[ad_1]
“Think Community Garden”Australian National University Protecting the tech ecosystem Report (Report) Begins. Superintendent: Gardeners draw on the trend of eliminating harmful practices by fostering innovation and growth among different technologies. Landscaping architects (politicians and policymakers) set gardeners’ tools and boundaries. Drought and flooding (technology disruption) are widespread.
The ANU Tech Policy Design Center’s report from this metaphor gives a surprisingly realistic answer to that important question: How to adjust the technological ecology?
According to the proposed technology policy and regulation coordination table (TPRC) Model shows: It is complex.
The complexity is partly due to the deep design process. The report’s TPRC model seeks to incorporate common trends from 32 stakeholders, regulators, government, industry and society. When you ask a lot of people, don’t expect an easy answer!
Above all, the complexity of the report reflects the broad aspirations in the design “Reward innovations, accelerate economic growth, strengthen democracy, strengthen national security…[and] መስጠት Respond to political leadership calls, coordinate, increase transparency, gain independent technical knowledge.
To achieve all of those goals and to incorporate all of those perspectives, the TPRC model is multi-faceted to facilitate the coordination of a specialist cabinet committee, expert advisory panel, and stakeholders. Each of these proposed bodies is central to the report’s control response and reflects a lack of support for a central super-supervisor. Instead, stakeholders have argued for the development and better coordination of existing regulators – in a new, more formal direction and prioritizing policy-making and political processes.
The TPRC model solves four key challenges in technology control, coordination and processing; Skills and knowledge; Political participation; And industry participation. Addressing these challenges will help you understand how the TPRC model works with the set of consultants and decision makers described above and how they should work with each other in the model.
1. Coordination and process
“My general view is that we don’t need a new or mixed technology controller. We just want existing supervisors to do their job efficiently. – Idea leader
Technology regulation is multifaceted and economical and cannot be limited to specialized sectors. Therefore, effective regulation requires existing stakeholders to come together to discuss technology-related issues and to avoid duplication.
Australia’s technology ecosystem is currently involved in a number of mandates (eg ACCC, ACMA, APRA, ASIC) as well as illegal fora, such as the recently formed ACCC Digital Forum Supervisors, ACMA, the Australian Information Commissioner’s Office and e-Security Commissioner, and a number of independent agencies. Independent law enforcement officers and boards are increasingly facing digital issues in Beliv. Lack of coordination between sectors and regulators results in scattered control results, duplication and inconsistencies.
To address this challenge, the TPRC model includes a technology policy and regulatory secretariat that has manpower, resources, and legal authority to play a coordinated and supportive role between government and private stakeholders, and a record of planned and approved technology policies. And regulation. Incorporating this Secretariat into the TPRC model recognizes the importance of staying with stakeholders. “Special Roles ይሰጣል Provides Important Check and Balance”.
The office ensures that continuous interaction between stakeholders is part of the normal regulatory process and solves the practical challenge of mobilizing multiple regulatory and government representatives. As the digital transformation is blurring and undergoing economic impact, it will ensure more informed and streamlined control results to better serve the technology ecosystem and civil society.
2. Skills and abilities
If you do not have in-depth knowledge of the domain, there is no way to understand how the technology industry thinks, what the real limitations are, or how to do it. – Lead Supervisor
Effective regulation requires regulators and policymakers to have the right skills and sufficient resources to make policy decisions on behalf of the technology industry. Therefore, developing existing controllers raises two key questions: What skills or characteristics should existing technology controllers have and how can existing controllers be equipped?
The report identifies in-depth knowledge of business models and the incentives of technology companies as effective monitoring as needed. Good technology regulation requires an understanding of the scope, benefits and risks of the technology that governs the industry and technology.
Stakeholders identified several additional characteristics critical to effective technology control – diversity of multidisciplinary skills; Analytical thinking; A set of control tools focused on outcomes; And basic digital literacy, among others. The report also recognizes the need for independent and objective technical knowledge and information.
However, the practical realities of equipping every controller in the technology ecosystem with these capabilities requires costly, time-consuming and constant improvements to remain relevant in a dynamic industry. Every supervisor needs a good line of digital skills, but sometimes they do not have the depth of expertise needed to solve digital issues within their authority.
The TPRC model seeks to solve this test through the Technical Policy and Supervisor Expert Advisory Panel. The panel is an independent body that can feed the knowledge, information and advice of Australian and international experts to the needs of technology regulators. The panel has overcome the challenges posed by the dynamic nature of the tech industry and the need to ensure the exchange of knowledge. Facilitating temporary access to specialized knowledge, combined with digital literacy standards, will give regulators a better understanding of that control industry.
3. Political participation
Supervisors should not issue policies outside of democratic processes… [otherwise] It is inevitable that it will deviate from the expectations of the community and disrupt the necessary administrative processes. The community’s trust in regulators is very important. – Senior Government Servant
Independent regulators are an important part of our democratic process. But what is acceptable is that supervisors ‘should not implement the policy.’ The TPRC model seeks to implement this maximum through the Technical Policy and Regulation Coordinating Cabinet Committee and Council – representing the new standard overlapping on existing regulators, at the highest government level.
The Cabinet facilitates active political leadership throughout the regulation process, including setting priorities and implementing regulations through quarterly meetings of ministers involved in technology policy and regulation. In the new model of control, political participation is the key to implementing technology policy priorities and ensuring that the necessary regulations are enacted.
Proper support for the democratic process should include representatives who give priority to control, rather than independent regulators. Digital transformation is at the heart of our future economic, social and democratic process. Beyond the “static” economic regulation, an effective regulatory process requires the participation and input of regulators and government bodies.
The role of the council under the Cabinet Committee includes regulators and key policy makers. Its role is to develop improved coordination and cooperation in designing and implementing technology policies and regulations. This does not interfere with the current powers of policymakers or regulators, but encourages open communication between participants in the Technology Regulation to promote a consistent approach and inform policy decisions. It provides an opportunity to educate policymakers and ensure that different perspectives inform decision-making. Policymakers and supervisors can review what they have learned from this collaboration at monthly Technology Policy and Control Board meetings.
4. Industrial participation
“There is a perception that intimacy with the industry is a bad thing. – Industrial Executive
It is important to engage with industry stakeholders when developing a technology regulation. The report recognizes a clear cognitive similarity between ‘supervisors’ and ‘under control’. Stakeholders point out that there is a clear lack of industry participation in the discussion of technology regulation. A call was made. A more sustainable way for industry to enable policymakers and regulators to develop experience Or a non-competitive platform to facilitate knowledge sharing between regulators and industry.
The TPRC model responds to these calls through a technical policy and regulatory forum that engages in meaningful discussions on industry, civil society and consumer control issues. This forum ensures that different perspectives are taken into account in the regulatory process and that the impact of the regulation on the ecology can be considered in the future.
Conclusion
Therefore, the transparency and complexity of the TPRC model makes sense. Divided management models, such as the TPRC model, may seem difficult to manage with a simple ‘super controller’ solution (both new controller and existing controller with extensive description).
The TPRC model recognizes that digital transformation has penetrated both government and regulatory spheres, and that our focus on digital transformation at the highest levels of government is outdated.
During the Stage 2 consultation, the TPRC model is being tested with stakeholders. See the ANU News Report for more information.
[ad_2]
Source link
