Industry Comment Letter on European Commission Future Cyber Public-Private Partnerships

Friday, March 11, 2016 - 3:45pm

March 11, 2016


European Commission
DG Communication Networks, Content & Technology
Unit H4–Trust & Security
25 Avenue Beaulieu
Brussels 1049–Belgium

Dear Commission Members:

Our organizations, which represent nearly every sector of the U.S. economy, appreciate
the opportunity to comment on the European Commission’s (EC’s) request for stakeholders’
views on cybersecurity public-private partnerships. We represent many European firms that
have investments and operations in the United States and have been a steadfast supporter of the
transatlantic relationship. The benefits that flow from our two major economies are deeply
integrated and crucial to the health of the global economy.

Some of our associations have previously taken the opportunity to offer their perspectives
on the European Union’s (EU’s) Network and Information Security (NIS) Directive. We do not
attempt to answer all eight categories of questions in the consultation. Instead, our groups focus
on our experiences with the joint industry-National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (the Framework), which
we think could be very useful to European authorities as they interpret and implement the

Embracing the Framework approach could advance the EU’s goals for cybersecurity and a
Digital Single Market (DSM).

There is broad consensus in U.S. industry that the Framework is a sound baseline for
businesses’ cybersecurity practices, especially internationally, and has the added benefit of being
accessible to nontechnical professionals. Our organizations have recently communicated to NIST
that as Framework stakeholders begin the yearlong transition from the Obama administration to
the next one, we want to sustain the view held by most businesses and policymakers that the
Framework is a cornerstone for managing enterprise cybersecurity risks and threats globally.

Our associations hold that the Framework would improve the cybersecurity capabilities
of EU member states, strengthen cybersecurity partnerships among EU stakeholders, and equip
operators of essential services with an innovative tool that they would actively use.

In addition, embracing the Framework would support the EU’s efforts to establish a
DSM. The Framework is flexible, enabling consumers to have swifter and wider access to digital
goods and services across borders compared with a traditional, regulatory program. Also, many
international businesses embrace the Framework—based on global, industry-driven standards
and practices—providing an economical risk management platform for entities to flourish
securely. The nonprescriptive aspects of the Framework should offer the added benefit of
stimulating the European cybersecurity market by aligning the demand and supply for
cybersecurity products and services.

European and American businesses and political leaders have a mutual interest in
bolstering the security of their vital infrastructures and bringing down barriers to energetic
cybersecurity markets. Watching global companies both strengthen their enterprise cybersecurity
and boost the economic security and resilience of the nations in which they operate represents
optimal public-private partnerships.

A clear value of the Framework is that it brings coherence to divergent approaches to
cybersecurity by collecting standards, guidelines, and best practices that are working effectively
in the public and private sectors today. The Framework is composed of three main parts—the
Framework Core, the Framework Implementation Tiers, and the Framework Profile.

1) Framework Core—The Core is not a checklist of actions to perform. Rather, it is a set
of cybersecurity activities, desired outcomes, and informative references that are common
across organizations, including critical infrastructure entities. The Core consists of four
elements—Functions, Categories, Subcategories, and Informative References—that offer
organizations a means of mapping their approach to appropriate cybersecurity standards
and smart practices.

A complete description of the Core is not necessary, but two of the Core’s elements are
worth describing briefly. The Functions portion of the Core arranges basic cybersecurity
activities at their highest level, and they are Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and
Recover. The Categories portion further subdivides the five Functions segments into
outcomes that are linked to an organization’s cybersecurity needs, including Asset
Management, Access Control, and Detection Processes.

2) Framework Implementation Tiers—The Implementation Tiers give organizations
better context about their cybersecurity practices and the processes that they have in place
to manage risks. Tiers progress from Partial (Tier 1) to Adaptive (Tier 4) and characterize
an increasing degree of exactness and sophistication in organization’s cybersecurity
endeavors, which are based on business requirements. NIST notes that Tiers do not
represent maturity levels, but progressing to higher Tiers is “encouraged when such a
change would reduce cybersecurity risk and be cost effective.”

3) Framework Profile—The Profile helps organizations align the Functions, Categories,
and Subcategories of the Framework Core with business requirements, risk tolerances,
and resources. Framework Profiles can be used to describe the current state or the target
state of specific cybersecurity initiatives.

The Current Profile indicates the cybersecurity outcomes that are being achieved. The
Target Profile indicates the outcomes needed to achieve an organization’s desired
cybersecurity risk management goals. Profiles support business requirements and help
people communicate within and among several entities. The Framework, by design, does
not prescribe Profile templates, enabling flexibility in implementation.

In addition to the Framework itself, the approach behind the Framework is just as
significant. Indeed, use of the Framework is voluntary. Many industry and public-sector
stakeholders are committed to a bottom-up, collaborative approach to cybersecurity policy. A
vigorous cybersecurity program—including against nation-state hackers or their surrogates and
criminal syndicates—can be very expensive. Therefore, it is imperative that the Framework
processes remain cost-effective. Organizations work mightily to get one dollar of security for
every dollar spent.

Voluntary—The 2013 executive order (EO) that gave rise to the Framework called for
the development of a voluntary, nonregulatory Framework. The Framework should lead
neither to the creation of new regulations nor to the rollback of existing ones. Under the
terms of the EO, policymakers are expected to help agencies and departments with
streamlining existing regulations with the Framework and maintaining the Framework’s
independent nature.

U.S. industry is pleased that the new Italian cybersecurity Framework (Italian
Framework) is derived in large measure from the NIST Framework, with its emphasis on
critical infrastructure protection, international harmonization, and flexibility. The Italian
Framework, its authors say, is aimed at creating a common language to compare business
practices to mitigate cybersecurity risks. The Italian Framework may help an enterprise
plan a cyber risk management strategy, according to its business, size, and other
characteristics of the enterprise. Using the Italian Framework is voluntary, the writers
emphasize. The Italian model is worth studying because it is built on principles that
should be common to any domestic or global cybersecurity initiative.

Common Language—The Framework’s common language is grounded in consensus
best practices and international standards, better equipping organizations to discuss risk
management and cybersecurity both internally (e.g., with company executives and
boards) and externally (e.g., with business partners and suppliers) across their
ecosystems. Still, it is clear that the terminology of the Framework should be increasingly
promoted and used more widely to provide a coherent language worldwide. The Italian
Framework illustrates how this can be accomplished. Among other benefits, leveraging
the Framework model would prevent the duplication of national regulatory efforts.

The key is that the Framework should not serve as the impetus for creating extra layers of
regulation. Indeed, regulatory redundancy won’t bolster the cybersecurity of any
organization, including regulated entities themselves. Rather, the Framework can be held
up as a voluntary risk management tool while serving as an international beacon around
which policymakers can orient their cybersecurity improvement efforts.

Collaboration—The Framework was created through a series of highly collaborative
workshops that involved the government and the private sector. Industry and NIST
created a tool reflecting that organizations face unique cybersecurity challenges. The
Framework is purposefully not a one-size-fits-all approach to detecting, mitigating, and
responding to cyber threats.

Dynamic public-private partnerships thrive on minimal constraints, learn from errors
(without punishment), and collaborate through the evolution of ties between participants.
It is our organizations’ perspective that this is exactly what healthy cybersecurity
partnerships facilitate. We recommend leveraging the Framework and the corresponding
public-private partnership approach that underpins it to stimulate organizations’
protection and resilience against cyberattacks.

Cost-effective—The Framework is a cost-effective mechanism for many organizations
because NIST recommends a suite of informative references, but the agency avoids
presuming to tell companies how to use them. The Framework is a living document and
will be updated as industry provides feedback to NIST and future governing bodies
egarding implementation. Our industry groups urge countries to converge their
cybersecurity programs toward the Framework as a touchstone for security and resilience.

Big picture: The very nonregulatory, cooperative, and efficient qualities that have drawn
industries toward the Framework—which can be used regardless of where their operations are
situated internationally—accrue to companies regardless of whether they are American,
Australian, British, French, German, Korean, or Italian, among others. The Framework is special
because it is biased toward a standards- and technology-neutral approach to managing
cybersecurity risks, rather than favoring a particular nation’s or a region’s processes. Virtually all
multinational organizations benefit when policymakers align flexible cybersecurity risk
management programs at the international level, not just at the national level.

The remainder of these comments convey our associations’ view that cybersecurity
practices should be driven by voluntary, global, and private-sector developed standards and
guidance. Also, we contributed extensively to the Framework’s development. The letter shows,
too, that the U.S. business community is actively using the Framework and promoting it at home
and abroad.

Cybersecurity should be rooted in global, industry-driven standards and practices.
Our groups fundamentally believe that cybersecurity efforts are optimal when they reflect
international standards and industry-driven practices. Efforts to improve the cybersecurity of the
public and private sectors should reflect the borderless and interconnected nature of our digital
environment. Standards, guidance, and best practices relevant to cybersecurity are typically
private sector-led and adopted on a voluntary basis. They are most effective when developed and
recognized globally. Such an approach would avoid burdening multinational enterprises with the
requirements of multiple, and often conflicting, jurisdictions.

Industry organizations contributed significantly to the Framework’s development.
U.S. industry organizations believe that the Framework—which was released in February
2014—has been a notable success. Sector-based coordinating councils and associations,
companies, and other entities collaborated closely with NIST in creating the Framework since
the first workshop was held in April 2013. Critical infrastructure entities are very supportive of
the Framework. Indeed, crucial elements of U.S. industry are aware of the Framework and are
using it or similar risk management tools.

Our associations value the Obama administration’s leadership on the voluntary
Framework, as well as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) C3 Voluntary Program, and
urge the next administration to actively support it. We welcome assessments of current and
former White House officials who said that industry’s response to the Framework has been
“phenomenal” and has “exceeded expectations.” Such recognition is positive and helps keep the
private sector engaged in using the Framework and promoting it with business partners.

A May 2014 White House blog, Assessing Cybersecurity Regulations, set a meaningful
tone for how the administration would view its role vis-à-vis the Framework and industry. The
blog sent businesses and other stakeholders an important message that the Framework should
remain collaborative, voluntary, and innovative over the long term. In June 2014, nearly two
dozen U.S. organizations sent a letter to Mr. Michael Daniel, special assistant to the president
and cybersecurity coordinator, agreeing with him that businesses and government “must build
equally agile and responsive capabilities not bound by outdated and inflexible rules and

Industry is enthusiastically using and promoting the Framework in partnership with the
U.S. government.

Much of industry’s favorable reaction to the Framework is owed in large part to NIST,
which tackled the Framework’s development in ways that ought to serve as a model for other
agencies and departments. Interestingly, increasing public attention on the Framework has
created visibility into industry’s long-standing efforts to address cyber risks and threats—
constant, dedicated, and mostly silent efforts that preceded the creation of the Framework.

Since the Framework’s release, industry has demonstrated its commitment to using it.
Many associations are creating resources for their members and holding events across the
country and taking other initiatives to promote cybersecurity education and awareness of the
Framework. Some examples are listed here. Associations are planning and exploring additional
activities as well.

 The members of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of
Global Automakers established an automobile industry sector information-sharing and
analysis center (Auto-ISAC) to facilitate the sharing of existing or potential threats to
motor vehicle cybersecurity among members of the industry. In addition, members of the
two associations have recently released a Framework for Automotive Cybersecurity Best
Practices (the auto Framework). The auto Framework was developed in consultation with
NIST. Building on the auto Framework, the industry is developing automotive
cybersecurity best practices and will continue to collaborate with external stakeholders
and cybersecurity experts as appropriate.

 The American Chemistry Council (ACC) is developing sector-specific guidance based on
the NIST cyber Framework to further enhance and administer the council’s Responsible
Care® Security Code. ACC’s Chemical Information Technology Center (ChemITC) is
completing a pilot program to implement an ISAC for the chemical sector.

 The American Gas Association (AGA) hosted a series of webinars on control system
cybersecurity, is collaborating with small utilities to develop robust cybersecurity
programs, and is working with companies to review and enhance their cybersecurity
posture using the Oil and Natural Gas Subsector Cybersecurity Capability Maturity
Model (ONG-C2M2) from the Department of Energy (DOE). Among other activities,
AGA stood up the Downstream Natural Gas Information and Analysis Center (DNG–
ISAC), an ISAC designed to help support the information-sharing interests of
downstream natural gas utilities.

 The American Hotel & Lodging Association (AH&LA) conducted a series of widely
attended cyber and data security webinars to assist small, medium, and large hotel and
lodging businesses with implementing key information security measures and risk

 The American Petroleum Institute (API) fielded a survey of its members in 2015 on the
uptake of the Framework. The survey showed that oil and natural gas companies use the
Framework to (1) evaluate and prioritize cybersecurity capabilities and programs, (2)
facilitate cybersecurity communications via a common language and taxonomy, (3)
benchmark cybersecurity performance vis-à-vis industry peers, and (4) evaluate external
suppliers/contractors. The oil and natural gas sector’s efforts on cybersecurity also
include participation in the Oil and Natural Gas Information Sharing and Analysis Center
(ONG–ISAC) through which companies share intelligence on cyber incidents, threats,
vulnerabilities, and responses.

 The American Water Works Association (AWWA) created cybersecurity guidance and a
use-case tool to aid water and wastewater utilities’ implementation of the Framework.
The guidance is cross-referenced to the Framework. This tool serves as guidance for
using the Framework in the water and wastewater systems sector.

 The Automation Federation (the federation) is a nonprofit association made up of 16
member organizations and 7 working groups representing more than 500,000 automation
and technology professionals worldwide. In 2013, the federation committed to working
with the White House and NIST to help them develop the Framework. With the launch of
the Framework in 2014, the federation conducted eight Framework seminars throughout
the United States and in London.

These informational programs provided manufacturing and business leaders with the
opportunity to learn more about the Framework and the role it plays in addressing the
cybersecurity threat against critical infrastructure.

In 2015, the federation continued its commitment to instruct business professionals on
how to implement the Framework, and the organization recommended that certain
automation security standards be incorporated as essential Framework components. The
federation is continuing its outreach efforts in 2016.

 The Communications Sector Coordinating Council (CSCC) is the primary venue for
collaborative cybersecurity activities with the council’s government partners and is made
up of the broadcast, cable, satellite, wireless, and wireline industries. Council members
have participated in multiple NIST and National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) engagements, have supported DHS’ C3 Voluntary Program to
promote the Framework, and, through their industry associations, have sponsored
Framework-related educational programs, webinars, and panels.

The sector is implementing the recommendations and guidance set forth in the Federal
Communication Commission’s (FCC’s) Communications Security Reliability and
Interoperability Council’s (CSRIC’s) landmark adaptation of the Framework—the
Cybersecurity Risk Management and Best Practices (Working Group 4) report.
Producing this report consumed the time of more than 100 cybersecurity professionals
over the course of 12 months. As part of the current CSRIC V effort, the sector is leading
three major working groups focused on key cybersecurity topics—information sharing;
secure hardware and software–security by design; and the workforce

 CSRIC V’s new Working Group 6, which is co-chaired by ACT | The App Association
and CBS, recognizes the advantages of building security into hardware and software from
the start rather than adding it later. Working Group 6 has developed a report that offers
best practices to service providers seeking to manage cybersecurity risks associated with
technology obtained from third-party vendors, suppliers, and integrators for use in
providers’ core networks. Working Group 6 leveraged the Framework to offer sound
recommendations that can be adopted by stakeholders of communications sector to
improve security-by-design practices.

 The Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council worked with DOE to develop sector-
specific guidance for using the Framework. The guidance leverages existing subsector-
specific approaches to cybersecurity, including DOE’s Electricity Subsector
Cybersecurity Risk Management Process Guideline, the Electricity Subsector
Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model, NIST’s Guidelines for Smart Grid Cyber
Security, and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation’s (NERC’s) Critical
Infrastructure Protection Cybersecurity Standards.

 The financial services sector incorporated the Framework as the basis for its sector-wide
All-Hazards Crisis Response Playbook (the playbook). Developed and maintained by the
Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center (FS-ISAC), the playbook
was trimmed from more than 70 pages to 10 pages and redesigned for cyber and business
resiliency executives and crisis response teams. Industry exercises, such as the Quantum
Dawn series and the Hamilton series, have repeatedly pointed to the need for a unified,
useable playbook. Similar to the Framework, the playbook was developed over a six-
month period relying heavily on public and private feedback and recommendations.

The playbook puts into operation the Framework’s response and recovery controls at a
critical sector level. It also provides a means for businesses to develop their cybersecurity
programs over time. The language of the Framework controls is identifiable in the five

main playbook components: (1) Financial Sector (FS) crisis communication; (2) FS
Crisis Response Coordination; (3) Government Crisis Response Coordination;
(4) Associations, Regional, and Multi-Sector Crisis Coordination; and (5) Sector
Contingency Plans and Event Closure.

The succinct structure of the playbook ensures ease of use when responding to crises. The
response and recovery activities of both public and private groups are defined throughout
the playbook so that crucial sector teams and individuals will know their roles, as well as
the roles of government entities, other sectors, and third parties.

Supplementing the playbook is a library that features crisis resource guides, event-
specific plans, and templates for use during exercises. For example, playbook templates
provide a method for the sector to incorporate lessons learned and identify improvements
for future incidents and exercises. The FS-ISAC maintains the library and makes updates
based on exercises and real-world experiences. Financial sector leadership is expanding
the 2016 sector exercise program to promote and make broader use of the playbook
throughout industry.

 HITRUST, in collaboration with healthcare, business, technology, and information
security leaders, established the HITRUST CSF, a certifiable framework that can be used
by organizations that create, access, store, and exchange personal health and financial

In February 2016, HITRUST, the Healthcare and Public Health (HPH) Sector
Coordinating Council (SCC), and the Government Coordinating Council (GCC)
announced a new guide to assist healthcare organizations in using the Framework. This
document was developed to help HPH-sector organizations implement the Framework
and carry out the HITRUST Risk Management Framework (RMF)—consisting of the
HITRUST CSF, the CSF Assurance Program, and supporting methodologies.

HITRUST also leads the development of the healthcare industry’s largest information
sharing and analysis organization (ISAO) and has taken a holistic approach to threat
intelligence sharing and cybersecurity. Key HITRUST initiatives include the Cyber
Threat Intelligence and Incident Coordination Center (C3), the Cyber Threat XChange
(CTX), monthly threat briefings, and the CyberRX attack simulation exercises.

 The Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) visited Korea and Japan and shared
with these countries’ governments and business leaders the benefits of a public-private
partnership-based approach to developing globally workable cybersecurity policies. ITI
highlighted the Framework as an example of an effective policy developed in this
manner, reflecting global standards and industry-driven practices.

ITI principals also spoke at a U.S.-EU workshop in Brussels, comparing U.S. and EU
policy approaches on cybersecurity and emphasizing the positive attributes of the
Framework and its development. In addition, ITI conducted outreach regarding the
Framework in Germany, India, and China.

 The mutual fund industry, represented by the Investment Company Institute (ICI),
regularly shares information on threats and mitigation strategies via meetings of its Chief
Information Security Officer Advisory Committee. ICI hosts one-day Cybersecurity
Forums involving ICI members, security vendors, consultants, and law enforcement
entities in the United States and London. In addition, ICI developed a detailed
cybersecurity survey for its members, which showed that many firms’ cybersecurity
programs are consistent with the Framework and that most companies use an amalgam of
standards and guidelines in developing and maintaining their information security

Moreover, the survey results enable a firm to see how it compares with its peers and
direct resources according to security priorities. Finally, the ICI hosted an open house in
Washington, D.C., featuring the FBI and the Secret Service so that ICI members could
discuss the threat environment and personally engage law enforcement agents who have
direct responsibility for cyber investigations in 40 field offices across the country.

 The National Restaurant Association (NRA) created and widely distributed last year the
Cybersecurity 101: A Toolkit for Restaurant Operators guide that details the five
functions of the Framework in order to assist restaurant operators and executives in
adopting an enterprisewide cybersecurity program. Further, the NRA has convened a
working group of member companies to develop a cybersecurity Framework for the
restaurant industry, a sector-specific guidance based on the NIST Framework for use by
single-unit restaurant operators. More than 7 in 10 restaurants are single-unit operations.
The NRA hosted NIST for presentations on the cyber Framework during association
events, including webinars and executive study groups.

 The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) spearheaded the D.A.T.A. (Driving
the Agenda for Technology Advancement) Policy Center, providing manufacturers with a
forum to understand the latest cybersecurity policy trends, threats, and best practices. The
D.A.T.A. Center focuses on working with small and medium-size manufacturers to help
them secure their assets.

 The Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), in partnership with the National Retail
Federation (NRF), created the Retail Cyber Intelligence Sharing Center (R–CISC),
featuring information sharing, research, and education and training. This ISAC enables
retailers to share threat data among themselves and receive threat information from
government and law enforcement partners.

 The Security Industry Association (SIA) created a Cybersecurity Advisory Board
composed of member company representatives to recommend safeguards to protect
physical security products, systems, and services against malicious cyberattacks and
educate the industry on cybersecurity best practices. SIA staff will be implementing a
Technology Resource Center for SIA members. The center is set to include a
cybersecurity section that will serve as an information-sharing portal for SIA members
seeking to communicate among themselves, discuss best cyber practices, employ robust

cyber hygiene, explore network auditing software, and assist businesses with
governmental compliance.

 The transportation sector conducted a joint government-industry initiative to offer
guidance to businesses on using the Framework as a risk management tool. The
Transportation Systems Sector Cybersecurity Working Group (TSSCWG)—made up of
officials with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Department of
Transportation (DOT), the Coast Guard, and representatives of each of the transportation
modes—provided the forum for this cooperative effort. The working group’s guidance
contributed substantially to common understandings of the Framework and to a broader
use of the Framework by entities in each mode of the transportation sector.

The TSSCWG produced flexible guidance to facilitate businesses’ use of the Framework
in ways adaptable to the varying sizes, resource bases, and risk profiles of organizations
across the transportation sector. A key element of this approach is the development of
cyber threat intelligence priorities, which are submitted to DHS and reflect the needs of
TSSCWG members. By pooling public-private intelligence requirements, the goal is to
produce an up-to-date cyber threat picture, which should better instruct organizations’ use
of the Framework in mitigating cyber risks. The TSSCWG is cooperating with DHS to
hone the transportation sector’s intelligence priorities.

 The U.S. Chamber of Commerce launched its cybersecurity roundtable series in 2014.
This national initiative recommends that businesses of all sizes and sectors adopt
fundamental Internet security practices, including using the Framework and similar risk
management tools, engaging cybersecurity providers, and partnering with law
enforcement before cyber incidents occur.

The Chamber is in the third year of its cybersecurity campaign. Eight regional
roundtables and two summits in Washington, D.C., have been held since 2014. More
events are planned in 2016. Each roundtable typically features cybersecurity principals
from the White House, DHS, NIST, and local FBI and Secret Service officials.

Clearly, private sector organizations are using the Framework, creating new resources to
help their constituencies reduce risks to their cybersecurity, and sharing best practices through
formal and informal means. Industries are also working with government entities to strengthen
their information networks and systems against malicious actors.

It is crucial to connect consistent, sound regulatory practices with the EU’s Better
Regulation agenda.

Finally, but no less importantly, our organizations note that the EC’s questionnaire,
similar to other consultations launched in support the DSM initiative, may lend itself to
generating responses that can be translated into mandates for biased policies and actions. We
believe that it would be more productive for the EC to use the questionnaire as a fact-finding
exercise to more accurately capture a full picture of what is happening in the marketplace

In particular, several questions in the consultation suggest that European officials may
take a decidedly discriminatory approach to addressing cybersecurity in an effort to cultivate a
domestic cybersecurity industry in the EU. While adopting policies to help grow domestic
industries may be appealing from a political perspective, our associations urge the EC not to lose
sight of the fact that the challenges posed by cybersecurity threats are inherently global in scope.
For this reason and many others, there should be greater emphasis placed on public-private
partnerships both in Europe and the United States that include industry actors beyond our
nations’ respective borders.

Our groups also recognize that the EC’s consultation is but one of several and represents
only the initial stages of its process to develop a DSM. However, as it continues to develop the
DSM we urge the EC to focus on utilizing a process surrounding the creation of a unified market
that (1) adheres to smart and effective regulatory practices, (2) lives up to the standards of the
Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT), and (3) reflects the changes outlined
and endorsed in the Timmermans report on Better Regulation.


Our organizations applaud the EU’s focus on cybersecurity. Digital attacks on critical
infrastructure and intrusions to steal business-sensitive information pose a threat to the security
of EU member states and countries around the world. Government and the private sector need to
collaborate to deflect and defeat sophisticated and persistent adversaries. Further, we would
welcome the opportunity to work with the EU to craft policies that would create a powerful sea
change in current information-sharing practices between government and the business
community and reflect the conditions of an increasingly digital world.


ACT | The App Association
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
American Gas Association (AGA)
American Petroleum Institute (API)
Association of Global Automakers
Automation Federation
CompTIA–The Computing Technology Industry Association
Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
HITRUST–Health Information Trust Alliance
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
National Association of Water Companies
The National Business Coalition on E-Commerce & Privacy
Security Industry Association (SIA)

Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA)
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA)
United States Telecom Association (USTelecom)
U.S. Chamber of Commerce