29–006 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 113–50 

TO AFFIRM THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES 

REGARDING INTERNET GOVERNANCE 

MAY 3, 2013.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. UPTON, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 1580] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred 

the bill (H.R. 1580) to affirm the policy of the United States regarding Internet governance, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do 

pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 1 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 2 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 6 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 6 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 6 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 7 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 7 

New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures ............. 7 

Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits ........................... 7 

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 7 

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ................................................................... 7 

Federal Mandates Statement ................................................................................. 8 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 8 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 8 

Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 8 

Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................................ 8 

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ...................................................... 9 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 9 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

To show the nation’s resolve against regulation of the Internet by 

international governmental bodies and to garner support from 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

other countries, H.R. 1580 makes it ‘‘the policy of the United States 

to preserve and advance the successful multistakeholder model 

that governs the Internet.’’ The bill is modeled after a resolution 

the House and Senate unanimously passed in 2012 expressing the 

sense of Congress that the U.S. delegation to a treaty negotiation 

in Dubai should oppose efforts to regulate the Internet through a 

U.N. agency. By all accounts, that resolution emboldened more 

than 50 nations to join the United States in refusing to sign the 

treaty. Unfortunately, close to 90 nations did sign the treaty, and 

international attempts to regulate the Internet are continuing to 

escalate. Just as international advocates of a regulated Internet are 

redoubling their efforts, so, too, must the United States. That is 

why H.R. 1580 elevates the language of last year’s resolution from 

a sense of Congress about a particular treaty negotiation to a law 

stating U.S. policy on Internet governance. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

International efforts to regulate the Internet could jeopardize not 

only its vibrancy, but also the benefits it brings to the world. Nations from across the globe met at the December 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai to consider 

changes to the International Telecommunications Regulations. Although the treaty negotiation was billed as a routine review of 

rules governing international operation of traditional telephone 

service, a number of countries sought to use the treaty to subject 

the Internet to regulation through the International Telecommunication Union, a U.N. agency. 

This development was not unanticipated. That is why leading up 

to the conference last year, the House and Senate unanimously 

passed S. Con. Res. 50 expressing the sense of Congress that the 

Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce should 

‘‘articulate[ ] the consistent and unequivocal policy of the United 

States to promote a global Internet free from government control 

and preserve and advance the successful multistakeholder model 

that governs the Internet today.’’ Under the multistakeholder 

model, non-regulatory institutions develop best practices, with public and private sector’s input to manage and operate the content, 

applications and networks that make up the Internet. 

The Origins of the Internet and Internet Governance 

The Internet finds its roots in the Advanced Research Projects 

Agency (ARPANET), launched in 1969 by the Defense Advanced 

Research Projects Agency to connect universities and research laboratories working on Department of Defense projects. Over the next 

two decades, ARPANET transitioned from a government network 

to include civilian users under the auspices of the National Science 

Foundation and became the National Science Foundation Network 

(NSFNET). As the NSFNET grew and standards evolved to connect 

computer networks, a larger ‘‘network of networks’’ emerged. Then, 

in 1992, the Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act (P.L. 102–476) 

allowed the NSFNET to interconnect with other non-governmental 

networks and opened the door to commercial participation. It was 

at this point that the network began to grow exponentially, and the 

modern Internet was born. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

When network use was limited to U.S. government purposes, the 

Department of Defense managed the network. By the 1990s, however, most of the growth was coming from non-military users, and 

the NSF created the Internet Network Information Center 

(InterNIC) to manage both numeric addressing on the networks 

and the databases of sites. As the number of commercial users 

grew, Internet addressing and domain name management became 

exceedingly complex. By 1998, these functions were transferred 

from the control of the U.S. government to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a California nonprofit corporation that manages a number of Internet-related tasks. 

A series of ad hoc groups form the engineering corps of the Internet. The Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Architecture Board, the Internet Engineering Steering Group, and the 

Internet Research Task Force are collectively organized under the 

international non-profit Internet Society. They are run by volunteers, and all work to create voluntary standards for Internet users 

to make interconnection of all networks easier. 

ICANN, as well as the groups that oversee the creation of voluntary Internet standards under the auspices of the Internet Society, receive input from governments, Internet users, those investing in the Internet, academics, and engineers that develop the technology that makes the Internet possible. This bottom-up governance structure, referred to as the ‘‘multistakeholder model,’’ mirrors 

the decentralized nature of the Internet. This approach has enabled 

the Internet to grow at an astonishing pace as a driver of jobs, 

commerce, discourse, and innovation and become perhaps the most 

powerful engine of social and economic freedom the globe has ever 

known. It maximizes flexibility and innovation, helping to prevent 

any one governmental or non-governmental actor from exerting 

control over either the design of the Internet or the content it carries. That is why the Internet has been able to evolve so quickly, 

both as a technological platform and as a means of expanding the 

free flow of commerce and ideas. Deviation from that multistakeholder model weakens the Internet, harming its ability to spread 

both prosperity and freedom. That is why there is bipartisan agreement that the United States should adopt a policy to preserve and 

advance the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. 

The ITRs and the WCIT 

International telecommunications service is governed pursuant to 

regulations adopted through treaty by the 193 nation members of 

the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the United Nations’ specialized agency for information and communications technologies. The ITU was originally chartered in 1865 to organize the 

international regulation of telegraph service. 

The ITU convened the World Administrative Telegraph and Telephone Conference in 1988 to consider a ‘‘new’’ regulatory framework for the international regulation of telecommunications. 

Among the resulting International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs) were revisions to the way telecommunications providers pay each other for completing international phone calls, 

often referred to as ‘‘settlement rates.’’ The United States Senate 

ratified the International Telecommunications Regulations in 1992. 

These regulations specifically addressed voice telephony, not data 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

processing capabilities, and resulted in large payments to telephone 

companies often owned or controlled by governments. 

In December 2012, the ITU convened the World Conference on 

International Telecommunications in Dubai, UAE, to consider 

changes to the ITRs. Despite assurances from ITU officials that the 

conference would not address Internet governance, several proposals from member nations sought to bring aspects of the Internet 

into the text of the ITRs. A number of the Internet-related provisions, including provisions referencing unsolicited electronic communications and network security, were of particular concern as 

they appear to enshrine an international cybersecurity regime; 

could serve as a justification for countries to engage in Internet 

censorship in the name of national security; and serve as the predicate for international regulation of the Internet, replacing the 

multistakeholder model that has served the Internet and the world 

so well. 

Buttressed by the unanimous passage of S. Con. Res. 50, the 

United States and 54 of the 144 other member states that attended 

the WCIT left without signing the new International Telecommunications Regulations. Unfortunately, eighty nine nations did sign 

the treaty. The revised ITRs will be implemented by those nations 

beginning in January 2015. A number of upcoming conferences, including the May 14–16, 2013, World Telecommunication/ICT Policy 

Forum in Geneva and the Oct. 20–Nov. 7, 2014, ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in Busan, South Korea, will present additional opportunities for countries to pursue international regulation of the 

Internet. The continued and growing threat of such regulation 

prompted the House Energy and Commerce Committee to move 

H.R. 1580, elevating language similar to last year’s S. Con. Res. 50 

from a sense of Congress aimed at particular treaty negotiations to 

a law establishing generalized U.S. policy. 

Development of the Language of H.R. 1580 

The language of H.R. 1580 is similar to two resolutions introduced in the 112th Congress: H. Con. Res. 127, which unanimously 

passed the House Aug. 2, 2012, and S. Con. Res. 50, which unanimously passed the Senate Sept. 22, 2012, and the House Dec. 5, 

2012. Both H. Con. Res. 127 and S. Con. Res. 50 included a series 

of ‘‘whereas’’ clauses describing the societal benefits of the Internet 

and the importance its governance structure has played in producing those benefits. They also both contained a ‘‘resolved’’ clause 

expressing the sense of Congress that the U.S. Department of State 

and U.S. Department of Commerce ‘‘should continue working to implement the position of the United States on Internet governance 

that clearly articulates the consistent and unequivocal policy of the 

United States to promote a global Internet free from government 

control and preserve and advance the successful multistakeholder 

model that governs the Internet today.’’ 

Section 1 of H.R. 1580 coverts to findings language from the 

‘‘whereas’’ clauses of the resolutions, with minor modifications to 

reflect what happened at the WCIT and to make them more generalized. Section 2 of H.R. 1580 elevates the ‘‘resolved’’ clauses of the 

resolutions from a sense of Congress aimed at particular treaty negotiations to a law establishing generalized U.S. policy. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

At a Feb. 5, 2013, legislative hearing and an April 10 and 11, 

2013, markup, the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology considered a discussion draft of what would become H.R. 

1580. In that version, section 2 sought to make it ‘‘the policy of the 

United States to promote a global Internet free from government 

control and to preserve and advance the successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet.’’ That language was lifted 

directly from the end of the ‘‘whereas’’ clause of S. Con. Res. 50. 

During the April 10 and 11, 2013, subcommittee markup, Ranking Member Waxman and Ranking Member Eshoo expressed their 

belief that elevating from a resolution to a law the language making it ‘‘the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet 

free from government control’’ might interfere with FCC rules on 

network neutrality and possibly even efforts regarding IP protection, child pornography, or other government action. Chairman 

Walden explained that a statement of policy does not impose statutorily mandated responsibilities on an agency, and that just as a 

policy statement cannot authorize the FCC to adopt network neutrality regulations, it cannot require the FCC to strike them. He 

also pointed out that the legislation does not make illegal activity 

any less illegal simply because someone has used digital tools to 

perpetrate the act. Child pornography is no less illegal if it is disseminated over the Internet rather than in photographs and magazines. But punishing illegal activity is different than regulating the 

Internet itself. The structure of the Internet and the content and 

applications it carries are organized from the ground up, not handed down by governments. This allows the Internet to evolve quickly, to meet the diverse needs of users around the world, and to 

keep governmental or non-governmental actors from controlling the 

design of the network or the content it carries. 

In response, Mr. Waxman clarified that the objections raised by 

Democrats did not stem from a belief that the legislation would 

force the FCC to change its Open Internet rules, but rather, it 

would allow another party to use the policy statement as a basis 

to challenge the FCC rules. He expressed concern that a court 

might consider the policy statement differently than intended by 

the Committee. 

In recognition of the importance bipartisan agreement on this 

issue played in Dubai and on the world stage, Chairman Walden 

and Ranking Member Eshoo directed staff to try and work out mutually agreeable legislative language before the full committee 

markup. Based on the Chairman’s commitment to work towards a 

bipartisan solution, the Subcommittee passed the draft legislation 

by voice vote, without any amendments being offered or debated. 

As a result of those discussions, Chairman Walden and Ranking 

Member Eshoo introduced H.R. 1580 on April 16, 2013, which contained slightly modified language. In particular, it dropped the reference to promoting a ‘‘global Internet free from government control’’ and focused on the remaining language making it U.S. policy 

‘‘to preserve and advance the successful multistakeholder model 

that governs the Internet.’’ 

At the full committee markup the following day, Chairman Walden reiterated that, while statements of policy can help delineate 

the contours of statutory authority, they do not create statutorily 

mandated responsibilities. For that reason, he said he did not beVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:33 May 04, 2013 Jkt 029011 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR050.XXX HR050

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

lieve the language passed in subcommittee would have required or 

prohibited U.S entities from taking any particular action on network neutrality or any other matter. He also explained that there 

is a big difference between government control of the management 

and operation of the Internet, and punishing use of it to commit 

illegal acts. Chairman Walden concluded by stating that he still opposes the FCC’s network neutrality rules, but was willing to make 

the changes to send a unified message. He said that governments’ 

hands off approach to the Internet has enabled its rapid growth 

and made it a powerful engine of social and economic freedom. By 

elevating from a sense of Congress to a law language similar to last 

year’s resolution, the legislation will show the United States’ commitment to the multistakeholder governance model and resolve to 

oppose efforts by authoritarian nations to exert their grip on the 

Internet. 

Ranking Member Waxman recognized the significance of striking 

the words ‘‘free from government control’’ from the operative provision of the bill and urged his colleagues to support the measure so 

Congress could once again send a strong, united signal to the global community. He noted that the modification agreed to was significant because it made clear that the policy statement contained in 

H.R. 1580 would not implicate the legitimate activities of the U.S. 

government online or the authority of federal agencies. 

HEARINGS

The Subcommittee on Communications and Technology held a 

hearing February 5, 2013, on ‘‘Fighting for Internet Freedom: 

Dubai and Beyond.’’ The Subcommittee received testimony from 

Commissioner Robert McDowell of the Federal Communications 

Commission; Ambassador David A. Gross, former U.S. Coordinator 

for International Communications and Information Policy with the 

U.S. Department of State; Ms. Sally Shipman Wentworth, Senior 

Director, Public Policy at Internet Society; Mr. Harold Feld, Senior 

Vice President at Public Knowledge; and Dr. Bitange Ndemo, Permanent Secretary in the Kenyan Ministry of Information and Communications and a Director of the Communications Commission of 

Kenya. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On April 10 and 11, 2013, the Subcommittee on Communications 

and Technology met in open markup session and approved for full 

Committee consideration, without amendment, by a voice vote, a 

discussion draft of legislation to affirm the policy of the United 

States regarding Internet governance. 

Chairman Greg Walden, together with Ranking Member Anna 

Eshoo and 31 additional cosponsors, introduced H.R. 1580 on April 

16, 2013. 

On April 17, 2013, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session and ordered H.R. 1580 to be reported favorably, without amendment, by voice vote. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes on the motion 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

to report legislation and amendments thereto. There were no 

record votes taken in connection with ordering H.R. 1580 reported. 

A motion by Mr. Upton to order H.R. 1580 reported to the House, 

without amendment, was agreed to by a voice vote. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee held a legislative hearing and 

made findings that are reflected in this report. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

H.R. 1580 codifies in law the policy of the United States to preserve and advance the multistakeholder model that governs the 

Internet. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.R. 1580, a 

bill to affirm the policy of the United States regarding Internet 

governance, would result in no new or increased budget authority, 

entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or revenues. 

EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND LIMITED TARIFF BENEFITS

In compliance with clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the 

Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds that 

H.R. 1580, a bill to affirm the policy of the United States regarding 

Internet governance, contains no earmarks, limited tax benefits, or 

limited tariff benefits. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate provided by 

the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

MAY 2, 2013. 

Hon. FRED UPTON, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1580, a bill to affirm the 

policy of the United States regarding Internet governance. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susan Willie. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

H.R. 1580—A bill to affirm the policy of the United States regarding Internet governance 

H.R. 1580 would affirm the policy of the United States to preserve and advance a multistakeholder model to govern the Internet. Such a model, currently in practice, involves groups drawn 

from civil society, the private sector, governments, academic and 

research communities, as well as national and international organizations. 

Based on information from the Federal Communications Commission and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would not 

have an effect on spending subject to appropriation because the 

workloads of those agencies would not be affected. Further, enacting H.R. 1580 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 

H.R. 1580 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Susan Willie. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

No provision of H.R. 1580 establishes or reauthorizes a program 

of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 

21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

The Committee finds that enacting H.R. 1580 directs no agency 

to complete any specific rule makings within the meaning of 5 

U.S.C. 551. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation. 

APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Findings 

This section makes a number of findings related to the governance of the Internet and the Internet’s importance to society, including that: • The Internet must remain stable, secure, and free from government control given its importance to the global economy; • The world deserves the access to knowledge and economic benefits that the Internet provides and that are the bedrock of 

democratic self-governance; • The structure of Internet governance has profound implications 

for competition and trade, democratization, free expression, 

and access to information; • Countries have obligations to protect human rights, whether 

exercised online or offline; and • Proposals to fundamentally alter the governance and operation 

of the Internet would diminish freedom of expression on the 

Internet in favor of government control over content. 

Section 2. Policy Regarding Internet Governance 

Section 2 states that ‘‘[i]t is the policy of the United States to 

preserve and advance the successful multistakeholder model that 

governs the Internet.’’ 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

This legislation does not amend any existing Federal statute. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS