LOS ANGELES – 18 January 2018 – The Internet Corporation for Assigned Name and Numbers (ICANN) published the results of an annual survey that measures the perception of satisfaction among Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions customers regarding the services they receive. This survey is the first completed since the ICANN organization affiliate Public Technical Identifiers (PTI) started performing IANA functions on behalf of the ICANN org and accounts for transactions completed between September 2016 and August 2017.
The IANA Services Customer Survey measured satisfaction in relation to documentation quality, process quality, transparency, timeliness, accuracy, reporting, and courtesy. In the 2017 survey, customers identified accuracy as the most important measure of performance for the fifth consecutive year. Notably, 94 percent of respondents reported being satisfied with the accuracy of their transactions. Timeliness and process quality, were identified as the second and third most important measures by customers, both stayed consistent with the previous year with 89 percent satisfaction.
View the IANA Services Customer Satisfaction Survey Report [PDF, 1.33 MB].
While the results of the survey are generally positive, the ICANN org continues to explore opportunities for improvement, including on the survey format and methodology. In response to conversations with key stakeholders within the community, an option to select “not applicable” was added to each question in the survey and open-ended questions were introduced to better capture feedback. There were also improvements to capture the geographical location of the IANA functions customers, and to further segment the top-level domain (TLD) operators.
“Over the years we have refined our approach to surveying our customers, and we’ve received increasing feedback that it can be difficult to recall the details of their PTI interactions up to a year later. This feedback has prompted us to start planning to survey our customers shortly after our interactions, to obtain more timely and actionable feedback,” said Kim Davies, Vice President of IANA and President, PTI.
The ICANN org commissioned Ebiquity, a leading independent marketing and media consultancy, to administer the survey, analyze the results and compile an independent third-party report, to keep with PTI’s goal to improve transparency in its processes. This year, Ebiquity issued 4,070 invitations during the survey period to IANA functions customers — top-level domain operators, regional Internet registries, RFC authors and other protocol parameter registrants, Internet Engineering Steering Group members, DNSSEC KSK trusted community representatives, and .INT domain registrants — and 7 percent responded.
ICANN’s mission is to help ensure a stable, secure, and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you need to type an address – a name or a number – into your computer or other device. That address must be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with a community of participants from all over the world.
Read more here:: www.icann.org/news.rss
It seemed like quite the stunner: besieged mobile chipmaker Qualcomm promising this week that it could earn as much as $7.50 per share next year, almost twice what Wall Street expects. But dig into the numbers and the assumptions and the promises, and there may be less there than meets the eye.
Qualcomm CEO Steve Mollenkopf is already dancing as fast as he can. He has to revive the company’s core mobile business that has seen revenue shrink for three consecutive years. He’s also fighting off an unwanted $105 billion takeover from Broadcom and its hard charging CEO Hock Tan. Oh, and Mollenkopf still needs to close on Qualcomm’s own $47 billion acquisition of NXP Semiconductors, and all the while engaging in a fierce legal battle with Apple, once the company’s best customer.
So there was Mollenkopf, looking sharp in a navy suit and blue tie, perched on a high stool alongside his top lieutenants on Tuesday, appearing in a surprise, half hour video presentation to investors. The CEO promised Qualcomm would bring in $6.75 to $7.50 per share in adjusted profit in 2019 (versus the current average analyst forecast of just $3.77 according to FactSet), largely due to the coming adoption of the next generation of wireless technology known as 5G, he said.
“Qualcomm today is at an important inflection point. Think about a world in which everything is connected…This is the world of 5G, which will impact almost every facet of people’s lives,” Mollenkopf explained. “Only a small handful of companies invest in the R&D that enables each generation of mobile technology. As we did with 3G and 4G, Qualcomm has been leading the development of 5G.”
Get Data Sheet, Fortune’s technology newsletter.
The aggressive stance perked up investors. Qualcomm
with its shares gaining almost 5% in mid-day trading on Wednesday. But at $68.57, the stock remains slightly below Broadcom’s current $70 offer price. It’s hard to tease out just what the price level means-some investors could be discounting the takeover bid because it would take a long time to get antitrust approvals, while other may believe Qualcomm will successfully fend off the suitors and bring in the larger profits it is promising.
stock price has risen about 1% since the presentation.
And the unwanted suitor also issued its own response to the presentation by saying that Qualcomm management had “repeatedly overpromised and under-delivered” on past financial forecasts. “Qualcomm’s approach is a transparent attempt to sell a quick fix by the Qualcomm Board of Directors and management team and an obvious tactic to deny its own stockholders the opportunity to receive a compelling premium for their shares and significant upside potential in the combined company,” the company said in a statement.
When analysts dug into Qualcomm’s 2019 profit promise, however, they discovered that it relied on several key assumptions that had nothing to do with 5G.
First, about $1.50 per share relied on completing the acquisition of NXP, which sells chips to automakers and makers of connected gadgets in the Internet of Things market. Though European regulators where NXP is based are reportedly on the verge of approving the transaction, some NXP
stockholders have complained that Qualcomm’s $110 per share offer is too low and may have to be raised. If the deal doesn’t go through, Qualcomm said it could boost earnings per share via a massive stock buyback instead.
Analysts typically don’t include the profit contribution from a company being acquired until the deal is closed, so that component of Mollenkopf’s profit promise wasn’t really much of an upside surprise.
Another almost 60 cents would come from a new $1 billion cost-cutting program Mollenkopf unveiled on Tuesday without giving many details.
And, most uncertain of all, a final $1.50 to $2.25 would come from settling outstanding legal disputes with Apple
and another unidentified phonemaker. There has been no evidence that Apple is much interested in coming to the table without huge concessions from Qualcomm that may undermine its entire business of collecting royalties from licensing its technology to phonemakers, however.
Deduct those three less-than-definite components, and Qualcomm’s promise is equal to only about $3.18 per share in 2019, analyst Stacy Rasgon of Bernstein Research calculated–considerably less than Wall Street currently expects. That’s because Qualcomm may have to pay higher taxes under the new corporate tax rules adopted last year that limit the use of some kinds of international tax avoidance strategies. And Apple is likely to cut its purchases from Qualcomm further as it looks for alternative chip suppliers for the iPhone, Rasgon noted.
Even Qualcomm’s projected gains from 5G may be overly-optimistic, Tim Long, an analyst at BMO Capital wrote. “Management likely believes that the core mobile business will grow faster, but we are more cautious on 5G,” Long said in a report after the presentation. “Management expects (earnings per share) to grow at twice faster than revenues, though the company has struggled in the past growing EPS faster than sales.”
Qualcomm’s recent history doesn’t give investors much confidence, either, the analysts said. With the burgeoning legal battles over royalties paid by phonemakers and a slowing of sales growth of mobile phones, Qualcomm’s revenue has dropped from $26.5 billion and adjusted earnings per share of $5.27 at its peak in 2014 to $23.2 billion and $4.28 per share last year. Wall Street expects revenue to bottom out at $22.8 billion this year and then rebound to $23.4 billion next year, according to FactSet (not including the NXP deal, which would add another $9 billion or more of annual revenue). Adjusted earnings are forecast to hit a low of $3.48 this year and then rise to $3.77 in 2019.
But the fight with Broadcom, which has nominated its own slate of candidates for Qualcomm’s upcoming board election, seems to have lit a fire under underperforming Qualcomm, Nomura Instinet analyst Romit Shah noted.
“Qualcomm leadership is very smart, but over the last several years, the San Diego-based management team at times has been unassertive and complacent,” Shah wrote in a report on Tuesday. “Though now with Broadcom’s hostile takeover attempt analogous to a ‘gun to the head,’ we expect the company to more aggressively focus on driving shareholder value in order to remain a standalone franchise.”
Read more here:: fortune.com/tech/feed/
U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas J. Donohue on January 10, 2018, warned that “techlash” is a threat to prosperity in 2018. What was he getting at? A “backlash against major tech companies is gaining strength — both at home and abroad, and among consumers and governments alike.” “Techlash” is a shorthand reference to a variety of impulses by government and others to shape markets, services, and products; protect local interests; and step in early to prevent potential harm to competition or consumers.
These impulses lead to a variety of actions and legal standards that can slow or change the trajectory of innovations from artificial intelligence to the Internet of Things (IoT) to business process improvements. According to Mr. Donohue, “[w]e must be careful that this ‘techlash’ doesn’t result in broad regulatory overreach that stifles innovation and stops positive advancements in their tracks.” Here are a few examples of the challenges ahead:
- Global privacy and security regulations impose compliance obligations and erect barriers to the free flow of data, products, and services. Examples include the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), its Network Information Security Directive (NIS Directive), e-Privacy initiative, and a nascent effort on IoT certifications. “A growing number of countries are making it more expensive and time consuming, if not illegal, to transfer data overseas.”  China’s new cyber law “requires local and overseas firms to submit to security checks and store user data within the country.”  Such efforts may be intended to level the playing field with large U.S. technology companies, but whatever their impetus, they create enormous compliance costs and impediments to multinational operations.  Emerging regulation around the world may do more harm than good, particularly to U.S.-based organizations.
- Premature regulation and oversight drives up the costs of doing business, particularly for new entrants or disruptors. Government should act only when it has evidence of actual harms to consumers or competition and the benefits outweigh the costs. When government rushes in with a technical mandate, innovation suffers. Likewise, if the government demands business changes without evidence of anti-competitive effects, it distorts the marketplace. Premature regulations impose unnecessary compliance burdens, so governments should exercise “regulatory humility” and wait for experience and evidence.
- Unjustified class action litigation over technology strikes fear in the hearts of innovators. The growth of “no injury” lawsuits in targeting the technology sector likewise is a concern. Class action plaintiffs were quick to sue GM and Toyota after news reports of a vulnerability in Jeeps, and dozens of plaintiffs immediately sued Intel after chip processor vulnerabilities named Meltdown and Spectre were reported.  While courts have generally rejected suits based on “risk of hacking,”  plaintiffs continue to push these theories, along with novel “economic loss” claims from “overpaying for”  vulnerable devices. Legal uncertainty about such claims, and the rush to obtain damages awards and attorneys’ fees, threatens to increase costs and chills companies’ willingness to engage.
- State laws, such as those attempting to impose “net neutrality” and online privacy obligations at the state level, threaten to balkanize regulation of technology. “Lawmakers in at least six states, including California and New York, have introduced bills in recent weeks that would forbid internet providers to block or slow down sites or online services.”  State-by-state regulation of global ISP and carrier network practices is likely to create major inefficiencies. Likewise, state privacy laws create complexity for organizations whose operations, products, and customers cross state lines. Industry has decried “balkanized privacy regulation at the state level” which creates “a hazardous web of conflicting state-by-state laws for any company operating in the online space.” 
- Local barriers, like restrictive zoning regimes, stunt technology deployment and innovation. Tomorrow’s innovations in health care, transportation, conservation, entertainment, and more depend on a robust technology infrastructure, including telecommunications facilities.  But many local jurisdictions are hesitant to allow deployment in public rights-of-way, and others see the explosion of small cell telecommunications facilities as a revenue stream.  Local barriers to deployment will slow innovation in communications technology, which may make many communities, and the United States at large, less competitive in the global economy. This is particularly troubling as other countries, like Japan and South Korea, welcome the next generation of communications technology.
2018 will be an important year for global regulation of technology, as issues from privacy to cybersecurity to competition percolate in legislatures around the world. As we enter what some call the Fourth Industrial Revolution, governments have to consider their role in supporting innovation. Hopefully the United States continues to lead by example, resisting “techlash” with a light regulatory touch and a lot of humility. The United States likewise should urge other countries not to punish success, and instead let innovators — not regulators — create the future.
 Cross-Border Data Flows: Where Are the Barriers, and What Do They Cost? https://itif.org/publications/2017/05/01/cross-border-data-flows-where-are-barriers-and-what-do-they-cost
 T. Miles, U.S. asks China not to enforce cyber security law, Reuters (Sept. 26, 2017) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-cyber-trade/u-s-asks-china-not-to-enforce-cyber-security-law-idUSKCN1C11D1
 Ann M. Beauchesne, Megan Brown, Sean Heather, Principles for IoT Security; The IoT Revolution and Our Digital Security (Sept. 2017), https://www.uschamber.com/IoT-security
 See S. Czarnecki, Intel faces dozen class action lawsuits over chip flaws, https://www.prweek.com/article/1454201/intel-faces-dozen-class-action-lawsuits-chip-flaws (Jan. 10, 2018).
 Cahen v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. 16-15496 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2017) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7591856924921942948&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
 Id. While the court in Cahen found that the “economic loss theory is not credible, as the allegations that the vehicles are worth less are conclusory and unsupported by any facts,” a future Plaintiff may survive a motion to dismiss with stronger allegations.
 C. Kang, States Push Back After Net Neutrality Repeal, N.Y. Times (Jan. 11, 2018) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/technology/net-neutrality-states.html
 Et tu, California? ISP Privacy Bill Moving through the Legislature (June 21, 2017) https://www.ana.net/blogs/show/id/rr-blog-2017-06-et-tu-california
 Thomas K. Sawanobori & Paul V. Anuszkiewicz, CTIA, High Band Spectrum: The Key to Unlocking the Next Generation of Wireless, 1, (June 13, 2016), https://www.ctia.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/5g-high-band-white-paper.pdf
 See Jonathan Babcock, Joshua Turner, and Anna Gomez, 5G Deployment Faces Unique Challenges Across The US, Law360 (Aug. 1, 2017) https://www.law360.com/articles/950330/5g-deployment-faces-unique-challenges-across-the-us
Written by Megan L. Brown, Partner at Wiley Rein LLP
Follow CircleID on Twitter
Read more here:: feeds.circleid.com/cid_sections/blogs?format=xml
Trillium Secure, Inc. has announced the April deployment of SecureIoT in Tokyo, Japan. This represents the world’s first 24/7/365 connected car Cyber-Security as a Service (C-SaaS) platform. The project brings together strategic go-to-market partners including automotive manufacturers, electronic component suppliers, insurance providers and commercial fleet owners. Identical C-SaaS deployments are scheduled for North America and […]
The post World’s First Connected Car Cyber-Security Service appeared first on IoT – Internet of Things.
Read more here:: iot.do/feed
As per the report “Healthcare Cloud Computing Market By Service models, (Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS), Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS), Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) By Pricing models, (Spot pricing or subscription model, Pay-as-you-go model), Estimation & forecast, 2016 – 2024.” The global healthcare cloud computing market was valued at $4.9 billion in 2016, and is projected to reach $25.7 billion by 2024, growing at […]
Read more here:: iot.do/feed