U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

79–558 PDF 2013

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 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

Vice Chairman 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

Ranking Member 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

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 

(1) 

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 

2 

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, 

3 

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:] 

4 


79558.001
5 


79558.002
6 

[The House Concurrent Resolution follows:] 

7 


79558.003
8 


79558.004
9 


79558.005
10 

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 

11 

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 multistakeholder 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 ecoVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:41 Mar 05, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\144-14~1\112-14~1 WAYNE
12 

nomic 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 multistakeholder 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:] 

13 


79558.006
14 

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. 

15 

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. 

16 

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. 

17 

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. 

18 

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 multistakeholder model and the resolution which was introduced this 

19 

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:] 

20 


79558.007
21 


79558.008
22 


79558.009
23 


79558.010
24 


79558.011
25 


79558.012
26 


79558.013
27 


79558.014
28 

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 inVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:41 Mar 05, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\144-14~1\112-14~1 WAYNE
29 

sidious 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 

30 

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:] 

31 


79558.015
32 


79558.016
33 


79558.017
34 


79558.018
35 


79558.019
36 


79558.020
37 


79558.021
38 


79558.022
39 


79558.023
40 


79558.024
41 


79558.025
42 

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. 

43 

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. 

44 

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. 

45 

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 goaround. 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? 

46 

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 

47 

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? 

48 

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? 

49 

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—— 

50 

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? 

51 

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? 

52 

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? 

53 

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 

54 

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. 

55 

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 teleVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:41 Mar 05, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\144-14~1\112-14~1 WAYNE
56 

vision 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? 

57 

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? 

58 

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 

59 

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-nationstate 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. 

60 

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. 

61 

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 multiVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:41 Mar 05, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\144-14~1\112-14~1 WAYNE
62 

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:] 

63 


79558.026
64 


79558.027
65 


79558.028
66 

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 usuVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:41 Mar 05, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\144-14~1\112-14~1 WAYNE
67 

ally 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 

68 

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 

69 

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. 

70 

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:] 

71 


79558.029
72 


79558.030
73 


79558.031
74 


79558.032
75 


79558.033
76 


79558.034
77 

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 cafe ́s 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 

78 

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:] 

79 


79558.035
80 


79558.036
81 


79558.037
82 


79558.038
83 


79558.039
84 


79558.040
85 

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 conVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:41 Mar 05, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\144-14~1\112-14~1 WAYNE
86 

cerned 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 multistakeholder 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:] 

87 


79558.041
88 


79558.042
89 


79558.043
90 


79558.044
91 


79558.045
92 


79558.046
93 


79558.047
94 


79558.048
95 


79558.049
96 


79558.050
97 

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 multistakeholder 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? 

98 

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. 

99 

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 

100 

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 

101 

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 

102 

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 

103 

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, poVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:41 Mar 05, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\144-14~1\112-14~1 WAYNE
104 

litical, 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. 

105 

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:] 

106 


79558.051
107 


79558.052
108 


79558.053
109 


79558.054
110 


79558.055
111 


79558.056
112 


79558.057
113 


79558.058
114 


79558.059
115 


79558.060
116 


79558.061
117 


79558.062
118 

Æ 


79558.063