and which perhaps have priority for conformance testing, will
have a significant advantage.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Japan has been particularly guilty of this type of conduct to
wail off its domestic markets from foreign competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this reason, parties to the World Trade Organization are bound
by the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (ATBT),\2\ which bars
signatories from enforcing ``home grown'' standards and conformity
assessment requirements unless there is a valid justification for
diverging from an existing international standard. But not all nations
are members of the World Trade Organization (or were members of its
predecessor, GATT), and the ATBT is, in any event, of more recent
vintage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade can be downloaded
at http://www.wto.org/english/docs-e/legal-e/17-
tbt.pdf. The WTO maintains a general resource page with additional
information and links at http://www.wto.org/english/
tratop-e/tbt-e/tbt-e.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consequently, before the European Union could achieve its goals,
these existing standards-based barriers to trade had to be dismantled,
which became a significant policy objective. Achieving that goal helped
the EU become what it is today--one of the largest marketplaces in the
world, and a much more formidable competitor.
In addition to breaking down these domestic barriers, European
nations also created a number of important and influential regional
standards organizations, such as the European Computer Manufacturers
Association (ECMA), the European Committee on Electrotechnical
Standardization (CENELEC), the European Association of Aerospace
Industries (AECMA), and the European Telecommunications Standards
Institute (ETSI), among others.\3\ While some of these organizations
are now open to a global membership, they have helped European
competitors work together to create standards that meet European
priorities and strengths. These organizations are given deference by EU
nations and EU agencies, and in some instances have been created in
collaboration with EU authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A partial list can be found here: http://
www.consortiuminfo.org/links/linkscats.php?ID=35#E
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in my testimony, in areas such as aerospace, U.S.
manufacturers have expressed dismay at the impact on their own fortunes
of the resulting passage of influence in standard setting from the U.S.
to Europe. One need only look to the post-war rise of Airbus, which
relies on widely distributed manufacturing across the EU of the
components of aircraft--a totally standards dependent exercise--and the
difficulties recently encountered by Boeing when it attempted the same
manufacturing strategy in constructing its new 767 ``Dreamliner''
aircraft to see why this is of concern.
Europe's sophistication in standards has also allowed it to out-
innovate and outcompete with the U.S. in non-commercial but equally
important areas, such as achieving transparency and interactivity in
government. In that regard, the European Interoperability Framework for
pan-European eGovernment Services (EIF), which seeks to achieve data
interoperability across the EU as well as affordable, accessible access
by its citizens to EU information, is especially instructive. That
document has been evolving over more than a decade, and could well
serve as a model for the U.S. to emulate.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The home page for the ElF can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/
idabc/en/document/2319/5644
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
China: The motivations in China have been quite different.
Notwithstanding its accession to the World Trade Organization, China
has followed an aggressive campaign to develop ``home grown''
standards, in part because of the enormously larger number of patents
owned by foreign companies in comparison to Chinese vendors. When
standards are created that infringe upon patents, the owners of those
patents sometimes require the payment of royalties for the privilege of
conforming to the standard in question.
Since conformance with interoperability standards (in particular)
represents a precondition to accessing global markets, such patents can
therefore become very significant to trade. And where the majority of
the patents of importance in a given industry are owned by a limited
number of players, each of which has negotiated patent cross licenses
with the others (which may reduce, or even eliminate, the payment of
standard-related royalties among them), a, nation like China can find
itself at an extreme economic disadvantage.
The result is that in the case of, for example, DVD players, many
millions of devices are made in China that are then rebranded and sold
by western, patent-owning companies. The Chinese manufacturer may make
only a few pennies on each sale to the foreign customer, while that
company makes a handsome per-device profit at retail. Worse yet, since
the same foreign companies have also filed patents in China, Chinese
manufacturers may only be able to make pennies on sales within their
own country, after paying significant royalties to foreign patent
owners.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ I explain this situation in much greater depth in Government
Policy and ``Standards-Based Ne-Colonialism,''Standards Today, Vol. VI
No. 7 (August-September, 2007) at http://www.consortiuminfo.org/
bulletins/aug07.php#feature
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not surprisingly, Chinese companies, as well as the Chinese
government, are very unhappy about this situation. In response, China
is creating standards of its own in areas such as cellular phones,
wireless devices, document formats and more. In each case, the
standards are designed to avoid infringing foreign patents, while
reliably infringing Chinese-owned, royalty-bearing patents. This
practice has already resulted in trade disputes between the U.S. and
China, and doubtless will do so again in the future, if China is not
brought into the fold of international standardization.
China is using standards, therefore, to foster both competitiveness
(to erect trade barriers) as well as innovation (to create incentives
to innovate by opening up greater profit opportunities than would have
existed if manufacturing was constrained by foreign origin, patent-
restricted standards).
Q1b. Is the United States at a disadvantage because we do not have
such a formal integration of technical standards strategy into our
national strategies on innovation and competition?
A1b. Up until now, I would say that the answer (the aerospace industry
aside) has largely been no. But I believe that this is now changing in
important areas, due to several factors:
Complexity of challenges: As developed at length in
my main testimony, the Smart Grid and Electronic Health Records
will not be the last areas in which the existing infrastructure
is not up to the challenge of quickly creating complex
frameworks of standards. Happily, the U.S. government has
stepped in creatively, via NIST, to address these needs. But
this was in part because a new administration acted forcefully
and rapidly. Were it not for the fact that the Obama
administration was motivated to solve budget problems and
create jobs through supporting these programs, it might easily
have stood aside. Had that been the case, each of these
initiatives might have been pursued more effectively.
The result would have been that foreign vendors in a variety
of industries would have had a significant advantage, as smart
grids and EHRs were developed, tested and deployed abroad. By
the time the United States inevitably faced up to the need of
following in the same direction, foreign competitors would
already be well ahead of it in areas such as software,
intelligent meters, and much more.
Protectionism: As noted earlier, China is using
``home grown'' standards as a way to create greater
opportunities for its own manufacturers to dominate in domestic
markets. This has happened before, as was the case when China
created its own wireless security standard, in contrast to the
WiFi standards adopted elsewhere in the world. Only after a
variety of semiconductor manufacturers, including U.S.-based
Texas Instruments and Intel, announced that they would no
longer sell wireless chips in China and took the matter to
Washington was the matter (temporarily) resolved--through
direct intervention by the Secretary of State Colin Powell.
If the U.S. government had been more engaged in the
standards area, this situation might have been defused and
resolved behind the scenes, rather than escalating (it
continues to fester today). Moreover, the Chinese policy of
creating home grown standards might not have continued to gain
steam.
Opportunity: It is universally acknowledged that
standards create new markets for products and innovation.
Technologies such as the Internet, Web, music media,
telecommunications, Smart Grids, and much more simply would not
exist without standards. By identifying new standards-dependent
opportunities in areas such as clean technology and the
Internet and then supporting the creation and uptake of the
standards needed to make those technologies possible, the U.S.
could help jump start jobs creation and sales in those areas by
U.S. companies.
I hope that the above proves to be useful, and would be happy to
answer further questions, either by phone or in writing.
Appendix 2:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Statement of Vinton G. Cerf, Ph.D.
Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google
Thank you Chairman Wu, Ranking Member Adrian Smith and members of
the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify before you, in writing,
on the planned NIST Organizational Realignment and its effect, and the
potential role NIST can play in the inter-agency coordination of
national and international documentary standards development and
adoption. I regret that my calendar commitments conflicted with your
kind invitation to testify in person and I hope that you will accept my
sincere offer to meet with staff and members at a time of mutual
convenience if this will contribute to achieving your legislative and
policy objectives.
My name is Vinton G. Cerf and I have served since October 2005 as
Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist of Google. With Robert
Kahn, I am the co-inventor of the Internet's architecture and
fundamental TCP/IP protocols. My career has centered on computers and
communications including work at UCLA, IBM, Stanford University, MCI,
the Corporation for National Research Initiatives, and the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency. I was a founder of the Internet
Society and its first president and served as chairman of the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) for seven years. I
served on the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee
during the Clinton administration. I have been active in technology
standards in the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force
(IRTF). For our Internet work, Robert Kahn and I have received many
awards and citations including the U.S. National Medal of Technology
and the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom. I began service on the
Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology in 2007, served as its Vice
Chair in 2008-09 and was elected Chairman in 2010.
I have had the benefit of reading a draft of the testimony of Dr.
James Serum who has also been asked to testify before this
subcommittee. In consequence of this, I will attempt in this written
submission to avoid duplication and seek to amplify his remarks where
this seems warranted and draw attention to additional points that seem
of interest to the subcommittee. While these remarks should be
understood to be personal, I intend to draw also upon the recently
submitted 2009 Annual Report of the VCAT to the Secretary of Commerce.
Purpose and Effect of the NIST Realignment
Upon assuming the role of Deputy Director and Acting Director of
NIST, Dr. Patrick Gallagher undertook to organize the top management of
NIST so as to reduce the number of direct reports to the Director and
to improve top management's attention to the needs of the operating
units and programs undertaken by NIST. He was able to delegate
responsibility, within the limits of his existing authority, for
coordination of the laboratory programs, extramural programs and
administrative and management programs to three top-level managers. In
its most recent incarnation, the new structure would elevate each of
the three to associate directorships, replacing the earlier single
deputy director position. The VCAT strongly endorsed this aspect of
reorganization. I was strongly persuaded of the value of this proposal
on the grounds that this would increase management attention in each of
the three areas, improving planning, execution and, importantly,
integrated oversight of priorities across the organization.
Upon his nomination and confirmation as Director of NIST, an action
very strongly endorsed by the full VCAT, Dr. Gallagher undertook to
begin a deeper re-examination of the structure of the laboratory and
center programs. This was no simple task as the demands on NIST are
extraordinarily diverse. There are efforts mandated by the Congress,
such as the role NIST plays in Cyber-Security and Smart Grid standards;
there are requests from industry for development of standards to
enhance commerce and interoperability; there are requests or proposals
from the research world to collaborate on basic and applied efforts to
enhance the NIST metrology capabilities; and there are programs
initiated at NIST in anticipation of need. The consideration of
biological effects of nano materials is a good example of this kind of
foresighted initiative.
The VCAT has reviewed the process by which NIST management,
including the laboratory and center leadership will evaluate
alternative organizational structures. As is pointed out by my
colleague and former VCAT chairman, Dr. James Serum, there are a
variety of alternative organizational structures, each with strengths
and weaknesses. It is to his credit that Dr. Gallagher did not simply
dictate a choice, but, rather, put into place a wide-ranging discussion
that reaches into and outside of the N1ST organization for inputs and
insights. I agree with Dr. Serum that combining the standards and
technology development within each general laboratory entity has strong
benefits. The primary role of NIST is measurement and this often
requires research and experimentation into new technology and even
fundamental physics. Standards coordination and development may also
hinge on laboratory-oriented work so making an organizational unit
accountable for the science and technology needed for standards work
creates incentive for mutual reinforcement.
It has become apparent that the needs expressed by NIST's
constituencies, including the Congress, private sector and other U.S.
Government agencies, manifest as requirements that cross laboratory
boundaries. One proposed restructuring of the laboratory program into
Physical Measurement, Material Measurement, Engineering and Information
Technology has the benefit of a thematic alignment within each
laboratory and opportunity for better inter-disciplinary collaboration.
The NIST Associate Director for Laboratory Programs and the Laboratory
heads would be responsible for assuring that tasks requiring inter-
laboratory cooperation and resources are properly addressed.
Accountability and clarity of mission in this structure will be the key
to its success and it seems evident that this is well understood by the
NIST top management team.
Future Role in International Standards and Federal Agency Coordination
It has become increasingly evident that the United States faces
rising competition in manufacturing, outsourcing of information
technology services, high technology consumer goods and standards-
making initiatives. Countries that had been followers of American or
European-led standards are not only capable of but are actively
pursuing the creation of standards. In some countries, the domestic
market is large enough to justify the establishment of domestic
standards that can, by virtue of their role in the export markets,
become de facto international standards. Apart from this potential, the
high population countries (e.g. China and India) are literally in a
position to participate in international standards forums in
overwhelming numbers. To the extent that American products and services
must compete in an international marketplace, standards are critical
for interoperability and compatibility with business and consumer
needs. Coordination of documentary standards development and
application for domestic and international use is therefore of
strategic importance.
NIST has been assigned responsibility in varying degrees and ways
for cyber-security, health information technology and smart grid
documentary standards in addition to other standards work in non-IT
areas. On the international front, the U.S. State Department has formal
responsibility for coordinating U.S. positions in treaty-based
standards organizations such as the International Telecommunications
Union (ITU). In the private sector, the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) coordinates private sector and government inputs into
a broad spectrum of national and international standards. ANSI
represents U.S. interest in the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO). There are other organizations that produce
standards relevant to U.S. interests, notably the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF) that is international in scope and participation.
Standards have become vital to the production of interoperable,
competitive products and services. In an international setting, the
U.S. Government has an interest in and responsibility for adopting
technical standards policies that are favorable to international trade
and U.S. private sector access to international markets. It is self-
evident that coherent inter-agency standards positions will serve U.S.
interests better than an uncoordinated approach. Moreover, to the
extent that private sector competitors outside the U.S. seek to meet
domestic business and consumer needs, it is vital that standards be
developed and adopted that protect both the private sector and U.S.
Government users of such products and services. As is well expressed in
Dr. Serum's testimony, NIST is well equipped to serve as the primary
coordinator for the development of U.S. Government positions on
documentary standards. The VCAT strongly endorsed this recommendation.
Other Observations
I note that Dr. Serum mentions the potential elevation of the NEST
Director to Undersecretary. Given the extraordinary mandates
historically and especially, recently, assigned to NIST, this elevation
would be particularly beneficial to the success of an enhanced role for
NIST in facilitating domestic and international standards development
and coordinating inter-agency standards policies. Given the
increasingly important role for technology in America's domestic and
international enterprise, it seems timely to re-establish an
Undersecretary position that would have responsibility for technology
and standards-related issues within the Department of Commerce. Like my
colleague, Dr. Serum, my only reservation is whether the combined role
of Undersecretary and Director of NIST would have a material effect on
the ability of one individual to service both roles. With the right
organizational infrastructure in place, it would seem feasible.
I also join Dr. Serum in reiterating the VCAT's very strong support
for Dr. Gallagher in his role as Director of NIST. He has demonstrated
a remarkable range of scope and depth in his short tenure in this
position. In addition to his technical qualifications, he has shown a
considerable degree of creativity in his approach to management,
priority-setting and organizational structure. I am confident in Dr.
Gallagher's leadership and very much looking forward to the work that
lies ahead for the VCAT in supporting the work of NIST.
Biography for Vinton G. Cerf
Vinton G. Cerf has served as Vice President and Chief Internet
Evangelist for Google since October 2005. In this role, he is
responsible for identifying new enabling technologies to support the
development of advanced, Internet-based products and services from
Google. Cerf is the former senior vice president of Technology Strategy
and Architecture and Technology for MCI. Widely known as one of the
``Fathers of the Internet,'' Cerf is the co-designer of the TCP/IP
protocols and the architecture of the Internet. In December 1997,
President Clinton presented the U.S. National Medal of Technology to
Cerf and his colleague, Robert E. Kahn, for founding and developing the
Internet. Kahn and Cerf were named the recipients of the ACM Alan M.
Turing award in 2004 for their work on the Internet protocols. The
Turing award is sometimes called the ``Nobel Prize of Computer
Science.'' In November 2005, President George Bush awarded Cerf and
Kahn the Presidential Medal of Freedom for their work. The medal is the
highest civilian award given by the United States to its citizens. In
April 2008, Cerf and Kahn received the prestigious Japan Prize.
Prior to rejoining MCI in 1994, Cerf was vice president of the
Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI). As vice president
of MCI Digital Information Services from 1982-1986, he led the
engineering of MCI Mail, the first commercial e-mail service to be
connected to the Internet. During his tenure from 1976-82 with the U.S.
Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Cerf
played a key role leading the development of Internet and Internet-
related packet data and security technologies. Cerf also holds an
appointment as distinguished visiting scientist at the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory where he is working on the design of an interplanetary
Internet.
Vint Cerf served as chairman of the board of the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) from 2000-2007. Cerf
also served as founding president of the Internet Society from 1992-95
and in 1999 served a term as chairman of the Board. Cerf served as a
member of the U.S. Presidential Information Technology Advisory
Committee (PITAC) from 1997 to 2001 and serves on several national,
state and industry committees focused on cyber-security. Cerf sits on
the Board of Directors for the Endowment for Excellence in Education,
the Jet Propulsion Laboratory Advisory Committee and serves as Chair of
the Visitors Committee on Advanced Technology of the U.S. National
Institute of Standards and Technology. He also serves as 1st Vice
President and Treasurer of the National Science & Technology Medals
Foundation. Cerf is a Fellow of the IEEE, ACM, and American Association
for the Advancement of Science, the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences, the International Engineering Consortium, the Computer
History Museum, the Annenberg Center for Communications at USC, the
Swedish Royal Academy of Engineering, the American Philosophical
Society and the U.S. National Academy of Engineering.
Cerf is a recipient of numerous awards and commendations in
connection with his work on the Internet. These include the Marconi
Fellowship, Charles Stark Draper award of the National Academy of
Engineering, the Prince of Asturias award for science and technology,
the National Medal of Science from Tunisia, the St. Cyril and St.
Methodius Order (Grand Cross) of Bulgaria, the Alexander Graham Bell
Award presented by the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf,
the NEC Computer and Communications Prize, the Silver Medal of the
International Telecommunications Union, the IEEE Alexander Graham Bell
Medal, the IEEE Koji Kobayashi Award, the ACM Software and Systems
Award, the ACM SIGCOMM Award, the Computer and Communications
Industries Association Industry Legend Award, the Kilby Award , the
Rotary Club International Paul P. Harris Medal, the Joseph Priestley
Award from Dickinson College, the IEEE Third Millennium Medal, the
Computerworld/Smithsonian Leadership Award and the Library of Congress
Bicentennial Living Legend medal. Cerf was inducted into the National
Inventors Hall of Fame in May 2006. He was made an Eminent Member of
the IEEE Eta Kappa Nu (HKN) honor society of the IEEE in 2009.
In December, 1994, People magazine identified Cerf as one of that
year's ``25 Most Intriguing People.''
Cerf holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics from
Stanford University and Master of Science and Ph.D. degrees in Computer
Science from UCLA and eighteen honorary degrees.
His personal interests include fine wine, gourmet cooking and
science fiction. Cerf and his wife, Sigrid, were married in 1966 and
have two sons, David and Bennett.