<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"As you might expect, corporations have wishlists for Washington progress, we simply don't get to read them too often. This week the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) published a list of legislative goals for the newly sworn in 113th Congress.\r\n\r\nIt's surprisingly lengthy, and detailed. Even more, it's a generally strong list of requests that if passed would likely both unlock new growth in the technology sector and the larger U.S. economy as a whole. Given that it contains a number of key policy requests, we'll approach it in tranches.\r\n\r\nNow, does the ITI matter? If it represented a group of yahoos without clout, it would not. However, it is instead built of\u00A0key firms that are foundational to the technology industry. The full list can be found here, but ITI\u00A0counts\u00A0Adobe, AMD, AOL, Apple, and AutoDesk, and others as\u00A0members. And those just from the 'A' section. To work:\r\nTaxes\r\nGiven the furor that exists over the ability of technology companies to dodge taxes, perhaps using the storied Double Irish\u00A0arrangement, \u00A0government fees for profit are a hot topic at the moment. Here's the memo on the issue [Formatting kept consistent with original in all quotes]:\r\nNo issue can better align the U.S. tech industry with U.S. economic growth and competitiveness more than\u00A0modernizing the antiquated U.S. corporate tax system\u00A0to attract and retain domestic investment and generate new businesses and jobs.\u00A0 Our key priorities will be to adopt a competitive market-based/territorial system, reduce the corporate tax rate, and establish permanent investment incentives, including the research and development (R&amp;amp;amp;D) tax credit.\r\nThis is simple: technology companies want tax breaks for research and development to be made permanent, and for the corporate tax code to be overhauled to remove a system of corporate welfare at the expense of other industries. I'll let that irony sit. Apple et al would also love a tax holiday to bring cash kept abroad to the United States.\r\nImmigration\r\nTNW has written extensively on the issue of so-called 'STEM' immigration, or the\u00A0admittance\u00A0of folks with advanced degrees in science,\u00A0technology, engineering, and\u00A0mathematics. There is bipartisan support for the issue in Congress, however, wrangling over the unrelated Green Card Lottery left our legislative bodies in a bind. To the memo:\r\nWe also have renewed hope that 2013 will be the year we enact\u00A0bipartisan high-skilled immigration reform.\u00A0 The evidence is overwhelming that if our economy is to flourish in the near and long term, we need to continue to develop and attract talented entrepreneurs and innovators.\r\nThe document goes on to make generic references to improving our internal education along STEM lines, as you might expect.\r\nPrivacy\r\nThis is where things become more interesting. What might one of the largest industry groups in technology say on privacy from a policy perspective?\r\nThat is why, when it comes to\u00A0consumer privacy, continued work between Congress and our industry is needed to educate consumers on how data are used and stored, how consumers can protect themselves when sharing data online, and in developing industry practices to provide transparent information to consumers.\u00A0 This shared vigilance by industry and government will benefit the public without stifling innovation.\r\nThis is vague, and doesn't put the group on one side or another of any key issue, merely that the ITI will support what might be viewed as reasonable policy. Given the diversity of its client base, the ITI can hardly speak overly specifically, as its constituents could land on opposing sides of\u00A0nearly any major privacy issue.\r\nInternet Freedom\r\nFinally, we turn to the issue of Internet regulation, and hopefully the idea that less is best in this case:\r\nThe longstanding approach to\u00A0Internet governance\u00A0also requires private-public vigilance, especially given the divisive outcome of the December 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai.\u00A0 A longer-term effort involving industry and like-minded policymakers with the U.S. and other governments is needed to ensure that Internet governance and related standards and cybersecurity continue to benefit all Internet users.\r\nNoting that the conference in Dubai was 'divisive' is a good sign, as much of what was proposed at the congregation was dangerous and leaning towards giving autocratic regimes more control of the flow of information among their population. Also, the nod at cybersecurity is a positive, as the language stating that the US government must ensure that new regulation relating to digital security must be beneficial to not just the government and the security of its agencies, but also the average Internet user.\r\n\r\nIt's heartening to see key technology companies employing such a large megaphone, aimed directly at the new Congress. Perhaps this time we'll manage real progress across a number of key policy areas. However, as always with this sort of thing, don't get your hopes up.\r\n\r\nTop Image Credit:\u00A0Ivan Bandura"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://thenextweb.com/us/2013/01/10/trade-group-iti-which-counts-apple-google-as-members-pushes-for-tax-immigration-privacy-progress/>