[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