    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                INTERNATIONAL PROPOSALS TO REGULATE THE INTERNET

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 31, 2012

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 112-145

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    79-558                    WASHINGTON : 2013
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                              FRED UPTON, Michigan
                                     Chairman

    JOE BARTON, Texas                    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
      Chairman Emeritus                    Ranking Member
    CLIFF STEARNS, Florida               JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
    ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky                 Chairman Emeritus
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania        EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
    MARY BONO MACK, California           FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    LEE TERRY, Nebraska                  ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    MIKE ROGERS, Michigan                ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina   GENE GREEN, Texas
      Vice Chairman                      DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma              LOIS CAPPS, California
    TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
    BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California         TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire       MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
    PHIL GINGREY, Georgia                JIM MATHESON, Utah
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                JOHN BARROW, Georgia
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            Islands
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    PETE OLSON, Texas
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado
    MIKE POMPEO, Kansas
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia

                                     7_____

                 Subcommittee on Communications and Technology

                              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
                                     Chairman
    LEE TERRY, Nebraska                  ANNA G. ESHOO, California
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    CLIFF STEARNS, Florida               EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    MARY BONO MACK, California           DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    MIKE ROGERS, Michigan                JOHN BARROW, Georgia
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
    BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California             Islands
    CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire       EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
    PHIL GINGREY, Georgia                FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois                 officio)
    JOE BARTON, Texas                    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex
    FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)        officio)

                                      (ii)
                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Oregon, opening statement......................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     4
    Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Nebraska, opening statement....................................    10
    Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of California, opening statement...............................    10
    Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Michigan, opening statement....................................    11
        Prepared statement...........................................    13
    Hon. Mary Bono Mack, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of California, opening statement...............................    14
    Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Florida, opening statement..................................    14
    Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Tennessee, opening statement..........................    15
    Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of California, opening statement...............................    15
    Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of California, opening statement...............................    16

                                   Witnesses

    Philip L. Verveer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and U.S.
      Coordinator for International Communications and Information
      Policy, Department of State....................................    17
        Prepared statement...........................................    20
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   106
    Robert M. McDowell, Commissioner, Federal Communications
      Commission.....................................................    28
        Prepared statement...........................................    31
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   112
    David A. Gross, Former U.S. Coordinator for International
      Communications and Information Policy, Department of State, on
      Behalf of the World Conference on International
      Telecommunications Ad Hoc Working Group........................    69
        Prepared statement...........................................    71
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   115
    Vinton Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist,
      Google, Inc....................................................    77
        Prepared statement...........................................    79
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   117
    Sally Shipman Wentworth, Senior Manager of Public Policy,
      Internet Society...............................................    85
        Prepared statement...........................................    87

                               Submitted Material

    House Concurrent Resolution --------, Expressing the sense of
      Congress regarding actions to preserve and advance the
      multistakeholder governance model under which the Internet has
      thrived, submitted by Mr. Walden...............................     7
    Article, dated May 24, 2012, ``Keep the Internet Open,'' by
      Vinton Cerf, New York Times, submitted by Ms. Eshoo............    63

                INTERNATIONAL PROPOSALS TO REGULATE THE INTERNET

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, MAY 31, 2012

                      House of Representatives,
         Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:21 a.m., in
    room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg
    Walden (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Walden, Terry, Stearns,
    Shimkus, Bono Mack, Blackburn, Bilbray, Bass, Gingrey, Scalise,
    Latta, Guthrie, Kinzinger, Upton (ex officio), Eshoo, Markey,
    Matsui, Barrow, Christensen, Dingell (ex officio), and Waxman
    (ex officio).
        Staff present: Gary Andres, Staff Director; Ray Baum,
    Senior Policy Advisor/Director of Coalitions; Mike Bloomquist,
    General Counsel; Sean Bonyun, Deputy Communications Director;
    Nicholas Degani, FCC Detailee; Andy Duberstein, Deputy Press
    Secretary; Neil Fried, Chief Counsel, Communications and
    Technology; Katie Novaria, Legislative Clerk; Andrew Powaleny,
    Deputy Press Secretary; David Redl, Counsel, Communications and
    Technology; Charlotte Savercool, Executive Assistant; Lyn
    Walker, Coordinator, Admin/Human Resources; Shawn Chang,
    Democratic Senior Counsel; Margaret McCarthy, Democratic
    Professional Staff; Roger Sherman, Democratic Chief Counsel;
    David Strickland, Democratic FCC Detailee; and Kara Van
    Stralen, Democratic Special Assistant.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

        Mr. Walden. Good morning. I want to welcome our witnesses
    and appreciate their testimony today. This is the Subcommittee
    on Communications and Technology and our hearing on
    International Proposals to Regulate the Internet.
        Nations from across the globe will meet at a United Nations
    forum in Dubai at the end of this year and, if we are not
    vigilant, just might break the Internet by subjecting it to an
    international regulatory regime designed for old-fashioned
    telephone service.
        The Internet is the single largest engine of global change
    since the printing press. From its humble roots as a network to
    connect computers used for the Department of Defense projects,
    the Internet grew to include research institutions, commercial
    services, and the public generally. It was once the government
    relinquished its grip on the Internet that it began growing
    exponentially, evolving into the ``network of networks'' that
    we all participate in today.
        With this expansion came the recognition that the
    organizational structure must evolve as well. Functions that
    had previously been managed by and for the United States
    Government, like network addressing and domain name
    administration, were spun off to private-sector entities that
    could be more responsive to the rapid changes in the Internet.
    Nongovernmental institutions now manage the Internet's core
    functions with input from private- and public-sector
    participants. This structure, called the ``multi-stakeholder
    model,'' prevents governmental or non-governmental actors from
    controlling the design of the network or the content it
    carries. The multi-stakeholder model also provides flexibility,
    enabling the Internet to evolve quickly.
        And this evolution continues at a staggering pace. Cisco
    estimates that by 2016 roughly 45 percent of the world's
    population will be Internet users; there will be more than 18.9
    billion network connections; and the average speed of mobile
    broadband will be four times faster than it is today. Weakening
    the multi-stakeholder model threatens the Internet, harming its
    ability to spread prosperity and freedom.
        Yet this December at the World Conference on International
    Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai, the 193 member countries of
    the United Nation's International Telecommunications Union will
    consider expanding the ITU's jurisdiction to the Internet,
    replacing the multi-stakeholder model that has served the
    Internet and the world so well. They will also consider
    imposing economic regulations on the Internet.
        The ITU was originally formed in 1865 to govern
    international regulation of the telegraph. The ITU finally
    updated its charter in 1988 by adopting the International
    Telecommunications Regulations but, even then, the
    communications world was dominated by voice telephony. It was
    in that world the ITU developed ``settlement rates'' at which
    service providers compensated each other for exchanging phone
    traffic across national borders. Now, the end result was high
    international call rates and a transfer of money to telephone
    companies run by foreign governments.
        It would be inappropriate to apply an international
    regulatory scheme developed for the 1980s telephone networks to
    the vibrant and technologically diverse Internet. Such a
    regulatory regime ignores the reality of the architecture of
    the Internet. Unlike traditional telephony where the routing of
    circuit switched calls could easily be tracked, the networks
    that comprise the Internet do not adhere to political
    boundaries. Given the diversity of the networks that make up
    the modern Internet, any implementation of an international
    regulatory regime would quickly become so complex as to be
    unmanageable. We also live in a far more competitive world,
    making such economic regulation not only unnecessary, but also
    counterproductive.
        The Internet has prospered under the multi-stakeholder
    model absent the heavy hand of government regulation. That
    model has enabled an Internet that creates jobs, brings a
    literal world of information to your fingertips, allows small
    businesses around the world to have a global reach, drives
    investment and innovation, and has even started a revolution or
    two. As the U.S. delegation to the WCIT takes shape, I urge the
    administration to continue the United States' commitment to the
    Internet's collaborative governance structure and to reject
    international efforts to bring the Internet under government
    control.
        With that, I yield the remainder of my time to the vice
    chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Terry of Nebraska.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.002

        [The House Concurrent Resolution follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.005

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

        Mr. Terry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I believe that the bottom-up stakeholder approach model
    has actually allowed economic development and prosperity in all
    levels of economy around the world. Therefore, when I hear
    comments from Prime Minister Vladimir Putin saying that
    international control over the Internet is one of the stated
    goals, we cannot allow this to happen. This will diminish
    economic prosperity.
        This conference is about telephone and should not encroach
    into any discussions into regulation of the Internet whether it
    is disguised by phone numbers or IP addresses or cybersecurity.
    So I want to put those on notice from Russia or from China or
    other countries that when it comes to regulating the Internet,
    the answer is nyet.
        Mr. Walden. Gentlemen's time is expired. I now recognize
    the distinguished ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, Ms.
    Eshoo, for 5 minutes.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to
    everyone and thank you for having this important hearing.
        The Internet continues to grow and to flourish thanks to
    its open structure and its multi-stakeholder approach to
    governance. This is healthy. We have seen it. We have worked
    hard to make sure that these are the atmospherics for it. It is
    one of the great sources of pride to our Nation, the role that
    the government originally played, how it went out into the
    private sector, and it is one of the great success stories of
    American history. And I am very proud that so much of it
    resides in my district.
        According to a recent study commissioned by the New
    Democratic Network and the NPI, the New Policy Institute, every
    10 percent increase in the adoption of 3G and 4G wireless
    technologies has the potential to add more than 231,000 jobs to
    our national economy. So as the World Conference on
    International Communications prepares to meet later this year
    to review proposals that could actually radically alter the
    Internet's future, it is more than fitting for our subcommittee
    to convene this hearing to hear from some of our Nation's
    leading experts--and you are all a source of pride to us--from
    the public and private sectors.
        The Internet has advanced rapidly since WCIT last met about
    a quarter of a century ago. A quarter of a century ago. I guess
    they don't meet that often. We have gone from dial-up modems--
    and maybe that is good--to high-speed Internet powered by fiber
    optics. With this dramatic boost in speed, consumers today can
    experience high-definition video, social networking, video
    conferencing, and much more without regard to where this
    content is hosted in the world. And I think that is the way it
    should be.
        There is no question that there are real threats facing the
    Internet's continued growth and stability. Our three
    cybersecurity hearings held earlier this year are evidence of
    such vulnerabilities. But international proposals to impose new
    mandated mobile roaming rates or termination charges for data
    traffic are a fundamental departure from the international
    telecommunication regulations adopted in 1988.
        Beyond just imposing new regulation on how Internet traffic
    is handled, several nations are set on asserting
    intergovernmental control over the Internet. Now, we have had
    some real battles here over the issue of net neutrality, and it
    seems to me that we are calling on the international community
    for hands off, an international net neutrality, as it were,
    when it comes to the Internet. Balkanizing the Internet would
    and could bring about censorship and make that the norm. In the
    words of Vint Cerf, who is here today, ``the decisions taken in
    Dubai in December have the potential to put government
    handcuffs on the net.''
        I think that we can all agree that the adoption of these
    proposals is a very serious threat to the free, transparent,
    and open Internet as we know it today. This is reflected in the
    bipartisan resolution that I join my colleagues in introducing
    yesterday. And today's hearing, along with a bipartisan
    congressional Internet caucus briefing, which I am cosponsoring
    next week, are an opportunity to discuss these issues and send
    a strong message that intergovernmental control over the
    Internet will uproot the innovation, openness, and transparency
    enjoyed by nearly 2.3 billion users around the world. And we
    want to keep it that way. We want that to double; we want it to
    quadruple; we want it to keep growing.
        And so it seems to me that what we discuss today is of
    great, great importance but I also think we need to inoculate
    other countries with the ideas that will help take them away
    from where they are now. I don't think this can be America
    against the rest of the world. I think we need to form
    coalitions around the ideas that have worked and that they,
    too, can share in what we know is one of the most exciting
    inventions and adventures of not only the last century but this
    one as well.
        And I think I have 1 second left so I don't have any time
    to yield to Ms. Matsui, and I apologize.
        Mr. Walden. The gentlelady's time is expired.
        I now recognize the chairman of the full committee, the
    gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The international community is going to meet in December to
    decide whether to regulate the Internet under rules designed
    for the 1980 era telephone networks. On the table is a proposal
    to expand the jurisdiction of the U.N.'s International
    Telecommunications Union to cover the Internet, moving away
    from the current multi-stakeholder governance model that has
    fostered the modern Internet. Also at issue is whether to
    impose rate regulation on the exchange of Internet traffic
    across national borders. Both of these are terrible ideas.
        In a time of economic uncertainty and turmoil, the Internet
    does remain a job creation engine that fosters innovation,
    brings the folks of the world together in new ways, and drives
    global discussion of important social matters. The Internet has
    become this economic and social juggernaut not because
    government actors willed it to be so but because the government
    took a step back and let the private sector drive its
    evolution. The non-regulatory, multi-stakeholder model allows
    the Internet community to guide its evolution and has provided
    the flexibility that the Internet needs to flourish as the
    demands placed on it grow.
        The ITU and the international ``settlement-of-rates''
    regime were designed around old-fashioned telephone networks
    and services when there was less competition. The Internet is a
    different technology and this is a different era. International
    regulatory intrusion into the Internet would have disastrous
    results not just for the United States, but for folks around
    the world. So I would strongly urge the administration to
    continue U.S. support for the multi-stakeholder model in its
    talks leading up to the Dubai meeting this December.
        And I yield to the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Bono
    Mack.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.006

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARY BONO MACK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mrs. Bono Mack. I thank the chairman.
        As the U.S. prepares to take part in the World Conference
    on International Telecommunications in Dubai, we need to
    provide the delegation with a clear and unmistakable mandate:
    keep the Internet free of any government control. At the WCIT
    discussions, a new treaty on Internet governance will be
    debated.
        Most worrisome to me are efforts by some countries to
    provide the U.N. with unprecedented new authority over the
    management of the Internet. To prevent this from happening, I
    have introduced House Concurrent Resolution 127. I would like
    to thank my cosponsors, Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Waxman,
    Subcommittee Chairman Walden, and Ranking Subcommittee Member
    Eshoo for their strong support in this effort.
        In many ways, this is a referendum on the future of the
    Internet. For nearly a decade, the U.N. has been angling
    quietly to become the epicenter of Internet governance. A vote
    for our resolution is a vote to keep the Internet free from
    government control and to prevent Russia, China, and India, as
    well as other nations from succeeding in giving the U.N.
    unprecedented power over web content and infrastructure. If
    this power grab is successful, I am concerned that the next
    Arab Spring will instead become a Russia Winter where free
    speech is chilled, not encouraged, and the Internet becomes a
    wasteland of unfilled hopes, dreams, and opportunities. We
    simply cannot let that happen.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
        Mr. Walden. I now would recognize Mr. Stearns.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

        Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Following up with your comments and Chairman Upton about
    the monopoly from the 19th century, which we don't want to go
    back to, is there anybody in this room who thinks the United
    Nations could competently manage the Internet? Please raise
    your hands. I don't think there is anybody that does. In fact,
    I think all the witnesses will testify this morning that we
    must maintain the current multi-stakeholder decentralized
    approach. And this ITU, which is the International
    Telecommunication Union, it is a part of the United Nations and
    would require other countries to fund and build out the
    communication networks and give them full jurisdiction. And I
    again don't believe that we want to punt this to the U.N. These
    approaches constitute a frontal attack on the dynamic approach
    that we have presently.
        So I want to promote the unified, bipartisan message
    against international regulation of the Internet. That is why
    we are here today. And I want to emphasize today that such an
    approach that we see from others is a nonstarter for the United
    States. And I yield----
        Mr. Walden. I now recognize the gentlelady from Tennessee,
    Mrs. Blackburn.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

        Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And welcome to our witnesses. We are glad that you are here
    in this room, but I have no doubt that all around the world
    people are streaming this hearing because they want to see what
    our posture on this is going to be. And I think as you have
    heard that there is agreement, both sides of the aisle, that
    giving authority to an international governing body would put
    our Nation's sovereignty at risk. We are concerned about that
    and I think that the Obama administration should be commended
    for helping thwart this power grab. And I think we also need to
    realize that this is one of those areas where it raises the
    concerns we had about this administration's effort to undermine
    our efforts--Congress' efforts--in this developing fight
    against international regulatory schemes over the Internet
    because this administration moved forward with regulations over
    the management of Internet networks here in the United States.
        So we are going to continue to work to reign in the
    regulatory explosion of the FCC. Now is the time to execute a
    serious game plan that deals with those who would put
    international politics ahead of an open and prosperous
    Internet. We may have our differences on domestic
    telecommunications policy, but having those policies decided at
    the international level would be the worst thing that could
    happen for the future of the Internet.
        Again, welcome to everyone. I appreciate the time. Yield.
        Mr. Walden. The chair now recognizes the ranking member,
    Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding
    this hearing. It is an important hearing as we look down the
    road to an international conference where some of the
    proposals, if adopted, would fundamentally alter the way the
    Internet operates today, undermining the decentralized, multi-
    stakeholder approach to Internet governance that has allowed
    the Internet to flourish and become such a powerful engine for
    social and economic progress.
        As we will hear from our witnesses today--and people can
    also sense from the opening statements--there is a strong
    bipartisan consensus throughout the administration and Congress
    that we must resist efforts by some countries to impose a top-
    down command-and-control management regime on the Internet.
    This bipartisan consensus is reflected in H. Con. Res. 127, a
    resolution introduced yesterday by Chair Bono Mack and
    cosponsored by Chairman Upton, myself, Chairman Walden, and
    Ranking Member Eshoo. Simply put, this resolution affirms that
    Democrats and Republicans both want the administration to
    continue advancing our national commitment to the multi-
    stakeholder model of Internet governance and a globally open
    Internet.
        We have two distinguished panels of witnesses today who
    have a long history of working on this issue. I want to welcome
    Ambassador Phil Verveer, who will be one of the
    administration's lead negotiator on the treaty known as the
    International Telecommunications Regulations at the World
    Conference on International Telecommunications in December. And
    I believe that Ambassador Verveer's experience in
    communications and antitrust law will serve the U.S. position
    well.
        And we are pleased to have Commissioner Rob McDowell back
    to our subcommittee. He has been focused on this issue for some
    time, expressing a strong leadership position and we are
    pleased to have him with us.
        Our second panel is also highly experienced. Former
    ambassador David Gross and Sally Wentworth both served the
    previous administration with distinction and have significant
    experience with information and communications technology
    sectors. And I want to welcome Vint Cerf. As one of the
    founders of the Internet, Dr. Cerf will be able to provide us
    with a unique perspective about how some of the proposals
    before the international meeting threaten the security and
    stability of the Internet.
        We all agree that the current and past administrations
    deserve credit for their efforts to ensure the Internet remains
    a tool for global dissemination of ideas, information, and
    commerce. There is no daylight between House Democrats and
    House Republicans or the administration on this issue.
        While we are largely focused on the upcoming World
    Conference, we should not lose sight of the fact that the push
    for more centralized control over the Internet is occurring
    through other international venues as well.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to yield the balance of my time to Ms.
    Matsui so she could give an opening statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Ranking Member, for yielding me
    time.
        And I also want to welcome Ambassador Verveer and
    Commissioner McDowell and the rest of the panelists for joining
    us today.
        As we know, in today's global economy with well over two
    billion users, the Internet has become a necessity and not a
    luxury. And that is why I believe that a free, transparent, and
    open Internet must continue. The current multi-stakeholder
    approach has allowed the Internet to flourish here in the U.S.
    and around the world. Any international authority over the
    Internet is troublesome, particularly if those efforts are
    being led by countries where censorship is the norm.
        I agree with many of our witnesses that it would harm
    efforts to combat cyber attacks, decrease adoption and
    innovation of the latest technologies, and interfere with many
    fundamental principles that allow the Internet to be an
    ecosystem for innovation and growth. I am also pleased that the
    administration understands these concerns and believes as such
    that an international mandated framework would simply not work.
        We need to continue to promote innovation and openness of
    the Internet around the globe. I believe that the multi-
    stakeholder approach must continue to define Internet
    governance.
        And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Waxman. I yield back my time.
        Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
    time.
        So now I think we proceed to the witnesses. We are
    delighted to have you both here. And Ambassador Verveer, Deputy
    Assistant Secretary of State, and U.S. Coordinator for
    International Communications and Information Policy, we welcome
    you. And Commissioner Robert McDowell of the Federal
    Communications Commission, we welcome you back.
        Ambassador Verveer, thank you for being with us. We look
    forward to your testimony. Yes, pull that mike close and we
    will all be able to hear. You need to push the little button.

    STATEMENTS OF PHILIP L. VERVEER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
    STATE AND U.S. COORDINATOR FOR INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND
        INFORMATION POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND ROBERT M.
       MCDOWELL, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                     STATEMENT OF PHILIP L. VERVEER

        Mr. Verveer. Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity. I
    am particularly pleased to appear with my friend Commissioner
    Robert McDowell, and I am very happy that the subcommittee will
    hear later from my friend and distinguished predecessor
    Ambassador David Gross, from Sally Wentworth, who played a
    significant role in Internet governance matters during her
    service at the State Department, and of course from Vint Cerf
    without whom we might not have the Internet at all.
        Over the years, a relatively small number of governments
    have made proposals to change today's successful approach to
    Internet governance. Typically, these proposals involve the
    United Nations in one of its many manifestations, including the
    General Assembly, the Commission on Science and Technology for
    Development, and the International Telecommunication Union. The
    U.S. Government and others have successfully opposed these
    proposals but it is important to recognize that this will be a
    continuing debate.
        From the privatization of the Internet in the mid-1990s,
    the United States has been committed to a multi-stakeholder
    approach to its governance. That has been true from one
    administration to another. It represents a policy with
    thorough--it is not too strong to say unanimous--bipartisan
    support. The present Internet governance arrangements rely upon
    a collection of specialized institutions of which the Internet
    Society, ICANN, the IETF, and the World Wide Web Consortium are
    important examples. They are noteworthy for two things. The
    first is their expertise, inclusivity, and openness; the second
    is the remarkable success that they have achieved. This is one
    of the reasons we wish to preserve these institutions as the
    instruments of Internet governance. They work and they work
    remarkably well.
        There are two other reasons underlying our commitment to
    preventing the Internet from falling subject to
    intergovernmental controls. First, it inevitably would diminish
    the dynamism that is one of the Internet's greatest strengths.
    The existing arrangements permit the Internet to evolve
    organically in response to changes in technology, business
    practice, and consumer behavior. For reasons that cannot be
    overcome, intergovernmental controls would prevent this.
        Second, intergovernmental controls could be recruited in
    aid of censorship and repression. The United States is deeply
    committed to freedom of expression and the free flow of
    information. We appreciate that some nations, however, do not
    share these commitments. We particularly wish to preclude any
    developments that threaten to reduce Internet freedom that
    would impair freedom of expression, assembly, or association
    online.
        As an alternative to intergovernmental controls, the United
    States encourages governments to adopt multi-stakeholder,
    transparent, and decentralized approaches. Last year's high-
    level ministerial meeting at the OECD both exemplified and
    codified this approach.
        Now, with respect to the World Conference on International
    Telecommunications, in December, representatives of 193 nations
    will gather in Dubai to consider revisions to the international
    telecommunications regulations. A year and more ago there was
    concern that the WCIT would be a battle over investing the IT
    with explicit Internet governance authority and that the
    conference participants would be confronting wholly new
    standalone draft text proposing Internet governance provisions.
        In response, the United States advanced the advantages of
    using the exiting ITRs as a basis for treaty negotiations. I am
    pleased to say that the majority of the ITU's members have
    agreed with us in this regard. The exiting ITRs have been
    accepted as a framework for negotiations. There are no pending
    proposals to vest the IT with direct Internet governance
    authority. Instead, thus far, traditional telecom issues such
    as roaming and fraud prevention have taken center stage.
        The State Department's preparations for the WCIT have been
    in progress for about 18 months. On an ongoing basis, we host
    the International Telecommunications Advisory Committee, or
    ITAC, a forum open to all interested parties to review and
    advise on the regional and national contributions to WCIT as
    they are submitted. Earlier this month, we established our core
    delegation consisting of U.S. Government officials. In
    September, we will complete the delegation with the addition of
    private sector members.
        Earlier this week, the President advised the Senate of his
    selection of Terry Kramer of California as the United States'
    Head of Delegation and of his intention to confer ambassadorial
    rank on Mr. Kramer in connection with this assignment.
        A great deal of preparatory work has been done but a great
    deal more remains to be done. In our work, the United States
    has the significant advantage of unanimity of purpose. We
    benefit from the fact that government officials of both
    parties, civil society, and the corporate sector all are
    committed to the preservation of the multi-stakeholder model
    and the resolution which was introduced this week and which has
    been mentioned today is a very important contribution to
    showing that unanimity.
        We look forward to continuing to work with the Congress as
    we approach the WCIT and other matters that involve Internet
    governance. I greatly appreciate the opportunity you are
    providing with this hearing to affirm the continuing value of
    our approach to Internet governance not just to U.S. citizens
    but to everyone in the world.
        I would be very pleased to respond to any questions you
    might have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Verveer follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.014

        Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. We appreciate the
    work you put into your testimony and the work you are doing for
    the country.
        We turn now to Commissioner McDowell. We appreciate you
    being here and your loud and clear voice on this issue as well.
    And we welcome your son as well. Do you want to introduce your
    special assistant there today?

                    STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. MCDOWELL

        Mr. McDowell. Yes, one of my many supervisors, Mr.
    Chairman, my oldest son Griffin who is 12. This is his first
    day of summer vacation but he wanted to see how his tax dollars
    were being spent.
        Mr. Walden. Wow, you brought him up here for that?
        Mr. McDowell. Yes, let us fill out a press conference after
    the hearing----
        Mr. Walden. That is right.
        Mr. McDowell [continuing]. And he will let us know what his
    conclusion is. But thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
    Ranking Member Eshoo and all members of the subcommittee. It is
    a pleasure to be here today. It is also an extreme honor to be
    seated next to my friend and colleague, Ambassador Verveer, as
    well as right before the next panel good friends as well,
    Ambassador Gross, Dr. Cerf, and Ms. Wentworth as well. So they
    are going to be outstanding witnesses.
        First, please let me allow to dispense quickly and
    emphatically any doubts internationally about the bipartisan
    resolve of the United States to resist efforts to expand the
    ITU's authority over Internet matters. Some ITU officials have
    dismissed our concerns over this issue as mere election year
    politics and nothing could be further from the truth, as
    evidenced by Ambassador Verveer's testimony today, as well as
    recent statements from the White House, Executive Branch
    agencies, Democratic and Republican Members of Congress, and my
    friend and colleague at the FCC, Chairman Julius Genachowski.
    We are unified on the substantive arguments and always have
    been.
        Second, it is important to define the challenge before us.
    The threats are real and not imagined, although they admittedly
    sound like works of fictions at some times. For many years now,
    scores of countries led by China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia,
    but many, many others have pushed for--as Vladimir Putin said
    almost a year ago--international control of the Internet
    through the ITU. Now, I have tried to find a more concise way
    to express this issue but I can't seem to improve on Mr.
    Putin's crystallization of the effort that has been afoot for
    quite some time. More importantly, I think we should take Mr.
    Putin's designs very seriously.
        Six months separate us from the renegotiation of the 1988
    treaty that led to insulating the Internet from economic and
    technical regulation. What proponents of Internet freedom do or
    don't do between now and then will determine the fate of the
    net and affect global economic growth as well as determine
    whether political liberty can proliferate.
        During the treaty negotiations, the most lethal threat to
    Internet freedom may not come from a full frontal assault but
    through insidious and seemingly innocuous expansions of
    intergovernmental powers. This subterranean effort is already
    underway. While influential ITU-member states have put forth
    proposals calling for overt legal expansions of United Nations'
    or ITU authority over the net, ITU officials have publicly
    declared that the ITU does not intend to regulate Internet
    governance while also saying that any regulations should be of
    the light-touch variety.
        But which is it? It is not possible to insulate the
    Internet from new rules while also establishing a light-touch
    regulatory regime. Either a new legal paradigm will emerge in
    December or it won't. The choice is binary.
        Additionally, as a threshold matter, it is curious that ITU
    officials have been opining on the outcome of the treaty
    negotiation. The ITU's member states determine the fate of any
    new rules, not ITU leadership or staff. I remain hopeful that
    the diplomatic process will not be subverted in this regard. As
    a matter of process and substance, patient and persistent
    incrementalism is the net's most dangerous enemy and
    incrementalism is the tactical hallmark of many countries that
    are pushing the pro-regulation agenda.
        Specifically, some ITU officials and member states have
    been discussing an alleged worldwide phone numbering crisis. It
    seems that the world may be running out of phone numbers of
    which the ITU does have some jurisdiction. Today, many phone
    numbers are used for voiceover Internet protocol services such
    as Skype or Google Voice. To function properly, the software
    supporting these services translate traditional phone numbers
    into IP or Internet addresses. The Russian Federation has
    proposed that the ITU be given jurisdiction over IP addresses
    to remedy the phone numbers shortage. What is left unsaid,
    however, is that potential ITU jurisdiction over IP addresses
    would enable it to regulate Internet services and devices with
    abandon. IP addresses are a fundamental and essential component
    to the inner workings of the net. Taking their administration
    away from the bottom-up, nongovernmental, multi-stakeholder
    model and placing it into the hands of international
    bureaucrats would be a grave mistake.
        Other efforts to expand the ITU's reach into the Internet
    are seemingly small but are tectonic in scope. Take, for
    example, the Arab States' submission from February that would
    change the rules' definition of ``telecommunications'' to
    include ``processing'' or computer functions. This change would
    essentially swallow the Internet's functions with only a tiny
    edit to existing rules.
        When ITU leadership claims that no member states have
    proposed absorbing Internet governance into the ITU or other
    intergovernmental entities, the Arab States' submission alone
    demonstrates that nothing could be further from the truth. An
    infinite number of avenues exist to accomplish the same goal
    and it is camouflaged subterfuge that proponents of Internet
    freedom should watch for most vigilantly for years to come.
        Other examples come from China. China would like to see the
    creation of a system whereby Internet users are registered
    using their IP addresses. In fact, last year, China teamed up
    with Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan to propose to the U.N.
    General Assembly that it create ``an international code of
    conduct for information security'' to ``mandate international
    norms and rules standardizing the behavior of countries
    concerning information and cyberspace.'' Now, does anyone here
    today believe that these countries proposals would encourage
    the continued proliferation of an open and freedom-enhancing
    Internet or would such constructs make it easier for
    authoritarian regimes to identify and silence political
    dissidents? These proposals may not technically be part of the
    WCIT negotiations, at least not yet, but they give a sense of
    where some of the ITU's member states would like to go.
        Still other proposals--very quickly--that have been made
    personally to me by foreign government officials include the
    creation of an international universal service fund of sorts
    whereby foreign--usually state-owned--telecom companies would
    use international mandates to charge certain web destinations
    on a per-click basis to fund the build-out of broadband
    infrastructure across the globe. Estimates of that start at
    $800 billion. Google, iTunes, Facebook, and Netflix are
    mentioned most often as prime sources of funding.
        In short and in conclusion, the U.S. and likeminded
    proponents of Internet freedom and prosperity across the globe
    should resist efforts to expand the powers of intergovernmental
    bodies over the Internet even in the smallest of ways. As my
    supplemental statement and analysis explains in more detail,
    such a scenario would be devastating to global economic
    activity as well as political freedom, but it would hurt the
    developing world the most.
        So thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
    and I look forward to you questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. McDowell follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.025

        Mr. Walden. We appreciate your work in this matter and your
    testimony today before the subcommittee.
        Ambassador Verveer, in a blog post you wrote with Assistant
    Secretary of Commerce Lawrence Strickling and White House
    Deputy Chief Technology Officer Daniel Weitzner, you said the
    ``centralized control over the Internet through a top-down
    government approach would put political dealmakers rather than
    innovators and experts in charge of the future of the Internet.
    This would slow the pace of innovation, hamper global economic
    development, and lead to an era of unprecedented control over
    what people can say and do online.'' Would you elaborate on
    that statement for us and then perhaps, Commissioner McDowell,
    you might make a comment or two as well.
        Mr. Verveer. That is right. I would be glad to, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Basically, the anxiety that we have about top-down
    arrangements involves both the economic performance of the
    Internet if you will in terms of its dynamism, in terms of its
    ability to react to opportunities that technology changes
    present and business models present, changes in consumer
    behavior might present. We also are very concerned about
    whether or not top-down intergovernmental controls would aid in
    censorship or repression; that is would aid any particular
    country that is concerned about the content that comes into its
    country that crosses its borders, whether or not these kinds of
    changes might permit it to claim that it is entitled to the aid
    of other countries in terms of preventing unwanted content.
        So we believe that both for reasons of economics but also
    for reasons of the broader political, cultural, social value of
    the Internet, it ought to be kept operating as it is today.
        Mr. Walden. Mr. McDowell, any comment?
        Mr. McDowell. I agree. I thought, by the way, the joint
    blog post by the Department of Commerce, Ambassador Verveer and
    Danny Weitzner in the White House was excellent. I can't really
    improve upon his answer, but as I said in my opening remarks,
    it is a grave threat.
        Mr. Walden. Commissioner, according to Communications Daily
    today, Gigi Sohn from Public Knowledge has said that ``we have
    to be a little careful not to hold up multi-stakeholderism as a
    coin.'' Ultimately, the U.S. Government has to serve as a
    backstop to these efforts, and it is government's role to make
    the decisions and enforce the principles that are developed. Do
    you agree that it is it government's role to make the decisions
    about how the Internet operates and to enforce them?
        Mr. McDowell. I can't speak for Ms. Sohn but to answer your
    question directly, no, I think we need to reinforce the multi-
    stakeholder model in the absence of stakeholder action.
        Mr. Walden. Ambassador Verveer?
        Mr. Verveer. Yes, I think we agree once again that we want
    very much to keep the multi-stakeholder model as the front and
    center basis on which we engage in Internet governance.
        Mr. Walden. And it seems like, Commissioner McDowell and
    Ambassador, that aren't many of the proposals before WCIT
    attempts to regulate the Internet as if it is the old-fashioned
    telephone service? It certainly feels like that to some of us.
        Mr. McDowell. Yes, and then some perhaps with the
    regulation of content and applications as well, which would go
    well beyond the old phone service regulation of yore.
        Mr. Verveer. I guess I would add it is important to
    understand that the contributions that come in are things that
    have the kinds of implications in many instances that
    Commissioner McDowell mentioned in his testimony. But a lot of
    them are probably also motivated or principally motivated by an
    effort to preserve or reinstate the kinds of arrangements that
    existed under the days of voice-grade international telephone
    service. And these are possibly in many instances sincerely
    presented not intending anything anymore than that. For the
    reasons the Commissioner mentioned, these are probably also
    mistaken in terms of efforts to find new approaches to
    regulation.
        Mr. Walden. And in fact I thought your testimony was very
    well done and raises some of these points just how insidious
    they can be and yet look as if they are not problem-creating.
    What do you see as the most troubling small changes if you will
    that have been proposed?
        Mr. McDowell. Well, certainly, the Arab States' proposal is
    very troubling. A small definitional change maybe hoping no one
    would notice that all of a sudden swallows the Internet but
    expands the ITU's jurisdiction tremendously. Again, it could be
    something that comes through the phone numbering issue or some
    other issue. I mean it seems almost every week there is a new
    issue or a new angle or a new front that has opened up, a new
    argument that is tested. So it could be any number.
        Mr. Walden. All right. I have no further questions.
        With that, I will turn over now to ranking member of the
    subcommittee, Ms. Eshoo, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And Ambassador Verveer and Commissioner McDowell, thank you
    not only for being here but for your very strong, knowledgeable
    voices and advocates on this issue as well.
        Ambassador Verveer, you have mentioned in your testimony
    that many other governments have joined with the United States
    in pursuing an outcome that would limit the ITU's involvement
    in Internet governance. Can you tell us what the extent of this
    collaboration is and how are these other governments working
    with the U.S. to achieve this goal? Because it seems to me that
    we have a lot of people, a lot of countries, states, nation-
    states that are--let me put it in a more positive way--don't
    share our view of the Internet and how it operates and how it
    should continue to operate. So how is our coalition doing and
    can you do a little bit of a dive on telling us where you think
    we are with other countries, which is so important?
        And then, I would like Commissioner McDowell, maybe you can
    give us a WCIT 101. How many are going to vote? Is there a time
    frame around this? Is it discussion that begins this year and
    extends for the next 24 years? The last time they met was
    almost a quarter of a century ago. So maybe some already know;
    I am not so sure I understand how the ITU actually is going to
    work when we show up. So if you could handle that one. But let
    us go to Ambassador Verveer first.
        Mr. Verveer. Yes, Representative Eshoo, the principle
    activities to this date in terms of preparation for the
    conference are being undertaken in regional groupings of which
    there are six. Our regional grouping of the Americas involves
    something called CTEL. The Europeans operate under something
    called CEPT, and in the Asia-Pacific area, there is the Asia-
    Pacific Telecommunity, among other places. I think it is a fair
    summary that in those three regions you have a largely
    consistent set of views about how we should proceed. That is to
    say that we don't want to see the treaty conference become the
    occasion for any kind of intergovernmental control of the
    Internet.
        Now, we will, in our preparations, with the leadership of
    our new head of delegation, Terry Kramer, we will engage in a
    great many bilateral discussions as well. By kind of analogy,
    in a recently concluded World Radio Conference, our head of
    delegation and our deputy head of delegation Dick Beaird
    engaged in about 50 bilateral discussions leading up to the
    conference itself. So we are very actively engaged in
    discussions with friends and with those who may have different
    opinions, and that is going to continue on right up to the
    conference itself.
        Ms. Eshoo. Where would you say we are? Is there still a
    split? Is there a consensus that comes around more our view
    than other views on this of the regions that you just
    mentioned?
        Mr. Verveer. Yes, I think one way to describe the state of
    the activities at this point would be to think of this
    conference as potentially having involved two tracks. The first
    track would have been an effort at direct regulation of the
    Internet----
        Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
        Mr. Verveer [continuing]. Something that was a source of
    concern a year and more ago but I think is less a source of
    concern now. The only really direct effort that I am aware of
    to accomplish that was a proposal by the Russian Federation to
    create an entirely new framework for the negotiation of
    entirely new regulations.
        Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
        Mr. Verveer. That effort has been turned back I think
    successfully.
        Ms. Eshoo. That is very good news. I want to get to
    Commissioner McDowell, thank you.
        Mr. McDowell. Sure. When it comes to the process, I will
    actually leave that to the Department of State. The Department
    of State actually takes the lead as a treaty negotiation. We
    play a supporting role----
        Ms. Eshoo. So how many are on our team? Are they votes? Is
    it 40, 50 people?
        Mr. McDowell. Well, there are 193 member states of the ITU.
        Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
        Mr. McDowell. They each have one vote. There is no veto
    power so it doesn't matter how many people live in your
    country; you have the same vote as the tiniest of countries.
    And the idea of every 24 years----
        Ms. Eshoo. Sort of like the Senate.
        Mr. McDowell. I will stay out of the bicameral----
        Ms. Eshoo. I know. I know.
        Mr. McDowell. But the idea of every 24 years on the one
    hand is accurate; on the other hand, this is actually almost an
    annual issue. There is some other conference, you know, that is
    almost every year if not several conferences per year. So the
    ITU has many difference conferences, for instance, the World
    Radio Communications Conference that the Ambassador talked
    about was this past January and February. But we need to look
    beyond this December. I want to make sure the committee and
    everybody listening understands that it is not just about this
    December. This is just the latest vignette in this drama. We
    have to remain vigilant for years to come. There will be more
    meetings, more possibilities for treaty negotiations in 2013,
    '14, '15, and on out.
        Ms. Eshoo. Thank you.
        Mr. Terry [presiding]. Thank you. I recognize myself for
    questions. Mr. Upton was supposed to be next but since he is
    not here, I will take his time.
        Mr., or is it Ambassador----
        Mr. Verveer. Either is fine.
        Mr. Terry [continuing]. Verveer, trying to get more up to
    speed on this. I am concerned about the Secretary-General Toure
    and his relationships with Russia and Vladimir Putin and then
    couple that relationship with Putin's comments where he is very
    blunt about his desires to regulate the Internet and take
    control of the Internet. So I ask you is that an unfounded
    concern or fear that I have? When the Secretary General of the
    ITU has this relationship, is it unfounded? Is this
    relationship a concern? What steps are we taking to be able to
    counterbalance that relationship?
        Mr. Verveer. Well, my view is that the Secretary General is
    in fact a very effective and honorable international civil
    servant elected to this position and then reelected unanimously
    the last go-around. So he is very well respected. He has been
    very effective and I don't personally have any serious
    misgivings about his ability to be fair, to be helpful in terms
    of helping to see that the conference and the ongoing
    activities that Commissioner McDowell mentioned take place.
        He is a man who has a very strong and personal connection
    with the United States. He lived here for 12 years working for
    Intelsat.
        Mr. Terry. He has family here?
        Mr. Verveer. Two of his children are U.S. citizens and I
    believe resident here. And so I think he exemplifies, I
    believe, a very decent international civil servant in what is a
    very important and frankly very complicated job. He has to
    attend to the legitimate needs and requirements of the United
    States but also of the Russian Federation, of China, and every
    other of the 193 countries in the world. But I don't think we
    need to have anxieties about his integrity.
        Mr. Terry. All right. I wasn't questioning his integrity
    but that maybe his beliefs were close to what Prime Minister
    Putin has expressed. And so, Mr. McDowell, do you have any
    concerns or fears about the relationship----
        Mr. McDowell. I think what is more----
        Mr. Terry [continuing]. And whether that puts us behind the
    eight ball so to speak?
        Mr. McDowell. I will take Ambassador Verveer's analysis, of
    course, at face value. He is much more an expert on that than I
    am. But what is more important than looking at his background I
    think is looking at his public statements on these issues, many
    of which I have cited in my testimony and other things----
        Mr. Terry. Good point.
        Mr. McDowell [continuing]. And I think when you read them,
    they speak for themselves.
        Mr. Terry. Yes. And that is concerning.
        I don't know, Ambassador Verveer, soon-to-be Ambassador
    Kramer, will you walk through your level of confidence in Mr.
    Kramer and what preparations he should be taking to make sure
    that we draw a hard line?
        Mr. Verveer. Sure. Mr. Kramer is a retired senior executive
    who had worked very extensively particularly in the wireless
    business. His career involved very significantly service
    initially in Pacific Telesis which then spun off its wireless
    business into a company called AirTouch, which eventually was
    acquired by Vodafone. Mr. Kramer, during almost all of this
    time, then, followed the progression of the company and the
    assets as they were sold. He spent a good many years of his
    career as a senior executive for Vodafone. He spent about 5
    years, as I understand it, in the United Kingdom and in the
    Netherlands involved in Vodafone's extensive international
    activities. He has been a member of the Executive Committee of
    the GSM Association, which is the largest international
    wireless association, has spent some time since his retirement
    teaching at Harvard at the Harvard Business School, and he is
    about to undertake, I believe, teaching assignments at UCLA at
    the business school there.
        He is a man of very considerable experience, then, in the
    international communications arena. I think it will prove to be
    something that is very, very valuable from our point of view.
    There will be a learning curve. We are embarking now in terms
    of helping him with that----
        Mr. Terry. My time is expired but I am worried about or
    concerned about whether the learning curve that we in the few
    months before December conference--and I will let somebody else
    ask that question.
        So at this time I recognize Mr. Markey.
        Mr. Markey. I thank the gentleman. Back in January, Sir Tim
    Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, urged us to
    ``make sure the Web itself is a blank sheet, the blank canvas,
    something that does not constrain the innovation that is around
    the corner.'' The wonderful thing about the Internet, Sir Tim
    also reminded us, is that no one needs to ask permission to
    innovate, to get their voice heard, to launch a new service or
    a new business enterprise. That is the magic of the Internet.
    The Internet is the most level playing field for commercial
    opportunity ever invented. It is the most successful
    communication and commercial medium in history. It is the
    lifeblood of the world economy.
        Now, last week, Vint Cerf, who is going to testify on the
    second panel and was hired by Bolt Beranek and Newman along
    with several others, back in the late 1960s, to develop packets
    which network that eventually became known as the Internet, he
    wrote just last Thursday in the New York Times, ``the decisions
    taken in Dubai in December have the potential to put government
    handcuffs on the net.'' To prevent that and keep the Internet
    open and free for the next generation, we need to prevent a
    fundamental shift in how the Internet is governed.
        Do you think that can happen in Dubai, Ambassador Verveer?
        Mr. Verveer. I think it could happen but I think it is very
    unlikely to happen. And one of the reasons it is very unlikely
    to happen is many of the countries of the world are very alert
    to the kinds of concerns that Sir Tim mentioned in the hearing
    in 2007. The Internet is enormously valuable to everyone in the
    world and I think it is a fair surmise that almost all of the
    countries of the world are going to be very anxious not to do
    anything that might damage it. And, of course, that is a large
    part of the effort we have been and will continue to make is to
    point out that there are things that could damage it.
        Mr. Markey. What is the motivation in your opinion behind
    what China or Russia might seek to accomplish if they were
    successful in what they had been proposing?
        Mr. Verveer. Both of those countries have a concept that
    they call information security. And their concept of
    information security is both what we would call cybersecurity--
    that is a physical protection of their networks--but it goes
    beyond that to address content that they regard as unwanted.
    And I think as much as anything else, at the base, the
    motivations that Russia and China have involve regime stability
    and regime preservation which for them involves preventing
    unwanted content from being made widely available in their
    country.
        Mr. Markey. And Commissioner McDowell, how do you view this
    threat from China and Russia and others that seek to retain
    regime stability and can only really pursue it through an
    international control of the Internet?
        Mr. McDowell. For those countries that are offering such
    ideas that are authoritarian like the ones you cite, I don't
    think it is too stark to say their vision of the Internet is to
    have a tyrannical walled garden. But I think there are a
    variety of motivations throughout the 193 member states who
    might find a number of things appealing. It might be purely
    economic, state-owned, telephone companies charging web
    destinations on a per-click basis, things of that nature that
    might be an economic incentive. But for the Chinas and Russias
    and other authoritarian regimes----
        Mr. Markey. Um-hum.
        Mr. McDowell [continuing]. I think it is to snuff out
    political dissent.
        Mr. Markey. We actually had to have a hearing here in 1987
    when the Federal Communications Commission was actually
    considering a proposal that would have per-minute charges up on
    the corner of the screen on the Internet rather than an all-
    you-can-eat kind of proposal, which we are glad we beat that
    back back in 1987 so that we could have this chaotic,
    uncontrollable system that ultimately developed.
        So Mr. Ambassador, are you gratified by the response you
    are receiving from other countries in their alignment with the
    United States in resisting these proposals coming from
    totalitarian states?
        Mr. Verveer. Well, by and large, we are gratified by the
    responses that we have seen. We find that a significant number
    of our allies have been prepared to step up to also oppose what
    we regard as fundamentally bad ideas. And I am very confident
    that as we have the opportunity over the next 6 months to
    continue these discussions that we are likely to end up with
    what we all find to be adequate----
        Mr. Markey. Are these countries joining us because of
    pressure from the United States or because they agree with us
    that the Internet should retain this chaotic nature?
        Mr. Verveer. Well, I think in very many instances they do
    agree with us, that they see the value of the Internet as a
    mechanism for economic and broader improvements.
        Mr. Markey. Do you want to list the few countries that
    agree with us?
        Mr. Verveer. Surely. We find that we get a good deal of
    support from Japan in terms of activities in the Asia-Pacific
    Telecommunity. We find that we are getting a good deal of
    support from not only Canada and Mexico but other countries in
    our hemisphere in terms of some proposals that we make. Many of
    the European countries are very well aligned with us in terms
    of the issues and values that we think are most important in
    terms of preserving. So we see, I think, very substantial
    support for the kind of broad views that we have about the
    Internet, which is again not to say that this is fully
    resolved. There is a great deal more work that needs to be done
    both in connection with this conference and then probably into
    the indefinite future.
        Mr. Markey. OK. Congratulations to the Obama administration
    on their excellent work on this.
        Mr. Terry. Mr. Stearns, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Ambassador, with these 193 countries meeting in Dubai,
    Mr. Markey touched upon and the question was how many support
    us? How many votes are we short on having the majority to
    support our position exactly?
        Mr. Verveer. Well, I don't think we have a count. It is
    very important to understand----
        Mr. Stearns. You don't have a count on it? You don't know?
        Mr. Verveer. We don't have----
        Mr. Stearns. We have a whip here that really knows before
    any votes are taken what is happening. You know, I get a little
    concerned that you don't even know. I understand that we are
    about nine votes short but you think that is an accurate
    representation?
        Mr. Verveer. No. I don't----
        Mr. Stearns. Is it more?
        Mr. Verveer. If I could explain?
        Mr. Stearns. Sure. Sure.
        Mr. Verveer. The conference will follow the ITU traditions
    which involve avoiding votes. The conference will operate on
    the basis of a----
        Mr. Stearns. So there will never be a vote? If you don't
    mind, I would like you to answer yes or no if possible just
    because I don't have a lot of time. Will there be a vote in
    Dubai on this by these 193 countries? Yes or no?
        Mr. Verveer. I think it is very unlikely.
        Mr. Stearns. So there will be no vote. So we don't have to
    worry about who is for us and who is against us?
        Mr. Verveer. We do have to worry about that because the----
        Mr. Stearns. OK.
        Mr. Verveer. First, it is important to understand there are
    going to be many different contributions that are going to be
    discussed----
        Mr. Stearns. I understand. Do they work on the basis of a
    consensus? In other words, they have this sort of silent
    consensus and they move forward without a vote? Is that what
    happens?
        Mr. Verveer. That is in fact what happens.
        Mr. Stearns. So there will be a vote but it will be a vote
    sort of secretly through a consensus, and based upon that, a
    report will be written and that report will be issued and that
    will be the hard fall answer to the Dubai conference. Would
    that be a fair estimation what is going to happen?
        Mr. Verveer. Yes. What will happen is there will be
    negotiations over individual proposals in terms of the
    international telecommunications regulations. Those
    negotiations will yield presumably some agreement on words and
    phrases in terms of the regulations----
        Mr. Stearns. I understand.
        Mr. Verveer [continuing]. Or agreement not to change them.
        Mr. Stearns. OK, just so we as legislators have an
    understanding, can you give me today how many votes we are
    short of a consensus?
        Mr. Verveer. I cannot tell you----
        Mr. Stearns. Ten votes short, 100 votes short? I mean can't
    you just give me a broad brush?
        Mr. Verveer. I am sorry to say----
        Mr. Stearns. OK.
        Mr. Verveer [continuing]. I think it is impossible to
    answer that----
        Mr. Stearns. Mr. McDowell----
        Mr. Verveer [continuing]. Question.
        Mr. Stearns [continuing]. Any comments you want to say on
    this? In fact, you might suggest what as a legislator I and my
    fellow colleagues could do here based upon this evolving
    consensus where it appears we are nine votes short?
        Mr. McDowell. Well, actually, I think also going back to
    the dialogue with Congressman Markey, it is important that this
    not be an issue of the United States versus----
        Mr. Stearns. I agree.
        Mr. McDowell [continuing]. The rest of the world.
        Mr. Stearns. I agree.
        Mr. McDowell. I think we need to cultivate allies in the
    developing world. They have the most to gain from an unfettered
    Internet and the most to lose if this goes forward. So that is
    where I think we need to be whipping up the votes, to use your
    term.
        Mr. Stearns. OK. Is there anything that the FCC is doing
    right now that would impact this ITU?
        Mr. McDowell. Yes, we have an International Bureau that
    works on this and works closely with the State Department----
        Mr. Stearns. OK.
        Mr. McDowell [continuing]. And they are busy working with
    member states throughout the world.
        Mr. Stearns. Commissioner McDowell, you mentioned in your
    extended testimony the potential outcome of a balkanized
    Internet if pro-regulation nations are successful in December.
    Could you perhaps expand on this? And what would be the
    consequences for the United States and other countries?
        Mr. McDowell. I am sure whether it is December or sometime
    in the future. And I, by the way, would like to suggest to the
    committee that maybe we do a post-WCIT hearing at some point
    maybe early next year to see how things went and what is going
    to happen in the future.
        But what I mean by a balkanized Internet would be are there
    going to be countries that would opt out of the current multi-
    stakeholder model and choose this top-down regulatory regime,
    in which case, you know, the Internet is a network of networks
    without borders and it would really create an engineering
    morass. At a minimum this would create chaos and confusion and
    economic uncertainty. That always leads to increased costs.
    Increased costs are always passed on to end-user consumers. So
    that is at a minimum. So at a maximum we would see a wilting of
    the proliferation of political freedom and prosperity abroad,
    and we would also I think see innovation be snuffed out in the
    cradle and we will never know what innovations might not have
    come to fruition.
        The great thing about the Internet is just, you know,
    access to a computer and an Internet connection in order to
    create the next great idea, whether that is the next Facebook.
    But that could come from the developing world.
        Mr. Stearns. Mr. Ambassador, besides Russia and China, what
    are the other top three or four countries that want to put this
    under the U.N. auspices?
        Mr. Verveer. Well, we see substantial efforts on the part
    of Iran to do that.
        Mr. Stearns. OK.
        Mr. Verveer. There are certain Arab States that----
        Mr. Stearns. Can you name the Arab States?
        Mr. Verveer. Pardon me?
        Mr. Stearns. Can you name the Arab States?
        Mr. Verveer. Well----
        Mr. Stearns. Egypt?
        Mr. Verveer. Egypt has certainly taken some----
        Mr. Stearns. Position?
        Mr. Verveer. But not complete steps in that direction.
    There have been efforts as well----
        Mr. Stearns. Tunisia?
        Mr. Verveer. I don't believe I would put Tunisia in----
        Mr. Stearns. Saudi Arabia?
        Mr. Verveer [continuing]. That category. Saudi Arabia,
    again, as with Egypt, has from time to time taken steps or
    taken positions that----
        Mr. Stearns. Would it be fair to say that most of the mid-
    East countries other than Israel is supporting this? Is that a
    fair statement?
        Mr. Verveer. We see support after a fashion I suppose from
    some of the Arab States, yes, but I think the thing that is
    critically important to understand is that in terms of
    genuinely hard-line opponents to the arrangements as we see
    them today, that they tend to be states that we have already
    mentioned. That otherwise there are subtleties and nuances that
    are substantial in terms of----
        Mr. Stearns. Got you. All right. My time is expired. I
    thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        It is just an odd coincidence or ironic that with the Arab
    Spring that a lot of these countries seem to want to put it
    into a monopoly type of U.N. operation. Thank you.
        Mr. Terry. Thank you, Mr. Stearns.
        The gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui, is recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ambassador Verveer, I want to talk more about the WCIT. You
    mentioned that the ITRs have not been revised since 1988, which
    is about 25 years ago and a lot has happened in 25 years. The
    comparison is even worse than the Tortoise and the Hare. It is
    more like we are at warp speed right now. And why did the ITU
    decide to reexamine the ITRs now? And do you anticipate that
    they will want to examine them again shortly? I mean is there a
    schedule to do this?
        Mr. Verveer. First, I think it is important to understand
    that there has been pressure to reexamine the ITRs that has
    existed for many, many years. The United States has taken the
    view over the years that it wasn't really necessary to do this,
    but finally, in 2006, an overall decision was made that it
    would happen this year. The idea behind that I think more than
    any other is something that has been made plain at this
    hearing, which is that the world has changed so dramatically
    that it seemed like it was time to review the ITRs. Now, that
    said, the ITRs themselves, which are only nine pages long, in
    fact do have a great many things that continue to be of value
    that could and should be preserved.
        There is no schedule beyond this upcoming conference to
    revisit the ITRs on any regular basis. There have been some
    contributions or proposals that suggest that that might be
    valuable, but I think generally--again, this is not something
    that has achieved a great deal of momentum.
        Ms. Matsui. Well, once discussion begins as it has and the
    countries, because of recent history, have become involved in
    the Internet and seen the positives as well as the negatives as
    far as some of the countries that really look towards
    censorship, isn't it possible this will be a continuing process
    and we should be on alert now that this collaboration must
    continue because, as we know, technology just keeps rapidly
    expanding and we are not sure exactly what the next big thing
    is.
        So is there an opportunity--and I suppose it is a multi-
    stakeholder process--to open it up more, this ITU process, to
    more stakeholders, to nongovernmental stakeholders, which I
    believe that Dr. Cerf has spoken about? Do you agree on that
    and how can the U.S. Government advocate for greater
    transparency in this process since that to me is sort of a
    stumbling block for some of the other countries?
        Mr. Verveer. Well, it is certainly true, I think, that
    there has been criticism--and I think it is legitimate
    criticism--about the ability of the nonmembers of the ITU to be
    aware of the deliberations, be aware of what is taking place in
    terms of preparation for this conference and more broadly. We
    are prepared through the ITU Council and good efforts of Dick
    Beaird, who has been our representative on the Council for
    many, many years, to propose to the Council that its report,
    which is going to be a very important document in the scheme of
    things, that its report in preparation for the WCIT be
    generally available. It would be very useful if we can find
    more ways--this is a point the United States often makes--to
    have more of the ITU's documents more widely available to all
    of the interested stakeholders.
        Ms. Matsui. I would think--and this is a question for both
    Ambassador Verveer and Commissioner McDowell--that there should
    be more opening of the process for increase of knowledge here
    even in the United States as to the importance of this. We in
    this country tend to take the Internet for granted and, you
    know, we see what has happened with the Arab Spring and realize
    how it has affected other countries.
        I think that to a great degree we forget that what would
    happen if, let us say, the worst happened, this scenario, and
    that things would close down. I am curious what would happen if
    the worst happened here? What would happen here in this
    country? Would those resolutions immediately become law? What
    steps can the U.S. take to limit its participation in the
    treaty? You know, I kind of want to know what would happen. And
    either of you can answer that and both of you in fact.
        Mr. Verveer. This is a very important point that you have
    raised and I am glad you have. First, it is conventional and
    assured we will take a very broad reservation from whatever is
    agreed at the conference. And virtually every other country
    will do the same thing. So you will have countries agreeing
    that they will abide by the provisions of the treaty unless for
    some reason they won't. And as I said, typically, the reasons
    will be extraordinarily broad. That is one thing.
        The second thing it is very important to understand is
    there is no enforcement mechanism associated with this. These
    are precatory as many, many other aspects of international law
    are so that it is not reasonable to assume that if something
    really ruinous for some reason came and was to be adopted as a
    particular regulation that you would see countries against
    their interest enforcing that regulation as only the countries
    would be able to enforce. There is no other way for it to be
    done.
        So this conference and all these activities are
    extraordinarily important in terms of establishing norms, in
    terms of establishing expectations, in terms of trying to help
    with respect to both the commercial activities and the free
    flow of information. But they are very, very different from a
    law that the Congress, for example, might adopt that would be
    subject to all the juridical enforcement mechanisms that are
    available.
        Ms. Matsui. I am running out of time, but Commissioner
    McDowell, do you have any comments? Can you add to this?
        Mr. McDowell. I don't think I could say it any better than
    he could in the observance of time so----
        Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you very much, both of you.
        Mr. Terry. The other gentlelady from Southern California,
    Mary Bono Mack.
        Mrs. Bono Mack. Thank you.
        Thank you both for your testimony. You certainly didn't
    mince words. There is no doubt that you feel strongly. And what
    I like is that I agree with everything you have said. It is
    hard to question witnesses when you are just trying to make
    them agree with you more than they already do, but I will do my
    best and just try to get out of you a little bit of
    explanation. I think as Ms. Matsui was just saying, a bigger
    explanation for the American people what is at stake here, I
    started talking about this well over a year ago and people have
    sort of viewed me as having a tinfoil hat on my head and was
    creating an issue that wasn't very real. But if you could talk
    a little bit about we clearly understand the Arab Spring and
    what this means and that the Internet is the biggest tool for
    freedom around the world that mankind has ever seen. So taking
    that aside instead can you talk a little bit about the
    proposal, how it would impact U.S. business and what it means
    for the bottom line for business should this occur? To both of
    you.
        Mr. McDowell. Sure. And thank you, Congresswoman, for your
    leadership on this issue. In the early days there were a lot of
    folks who questioned whether or not this was real and I am glad
    you stuck your neck out and thank you for your leadership.
        At a minimum, it creates uncertainty and drives up costs
    and that alone can be damaging. Let us take an example. So
    Harvard and MIT recently announced they are going to offer
    courses online for free. The concept of free content or
    applications on the net could be put at risk if costs are
    raised. Ultimately, consumers pay for those costs one way or
    the other. They always pay for increased costs due to
    regulation. So, you know, at a maximum, then, you would have
    some sort of bifurcated Internet, cross-border technology such
    as cloud computing, which is becoming essential to creating
    efficiencies and bringing more value to consumers and raising
    living standards ultimately. That could be jeopardized as it
    becomes harder to figure out how do you engineer these
    technologies across borders when in the past the Internet
    didn't have to worry about that as much. So that gives you a
    flavor.
        Mrs. Bono Mack. Thank you.
        Ambassador, do you----
        Mr. Verveer. Well, I certainly would agree with the
    commissioner on that I think it is perfectly fair to observe
    that the free flow of information, including the free flow of
    commercial information, is something that has added--as the
    studies have been cited this morning--indicate has added
    measurably to the world's wealth. So we are very anxious that
    there not be anything that would inhibit that.
        There have, for example, been some suggestions made by some
    countries that we ought to have a kind of per-click charge if
    you will that content providers ought to contribute to the cost
    of transmission companies for concluding traffic. There are a
    variety of reasons why that seems to us not to be a good idea
    at all, but you can see what could turn out to be marginal
    imposition on the Internet would in fact interfere with the
    commercial value of it and we are very anxious to avoid that.
        Mrs. Bono Mack. Thank you, Ambassador. And would you speak
    a little bit--in your testimony you mentioned that there are
    proposals under consideration at WCIT that would allow
    governments to restrict content and monitor Internet users. Can
    you speak a little bit about how the U.S. is working now to
    prevent countries from already censoring the Internet?
        Mr. Verveer. Well, we are very anxious, as you might
    imagine, to overcome any suggestions that there ought to be
    content-related restrictions. With the suggestions of this kind
    come, again, as Commissioner McDowell indicated in his
    testimony, not just or not even especially in the context of
    WCIT but in other forums as well, and they tend to come from
    countries that have--I suppose it is easy to say non-democratic
    traditions. And as a result, on the one hand, we are dealing
    with what are almost certainly sincere beliefs on the part of
    the political elites that stability is very important, that
    there are in fact objectionable--either from a political
    perspective or other cultural perspectives--there is such a
    thing as material so objectionable it ought to be excluded.
    That said, we obviously disagree with that and we particularly
    disagree with it when we are talking about what we might
    describe as political speech. But this set of issues arises
    more extensively in, for example, the kind of suggestion that
    Russia, China, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan had made in the
    context of the United Nations.
        Mrs. Bono Mack. I thank you. And my time is up. Again, I
    just want to thank you both very much for your hard work on
    this issue and for being here today.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Terry. Thank you, Mary, and I want to thank you for
    your good effort on your resolution, that bipartisan----
        Mrs. Bono Mack. I look good in a tinfoil hat.
        Mr. Terry. Well, this time it was legitimate and necessary
    and I am proud of the work that you have done with Henry Waxman
    and Ms. Eshoo to make it a bipartisan. We are all in agreement
    on this one.
        Mr. Dingell?
        Mr. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
    courtesy.
        First, I would like to welcome my old friend, Ambassador
    Verveer, who is a friend and resource to this committee. He was
    bureau chief of the three bureaus at the FCC back in the '70s
    and served the Department of Justice before that. Mr.
    Ambassador, welcome, and I look forward to our exchange.
        And, of course, Commissioner McDowell, we appreciate your
    service and thank you for being here this morning. Your wise
    counsel has been helpful to me on many occasions.
        Now, to both witnesses, this is a yes-or-no answer. Is it
    true that some members of the ITU may propose revisions in the
    ITRs that set out prescriptive and international regulations
    for issues such as Internet privacy and cybersecurity? Yes or
    no?
        Mr. Verveer. The answer is yes.
        Mr. McDowell. Yes.
        Mr. Dingell. To both witnesses, do you believe that it is
    wise for the United States to concede to international
    standards on Internet matters not settled definitively? That is
    privacy and cybersecurity by the Congress? Yes or no?
        Mr. Verveer. It is unwise for us to get too far in front of
    the overall consensus.
        Mr. Dingell. You find that to be a bit rushing things, is
    that right?
        Mr. Verveer. I now can't recall if this should be a yes or
    a no but it would be a bad idea.
        Mr. Dingell. I don't like to do that but we have a lot of
    ground to cover.
        Commissioner?
        Mr. McDowell. Unwise.
        Mr. Dingell. Now, again, to both of our witnesses, I
    understand that some of the countries like Russia and China
    believe that ``policy authority for Internet-related public
    issues is the sovereign rights of States and not multi-
    stakeholders.'' Is that correct? Yes or no?
        Mr. Verveer. Yes, that's correct.
        Mr. Dingell. Commissioner?
        Mr. McDowell. That is their position? Is that the question?
        Mr. Dingell. Yes, is that their position?
        Mr. McDowell. Because I understand their position, yes.
        Mr. Dingell. Do you agree with that position?
        Mr. Verveer. No, we don't.
        Mr. McDowell. No.
        Mr. Dingell. Now, in your collective opinion is it wise to
    maintain international multi-stakeholder regulatory process
    that more closely resembles the Administrative Procedure Act
    model that we use in the United States as opposed to what China
    and Russia propose? Yes or no?
        Mr. Verveer. Yes.
        Mr. Dingell. Commissioner?
        Mr. McDowell. If I understand the question correctly, I
    would not want a legal paradigm put in place of the multi-
    stakeholder model. So there are some words in there which I am
    not sure I understand completely so I want to make that point
    clear.
        Mr. Dingell. Thank you, gentlemen. It looks like we are in
    agreement, then, on these matters.
        Now, since you are both here I would like to ask you about
    an unrelated matter. I know you are both aware that the
    President has signed legislation that permits the FCC to
    conduct an incentive auction in which television broadcasters
    can elect to return their licenses in return for a portion of
    the auction revenues. That legislation includes the amendment
    offered by Mr. Bilbray and I directing the FCC to coordinate
    with Canadian and Mexican authorities so that consumers and
    particularly those in border regions won't lose access to
    television signals when the incentive auction is over. Now, Mr.
    Ambassador, would you please bring the subcommittee up to speed
    on where things stand with Canada and Mexico with respect to
    this very important matter, particularly so to my constituents,
    particularly as there are no additional frequencies available
    for displaced stations in my hometown of Detroit if the
    television ban is repacked? I have to ask you to be brief on
    this and perhaps maybe you would want to submit some additional
    comments to the record. Mr. Ambassador?
        Mr. Verveer. Well, Mr. Dingell, there are treaty
    obligations that we have with Canada that are designed to
    protect the broadcasters on both sides of the border. This is a
    problem not just in the area of Detroit but also in New York
    State in addition----
        Mr. Dingell. Also in Washington, Montana, along the borders
    of Minnesota and Oregon and other places, too.
        Mr. Verveer. And likewise on the Mexican border. These are
    things that have to be worked out and have to be worked out by
    agreement between the two countries. But in addition, as you
    mention, there is a legislative mandate that no one be
    disadvantaged if they choose to continue to broadcast. So this
    is going to be a complicated engineering matter. It may or may
    not be something that will permit any particular changes in the
    status of all the border regions, but both the treaty and the
    statutory obligations obviously will be observed.
        Mr. Dingell. Now, Commissioner McDowell, you are working on
    this at the Commission I know. Can you assure me of the
    Commission's commitment to full transparency on this matter?
    Yes or no?
        Mr. McDowell. Yes, from my office. I can't speak for the
    chairman or the other commissioner.
        Mr. Dingell. I am comfortable that you would engage in full
    transparency. I am a little less comfortable about some of the
    other folks down at the Commission. I recognize, Commissioner,
    that you speak for yourself. Are you comfortable that everybody
    else at the Commission shares your goodwill on this matter?
        Mr. McDowell. I certainly hope so, sir.
        Mr. Dingell. I do, too. I am a little bit like the fellow
    that was walking down the street and ask him, are you an
    optimist or a pessimist? And he said, I am an optimist. And
    then he said, well, why are you frowning? He said, because I am
    not sure my optimism is justified.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Terry. Nice one. All right. Thank you, Mr. Dingell.
        And now we recognize the gentlelady from Tennessee for 5
    minutes.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And again, I thank you all for being here.
        Mr. Ambassador, a couple of questions for you. When was the
    last time that the State Department published a notice of an
    official meeting to prepare for the WCIT '12?
        Mr. Verveer. You know, I am not sure when we did. We
    understand that we have an obligation to publish notices in
    connection with what we call our ITAC meetings so that----
        Mrs. Blackburn. OK.
        Mr. Verveer [continuing]. Anyone----
        Mrs. Blackburn. Well, let me help you out with that a
    little bit because the last notice that I could find was
    January 11. That was the last public notice. But from what I
    have been able to find out is that the State Department is
    holding regular meetings of interested stakeholders on a
    regular basis and you have done this all year long to prepare
    for the conference. Isn't that correct?
        Mr. Verveer. That is correct.
        Mrs. Blackburn. OK. And is your staff holding regular
    conference calls and managing a LISTSERV for stakeholders to
    circulate position papers and ideas to inform the U.S.
    delegation in advance of the WCIT '12 preparatory meetings?
        Mr. Verveer. Yes, that is also correct.
        Mrs. Blackburn. That is correct? OK. So first of all, how
    do you get on the LISTSERV so that you are aware of what is
    going on? And then secondly, how can my constituents that are
    not just the largest and the wealthiest companies on the
    Internet or the intellectual elites participate in the process
    if there is no way for them to know how to participate in that
    process or when the meetings are going to take place or how to
    get involved? How do we advise them on this?
        Mr. Verveer. Well, first, you are obviously raising a very
    legitimate, very important question. The notices that were
    made--and my recollection of the advice we got from the lawyers
    at the State Department was that we could provide a kind of
    general notice as a legal matter for these regular meetings. It
    is very easy to get on the LISTSERV but you have to know who to
    contact. And if that is something that is obscure from the
    standpoint of the public record, we will correct that. But
    anyone who wishes to be on the LISTSERV certainly can----
        Mrs. Blackburn. Well, I would like to make certain that we
    take care of this because this was going to be the most
    transparent administration in history and here we get to an
    issue that is very important to a lot of my constituents and
    they feel blocked out of this process.
        Commissioner McDowell, I appreciate that you have been an
    outspoken critic of WCIT '12 and appreciate your efforts. Let
    me ask you this: you have been to Nashville, we have done a
    town hall there in Nashville, you know that I have got a lot of
    constituents that want to participate in this process, and you
    know that they are very concerned about what international
    control of the Internet would do to them and do to their
    livelihoods. So, you know, how do we go about this if the FCC
    doesn't have an open docket for comments? Don't you think that
    that would be a good idea to have an open docket that these
    individuals, these small business operators would be invited
    into for comment? And, you know, I know that at one point there
    was one but there doesn't seem to be now. So I think early 2010
    there was an open docket. So tell me how we go about fixing
    this?
        Mr. McDowell. The best vehicle for that would be something
    called a Notice of Inquiry that the FCC could open up on----
        Mrs. Blackburn. OK.
        Mr. McDowell [continuing]. What the FCC should be doing in
    support of the State Department's taking the lead on WCIT '12.
        Mrs. Blackburn. OK. That sounds good. And let me ask you
    this: you know, one of the things as I looked at this issue
    with the docket, one of the things that concerns me is if the
    FCC still does have an open proceeding to reclassify the
    Internet services of Title II, telecom service. And so tell me
    this: how is that open proceeding different from the proposals
    in front of the ITU? And shouldn't we close that docket
    immediately?
        Mr. McDowell. Yes, we should. I have been very public about
    that for many years, as well as the original net neutrality
    proceeding, I think it sends the wrong signal internationally
    and I think it should be closed as soon as possible.
        Mrs. Blackburn. OK. Thank you for that.
        Mr. McDowell. Thank you.
        Mrs. Blackburn. My time is expired and I thank you for the
    time and the questions.
        Mr. Terry. Thank you.
        Gentlelady from the Virgin Islands.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I, too, want to welcome both the commissioner and the
    ambassador and thank you for your testimonies. And it is really
    great to have such bipartisan support on this important issue.
    So I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for having
    this hearing as we approach the WCIT.
        I am not sure that all the questions that needed to be
    asked have not been asked, but as my colleague usually says,
    not everyone has asked them. But some have suggested that there
    is need for greater transparency and accountability in the IT
    process. Do you agree? And if you do think that there is a need
    for greater transparency, can it be accomplished without
    regulation that hampers the free and open access to the
    Internet?
        Mr. Verveer. Well, if I understood your question correctly
    about the desirability of greater transparency, generally in
    the ITU process, the answer I think from our point of view is,
    yes, that would be desirable. And we have recommended various
    measures along those lines over the years and have seen some of
    them come to fruition, some not. There are steps that we can
    and we do take here in the U.S. to try to aid non-ITU members
    to understand what is going on there in terms of making
    materials available that are available to us as a member of the
    ITU. And as I mentioned earlier, we are proposing in the
    specific instance of WCIT that the Council report, which will
    be the critical document or one of the most critical documents
    going forward, should be made public once it is in fact issued
    following council working group session in the next several
    weeks.
        Mrs. Christensen. Commissioner, do you have anything to add
    or----
        Mr. McDowell. I have nothing further to add other than to
    say I have heard time and time again from civil society, think
    tanks, efficacy groups, and such that they are very concerned
    about the opaque nature of the ITU. The ITU generates revenue
    from having civil society groups, non-member voting states join
    the ITU for I think about $35,000 or the equivalent thereof and
    that is a way of generating money for the ITU and then you can
    get certain documents. I have found it difficult actually even
    for my office to get some ITU documents. You kind of have to
    know somebody and I am part of the U.S. Government the last
    time I checked. So I do think this is something the ITU needs
    to work on and I have every faith in Ambassador Verveer and the
    incoming ambassador for the WCIT to address that issue.
        Mrs. Christensen. I guess as a follow-up to what you just
    said, there are also some recommendations that are brought up I
    think in some of the testimony from the second panel that the
    ITU should have some nongovernmental voting members. Is that
    something that you would agree should happen? And if not, there
    must be a way for them to have some significant way of
    participating in the discussion.
        Mr. Verveer. Well, the ITU follows the general U.N. model
    of having nation-states as the voting members. This is
    essentially the architecture that the Greatest Generation
    worked out for us. And there are opportunities to try to find
    greater roles for non-nation-state participants. There are
    other forms of membership in the ITU that are nonvoting that
    permit a good deal of participation. But in fact I think a
    legitimate objective to find better ways to make the ITU's
    work--and this is also true of many of the other U.N.
    organizations--more available, more accessible, and more
    participatory in terms of non-nation states who may be involved
    may be interested.
        Mrs. Christensen. And, Commissioner, you talk about the
    light touch, a proposal, but it is possible to have any kind of
    a light touch regulatory regime without threatening into that
    freedom? I mean that is not possible.
        Mr. McDowell. No.
        Mrs. Christensen. That is just another way of getting into
    a slippery slope, isn't it?
        Mr. McDowell. It is a sales pitch for a much bigger
    problem. There is no way to have both.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
        I yield back the balance.
        Mr. Walden. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her
    time.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
    Bilbray, for 5.
        Mr. Bilbray. Gentlemen, just a general question. I am sure
    somebody else has already asked it but, you know, as we say
    that everything has been said, just not everybody said it.
        What can Congress do to help with the negotiations with
    other countries to ensure a strong position that the Internet
    remain free and open without the harmful international
    regulations stifling it? What can we do in Congress to help
    with the effort? And what must we do?
        Mr. Verveer. I think the resolution that was adopted or was
    promulgated in the last day or two is one very important
    possibility and it is one that where the more adherence it has
    here, the better, the clearer it becomes that the United States
    is completely unified on this particular set of issues.
        Secondly, I think this hearing itself is something that is
    very valuable because it provides a very plain demonstration
    that we in the United States are unified across our political
    lines. And that I think is an important message for the world,
    and I can assure you, the world does pay very close attention
    to what we do in these areas.
        We will hope to have an opportunity toward the end of this
    month to introduce our new head of delegation to members and
    staff who are interested in speaking with him. We will at that
    time I think be able to also provide sort of a sense of some of
    what we think are the needs that we have in terms of going
    forward, preparing for the conference and participating in the
    conference.
        Mr. McDowell. I would agree with everything the ambassador
    said. I think Congress could help by helping us clarify our
    position that not even the smallest change should be allowed
    but also following up on the WCIT and having another sort of
    checkup hearing maybe after the 1st of the year because there
    will be many more similar circumstances coming forward in the
    years to come.
        Mr. Bilbray. You know, I personally spent a lot of time in
    Latin America working on certain problems they have down there
    and one of the great opportunities we see not just in Latin
    America but around the world and Third World countries is being
    able to use the Internet to help bridge the gap between those
    in the rural area can't go to secondary school, get the
    education. A lot of the things we take for granted rural people
    don't have access to. And it is absolutely essential that the
    Internet is available and that broadband is available to bridge
    that education gap in Third World countries.
        A question is some of these countries are looking at the
    International Telecommunication Union as part of the solution
    on that. How should we respond to their legitimate concerns and
    how do we coordinate to make sure that that moves forward?
    Because this probably does more to help Third World countries
    in long-term economic and social progress than a lot of other
    stuff that we have spent trillions of dollars on.
        Mr. Verveer. The ITU has a development sector. We
    participate in it quite extensively and we think it is very
    valuable in terms of collecting and disseminating best
    practices in terms of capacity building, things of that nature.
    It also has RegionalConnect, a particular region and the
    Connect America's Regional Conference will occur in Panama in
    the middle of July. It is one that the U.S. will certainly
    participate in and it is again designed to try to address the
    kinds of issues that you have described. So it is a very
    valuable instrument in terms of accumulating and then
    disseminating important information about the kinds of broad
    social issues that you have just addressed.
        Mr. McDowell. I think the best hope actually is the growth
    of wireless. Wireless Internet access has been explosive. The
    growth there has been tremendous and that is primarily because
    governments have stayed out of the way, as in this country as
    well. So I think we need to let the market work and encourage
    other countries to try to get out of the way as much as
    possible because the mobile Internet is really the future for
    improving the human condition overall.
        Mr. Bilbray. Well, and I think as much as they can learn
    from maybe our approaches at distance learning, Mr. Chairman,
    maybe we ought to be looking at the great successes that are
    being developed in places like Panama and Latin America where
    the private sector is building actually the infrastructure in a
    telecommunication way that actually surpasses even activity of
    countries like Costa Rica that has had hard-line technology for
    so long and the great opportunities that is providing for the
    education of people in Third World countries.
        So I yield back, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the time.
        Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair
    now recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Bass.
        Mr. Bass. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And again a lot of the issues and questions that I have
    have already been addressed by other members of the committee
    and I would say that this has been very helpful and
    informative. Both Ambassador Verveer and Commissioner McDowell
    have enlightened us as to exactly how this process works and
    what the consequences are should there be an implementation of
    at least a partial top-down regulatory structure for the
    Internet if you will. And your comments, Commissioner McDowell,
    about an engineering morass and economic uncertainty and I
    guess a sort of dark and dismal specter for economic freedom
    over the Internet is very apt. And hopefully the many other
    nations, as others have said, especially Third World nations,
    understand the consequences of this given the fact that the
    structure of this deliberate body is relatively democratic and
    these Third World nations have quite a bit of power.
        Commissioner McDowell, you published an op-ed recently in
    the Wall Street Journal in which you mentioned the Internet has
    helped farmers find buyers for crops. I can give you many
    examples of small industries in my neck of the woods in New
    Hampshire that have created whole new economies that didn't
    exist before by using the Internet. And I am wondering if you
    can speak a little bit about how the multi-stakeholder model
    helps small businesses and how the international regulations,
    if they went into effect, would hinder them.
        Mr. McDowell. Well, as many people have said already, it
    allows innovation without permission, so when you combine the
    liberty that comes with mobility, when you combine the
    invention of mobility for Marty Cooper, with the invention from
    Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn of packet switching and the power of the
    Internet, you really fundamentally change the human condition I
    think more so than any other invention that I can think of,
    maybe since fire. And I am trying not to be hyperbolic.
        So you are not just contacting a place or a thing; you are
    able to communicate with a person and that does more to empower
    the sovereignty of the individual than any other technology
    that I can think of. So you do have farmers who can find buyers
    for their crops without having to take on the risks of
    traveling to the village, to the market where they could lose
    their crops or they could be stolen or the buyer might not show
    up so they can take care of that transaction. Worried parents
    can find medicine for their sick children. They can locate
    potable water--which is actually a huge global concern right
    now--much more easily through the power of the mobile Internet.
        Mr. Bass. And for both of you, isn't the multi-stakeholder
    design governance model if you will really unique in that it
    prevents government entities and nongovernmental entities for
    that matter from controlling the design of the network and
    thereby the content that rides over it. Do you agree with that
    or do you have any comment or elaboration on that?
        Mr. Verveer. Well, I think generally we think that this has
    in fact been enormously instrumental in creating the Internet
    that we have today. And we are very anxious that the free flow
    of information, the freedom of expression remains as a
    centerpiece in terms of one of the many capabilities of the
    Internet. And the multi-stakeholder model tends to help protect
    that because it does bring all voices to the table. It is a
    kind of ethic in which no one set of voices is especially
    privileged and we think that probably does help in terms of
    this what you might think of is a broader political/social/
    cultural aspects of the Internet.
        Mr. Bass. Thank you. I just conclude on a personal note,
    Commissioner McDowell. My father had the honor of serving in
    this body when I was about the age of your son, who is sitting
    behind you, and I remember well going to a Science--it was
    called the Space Committee in those days. He was a member of
    the Science and Technology--it was the greatest committee you
    could be on in the Congress because it was in the middle of the
    Space Race--being so excited that here I was in this great
    place and they went through this hearing and I didn't
    understand a single word of what was said. But when I got out I
    told all my friends that I knew all kinds of things now about
    where we were going in space. So Griffin, I expect you to brief
    your dad on this hearing, make sure he is set straight and
    knows where we are headed.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Bass. We appreciate that.
        I am going to recognize the gentlewoman from the Virgin
    Islands.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous
    consent on behalf of Ranking Member Eshoo to insert the New
    York Times editorial by Vinton Cerf into the record.
        Mr. Walden. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.028

        Mr. Walden. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And Mr.
    Ambassador and Mr. Commissioner, thanks very much for your
    testimony today. It is very enlightening. And now everyone not
    only in this body but I think across the Nation truly believes
    that we want to make sure that keep our Internet free and away
    from more regulations. And it is best to have been developed
    the way it has from the ground up, from private industry and
    without government regulation.
        If I could, Mr. Commissioner, I would just like to ask a
    couple questions briefly because I think I would like to go
    back. I know there has been a lot of question as to businesses
    and business regulation, what could happen out there.
        But the chairman has conducted hearings on cybersecurity
    that have been, you know, very insightful for everyone here,
    but, you know, in your testimony on page three when you are
    talking about the Russian Federation, you know, asking for
    jurisdiction over IP addresses because ``there is a remedy to
    phone number shortages'' or that the Chinese would like to see
    the creation of a system whereby Internet users are registered
    using their IP addresses. And I think, you know, you end up
    that in a lot of totalitarian type regimes, that would give
    those authoritarian regimes the ability to identify and silence
    political dissidents.
        But how would you look at those two areas that might give
    those countries or other countries some kind of an advantage
    on, you know, attacking the United States or gaining more
    intellectual property that is being stolen over the net today?
    Because, again, the more that is out there that these companies
    have to submit of themselves to other countries, you know, it
    is hard enough right now to protect what we got. So if you
    could just answer that, I would appreciate it.
        Mr. McDowell. I think the general theme with that and also
    just looking at history at other analogies, it would be a
    scenario where they might want the rest of the world to live
    under a set of rules that they then break. In other words, they
    would break the rules and everyone else would abide by them,
    and that would be to their advantage.
        Mr. Latta. Mr. Ambassador, do you have a follow-up on that?
        Mr. Verveer. Well, the general issue that I think that you
    have raised about the question of protection of intellectual
    property, for example, is one that is a very, very serious one.
    It is one that we at the State Department work at very hard. It
    is one that the administration works at very hard through the
    office of Victoria Espinel in the White House. These are issues
    that obviously are complex in terms of figuring out appropriate
    enforcement modes and so forth, but there is certainly no
    debate about the importance of intellectual property protection
    in the broader context of the Internet. It is something that is
    very important.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        And Mr. Commissioner, it hasn't really been brought up very
    much today that you brought up in your testimony about that
    some foreign government officials have intimated to you about
    maybe having international universal service fund whereby
    foreign usually state-owned telecom companies would have an
    international mandate to charge certain web destinations on a
    per-click basis so they could build out on broadband. You know,
    with so many companies here in the United States having spent
    hundreds of millions of dollars to do that, would that then put
    U.S. companies at a disadvantage, especially since you would be
    looking at a lot of the companies in this country having to
    really finance that?
        Mr. McDowell. Well, I think you have to look at which web
    destinations attract the most traffic so it might be a YouTube
    or an iTunes or Netflix is expanding internationally as well,
    especially the video applications use a lot of bandwidth. And
    the point here is that there might be international sanction or
    international mandate for some sort of regulatory regime to
    impose these charges and that is a concern. If companies want
    to enter into contracts in a competitive market, I am all for
    that but we don't need an international regulatory body
    distorting the marketplace to anyone's disadvantage.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I yield
    back my time.
        Mr. Walden. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, who I think is our last one to ask
    questions of this panel.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize for
    obviously keeping this longer, but it is a very important
    subject and it is very important if you have ever been involved
    as I have been fortunate to be involved with democracy and
    freedom movements, at least in the former captive nations,
    Eastern European countries. I pulled up with great technology
    the cyber attack on Estonia in 2007. Just returned from the
    NATO Parliamentary Assembly meetings in Estonia just over the
    break, I have watched the crackdown on dissidents in Belarus.
    And, Commissioner McDowell, you are highlighting the prime
    minister of Russia's exact quote. International control of the
    Internet through the ITU should give everyone cause for
    concern. Those of us who follow these movements are rightly
    concerned about--as was stated in maybe question-and-answer or
    opening statement--the movement to do this is for regime
    stability and regime preservation. I mean it is clear. Look at
    the actors--Russia, China, Iran, I imagine North Korea would
    probably be on there if they really had any concern of anyone
    having computers to begin with other than the handful that they
    allow for downloading movies. I am not going to go there.
        And briefly talk about will they be using--I will go first
    to the Ambassador and then Commissioner McDowell--the whole
    cybersecurity date, is this linked into this somehow and they
    are using cybersecurity as an excuse to get further control?
    And of that we should be concerned with, especially from state
    actors who have used technology to cyber attack other
    countries. They would be the last defenders of the system.
    Ambassador, do you want to comment on that?
        Mr. Verveer. Yes. Well, in the specific context of WCIT
    there have been contributions suggesting there ought to be some
    sort of a cybersecurity regulation. Now, the discussions have
    tended to be at a very high level. For example, something like
    all countries should be responsible for protecting their
    networks, things of that nature. The United States generally
    opposes any significant effort to bring cybersecurity
    regulation into the ITU or similar bodies. There are, as you
    know, enormously significant issues surrounding cybersecurity.
    There is a great deal of engagement that we in the United
    States have with other countries about how to improve the
    cybersecurity environment but we don't think that apart from
    potentially very high level kind of statement about the
    desirability of cybersecurity that it has any place at all in
    terms of these ITRs.
        Mr. Shimkus. Great. Commissioner McDowell, any comment on
    that?
        Mr. McDowell. Yes, my concern overall is that such
    international mandates could be used as a sword and a shield by
    authoritarian regimes at the same time. Keep in mind, though,
    that cybersecurity is discussed in many diplomatic for a not
    just WCIT or ITU but other places as well. But as a general
    matter, we should be very concerned that before entering into
    any international agreements on this that we aren't put at a
    disadvantage.
        Mr. Shimkus. And I don't know if Congresswoman Bono Mack
    mentioned this. We were talking before I had to leave the room.
    But the process would be consensus agreement. Would those then
    have to go back to the national governments for like a treaty
    ratification as we see in other treaties like Kyoto--not to
    pick on it--but some countries picked it up; some countries
    like the United States never voted on it. I think that is the
    issue of balkanization, then, that you are referring to. But
    wouldn't that disenfranchise those countries that think they
    are trying to use it for their own regime stability and regime
    preservation but it would really hurt them in the global
    economy and developmental process? So they are cutting off
    their nose to spite their face if they do this. Ambassador,
    would you agree with that?
        Mr. Verveer. Yes, I would. You are exactly right with that.
        Mr. McDowell. I would agree with it as well.
        Mr. Shimkus. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back
    my time.
        Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Shimkus. We appreciate your
    questions and we appreciate the answers and the testimony from
    our two very distinguished panelists. Thank you. You have been
    most helpful in us understanding better what we face as a
    country and the challenge that is ahead for both of you and for
    our delegation going to Dubai. So thank you. We appreciate it.
        And we will call up our next panel of witnesses. On our
    second panel, Ambassador David A. Gross, former U.S.
    Coordinator for International Communications and Information
    Policy, U.S. Department of State on behalf of the World
    Conference on International Telecommunications Ad Hoc Working
    Group; Ms. Sally Shipman Wentworth, she is the senior manager,
    public policy for Internet Society; and Mr. Vinton Cerf, Vice
    President and Chief Internet Evangelist for Google. We all
    admire that title and your work, Mr. Cerf, certainly the power
    it is to have Internet protocols and addresses and all those
    things you have created or help create. And we love the title,
    Internet evangelist.
        So again we thank our prior panel and their testimony and
    we will start right in with Ambassador Gross will be our
    leadoff witness on the second panel. And again, just pull those
    microphones close, make sure the lights are lit and you should
    be good to go. Thank you, Ambassador, for your work on this
    issue in the past and we look forward to your comments today.

       STATEMENTS OF DAVID A. GROSS, FORMER U.S. COORDINATOR FOR
    INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION POLICY, DEPARTMENT
     OF STATE, ON BEHALF OF THE WORLD CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL
      TELECOMMUNICATIONS AD HOC WORKING GROUP; VINTON CERF, VICE
      PRESIDENT AND CHIEF INTERNET EVANGELIST, GOOGLE, INC.; AND
       SALLY SHIPMAN WENTWORTH, SENIOR MANAGER OF PUBLIC POLICY,
                            INTERNET SOCIETY

                      STATEMENT OF DAVID A. GROSS

        Mr. Gross. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
    Member. It is a great privilege and honor to be back here with
    you all again. I appreciate it very much. And I probably should
    start with an apology to the audience that I did not bring
    lunch with us. So I will try to be brief.
        I want to underscore a couple of points that were made both
    by the questions and the answers presented by the first panel.
    First of all, I think it is extraordinarily important for the
    American people to know that I think the preparations for the
    upcoming WCIT conference are in excellent hands. I think we
    have seen this demonstrated by the statements and actions by
    Ambassador Verveer, who you saw this morning, by Assistant
    Secretary Larry Strickling, by the White House, including Danny
    Weitzner, who has played an important role, and as was
    announced earlier today by Ambassador Verveer, the incoming
    Head of Delegation Terry Kramer.
        I will confess I have known Terry for many years. We worked
    together at AirTouch. We have been good friends for many years
    and I could not be more pleased and confident of a successful
    outcome because of what I am sure will be his excellent
    leadership. I would say that his leadership is particularly
    important and helpful in addressing some of the questions that
    were raised to the first panel about the ability to create and
    form successful coalitions to be able to identify the issues.
    He has great experience not only in the telephone industry but
    also having worked and been very active internationally. He
    knows what it takes to bring people together and to be able to
    find that consensus that will be very important.
        I would also want to recognize, of course, as you all have
    already done this morning, the extraordinary work that has been
    done by FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell. He has been tireless
    and passionate and very focused on this issue in ways that have
    greatly served all of us. And I personally and professionally
    am so pleased by his leadership to date.
        Having had the great honor of working on these issues for
    many years at the U.S. State Department and elsewhere, I think
    there are a few core principles that make this particularly
    important, one that was stressed earlier today about the
    importance of bipartisanship. And I would like to commend both
    sides of the aisle and this committee particularly and its
    members for the great work that you have done with regard to
    the new Resolution 127. I think that is really quite
    extraordinary.
        When I had the honor of co-leading the U.S. delegation to
    the World Summit on the Information Society, the U.N. heads of
    state summit, a similar joint resolution was enacted and I
    found that to be extraordinarily useful and important for us as
    we went forward because the world recognizes the importance in
    the role that Congress plays on these issues domestically and
    internationally and it is an important signal. The
    bipartisanship is a particularly important signal there that
    these are issues for which we are all together.
        I would also say that I have the great honor currently of
    chairing an ad hoc committee that has been put together to
    address the WCIT issues and the like, and I think there is much
    to be learned from the diverse membership of that group. That
    group often takes different views on domestic issues and that
    is to be expected, but they come together and are unified, as
    the American people I believe are unified, on the issue that
    brings us together about the Internet, the importance of the
    Internet, and the role of intergovernmental organizations and
    others with regard to that going forward.
        There are two things that I think are particularly
    important to focus on about WCIT. One is it is important to
    remember this is not just another conference but this is a
    treaty-writing conference. The output of this will not be just
    language that is used but in fact international law, and
    therefore, it is very, very important that the details be dealt
    with very carefully.
        It is also very important because this affects not just the
    American people but people globally and the U.S. is always
    looked to by the people around the world for that leadership,
    and I am confident that that leadership will be maintained.
        It is the great changes that have happened, the great
    growth in the Internet that has benefitted the people in the
    developing world and elsewhere perhaps most dramatically. And I
    think that is first and foremost something that we always need
    to keep in mind.
        It is also important to recognize, as many of the comments
    this morning, that this is not about the ITU as an institution.
    The ITU is an important institution to the United States.
    Hamadoun Toure, the Secretary-General, has been very important
    as a leader and very helpful to the United States and
    otherwise.
        Having said that, this is about other member states that
    has been outlined by a number of the answers earlier today, and
    those are the issues and the coalitions we need to build, the
    issues we need to address, and the facts we need to gather.
        And with that, I believe my time is about to expire and I
    don't to delay this any further. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gross follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.034

        Mr. Walden. Ambassador Gross, thank you not only for your
    leadership on this issue but your testimony today and your
    encouragement on our bipartisan resolution, which we hope to be
    able to move rather rapidly to the House Floor.
        Mr. Cerf, we are delighted and honored to have you here
    today, sir. We look forward to your verbal presentation of your
    testimony and your insights on this matter.

                        STATEMENT OF VINTON CERF

        Mr. Cerf. Thank you very much, Chairman Walden. And I see
    that Ranking Member Eshoo had to depart but I certainly
    appreciate her participation today. And members of the
    subcommittee, it is an honor to address you.
        My name is Vint Cerf. I currently serve as Vice President
    and Chief Internet Evangelist at Google. As one of the fathers
    of the Internet and as a computer scientist, I care deeply
    about the future of the Internet and I am here today because
    the open Internet has never been at higher risk than it is now.
    A new international battle is brewing, a battle that will
    determine the future of the Internet. And if all of us from
    Capitol Hill to corporate headquarters to Internet cafes in
    far-off villages don't pay attention to what is going on, users
    worldwide will be at risk of losing the open and free Internet
    that has brought so much to so many and can bring so much more.
        If we follow one path, a path of inclusion, openness, and
    commonsense, I am convinced that the Internet of the future
    will be an even more powerful economic engine and
    communications tool than it is today. The other path is a road
    of top-down control dictated by governments. This would be a
    very different system, a system that promotes exclusion, hidden
    deals, potential for indiscriminate surveillance, and tight
    centralized management, any one of which could significantly
    hinder Internet innovation and growth.
        At the crossroads stands the International
    Telecommunication Union, an agency of the United Nations that
    came into being to regulate international telegraph services
    just 4 years after the Pony Express closed its doors. This
    agency plans to meet in 6 months to consider proposed changes
    to the international agreements governing telecommunications.
    Until this year the ITU--which, through the U.N., includes 193
    member countries, each with only a single vote--has focused its
    attention on telecommunications networks and policies such as
    setting international standards for telephone systems,
    coordinating the allocation of radio frequencies and
    encouraging the development of telecommunications
    infrastructure in developing nations.
        On the whole, this status quo has been benign and even
    helpful to the spread of the Internet. But the organization
    recently passed a resolution in Guadalajara calling to
    ``increase the role of the ITU in Internet governance.'' This
    should cause significant concern.
        In addition, some powerful member states see an opportunity
    to assert control over the Internet through a meeting in Dubai
    this coming December. Several proposals from member states of
    the ITU would threaten free expression on the web. Others have
    called for unprecedented mandates and economic regulations that
    would, for example, impose international Internet fees in order
    to generate revenue for state-owned telecommunications
    companies. The international attack on the open Internet has
    many fronts.
        Take, for example, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization,
    which counts China, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan among
    its members. This organization submitted a proposal to the U.N.
    General Assembly last September for a so-called international
    code of conduct for information security. The organization's
    stated goal was to establish government-led international norms
    and rules standardizing the behavior of countries concerning
    information and cyberspace. Should one or more of these
    proposals pass, the implications are potentially disastrous.
        First, new international control over the Internet could
    trigger a race to the bottom where serious limits on the free
    flow of information could become the norm rather than the
    exception. Already, more than 20 countries have substantial or
    pervasive online filtering according to the Open Net
    Initiative. And the decentralized bottom-up architecture that
    enabled the Internet's meteoric rise would be flipped on its
    head. The new structure would have the unintended consequence
    of choking innovation and hurting American business abroad.
        As you can see, the decisions made this December in the ITU
    could potentially put regulatory handcuffs on the net with a
    remote U.N. agency holding the keys. And because the ITU
    answers only to its member states rather than to citizens,
    civil society, academia, the technical industry, and the broad
    private sector, there is a great need to insert transparency
    and accountability into this process.
        So what can you do? I encourage this committee to take
    action now by urging the U.S. Government in partnership with
    likeminded countries and their citizens to engage in this
    process and protect the current bottom-up, pluralistic system
    of Internet governance and to insist that the debate at the ITU
    and all other international fora be open to all stakeholders.
    It is critically important for you to engage and help ensure
    that the world understands that the economic, social, and
    technical advances driven by the Internet are endangered by
    these efforts.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this very
    serious matter. I look forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cerf follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.040

        Mr. Walden. Mr. Cerf, thank you. We appreciate your
    leadership and comments.
        Now, we go to Sally Shipman Wentworth, Senior Manager,
    Public Policy, Internet Society. Ms. Shipman, thank you for
    being here. We look forward to your testimony as well.

                  STATEMENT OF SALLY SHIPMAN WENTWORTH

        Ms. Wentworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        My name is Sally Shipman Wentworth, and I am senior manager
    of public policy for the Internet Society, a nonprofit
    organization dedicated to ensuring the open development,
    evolution, and use of the Internet for the benefit of all
    people throughout the world. On behalf of the Internet Society
    and our more than 55,000 members worldwide, many of whom are
    joining us in the audience and are watching the webcast around
    the world, I would like to sincerely thank Chairman Walden,
    Ranking Member Eshoo, and all the members of the subcommittee
    for the opportunity to testify on this important issue.
        The Internet Society was founded in 1992 by many of the
    same pioneers who built the Internet, one who is sitting next
    to me. Since that time, the organization has served as a global
    resource for technically vetted, ideologically unbiased
    information about the Internet as an educator for technologists
    and policymakers worldwide, and as an organizer and driver of
    community-based Internet initiatives around the world.
        The Internet Society also serves as the organizational home
    for the Internet Engineering Taskforce whose mission it is to
    make the Internet work better. We produce high-quality relevant
    technical documents that influence the way people design, use,
    and manage the Internet. These technical documents include the
    standards, guidelines, and best practices that created and
    continue to shape the Internet today.
        The International Telecommunication Union's upcoming World
    Conference on International Telecommunications has rightfully
    drawn heightened attention from the global community as some
    ITU member states have proposed amendments to a key treaty, the
    ITRs, that could have far-reaching implications for the
    Internet. While the Internet Society has no voting role in the
    ITU process, we do participate as what is called a sector
    member. In that capacity, we have raised significant concerns
    that rather than enhancing global interoperability, the outcome
    of the WCIT meeting could undermine the security, stability,
    and innovative potential of networks worldwide.
        The Internet Society understands why some of the ITU member
    states are focusing on the Internet and its infrastructure. The
    Internet has fundamentally changed the nature of communications
    globally and many nations view those changes as falling under
    the auspices of the ITU. Some proposals to the WCIT stem from
    the very real economic pressure that developing nations face as
    they seek to update their national policy frameworks to allow
    them to engage fully in the global information economy. But we
    are not convinced that the international treaty-making process
    represents the most effective means to manage cross-border
    Internet communications or to achieve greater connectivity
    worldwide. We are concerned that some of the proposals being
    floated in advance of the December meeting are not consistent
    with the proven and successful multi-stakeholder model. And
    finally, we are concerned that the WCIT process itself, which
    severely limits meaningful nongovernmental participation, could
    create negative outcomes for the Internet.
        The Internet model is characterized by several essential
    properties that make it what it is today--a global, unified
    network of networks that is constantly evolving that has
    provided enormous benefits but enables extraordinary innovation
    and whose robustness is based on a tradition of open standards,
    community collaboration, and bottom-up consensus. As the
    Internet has flourished, Internet policy development at the
    global, regional, and national levels has continued to evolve
    to work harmoniously with the Internet to assure its ongoing
    development. This process has provided the capacity to cope
    with the necessary and fast-paced technological evolution that
    has characterized the Internet to date.
        In contrast to this approach, some WCIT submissions seek to
    apply old-line legacy telecommunication regulations to Internet
    traffic in a manner that could lead to a more fragmented, less
    interoperable global Internet for all. For example, proposals
    related to traffic routing, numbering, and peering would have
    significant impacts on the future growth of the Internet. But
    while we find strong cause for concern about the agenda of the
    WCIT meeting, there is no reason why it cannot produce
    thoughtful worthwhile policy developments that advance the
    mission of the ITU and the ongoing expansion of global
    communications without imposing dangerous and unnecessary
    burdens on the Internet.
        Many ITU member states, including the U.S., have shown that
    they understand the value of the Internet and its unique multi-
    stakeholder model. Those delegates are in a critical position
    to advance an agenda at WCIT that respects the Internet and its
    global contributions while continuing to support the pro-
    competitive policies that have been so successful since the
    ITRs were first negotiated in 1988. Working with allies from
    around the globe, the United States Government has an
    opportunity to help chart a productive course forward at WCIT
    and to ensure that the value of the multi-stakeholder model and
    a light-touch regulatory approach are highlighted.
        The Internet Society stands ready to play its part in this
    process and to assist the subcommittee in any way it can. Thank
    you very much for this opportunity.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Wentworth follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.050

        Mr. Walden. Ms. Wentworth, thank you for your testimony.
        And we will go into questions now. And I want to go
    straight to you.
        You mentioned in your testimony there are other parts of
    the United Nations that have activities concerning Internet
    governance. If the ITU meeting is not the only place where this
    is being discussed, what other things are going on that we
    should be aware of?
        Ms. Wentworth. Yes, thank you for that question. I do think
    it is important that we put the WCIT in context. The WCIT is an
    extremely important event in 2012. It is a treaty-making
    conference but the discussion of Internet governance will not
    stop there. There are ongoing discussions within the United
    Nations framework in the Commission for Science and Technology
    for Development within the International Telecommunications
    Union and within the U.N. General Assembly that seek to take on
    these issues of Internet governance with a great deal of
    specificity. All of these discussions are things that we at the
    Internet Society are following carefully and we think that
    multi-stakeholder engagement and discussion of these issues
    over the next several years is going to be extremely important.
        Mr. Walden. Mr. Cerf, you seem to be weighing in there with
    a nodding head.
        Mr. Cerf. I am certainly in agreement with Ms. Wentworth.
    First of all, the ITU is not the only element in the United
    Nations that is interested in Internet matters. The point about
    the Committee on Science and Technology is one example; ECOSOC
    is another. There is a long list of players who see the
    Internet as a very fundamental part of the environment now and
    they would like very much to have some influence over it. I
    worry about even such activities as the Internet Governance
    Forum, which emerged out of the world summit on the Information
    Society. The reason it has been successful, at least up until
    now, is that it started as a multi-stakeholder activity but as
    responsibility for the subject matter under discussion in the
    IGF shifted from one body to another, the question about who
    controls the agenda now becomes a big issue.
        The process of involvement in the United Nations has one
    unfortunate property that it politicizes everything. All the
    considerations that are made, whether it is in the ITU or
    elsewhere, are taken and colored by national interests. As a
    longstanding participant in the Internet Architecture Board and
    the Internet Engineering Taskforce where we check our guns at
    the door and we have technical discussions about how best to
    improve the operation of the Internet, to color that with other
    national disputes which are not relevant to the technology is a
    very dangerous precedent. And that is one of the reasons I
    worry so much about the ITU's intervention in this space.
        Mr. Walden. There are some press reports out of this
    hearing already that would tend to say that Ambassador
    Verveer's comments mean there really isn't a grave threat to
    the Internet and that there aren't these serious threats on the
    table. Would you agree with that characterization or do you
    feel this is a very serious matter?
        Mr. Cerf. I am still very nervous, Mr. Chairman, about this
    process. I will make one observation that it is not just a
    matter of the voting question and the one nation, one vote. The
    substance of the changes or additions to the treaty are
    critical. And here we have somewhat more leverage I think.
    Those are not necessary just a matter of voting. I think
    Ambassador Gross will probably amplify on this, but the
    negotiations for the actual language probably gives more
    leverage to us than the actual voting process does. But I have
    to say, Mr. Chairman, that there is a notion in what is called
    chaos theory called the butterfly effect. The butterfly waves
    its wings in Indonesia and we have a tsunami somewhere else. I
    do worry that small changes can be used and interpreted----
        Mr. Walden. Right.
        Mr. Cerf [continuing]. In ways that could be quite
    deleterious to the utility of the Internet.
        Mr. Walden. And Ambassador Gross, what strategies did you
    employ when you had the honor and opportunity to fend off
    international regulation of the Internet that the U.S.
    Government should follow now?
        Mr. Gross. Well, thank you very much. And if I may, before
    addressing that, I just want to echo exactly what Vint Cerf
    just said. And I think one of the keys here as we think about
    this is this is not about a discussion at WCIT about broad
    policies. That happens at conferences on a regular basis and
    are very important. And something that this chamber can
    particularly appreciate, the negotiations over our treaty text,
    language, language is important. Language has impact. And so
    what will be a real test for our negotiators and for all of us
    is to be careful as to the language so the language doesn't
    come forward and mean something today and mean something very
    different than the way in which, for example, Commissioner
    McDowell talked about where it morphs into something very
    difficult and something very dangerous. This is not an issue of
    the ITU secretariat. This is an issue for member states to
    negotiate and to be very, very cognizant about.
        With regard to strategies, I think the strategies have
    been--already some of them have been adopted by the current
    group. That is it is very important to be clear. One of the
    problems and one of the opportunities you always have in
    international negotiations is to find fuzzy language to cover
    up. One of the keys here because of the importance of the issue
    and because of the implications of the issue for the over two
    billion users of the Internet worldwide is to be very clear as
    to what it is the U.S. is interested and willing to discuss and
    to negotiate of which there are many things and those areas
    which are redlines, things for which we will not agree. And it
    is not a question of finding the precise language. It is yes;
    it is no. It is very, very binary in that sense. And I think
    that will be very clear. And the building of the coalitions as
    was discussed in the first panel I think is obvious and
    important and I am very confident we will be able to do that.
        Mr. Walden. I appreciate your answers to my questions, all
    the panelists.
        We will now go to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr.
    Markey, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
        So, Mr. Cerf, which countries are you most concerned about
    in terms of their agenda?
        Mr. Cerf. Well, as we heard earlier, the ones that are most
    visible right now in my view are Russia and China who have
    their names on a number of proposals. But others have come
    forward, surprising ones. Brazil, for example, and India have
    surprised me with their interest in intervening and obtaining
    further control. The others are the ones that you would
    normally expect. We hear from Syria, we hear from other
    repressive regimes, even those in Saudi Arabia, for example.
    Those who are threatened by openness and freedom of expression
    are the ones that are most interested in gaining control
    through this means.
        Mr. Markey. Um-hum.
        Mr. Cerf. There are other motivations, however, that also
    drive this whole process. The developing world has historically
    generated substantial revenue from telecommunication services,
    as I am sure you are well aware. The Internet has become the
    alternative to much of what had been the telecommunications
    environment and I see them looking for ways, adapting the
    earlier telecommunications settlement arrangements,
    interconnection arrangements and the like as a way of
    recovering revenue that they didn't have. So there are
    multiple----
        Mr. Markey. Ambassador Gross mentioned this--give us one
    redline subject that we should never entertain?
        Mr. Cerf. I think two things in particular. I would never
    want to see any of the ITU-T standards being mandatory. They
    should stay in voluntary form. And second, I think we should
    run away from any kind of settlement arrangements or enforced
    interconnection rules that would interfere with the open and
    very private sector aspect of Internet connectivity. Today, it
    is a voluntary system. It grows biologically and it has
    benefitted from that.
        Mr. Markey. Is there an analogy here to the satellite
    system that allowed governments to just extract windfall
    profits in countries all around the world that ran totally
    contrary to what should be the policy, to ensure that every
    citizen has real access to a phone network?
        Mr. Cerf. This is an economic question of an engineer and I
    have this feeling you might deserve the answer that you got. To
    be honest, I think that we see a great desire to take advantage
    of the Internet in ways that damage the freedom and openness
    and the permission-less innovation which has allowed it to
    grow. To allow any rules that sequester this innovation and
    inhibit others would damage the future of the Internet
    dramatically. When you see new applications coming along, they
    come from virtually anywhere in the world. They don't all come
    from the United States, and it is important that we preserve
    that capability.
        Mr. Markey. Thank you. No, but I appreciate kind of the
    global nature that you bring to it, the butterfly effect in
    Indonesia here creating a tsunami in another place. Here in the
    United States we just say it is Mrs. O'Leary's cow that
    ultimately burns down the whole city, but that would be too
    American. You know, you want to give us the global view of
    where innovation can occur, where a disaster can emanate from
    in terms of the impact that it has upon the global Internet
    system. But that is who you are. You know, that is what this
    panel is really all about.
        Ambassador Gross, give us your one redline. Do you agree
    with Mr. Cerf or do you have another issue as well?
        Mr. Gross. I always agree with Vint but I think actually
    there are a number of redlines.
        Mr. Markey. Give me one and then I am going to go to Ms.
    Wentworth.
        Mr. Gross. Well, I think the number one redline is that
    there should be no top-down control of the Internet directly or
    indirectly associated with any international governmental
    institution, including the ITU.
        Mr. Markey. OK. And Ms. Wentworth, do you have one?
        Ms. Wentworth. We would certainly agree with the comments
    of Mr. Cerf with respect to making voluntary standards
    mandatory. That would have considerable impact on the
    engineering architecture that goes into the Internet. And we
    are also very focused on the definitions in the treaty. As we
    know, definitions will give you the scope and a number of the
    proposals to change the definitions would in fact clearly
    implicate the Internet in the treaty.
        Mr. Markey. Mr. Cerf, give us your 30 seconds. What do you
    want this committee to remember as we go forward over the next
    6 months and over the next 6 years in terms of what we should
    be apprehensive about?
        Mr. Cerf. So you have already started. This hearing is a
    wonderful beginning. The proposed legislation speaking to this
    problem in a bipartisan--I am sitting here thinking bilateral--
    bipartisan way----
        Mr. Markey. It is so rarely used that, you know, I know why
    it is hard to come up with----
        Mr. Cerf. Voicing your concerns to the Executive Branch
    also extremely important and making this visible around the
    world is also very important. So I think you have started that
    process and I am deeply grateful for it.
        Mr. Markey. Great, thank you.
        My time is expired. I apologize.
        Mr. Shimkus [presiding]. The gentleman's time is expired. I
    would like to recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        I mean, I really enjoy this discussion because it is when
    free nations give up their decision-making process to a world
    organization that is not totally defined to be free, then there
    should be credible concerns. And I think we are raising those
    today. We debate this issue about the U.N. We get asked by our
    constituents all the time about the role of the U.N. Should we
    be involved in the U.N.? Should we fund the U.N.? And I have
    tried to keep a balanced view where I haven't voted to leave
    the U.N. but I have been skeptical about the role it plays. So
    it is keep current funding, get reforms.
        Here are some of the things that the U.N. has done. Cuba
    was vice president of the United Nations' Human Rights Council
    and China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia also serve on that council.
    North Korea and Cuba serve as head of the Conference on
    Disarmament. Mugabe was just named a U.N. leader for tourism by
    the U.N. World Trade Organization. Iran sits on the U.N.
    Commission on the Status of Women and formerly chaired the
    Joint Board of the U.N. Development Program and the U.N.
    Population Fund. Saudi Arabia is a member of the Executive
    Board of U.N. Women. I am not making this up and you can't. But
    I mean that is a concern.
        And there has also been some international debate and
    discourse about having a world organization based upon shared
    values--democracy, freedom, rule of law--things that would make
    this process a little bit easier than trying to negotiate with
    totalitarian regimes who will not have the best interest of
    free discourse and exchange of views and ideas and values. So I
    appreciate you coming. I appreciate the raising of this concern
    and making sure that we are all in and prepared to keep this
    great architecture.
        I took a picture of you all when we started and I Tweet
    like a lot of people and, you know, kind of did the headline of
    the hearing, and I said if it is not broken, don't fix it. That
    system has worked. Obviously, there is some tinkering that some
    of you agree that must be done or is there not? Should we not
    touch it? Or if there is tinkering to be done, what should be
    done? Mr. Gross?
        Mr. Gross. Well, thank you very much. The answer is there
    are always opportunities to improve anything, except for my
    wife who is sitting behind me, of course. But instead, I think
    the key here is who does the tinkering and what the mechanism
    is? I think the genius of the Internet has been not only its
    decentralized nature but its multi-stakeholder processes for
    making decisions, bringing those with the best and the
    brightest ideas from wherever they are no matter what their
    positions are to be able to have a say and to make those
    decisions in a voluntary, bottom-up approach. That approach is
    the key.
        And I think the rub here, as you have heard this morning
    and early this afternoon has been concern about a top-down
    governmental set of ways of dealing with what are undoubtedly
    real issues for real people around the world, whether it is
    security, whether it is fraud. It is a variety of things. We
    know that there are many issues that need to be addressed. Who
    does the addressing? What those mechanisms turn out to be I
    believe are really the key to success in the way to deal with
    these issues.
        Mr. Shimkus. And I was going to ask all three but I want to
    get a different question to Mr. Cerf. Any tinkering, no matter
    how well intentioned, could it be flexible enough to keep the
    process moving forward or will tinkering itself really mess up
    the stakeholder involvement in the system we have today?
        Mr. Cerf. So I think several observations might be relevant
    here. The first one is that we can't run away from the United
    Nations because it is too important a body for us to ignore. So
    we have to participate in its processes. But we have another
    opportunity which I think we should emphasize and that is to
    encourage more international involvement among the various
    nation-states in the multi-stakeholder processes that are open
    and available to them. That includes the Internet Governance
    Forum, the Internet Engineering Taskforce, ICANN itself and all
    of its multi-stakeholder processes. I think if we make those
    increasingly attractive and effective that this could be a
    counterbalance and alternative to the focus of attention which
    is leading in the direction of U.N.-based activity. This would
    also reinforce what we have discovered over the last 15 years,
    which is that multi-stakeholder processes actually work. They
    do bring many different points of view to the table and they
    result in better policy.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. And I appreciate it. I don't have
    time to ask my follow-up question to you but I apologize. Thank
    you for your testimony.
        And now, I would like to recognize the ranking member of
    the full committee, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Cerf, earlier today, Ambassador Verveer stated that the
    U.S. is advocating for the WCIT conference report to be made
    available to the public. In addition to this proposal for
    increased transparency, what other specific measures can be
    taken to shine more light into the ITU's processes?
        Mr. Cerf. Well, the obvious possibility would be to open
    this process up to other stakeholders, which is not a typical
    conclusion one reaches in international agreements. But it
    strikes me--again, reflecting back on our written successes
    with multi-stakeholder processes--that transparency and
    openness produces much better results. Now, whether anyone in
    the current governmental world could be persuaded of that, I
    don't know. But I am a great advocate of trying to include
    civil society, the technical world, the private sector in
    matters that will have a very direct impact on them. So once
    again, publication of proposals and involvement of other
    stakeholders would be very attractive.
        Mr. Waxman. Well, I would think it is critical for the U.S.
    and other countries that have seen the positive impact of the
    Internet on their economies to highlight to the ITU
    participants and other stakeholders of potential negative
    consequences of the regulation of the Internet on the world's
    economy. But what would be the role for the private sector in
    this process? How would they participate?
        Mr. Cerf. So the private sector actually operates most of
    the Internet. I don't know what the numbers are but it probably
    exceeds 90 percent. So in some sense, no matter what we do, no
    matter what anyone says, it is the private sector that operates
    this entity and its actions in a sense determine what kind of
    Internet we all have. So my belief is that we have an
    opportunity here to empower the private sector to engage in
    policy-making which does not have an avenue to do today, at
    least not very effectively. For example, you will hear the ITU
    say, well, you could be a sector member. I think Ms. Wentworth
    might agree with me that even as a sector member having paid
    your dues, you don't always either get to participate or even
    have, you know, current information about what is under debate.
    So once again, I think openness is going to be our friend here
    but we have to advocate strongly and loudly for it.
        Mr. Waxman. Ms. Wentworth or Mr. Gross, do you have any
    additional comments or suggestions to increase the transparency
    of the ITU process?
        Ms. Wentworth. Well, the Internet Society has certainly
    been an advocate of opening up this process for the WCIT in
    general, the Internet policy-related discussions that are
    happening within the United Nations more broadly, we think that
    the discussions can only benefit from more transparency. We
    come from the technical community and we look at some of these
    proposals and think that there is a lot of that could be said
    about the technical implications of what is being proposed. How
    do networks actually work? And would these proposals even be
    consistent with the architecture that we are trying to keep in
    place? And the answer is no in many cases. But that voice is
    not heard in the current process. We speak up when we can but
    we have, even as a sector member, very limited opportunities to
    engage.
        Mr. Waxman. Mr. Gross?
        Mr. Gross. I think there are two sort of direct things. One
    is we should continue to advocate for other member governments
    to open up their domestic processes to allow for greater
    participation. The U.S. has greatly benefitted in terms of our
    negotiation but also our decision-making by the openness that
    we have always traditionally had and we want to continue to
    encourage that of others.
        I think also at its core the problem here is that the ITU
    is by definition and intergovernmental organization. Only
    governments have votes. And so, ultimately, part of the
    question really is this issue is not a big issue when you deal
    with certain sets of issues, but when you deal with Internet
    issues, for example, that at their core are about over two
    billion people and their access to information, those are the
    ones that sort of call for the question not only of
    transparency but also where the lines are about what the ITU
    should be focusing on and what it should not be focusing on. I
    think that is where a lot of the issues can be resolved.
        Mr. Waxman. Well, thank you very much.
        I yield back my time.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
        The chair now recognizes Ms. Christensen for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you for your testimony and for your answers.
        Mr. Gross, in Ambassador Verveer's testimony he stated--and
    all of you voiced the same concern--that allowing governments
    to monitor and restrict content or impose economic costs on
    international data traffic are of particular concern to the
    United States. We have talked a lot about the monitoring and
    restricting of content but could you share with us your
    coalition's views on the proposals regarding imposing the
    economic clause on international data traffic?
        Mr. Gross. Sure. I think it will come as no surprise to
    anyone that those are critically important issues. There are a
    number of different pieces of that. It is not just about the
    fact that it may change from a system in which there is
    voluntary market-driven contractual decisions made to exchange
    traffic into one for which there are some proposals to have
    some top-down regulatory regime akin, as Vint Cerf said, to the
    old settlements and accounting rate systems of the old
    telephone system. That is certainly a substantial concern and
    should be a substantial concern to everyone.
        But also it extends to the issue of economic regulation and
    control about the issue of innovation generally throughout the
    Internet ecosystem, the ability--as Vint talked about--of
    innovations and changes and new technologies and new
    applications coming from anywhere, from anyone and the ability
    for all of us to benefit from that. And ultimately, all of that
    often boils down to one of I think the great core issues for
    all of us, which is the seamless flow of information, the
    ability of information whether it is commercial, political,
    economic, social to be able to flow seamlessly across the
    networks in ways that benefit the global community.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. Go ahead.
        Mr. Cerf. I wonder if I could----
        Mrs. Christensen. Sure.
        Mr. Cerf [continuing]. Amplify on this just if you would
    permit.
        There is this notion of nontariff trade barrier. I am sure
    you are very familiar with that. What I worry about is that the
    insidious effect of putting in detailed rules that amplify
    former telephone practices and projecting those into the
    Internet has the potential to destroy this sort of permission-
    less innovation but it also has the possibility of destroying
    potential markets. This is not just an American issue.
        Mrs. Christensen. Right.
        Mr. Cerf. We care about it because at Google we are a
    global operation and we want to reach everybody with our
    products and services. But the inverse is true. Anyone in the
    world should be able to reach anyone else in the world with a
    new product and a new service. Countries that choose to go away
    from that kind of openness are actually harming themselves and
    their own opportunities to exploit the Internet for improved
    GDP growth. And I worry greatly about that.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. Well, just to continue with
    you a minute, Mr. Cerf, many countries do struggle with the
    problem of bringing broadband access to their citizens and look
    to the International Telecommunications Union for solutions to
    that problem. And you talk about this briefly earlier. How
    should we respond to their legitimate concerns? What can the
    U.S. Government do and what can private parties do?
        Mr. Cerf. So this is a wonderful question. Thank you so
    much for asking it. Two observations. First of all, the ITU,
    through its D, the Development Organization, has actually
    contributed to the growth of the net. I am a member of the
    Broadband Commission that seeks to find ways to expanding
    broadband access to the Internet all around the world. In that
    sense, a tip of the hat to ITU-D for that work.
        At Google, we found many opportunities in the private
    sector to help expand access around the world. We take our
    equipment which we don't need anymore, we donate it to
    organizations like the Network Startup Resource Center at the
    University of Oregon. They repurpose that equipment. They
    deliver it to people especially in the Southern Hemisphere.
    Then, they train them. Then, they get books and documentation
    from Tim O'Reilly's publications and they set them up to
    actually build and operate pieces of the Internet which now get
    connected together to the rest of the global system. There are
    endless opportunities here for the private sector to engage.
    Anything that you and the committee can do to help make that
    easier to do would be most helpful. Legislation that makes it
    easier for us to repurpose equipment and to do training
    overseas would be very, very helpful. Just to advocate for that
    would be a good thing.
        Mrs. Christensen. Well, thank you. I am out of time.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady's time is expired.
        We want to thank you for appearing. I would just end by
    saying totalitarian regimes may not care if they have systems
    that work, and so as you have totalitarian regimes involved in
    international negotiations, they may want a system that doesn't
    work across international lines and stuff, just a cautionary
    note on my part.
        Also, I need to say that the record will remain open for 10
    days. You may get additional questions submitted to you by
    members of the committee. If you could reply to those if they
    come, we would appreciate that. Again, we appreciate your time
    being here.
        And this hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:01 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79558.063