I do worry about the report's call for a "cybersecurity-based identity management vision and strategy." In spite of the report's good words about addressing privacy and civil liberties interests, I find it hard to see how any system of identity management will not wind up with someone being able to keep track of who is doing what on the Internet -- a wonderful prospect to repressive governments and some law enforcement officials -- but not so wonderful to anyone with a legitimate need for anonymity. ( See The Right To Speak Incognito and Conversations in cyberspace?)

As a longtime participant of the IETF I also worry about the report's push to bring together "like-minded nations" to worry about technical standards for the Internet. The Internet got to be the innovative powerhouse it did mostly because we did not have governments deciding what standards would be good and what would not. Few governments would have supported anything like the Internet if they had a chance.  

Clearly something needs to be done about the appalling state of what passes for security in the country's cyber infrastructure, but I do have a big worry about the baby vs. bathwater ratio of what this initiative has in mind.

Disclaimer: Many people at Harvard work on ratios of some type of good vs. some type of bad but I know of no university opinion on the balance in this report or initiative, so the above exploration is mine.