Cataloging the breadth and scope of departmental and agency efforts to engage in multiple issues and institutions (including identifying ICANN, IGF, IETF among others as important), it paints a picture of a government struggling to identify a cohesive strategic approach to Internet governance.
Particularly interesting are:
- A conclusion stating an almost critical need to increase coordination among agencies in response to global security incidents, yet "several agencies stated a single authoritative...response organization would not be appropriate" (36) The USG obviously hasn't completely come to grips with the paradox of distributed governance in a global network.
- A recognition that mandatory standards to improve the security of USG systems may risk creating cybersecurity-related trade barriers. (35) A poster child for this issue going forward is the mandating of DNSSEC and potentially securing Internet routing, and the response it engenders from other parts of the world, e.g., pressure to integrate competing crypto algorithms.
- The recognition of the importance of defining norms (38), although the report fails to identify basic human rights (privacy, freedom of expression), multi-stakeholder participation, or institutional accountability as the emerging predominant frames in fora like the IGF and ICANN - instead focusing on discussion about the appropriateness of "use of force" in response to cyber attacks.

