High-Tech Think Tank Tackles ‘IT Revolution’

ITIF will provide expert analysis and education on tech issues, which its founders say is lacking in D.C. Working across govt., ITIF will publish policy reports, hold debates, advise decision makers and be an active media resource, the group said. The foundation will develop proposals to advance innovation, analyze issues and work to change policies and proposals that hinder innovation.

High-tech trade groups are plentiful, and likely to see consolidation in coming years, but there aren’t many “pro- growth, pro-innovation” policy-oriented players, Atkinson told us. And single-issue groups usually approach topics from a “how do we regulate it or stop it and keep it constricted” viewpoint, he said: “I don’t think there are many out there saying that the IT revolution is the most important thing going on in the economy now.”

The foundation is starting off small but has high hopes. Atkinson is working solo, but expects to hire a few staffers soon. ITI has offered in-kind contributions, like office space and accounting services, he said. ITI and ITIF, not “joined at the hip,” aren’t separate either, he said: “Some synergies will occur.” Meantime, the foundation is awaiting approval of 501(c)(3) status and building what it hopes will be “a pretty high-powered board,” given its initial members - - Dunn, Dooley, ITI Pres. Rhett Dawson and George Mason U. Prof. David Hart. Atkinson will recruit top academics and former govt. officials attuned to the high-tech economy’s challenges and opportunities.

The group will touch on technology topics but it’s “hard to say exactly what issues we'll be looking at” as yet, said Atkinson. The competitiveness debate as currently framed is too narrow, he told us. “There’s this assumption in D.C. that if we just boost federal support for science and math funding [sic] everything should be fine. That’s way too limited,” Atkinson said: “This is much more serious.” A matter needing more attention is R&D tax credit reform, he said: “We need to think about tax reform. That debate’s not happening yet.”

The time is right for forward-thinking high-tech policy conversations, Atkinson said. “The last time we had this level of focus and attention from the president through Congress through Washington was in the late 80s and early 90s,” when global competition wasn’t as worrisome, he said. There’s a far broader understanding today that other countries can give the U.S. a run for its high-tech preeminence, he said. Atkinson isn’t sure if major policy efforts, like a trio of bills comprising the Protecting America’s Competitive Edge (PACE) Act, will pass before Congress adjourns but “we have a better shot than we've had before,” he said.

Reforming e-govt. is a major issue for Atkinson. A paper he'll soon release under the ITIF banner calls for “a fairly radical overhaul” of e-govt. at the federal, state and local tiers. E-govt. initiatives have stalled or don’t work right, he said. “We've made progress in silos” but outreach to the private and nonprofit sectors could break down barriers built by govt. stovepiping, he said. ITIF also hopes to be a new voice in the broadband policy debate. “There’s sort of almost unanimity of thought about broadband -- that more competitors are better -- and I'm not sure that’s true,” he said. Telecom and cable companies are expected to invest billions to build duplicative networks, but then new players enter the market and carriers’ customer numbers and revenue drop, Atkinson said: “There are benefits [to competition] but the debate is not taking into consideration that are real some costs as well.”

One high-tech policy player told us that, even in light of Atkinson’s solid reputation, he’s dismayed by ITIF’s self- characterization as a think tank since it’s being bankrolled by ITI, which represents Apple, Cisco, Dell, IBM, Microsoft, Sony and other commercial interests. “That’s not to say they won’t produce some compelling papers. It’s just frustrating when people throw that term around when they are directly affiliated with and funded by a lobbying organization,” he said. Another source predicted ITIF’s main challenge will be differentiating itself from the Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) and the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT).

Dawson called the foundation’s affiliation with ITI a “marriage of convenience.” “For an industry that is driving productivity in the digital economy and contributing what it does for GDP, we do not have a place that will go and think about [pressing policy issues],” he said. The group’s aim isn’t to add to the “alphabet soup” of high-tech groups, Dawson said: “There’s plenty of confusion about who does what, but this is not another trade group.” Atkinson was the “standout choice” to lead ITIF, Dawson said. When it came to candidates, “there was a list of one,” he said.

Tech-friendly lawmakers lauded ITIF’s creation. The U.S. can’t assume innovation and productivity growth “will just continue to happen,” Sen. Hatch (R-Utah) said: “Any solution to our enormous entitlement problem will include boosting productivity growth, and I suspect that many of the ideas on how to achieve this will eventually come from ITIF.” Sen. Lieberman (D-Conn.) said the foundation soon will find its place amid the “important national effort underway to assure the future economic competitiveness of America.” Reps. Upton (R-Mich.) and Smith (D-Wash.) also cheered its launch.