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

79–530 2013

FIGHTING FOR INTERNET FREEDOM: DUBAI AND 

BEYOND 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE; AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN 

RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 5, 2013 

Serial No. 113–2 

(Committee on Energy and Commerce) 

Serial No. 113–18 

(Committee on Foreign Affairs) 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

http://energycommerce.house.gov and http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

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 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Missouri 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

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 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

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 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

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 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, ex officio 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

PAUL COOK, California 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director 

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(IV) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE

TED POE, Texas, Chairman 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

PAUL COOK, California 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

KAREN BASS, California 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 8 

Hon. Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New Jersey, opening statement ...................................................................... 9 

Hon. Karen Bass, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 10 

Hon. Ted Poe, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 11 

Hon. Brad Sherman, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 12 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 13 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 14 

Hon. Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 15 

WITNESS

Robert M. McDowell, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission ....

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 111 

Bitange Ndemo, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Information and Communications, Republic of Kenya ............................................................................... 45 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 116 

David A. Gross, Former U.S. Coordinator for International Communications 

and Information Policy, U.S. Department of State ........................................... 52 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 54 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 121 

Sally Shipman Wentworth, Senior Manager, Public Policy, Internet Society .... 58 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 61 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 125 

Harold Feld, Senior Vice President, Public Knowledge ........................................ 67 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 69 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 129 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Discussion draft ....................................................................................................... 4 

Letter of February 5, 2013, from The Internet Association to various subcommittees, submitted by Mr. Walden ............................................................... 102 

Letter of February 4, 2013, from the Software & Information Industry Association to the subcommittee, submitted by Ms. Eshoo ...................................... 108 

(1) 

FIGHTING FOR INTERNET FREEDOM: DUBAI 

AND BEYOND 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, JOINT WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE; 

AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL

ORGANIZATIONS, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m., in 

room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg Walden 

(chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology) presiding. 

Present from the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology: Representatives Walden, Latta, Shimkus, Terry, Blackburn, 

Scalise, Lance, Guthrie, Gardner, Kinzinger, Long, Ellmers, Barton, Eshoo, Matsui, Welch, Lujan, and Waxman (ex officio). 

Present from the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, 

and Trade: Representatives Poe, Kinzinger, Cotton, Cook, Perry, 

Sherman, Lowenthal, and Vargas. 

Present from the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global 

Human Rights, and International Organizations: Representatives 

Smith, Marino, Weber, Stockman, Meadows, Bass, and Bera. 

Also present: Representative Royce. 

Staff present from the Committee on Energy and Commerce: 

Gary Andres, Staff Director; Ray Baum, Senior Policy Advisor/Director of Coalitions; Mike Bloomquist, General Counsel; Sean 

Bonyun, Communications Director; Matt Bravo, Professional Staff 

Member; Neil Fried, Chief Counsel, C&T; Debbee Hancock, Press 

Secretary; Sydne Harwick, Staff Assistant; Sean Hayes, Counsel, 

O&I; Andrew Powaleny, Deputy Press Secretary; David Redl, 

Counsel, Telecom; Charlotte Savercool, Executive Assistant/Legislative Clerk; Tim Torres, Deputy IT Director; Lyn Walker, Coordinator, Admin/Human Resources; Jean Woodrow, Director, Information Technology; Roger Sherman, Minority Chief Counsel; Shawn 

Chang, Minority Senior Counsel; Margaret McCarthy, Minority 

Professional Staff Member; Patrick Donovan, Minority FCC Detail; 

and Kara Van Stralen, Minority Special Assistant. 

Staff present from the Committee on Foreign Affairs: Don MacDonald, Professional Staff Member, Subcommittee on Terrorism, 

2 

Nonproliferation, and Trade; and Eric Williams, Professional Staff 

Member, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human 

Rights, and International Organizations. 

Additional staff members present: Doug Seay, Senior Professional Staff Member, House Committee on Foreign Affairs; Gregory 

Simpkins, Professional Staff Member, Subcommittee on Africa, 

Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations, House Committee on Foreign Affairs; Luke Murry, Staff Director, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade, 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs; and Mark Kearney, Staff Associate, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human 

Rights, and International Organizations, House Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

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

Mr. WALDEN. I am going to call to order the Subcommittee on 

Communications and Technology for a hearing on ‘‘Fighting for 

Internet Freedom: Dubai and Beyond.’’ 

Before I give my opening remarks, I would just like to thank 

both Chairman Upton and Chairman Ed Royce of the Foreign Affairs Committee for their work in pulling together the largest group 

of subcommittees that have held a hearing here in a very long time 

between the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee. 

Because this is sort of a different lay of the land, if you will, I 

am going to go through the procedures here and how we are going 

to go back and forth on opening statements so no one is surprised. 

I will start, and then my colleague, Ms. Eshoo, will follow. We each 

have 4 minutes. And then Chairman Smith and Ranking Member 

Bass will each have 3; Chairman Poe and Ranking Member Sherman will each have 3; Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Waxman will each have 3 minutes; and then Chairman Royce and 

Ranking Member Engel will each have 3 minutes. So that is the 

order we will follow so that everybody knows. 

And, again, I want to thank our colleagues on the Foreign Affairs 

Committee for your interest and participation with us, and we with 

you, on this issue. 

As we begin this subcommittee’s first hearing in the 113th Congress, I want to welcome back our returning members and recognize some new members who have joined our subcommittee. Leonard Lance, Cory Gardner, Mike Pompeo, Billy Long, Renee Ellmers, 

Bruce Braley, Peter Welch, Ben Ray Luj ́an, and Jim Matheson are 

all on our subcommittee. 

I would also like to recognize our returning member, Anna 

Eshoo, who will continue as our ranking member on the subcommittee. And the subcommittee’s new vice chair is Bob Latta. So 

we look forward to working together on telecommunications policy 

going forward, as we did in the last Congress. 

I also want to welcome again our friends from the Foreign Affairs 

Committee, Chairman Ed Royce, Subcommittee Chairmen Ted Poe 

and Chris Smith, and all the other members from Foreign Affairs 

Committee for joining us today on a matter of great importance, 

3 

and that is preserving a global Internet free from government control. 

And I want to express my appreciation to Dr. Bitange Ndemo, 

who is joining us from Nairobi, Kenya. He is the Permanent Secretary of Information and Communications from Kenya. He has 

agreed to participate via this marvelous thing we now call the 

Internet, which made it a lot easier for him to participate than trying to work out a way to have him here in person. So we are using 

technology to accomplish something pretty important today. 

Governments’ traditional hands-off approach has enabled the 

Internet to grow at an astonishing pace and become perhaps the 

most powerful engine of social and economic freedom and job creation our world has ever known. Under the current multistakeholder governance model, nonregulatory institutions manage and 

operate the Internet by developing best practices with public- and 

private-sector input. 

This is not to say the Internet operates outside the law. To be 

sure, illegal activity should be no less illegal simply because someone has used digital tools rather than ones of brick and mortar. 

But the structure of the Internet and the content and applications 

it carries are organized from the ground up, not handed down by 

governments. This allows the Internet to evolve quickly to meet the 

diverse needs of users around the world and to keep government 

or nongovernmental actors from controlling the design of the network or the content it carries. 

Yet, at the World Conference on International Telecommunications, affectionately known as WCIT, in Dubai last December, 

billed as a routine review of an international treaty on traditional 

phone service, a number of nations sought to subject the Internet 

to international regulation. While disguised in language about 

broadband deployment, interconnection of networks, management 

of spam, cybersecurity, and access to telecommunications, at bottom the proposals could be used to justify economic regulation of 

the Internet and even government censorship. 

This development was not unanticipated, which is why we called 

the hearing last May in advance of the Dubai conference and why 

the subcommittee moved a resolution advocating adherence to the 

multistakeholder governance model. By the end of the year, both 

the House and Senate unanimously passed the resolution, with 

only minor changes, expressing the sense of the Congress the U.S. 

delegation should oppose international efforts to control the Internet. 

Buttressed by this resolution and facing a treaty that subjected 

the Internet to international regulation, even though conference organizers had promised Internet issues were not going to be on the 

agenda, the U.S. delegation and 54 other nations refused to sign. 

Unfortunately, 89 nations did sign the treaty, and this is likely the 

start, not the end, of efforts to drag the Internet within the purview of the international regulatory bodies. That is why this hearing will examine not only the implications of Dubai but also draft 

legislation turning last year’s resolution into the law of the land, 

officially making it the policy of the United States to promote a 

global Internet free from government control. 

[The discussion draft follows:] 

4 


79530.001
5 


79530.002
6 


79530.003
7 

Mr. WALDEN. How can we use this legislation to further 

strengthen our Nation’s resolve? What impact will the Dubai treaty 

have both on citizens of signatory nations and in countries that 

stood firm? What can we do to strengthen the multistakeholder 

governance model and its support across the globe? These are just 

some of the questions that we will explore from our panel of terrific 

witnesses today. 

With that, I will now turn over to Ms. Eshoo for an opening 

statement of 4 minutes. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

As we begin this subcommittee’s first hearing in the 113th Congress, I want to 

welcome back our returning members and recognize our new colleagues: Leonard 

Lance, Cory Gardner, Mike Pompeo, Billy Long, Renee Ellmers, Bruce Braley, Peter 

Welch, Ben Ray Lujan, and Jim Matheson. I’d also like to recognize our returning 

Ranking Member Anna Eshoo and the subcommittee’s new Vice Chair, Bob Latta. 

I look forward to working with all of you. 

I also want to welcome our friends from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Chairman 

Ed Royce and Subcommittee Chairmen Ted Poe and Chris Smith and all the other 

members from Foreign Affairs Committee for joining us today on a matter of great 

importance: preserving a global Internet free from government control. And I want 

to express my appreciation to Dr. Bitange Ndemo, Permanent Secretary of Information and Communications for Kenya, for agreeing to participate by Internet stream 

today, which we thought was particularly fitting. 

Governments’ traditional hands-off approach has enabled the Internet to grow at 

an astonishing pace and become perhaps the most powerful engine of social and economic freedom and job creation our world has ever known. Under the current multistakeholder governance model, non-regulatory institutions manage and operate the 

Internet by developing best practices with public and private sector input. 

This is not to say that the Internet operates outside the law. To be sure, illegal 

activity should be no less illegal simply because someone has used digital tools rather than ones of brick and mortar. But the structure of the Internet and the content 

and applications it carries are organized from the ground up, not handed down by 

governments. This allows the Internet to evolve quickly, to meet the diverse needs 

of users around the world, and to keep governmental or non- governmental actors 

from controlling the design of the network or the content it carries. 

Yet at the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in 

Dubai last December, billed as a routine review of an international treaty on traditional phone service, a number of nations sought to subject the Internet to international regulation. While disguised in language about broadband deployment, 

interconnection of networks, management of ′′spam,′′ cybersecurity, and access to 

telecommunications, at bottom the proposals could be used to justify economic regulation of the Internet and even government censorship. 

This development was not unanticipated. Which is why I called a hearing last 

May in advance of the Dubai conference and why the subcommittee moved a resolution advocating adherence to the multistakeholder governance model. By the end of 

the year, both the House and Senate had unanimously passed the resolution, with 

only minor changes, expressing the sense of Congress that the U.S delegation 

should oppose international efforts to control the Internet. 

Buttressed by this resolution, and facing a treaty that subjected the Internet to 

international regulation even though conference organizers had promised Internet 

issues were not on the agenda, the U.S delegation and 54 other nations refused to 

sign. Unfortunately, eighty-nine nations did sign the treaty and this is likely the 

start, not the end, of efforts to drag the Internet within the purview of international 

regulatory bodies. That’s why this hearing will examine not only the implications 

of Dubai, but also draft legislation turning last year’s resolution into the law of the 

land, officially making it the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet 

free from government control. 

How can we use this legislation to further strengthen our nation’s resolve? What 

impact will the Dubai treaty have, both on citizens of signatory nations and in countries that stood firm? What can we do to strengthen the multi-stakeholder governance model and its support across the globe? These are some of the questions we 

will explore today. 

8 

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

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And along with you, I want to welcome the members of the Foreign Relations Committee that are with us today. A welcome to all 

the new members of our committee, the returning members of our 

committee. We look forward to working together in this new Congress. 

Less than 2 months ago, the World Conference on International 

Telecommunications, WCIT, concluded in Dubai. Despite bipartisan 

agreement across our government, it is increasingly clear we have 

a lot of work ahead of us, particularly among nations who do not 

share our vision for maintaining the free flow of information across 

the Internet. It is certainly a hallmark of democracy, and we want 

to keep it that way. 

Through the leadership of Ambassador Kramer, the U.S. delegation presented a united front of 110 representatives from our government, from industry, and from civil society. Equally important, 

a well-coordinated approach that advocated the importance of 

Internet freedom, liberalized markets, and the multistakeholder 

approach to Internet governance ensured that the U.S. was able to 

build a coalition of countries, 54 in total, who opposed an expansion 

of the international telecommunications regulations. 

Now, going forward, we have to have a strategy for engaging developing countries. The U.S. shares many of the same goals, including expanding broadband deployment and adoption, ensuring the 

security of communications networks, and protecting intellectual 

property. Each of these goals can be addressed through the existing 

multistakeholder model for Internet governance, but we have to 

convince others of that. 

I am pleased the chairman has proposed bipartisan legislation affirming a U.S. policy position that defends the successful multistakeholder process and ensures the Internet remains free from 

government control. 

I thank each of our witnesses for being here today. And I look 

forward to your important perspectives on how to ensure the Internet remains open and a success story for generations to come, not 

only for Americans, but for people around the world. 

And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield the balance 

of my time to Congresswoman Matsui. 

Ms. MATSUI. I thank the ranking member for yielding me time. 

And I would like to welcome our witnesses here today. 

In today’s global economy, with over 2.3 billion users, the Internet has become a necessity and certainly not a luxury. That is why 

I was deeply troubled by the decision in Dubai regarding government control over the Internet. 

I believe the U.S. delegation worked diligently in Dubai to craft 

a deal that protects a free and open Internet. One of the positives 

that came out of Dubai was recognition by most of the developed 

world to protect the current multistakeholder approach, which has 

allowed the Internet to flourish. Ultimately, however, the administration made the right decision by refusing to support a bad policy. 

9 

I believe the status quo of a free, transparent, and open Internet 

must continue. We need to continue to promote innovation and 

openness of the Internet around the globe. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. ESHOO. Are there any Members on our side that would like 

to take the 20 seconds that are left? Seventeen, 16—I think we 

yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentlelady. 

I now recognize Chairman Smith from the Foreign Relations 

Committee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW 

JERSEY 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

your leadership on this very important issue. 

Internet freedom is an issue of vital concern, as we all know, to 

an ever-growing number of people around the world. In a little 

more than 2 decades, the Internet has opened a vast storehouse of 

information to many, but not everyone, with computer access. It 

has allowed people to communicate easily and immediately over 

vast distances and changed the way products and services are marketed. Most important, the Internet can be used to promote the 

spread of democracy and respect for fundamental human rights. 

Yet it can also be used by repressive governments to censor and 

surveil. 

Currently, the Internet is regulated, as we all know, under a 

multistakeholder system in which both agencies and private organizations, mostly American, play various roles. Russia and China 

and a host of other nations with poor human rights records have 

objected to this multistakeholder system and American influence. 

Some of these countries objecting to the current system have refused to recognize that fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of 

speech and freedom of the media, apply to the Internet, just as 

they apply to all other modes of communication. In fact, Russia has 

blocked passage of a simple statement to that effect in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. 

In December of last year, Russia, China, and 87 other countries 

signed a treaty at the world conference of the ITU in Dubai. The 

treaty touches on vital issues of Internet governance in ways our 

country objected to, and I am glad we did. And, in fact, the United 

States and 54 other countries refused to sign. 

While many of the issues that the treaty deals with are technical 

and do not directly concern freedom from censorship and surveillance, and while many of the countries supporting the treaty are 

themselves not repressive, it is clear that many, as well, are repressive governments and have another agenda in the treaty. It is 

not to promote Internet freedom but to bring the Internet under 

international controls in ways that will, over the long term, legitimize their own repressive practices. 

Yesterday, I reintroduced the Global Online Freedom Act, H.R. 

491. This bill is a response not to the treaty directly, signed in 

Dubai in December, but to a larger and more general problem that 

10 

drives many of our concerns about the Dubai treaty: the growing 

use of the Internet as a tool of repression. 

The new Global Online Freedom Act updates legislation I introduced in 2006, as well as in 2008, which advanced through three 

House committees. The new GOFA requires the State Department 

to beef up its practices on Internet freedom in the annual country 

reports on human rights practices and to identify by name Internet-restricting countries. 

It requires Internet companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges to 

disclose to the Securities and Exchange Commission how they conduct their human rights due diligence, including with regard to the 

collection and sharing of personally identifiable information with 

repressive countries, and the steps that they take to notify users 

when they remove content or block access to content. 

Finally, in response to many reports that we have all seen in the 

papers recently of U.S. technology being used to track down or conduct surveillance of human rights and democracy activists through 

the Internet or mobile devices, this bill will prohibit the export of 

hardware or software that could be used for potentially illicit activities such as surveillance, tracking, and blocking by the governments of Internet-restricting countries. 

I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for calling this very important 

hearing, and I look forward to the statements of our distinguished 

witnesses. 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the chairman and now recognize the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global 

Human Rights, and International Organizations, Ms. Bass, for 4 

minutes. Thank you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KAREN BASS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Eshoo, 

and my colleagues on the participating subcommittees. Thank you 

for your leadership on this issue and moving swiftly to hold a hearing on one of the most important innovations of our day. 

I want to also express my appreciation to today’s witnesses, who 

bring depth and expertise on the issues before us. 

Let me echo the sentiment expressed that the Internet for many 

of the world’s people is an essential part of daily life. And while 

billions of people still have little to no access, the way in which it 

is governed globally is important to all of us. The recent deliberations in Dubai make clear that the international community, from 

government to business to diverse civil societies, all have a stake 

and role to play in the future of the Internet. 

One key challenge, though, before us is how the Internet will be 

governed globally. Our current system relies on a decentralized, 

multistakeholder approach that has allowed innovation and expansion on a global scale. Proposed changes to the system could very 

well jeopardize this progress and hinder what has been a truly remarkable collaboration of diverse sectors. 

The Internet represents an extraordinary and remarkable tool to 

convene individuals and communities, and provides a vehicle for 

expression. Today’s hearing reminds us what is at stake if ground 

is lost to governments that seek to undermine a people’s ability to 

11 

freely express their opinions and to voice those opinions without 

fear of harassment, retribution, or sentiment. 

And while it is important to support open access to the Internet 

as a democratic tool, we must also be aware of the new challenges 

posed by the Internet. Chairman Chris Smith and I share a deep 

commitment to combating human trafficking. A recent research 

study by the University of Southern California documents the pervasive use of online classified ads and social networking sites to 

sexually exploit youth throughout the world. I look forward to 

working alongside my congressional colleagues and the expert witnesses here today to promote an open and free Internet, while 

working to stop Internet-facilitated human trafficking, child pornography, and other exploitation online. 

It is my sincere hope that our government will continue to provide global leadership and partnership with other nations that 

strengthen the Internet as we know it. 

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentlelady for her opening statement 

and now turn to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, 

Nonproliferation, and Trade, Chairman Poe, for 3 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED POE, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The idea that the U.N. ought to be controlling the Internet, to 

me, is like putting the Taliban in charge of women’s rights. It 

doesn’t make any sense at all. 

Oppressive countries want the United Nations to control the 

Internet. They want to control the content; they want to control the 

operations of the Internet. And they are led by none other than our 

fellow countries, Putin’s Russia and our good buddies, the Chinese. 

They want to use the U.N. as a shield to protect against the threat 

of free speech, and they want to use it as a spear, a weapon against 

democratic opposition. 

This is a threat to liberty, American liberty, free speech, human 

rights, economic freedom, competence, and innovation. It does hurt 

the developing world. The best thing for developing countries is an 

unfiltered Internet. We should consider the consequences for countries who want to, as my friend Mr. Smith has said, want to limit 

free speech through the Internet. We must remember that the 

United States does give several of these countries aid, and we 

should reexamine that if need be. 

In November of 2014, the ITU’s constitution will be written. We 

know what the U.N. is like. We don’t need them governing the 

Internet. Some say what happened in Dubai could have been 

worse. That is like saying, you weren’t hung, but you were drawn 

and quartered. 

I am glad that we are having this hearing, and I thank the chairman for leading in this effort to find out exactly what the motivations are of these countries that want U.N. control of speech. 

I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman and now turn to the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, 

and Trade, Mr. Sherman, for 3 minutes. 

12 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRAD SHERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. SHERMAN. I want to thank Chairman Walden and Ranking 

Member Eshoo for cutting across the jurisdiction of three subcommittees to put together these important hearings. 

As others have stated, we have to keep the Internet free, particularly from those who would try to regulate its content. And, therefore, we were correct, even though we were in the minority, when 

the International Telecommunications Union sought through one of 

its ITU’s core agreements, the International Telecommunications 

Regulations, to begin the process of governmental, multinational 

regulation of the Internet. 

But we are in the minority. The ITU is an important organization. The Dubai round came up with a 30-page document, short by 

diplomatic standards, only 2 pages of which seem to be objectionable. So at issue for us is: How do we participate in the ITU in the 

future, knowing that we can never support this attempt to regulate 

the Internet? 

The ITU was created in 1865, when its focus was the telegraph. 

It is part of the U.N. family of organizations. It has been an important forum for international telecommunications and has played a 

significant and useful role with regard to global telegraph and telephone service. 

Prior to Dubai, the telecommunications regulatory treaty had not 

been updated since 1988, and so, not surprisingly, it did not deal 

with the Internet. We need to preserve the Internet’s multistakeholder organization and governance and not allow governments, 

particularly those bent on censorship, to gain control. 

Therefore, the United States was correct in not signing the 

agreement, but the question is: How do we participate in the ITU 

in the future? Can we work toward a bifurcation of the Dubai treaty, such that we can agree to a 28-page treaty while refusing to 

sign 2 pages? How dangerous would it be for us, and is it a viable 

course, to sign the 30 pages but with reservations? Would those 

reservations be sufficient, or is it more important that we make it 

clear that we will not sign any document, even with reservations, 

that has those two pages in it? Or do we want to learn from First 

Lady Nancy Reagan and just say no to this agreement, knowing 

that that puts us in the minority at the ITU? 

So I want to hear from the witnesses what tactics we should employ. I want to commend the State Department not only for not 

going along with the majority, which is so easy, but instead not 

only making a stand but organizing a stand that had a very substantial minority of ITU members refusing to sign this treaty. 

And I look forward to hearing from the witnesses how the State 

Department can reach out to the publics of other nations, particularly in Latin America. Because while a majority of the world’s governments may be in favor of ITU regulation of the Internet, a majority of the world’s people, I believe, are not. 

So I look forward to hearing from our panel, and I thank you for 

putting together these hearings. 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman for his opening statement. 

13 

The vice chair of the full committee, Ms. Blackburn, is recognized 

next. 

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

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to welcome all our witnesses. 

Secretary Ndemo, I am just thrilled that you are able to join us. 

And we are so pleased that the wonders of the Internet allow us 

to bring you in and have you present for this hearing today. 

I think that we are, each and every one, concerned about what 

we saw transpire in Dubai. Our goal is to make certain that we do 

have a free and open Internet, not only here in the United States 

but globally. And when we see the overreach, we realize that that 

is impeding on our freedoms. 

So we are pleased that the U.S. left the Dubai conference just in 

time, and we want to make certain that we do not put ourselves 

in those situations again. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to at this point yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you. 

I, too, want to welcome our witnesses. I want to welcome the Foreign Relations Committee, its distinguished chairman, for being 

here. 

I am just going to say I double down on what Mr. Poe said. This 

is the committee that when the Internet first got started, the Energy and Commerce Committee, a Congressman from California, 

Chris Cox, who later became chairman of the FCC, offered the 

amendment that passed that we would have no regulation of the 

Internet here in the United States and no taxation. The only way 

to make freedom totally free is to keep it free. And in the world 

today, that is to keep the Internet free. 

So I want to echo what I think everybody has said in some 

shape, form, or fashion: For the United States to sign this treaty 

would be absolute absurdity. And I hope that common sense prevails and we don’t do that. 

And I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And at this time I want to yield 1 minute to 

the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta. 

Mr. LATTA. I thank the lady for yielding. 

And, Mr. Chairman and Chairman Poe and Chairman Smith, I 

thank you for holding this hearing on the critical topic of Internet 

freedom. 

And I thank the distinguished panel of witnesses for testifying 

today. 

A global Internet free from government control is in the best interests of all Americans, as many of you have heard already from 

the other members of these committees. In every global city, it has 

revolutionized the world economy, communications, and the cause 

of freedom. 

However, the Internet will only continue to thrive if governments 

refrain from regulating it and if it can remain under a multistakeholder governance model. Developments in the World Conference 

14 

on International Telecommunications last December in Dubai were 

troubling and a reminder that the United States must stand steadfast in its defense of Internet freedom. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on the subject, and I yield back the balance of my time to the lady. Thank 

you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. 

The chairman now recognizes the ranking member of the full Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Waxman. 

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Chairman Walden. 

I appreciate your holding this joint hearing on the outcomes of the 

World Conference on International Telecommunications which took 

place last December in Dubai. 

First and foremost, I want to commend the tireless work of our 

talented U.S. delegation, led by Ambassadors Phil Verveer and 

Terry Kramer, including the invaluable contributions made by staff 

at NTIA and the FCC under the directions of Assistant Secretary 

Larry Strickling and Chairman Genachowski. 

We are all disappointed that the WCIT produced a treaty that 

seeks an expansion of governmental control into Internet governance instead of recognizing the success of the existing multistakeholder approach. But we must also recognize our U.S. delegation 

for the positive aspects of the treaty on which we were able to 

reach consensus with other member states. That work and dialogue 

with other nations must continue. 

I am pleased that Congress, through bipartisan efforts initiated 

in the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, was able 

to pass a unanimous resolution last year reaffirming our commitment to the multistakeholder model of Internet governance and a 

global, open Internet. 

We stood shoulder-to-shoulder in support of the Administration 

because we agree that regardless of our domestic disagreements on 

the best ways to achieve our shared vision of Internet openness, 

these differences stop at the water’s edge. 

Today we will examine the path forward to build upon and 

strengthen the coalition of countries that stood together in Dubai. 

We need to work in close coordination with our allies to ensure the 

Internet remains a tool for the global dissemination of ideas, information, and commerce. 

I look forward to hearing from our expert panel of witnesses. 

And unless any Members on the Democratic side wish me to 

yield the balance of my time, I will yield back that time. 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman and now recognize the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Royce, 

for opening comments. 

15 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD R. ROYCE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think one of the great advantages in our Bill of Rights enumerated in our Constitution is the commitment to freedom of speech. 

I think it is one of the things that really unites Democrats and Republicans, one of the many things that unite us in the West, frankly. But it is something on which authoritarian regimes certainly 

have a very different take. 

I want to thank our witnesses for being here with us this morning in order to testify on this subject. Because I think that we in 

the West are pretty well accustomed to threats from brutal dictatorships that come head-on, but danger can also come from some 

pretty obscure corners. The latest is the push by foreign governments to use the International Telecommunication Union to regulate the ability through the Internet to really exercise free speech. 

I think government regulation of the Internet really had its first 

big success last December at the ITU conference. I wish we had 

been more effective in working earlier to head this off. But the fact 

that the strong objections of the United States and its allies were 

simply pushed aside by a majority vote—a majority vote, frankly, 

that was led by Russia, led by China—is a loud and clear warning 

of what lies ahead. 

Some might wonder why this kind of regulation by the ITU 

should be a concern. You hear the argument, well, this U.N. agency 

has been around for decades, it has worked to set technical standards. But I think the problem here is threefold. First, the ITU has 

never had any role in regulating the Internet and has no business 

doing so today. Second, the countries behind the proposal want to 

use the ITU to help them control the Internet in their countries. 

And, third and most important, the creativity and innovation of the 

Internet can flourish only in an environment free from intrusive 

government regulation. 

As bad as it was, the step taken at the ITU conference in December was only the first in a planned series by these authoritarian 

regimes. We know that the original proposal was even worse, so we 

must expect that the same countries will push for an even larger 

agenda in the future. 

So we have our work cut out. I think the struggle here is going 

to be a permanent one. Once those forces have an initial victory, 

those seeking control of the Internet are not going to stop. It is too 

valuable to them as a tool. 

Fortunately, I think we have strength in numbers in the West, 

I think we have strength in our ideas. But I think we need a 

forum, as demonstrated here today, in order to begin this discussion so that this discussion plays out abroad as well. 

I think Congress has a key role to play, such as last year’s resolution that passed our House unanimously and our Senate unanimously, as well as the proposed legislation that we are going to 

talk about today. 

With this hearing, we shine a spotlight on those who seek to do 

their work behind the scenes and in the shadows. The truth of the 

old saying that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance is, I think, 

16 

being demonstrated here. If we are to prevail, we must always remember that we are engaged in a battle with very high stakes: the 

free flow of information and commerce, the very bedrock, in fact, 

of our society. That was understood by our Founders. We should 

keep that in mind today. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 

The chairman now recognizes the gentleman from New York, the 

ranking member, Mr. Engel. 

He is not here. Does anyone on the full committee seek his time? 

It does not appear so. OK. Then that wraps up our opening statements. 

I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a letter from the 

Internet Association. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. WALDEN. Ms. Eshoo? 

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to place in 

the record a letter from SIIA, the Software & Information Industry 

Association, on the topic that is the subject of our hearing today. 

Mr. WALDEN. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. With that, then, we will turn to our distinguished panel of witnesses. And we will start with the Honorable 

Robert McDowell, Commissioner of the Federal Communications 

Commission. 

Commissioner, thank you again for joining us on this topic, as 

you have on several other occasions, and on other topics, but we 

especially welcome your comments today. And please proceed. 

STATEMENTS OF THE HON. ROBERT M. MCDOWELL, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; THE 

HON. BITANGE NDEMO, PERMANENT SECRETARY, MINISTRY 

OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, REPUBLIC OF 

KENYA; THE HON. DAVID A. GROSS, FORMER U.S. COORDINATOR FOR INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; SALLY 

SHIPMAN WENTWORTH, SENIOR MANAGER, PUBLIC POLICY, 

INTERNET SOCIETY; AND HAROLD FELD, SENIOR VICE 

PRESIDENT, PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT M. MCDOWELL 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is terrific to 

be back here again. 

Thank you to all the chairs and all the ranking members and all 

the vice chairs and all the members of the various subcommittees. 

This is a new degree of difficulty for me, testifying before three 

joint committees, so we will see how this goes. But it is also a privilege to testify with this terrifically distinguished panel here. 

Ladies and gentlemen, the Internet is quite simply under assault. As a result, freedom, prosperity, and the potential to improve 

the human condition across the globe are all at risk. 

17 

In my testimony today, I will make five fundamental points. 

First, proponents of multilateral intergovernmental control of the 

Internet are patient and persistent incrementalists who will never 

relent until their ends are achieved. 

Number two, the recently concluded WCIT ended the era of an 

international consensus to keep the intergovernmental hands off of 

the Internet in dramatic fashion, thus radically twisting the oneway ratchet of even more government regulation in this space. 

Third, those who cherish Internet freedom must immediately redouble their efforts to prevent further expansions of government 

control of the Internet as the pivotal 2014 plenipotentiary meeting 

of the ITU quickly draws near. 

Fourth, merely saying no to any changes is quite obviously a losing proposition. Therefore, we should work to offer alternative proposals, such as improving the longstanding and highly successful 

nongovernmental multistakeholder model of Internet governance to 

include those who may feel disenfranchised. 

And, finally, last year’s bipartisan and unanimous congressional 

resolutions clearly opposing expansions of international powers 

over the Internet reverberated throughout the globe and had a 

positive and constructive effect. 

So, first, it is important to note that as far back as 2003 and 

maybe further back than that, during the U.N.’s Summit on the Information Society, the U.S. found itself in the lonely position of 

fending off efforts by other countries to exert U.N. and other multilateral control over the Internet. 

At that time, due to the highly effective leadership of my friend, 

Ambassador David Gross, and his stellar team at the State Department and other agencies and other folks as well, champions of 

Internet freedom were able to avert a wave of regulation by enhancing the private-sector multistakeholder governance model 

through the creation of entities such as the Internet Governance 

Forum, the IGF, where all stakeholders, including governments, 

could meet to resolve challenges. 

Nonetheless, countries such as China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and scores of their allies never gave up their regulatory quest. 

They continued to push the ITU and the U.N. itself to regulate 

both the operations, economics, and content of the Net. I have outlined some of these proposals in more detail in my written testimony. 

The purpose of the WCIT was to renegotiate an earlier treaty 

from 1988. As such, it became the perfect opportunity for proponents of expanded regulation to extend the ITU’s reach into the 

Internet’s affairs. In fact, in 2011, Vladimir Putin summed it up 

best when he declared that his goal and that of his allies was to 

establish international control of the Internet through the ITU. 

Last December in Dubai, Mr. Putin largely achieved his goal. 

To my second point, before the WCIT, ITU leadership made three 

key promises. The first, no votes would be taken at the WCIT. The 

second, a new treaty would be adopted only through unanimous 

consensus. And the third, any new treaty would not touch the 

Internet. All three promises were resoundingly broken. As a result 

of an 89-to-55 vote, the ITU now has unprecedented authority over 

the economics and content of key aspects of the Net. 

18 

Although the U.S. was ultimately joined by 54 other countries in 

opposition to the new treaty language, that figure is misleading. 

Many countries, including otherwise close allies in Europe, were 

willing to vote to ensnare the Internet in the tangle of intergovernmental control. In short, Internet freedom experienced a rude 

awakening regarding a stark reality: When push comes to shove, 

even countries that purport to cherish Internet freedom are willing 

to surrender. 

Our experience in Dubai is a chilling foreshadow of how international Internet regulatory policy could expand at an accelerating 

pace. Many countries, as well as the ITU itself, brazenly argued 

that old treaty texts from 1988 gave the ITU broad jurisdiction 

over the Internet. This is plainly false, but if these regulatory expansionists are willing to conjure ITU authority where clearly none 

existed, their imaginations will see no limits to the ITU’s authority 

over the Internet’s affairs under the new treaty language. Their appetite for regulatory expansionism is simply insatiable, as they envision the omniscience of regulators replacing the billions of daily 

private-sector decisions that allow the Internet to flourish. 

At the same time, worldwide consumer demand is driving technological convergence. As a result, companies such as Verizon, 

Google, AT&T, Amazon, Microsoft, Netflix, and many others, and 

many others across the globe, are building across borders thousands of miles of fiberoptics to connect sophisticated routers that 

bring voice, video, and data services more quickly to consumers 

tucked into every corner of the globe. From an engineering perspective, the technical architecture and service offerings of these companies look the same. To be blunt, these dynamic new wonders of 

the early 21st century are inches away from being smothered by 

innovation-crushing old rules designed for a different time. 

Third, time is of the essence. While we debate what to do next, 

Internet freedom’s foes around the globe are working hard to exploit yet another treaty negotiation. In 2014, the ITU will conduct 

what is literally a constitutional convention, called a plenipotentiary meeting, which will define the ITU’s mission for years 

to come. Additionally, the World Telecommunications Policy and 

ICT Forum, which convenes in Geneva this May, will focus squarely on Internet governance and will shape the 2014 plenipot. 

Accordingly, the highest levels of the U.S. Government must 

make this cause a top priority and recruit allies in civil society, the 

private sector, and diplomatic circles around the world. We should 

start with the President immediately making appointments to fill 

crucial vacancies in our diplomatic ranks. 

Fourth, as I warned a year ago—and I see I am short on time— 

merely saying no to any changes to the multistakeholder Internet 

governance model has recently proven to be a losing proposition. 

Using the IGF as a model, we should immediately engage with all 

countries to encourage a dialogue among all interested parties, including governments, civil society, the private sector, nonprofits, 

the ITU, to broaden the multistakeholder umbrella. 

Lastly, in my nearly 7 years at the FCC, I have been amazed by 

how closely every government and communications provider on the 

globe studies the latest developments in American communications 

policy. In fact, we can be confident that this hearing is streaming 

19 

live in some countries, such as Kenya—and thank you, Kenya—but 

it is being blocked by government censors in other countries. 

Every detail of our actions is scrutinized. And when Congress 

speaks, especially when it speaks with one loud and clear voice, as 

it did last year with the unanimous and bipartisan resolutions concerning the WCIT, an uncountable number of global policymakers 

pause to think. Although Internet freedom suffered as a result of 

the WCIT, many even more corrosive proposals did not become 

international law in part due to Congress’s actions last year. 

In conclusion, finally—and I apologize for going over—I ask you 

in the strongest terms possible to take action and take action now. 

Two years hence, let us not look back at this moment and lament 

how we did not do enough. We have but one chance. Let us tell the 

world now that we will be resolute and stand strong for Internet 

freedom and that all nations should join us. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. WALDEN. Commissioner, thank you very much for your 

strong testimony today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McDowell follows:] 

20 


79530.013
21 


79530.014
22 


79530.015
23 


79530.016
24 


79530.017
25 


79530.018
26 


79530.019
27 


79530.020
28 


79530.021
29 


79530.022
30 


79530.023
31 


79530.024
32 


79530.025
33 


79530.026
34 


79530.027
35 


79530.028
36 


79530.029
37 


79530.030
38 


79530.031
39 


79530.032
40 


79530.033
41 


79530.034
42 


79530.035
43 


79530.036
44 


79530.037
45 

Mr. WALDEN. Our next witness is the Permanent Secretary 

Bitange Ndemo from the Kenyan Ministry of Information and Communications. We are pleased that the Permanent Secretary is able 

to join us via the Internet from the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi. 

Before we have him speak, I would like to extend special thanks 

to the team at the State Department, both here in Washington, 

D.C., and in Nairobi, for their help in coordinating Permanent Secretary Ndemo’s testimony. I would particularly like to thank the 

acting head of the International Communication and Information 

Policy Group at the State Department, Jack Spilsbury, for his time 

and efforts. 

With that, we are delighted, Secretary Ndemo, that you would 

take time out of your busy schedule to speak with us today. 

I understand that in Nairobi they are, I believe, 8 hours ahead 

of us, so it is already 7:15 in the evening. He is able to testify, but 

another commitment prevents him from being able to take our 

questions later in the hearing. We will obviously be able to submit 

questions to him in writing, but he is not able to stay with us. 

But, Secretary, we are delighted that you would join us today. 

We look forward to your comments. Please unmute your microphone and share your thoughts with us. And thank you again, sir, 

for joining us. 

I think your microphone is live. 

Mr. NDEMO. Can you hear me? 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, I can. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. BITANGE NDEMO 

Mr. NDEMO. Thank you, Chairman. And I want to take this opportunity to thank all the other chairmen, the Congressmen and 

Congresswomen, to thank you for allowing me to make a presentation about what happened in Dubai in December. 

In Kenya, prior to our going to Dubai, we had consultations in 

line with our new Constitution, which guarantees freedom of information and freedom of speech. And we did not want to go against 

the new Constitution that we have in Kenya. And we thank the 

American Government, through the leadership of Ambassador Kramer, Ambassador Verveer, and Ambassador Gross, who, through 

their leadership, we were able to fully understand the proceedings 

in Dubai. 

And I would say here that many of my—of African countries 

were literally coerced into—hello? 

Mr. WALDEN. You are doing fine. We can hear you just fine. 

Mr. NDEMO. Yes. Many of the countries here were literally coerced into signing the treaty. Because after a while, some came and 

said what Kenya did was good because on their own they had been 

working towards a common understanding, until we tried to explain that this would go against the achievements that we have 

made. 

Some of you who know what has happened in Kenya, is that we 

have heavily invested in the Internet. We have invested in 

fiberoptic cables, the undersea cables. And because of this investment in the Internet, we have begun to see a lot of innovation coming out of Kenya. If you know the money transfer, what it has done 

to the poor in this country; if you know some of the new applicaVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Jun 05, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-2 CHRIS
46 

tions, like Ushahidi, which have helped throughout the country, it 

is because that freedom has been free in this country. 

And we want to continue to have it free. But we want to work 

with the like-minded throughout the world to make sure that the 

2014 plenipotentiary does not become a nightmare for those who 

believe in freedom of the Internet. 

One thing that we must pay attention is that the Internet has 

given so many people hope, it has given so many people—it has 

empowered so many people to make their governments responsive. 

In Kenya, through Twitter and Facebook, people are able to question the government. And you know what has happened in most 

countries in northern Africa. 

So Internet is very key. It is the lifeblood of the innovations that 

we have had in Kenya here. We want to continue to support this. 

We want to work together with the Americans to prepare for the 

Geneva conference, to prepare for the plenipotentiary, and hope 

that the countries that were coerced into signing come to our side 

and support the new initiatives that would ensure that the Internet remains free, and help to empower the citizens of the world as 

it has done, and we have seen that it has done so. 

That is the only way we can help those countries that are in between, trying to figure out whether to support the freedom of the 

Internet. Kenya, for example, has been host to ICANN, to IGF, to 

freedom on the Internet. And we are helping those countries that 

are members of freedom of Internet to be able to convene and explain the benefits of the Internet. 

I would stop here, but I would hope we continue to work together 

to ensure that the Internet remains free for the years to come. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. WALDEN. Secretary, thank you very much for your willingness to testify today from Nairobi and for your strong statement in 

support of a free Internet. We appreciate your testimony. We know 

you may have to depart at some point. But, again, thank you, and 

thanks for your good work and your good words. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ndemo follows:] 

47 


79530.038
48 


79530.039
49 


79530.040
50 


79530.041
51 


79530.042
52 

Mr. WALDEN. We will now go to the former U.S. Coordinator for 

International Communications and Information Policy at the U.S. 

Department of State, the Honorable David A. Gross. 

Ambassador, thank you for being with us. Thank you for your 

work on this issue. We look forward to your testimony, as well. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAVID A. GROSS 

Mr. GROSS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, chairmen, 

ranking members. I appreciate very much, of course, the opportunity to appear once again. 

I also want to thank my fellow panelists here in Washington who 

were also in the U.S. delegation and were terrific members of the 

U.S. delegation. 

But if I may, before the Permanent Secretary leaves, if I may, 

with your permission, say a few words about why it is particularly 

important that he is appearing before you today. 

The Permanent Secretary led the Kenyan delegation to WCIT, 

and he defended the interests of the Kenyan people and the Kenyan Government in an extraordinarily effective and forceful way. 

He did not bow to the wishes of other countries, but instead defended that which he believed to be correct and I believe is clearly 

correct. That is not an insubstantial contribution to the conference. 

His standing to be able to make that is not just because of his 

representing the great country of Kenya, a host, as the Permanent 

Secretary just said, of the Internet Governance Forum just about 

2 years or so ago, but rather because of his personal involvement 

and the involvement of his team, the ministers and others, in 

Kenya. 

Kenya has transformed itself in regard to the Internet. When he 

took office, Kenya had no Internet access other than through very 

expensive and very slow satellite communications. Because of his 

tireless work and the work of his team, they now have four, or 

some might even claim five, high-capacity submarine cables coming 

into Kenya that is transforming that country. 

The cost of the Internet connectivity has gone down; latency has 

improved. As the Permanent Secretary said, it has resulted in jobs 

that have benefited not only the Kenyan people but all of us, because what happens in Kenya affects us in so many ways. In addition, of course, it has promoted the free flow of information, something that the Permanent Secretary believes strongly in. 

So I am particularly pleased and proud that he has participated 

in this hearing because he brings a perspective that is truly unique 

and very powerful. 

Now, I have heard and of course have read the testimony of my 

fellow panelists, and I agree that the key message, I think, has 

been that there is much work to be done. We need to learn the lessons of the past, including the lessons from WCIT, which are very 

clear, I believe, but it is important for all of us to look forward. We 

need to listen carefully to the technical community, to civil society, 

to the private sector, to other countries, and especially those, such 

as those represented by the Permanent Secretary, from the developing world. 

I think, however, as we look at these issues, it is important for 

us to look carefully at the ITU. The ITU is an extraordinarily imVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Jun 05, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-2 CHRIS
53 

portant organization to the United States. And, in many respects, 

if it did not exist, we would have to invent it because of its important work in many areas, particularly with regard to spectrum-related issues, something that is important to all of our economies. 

It is also traditionally an important organization because, unlike 

other parts of the U.N., it is primarily a bottom-up, contributiondriven organization. It is not the Secretariat that sets the agenda, 

but rather it is governments. And, therefore, as I disagree with 

many things the ITU does, it is not a disagreement with the Secretariat; it is a disagreement with member states and their views 

and their advocacy with regard to important issues, particularly 

those involving the Internet. 

Therefore, it is important for us, I believe, to differentiate between ITU control of the Internet, something that we all believe is 

an anathema, and the ITU as an effective convenor, particularly 

with regard to our outreach to the developing world, in which it 

can be an effective facilitator. 

I was pleased, in that regard, that the Secretary-General just 

gave a speech just a few days ago in which he said he was disappointed that in Dubai to see attempts to derail the conference by 

those who were persuaded that Internet control was an issue for 

discussion. I agree. I, too, not only was disappointed, I was very, 

very unhappy with that outcome. But that is the outcome as a result, as many of you have already noted, of the issues raised by 

Russia, China, and others who seek to use the ITU for control, not 

the ITU itself. 

So, in conclusion, it seems to me that the importance is for us 

to continue to advocate strongly, as we did at WCIT. The skill of 

the delegation in its advocacy was strong. We did not, as some reports made, we never walked out. We engaged to the very end. It 

is because of that engagement and the skill of our chairman, 

Mohamed Al Ghanim from the UAE, that, in fact, much of what 

is in the agreement is positive from a telecoms perspective. 

But, nevertheless, the Internet-related aspects make it an 

unsignable and unacceptable treaty, in my view. That is a tremendous disappointment for all of us. But it is, in fact, an opportunity 

for us to redouble our efforts of involvement, particularly, as has 

been noted, with the upcoming plenipotentiary in Korea in 2014 

and just this upcoming May at the World Telecommunications Policy Forum. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much and look forward to questions. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Ambassador. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gross follows:] 

54 


79530.043
55 


79530.044
56 


79530.045
57 


79530.046
58 

Mr. WALDEN. And I think the Permanent Secretary has to leave 

at some point here. 

So, again, Mr. Secretary, thank you for all your great leadership 

at WCIT and for your country and for testifying today. 

We will now turn to Ms. Sally Shipman Wentworth, who is senior manager, public policy, Internet Society. 

Ms. Wentworth, thank you for joining us today. We look forward 

to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF SALLY SHIPMAN WENTWORTH 

Ms. WENTWORTH. Thank you very much. 

My name is Sally Shipman Wentworth. I am senior manager of 

public policy for the Internet Society. The Internet Society is 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, which is made up of more than 

65,000 members worldwide and 91 chapters in countries around 

the world, I would sincerely like to thank the leaders of the various 

subcommittees gathered here for the opportunity to testify on the 

current state of global Internet policy and the future of Internet 

freedom. 

I am honored to be on a panel with such distinguished colleagues, and in particular, of course, the Honorable Permanent Secretary from Kenya. Kenya has made enormous strides, as was said, 

in its Internet development and has truly embraced groups like the 

Internet Society and the technical community as it moves forward 

along its path toward Internet development. And we look forward 

to that partnership continuing. 

I had the honor of testifying last May before the Subcommittee 

on Communications and Technology about our concerns that the 

outcome of the WCIT meeting could undermine the security, stability, and innovative potential of networks worldwide. The Internet Society was a sector member participant at the WCIT, not on 

a national delegation. And when we arrived at the conference in 

Dubai, we quickly determined that our concerns were well-founded. 

In the end, the results from WCIT are concerning. The lack of 

consensus among nations and the persistent aims by governments 

to establish Internet policy in a closed, intergovernmental context 

sets the Internet policy dialogue on uncertain footing. There is significant ambiguity as to how certain treaty provisions will be implemented and whom the treaty will ultimately cover. Some governments could use new ITR language on spam and security as a 

justification for imposing more restrictions on the Internet and the 

content it carries. 

The treaty also includes a controversial new Internet resolution 

that, in our opinion, shifts the emphasis from community and consensus to centralization through government action. In some ways, 

the debate at WCIT revived a longstanding concern that the global 

Internet could give way to a set of national Internets, each with its 

own rules and gatekeepers and with higher costs for everyone. 

From the standpoint of the Internet Society, this is an outcome 

that must be averted. 

59 

Still, while the final text was disappointing, enough so that 55 

nations, including the U.S., declined to sign it, it was not as bad 

as it could have been, thanks in large part to the work of national 

delegations from the U.S., Canada, Australia, the Philippines, 

Kenya, European Union member states, and Internet advocates 

working tirelessly within dozens of national delegations from 

around the world. 

It is also important to point out that the ITU, in response to unprecedented global public interest in the WCIT, took a number of 

steps to make the process in Dubai more transparent. The ITU 

must build on these steps to make its processes more open and 

more meaningfully inclusive in the future. 

In the aftermath of WCIT, we are all faced with considerable uncertainty as to what extent the lack of consensus will negatively 

impact global communications networks going forward. We suspect 

that it will. 

What is certain is that the WCIT is one piece of a much longer 

narrative. At the heart of this narrative is a very basic question 

over the role of government in a technology space that is fundamentally borderless. This narrative will continue through a rigorous schedule of ITU and U.N. meetings between now and at least 

2014. 

The lesson from WCIT is that supporters of the multistakeholder 

model must engage more, not less, in order to demonstrate clearly 

how this model could respond meaningfully to the legitimate Internet public policy questions that many governments have. 

Fortunately, there are a number of opportunities for positive engagement. The annual Internet Governance Forum and the national and regional IGFs that have sprung up around the world 

have proven to be an exemplary model where governments can be 

active in a multistakeholder context without needing to control the 

process or negotiate a formal outcome. We should all recognize, 

however, that the IGF is only possible with sustained support and 

commitment from all of us. We also welcome UNESCO’s active 

leadership in advocating for a free and open Internet. 

Finally, I should note that there are other critical technical and 

policy organizations around the world that are working to make 

the Internet better for everyone. They also deserve our support and 

active participation. 

In conclusion, I want to leave you with one key message: Please 

continue your support for the multistakeholder model of Internet 

policy development both at home and abroad. The importance of 

sustained U.S. commitment to the principles of the global open 

Internet cannot be overstated. While the impact of WCIT will be 

felt for years to come, we can work together to ensure that the 

Internet continues to transcend political divides and serves as an 

engine for human empowerment throughout the world. 

From the Internet Society perspective, the WCIT has not shaken 

our basic confidence that the Internet is fundamentally good for the 

world and that the multistakeholder model of policy and technical 

development is still the most effective way to support its growth 

and innovation. 

So thank you for hosting this important discussion, and the 

Internet Society looks forward to being part of this conversation. 

60 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Ms. Wentworth. We appreciate your 

testimony this morning. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wentworth follows:] 

61 


79530.047
62 


79530.048
63 


79530.049
64 


79530.050
65 


79530.051
66 


79530.052
67 

Mr. WALDEN. Now we will go to our final witness, Mr. Harold 

Feld, who is senior vice president of Public Knowledge. 

Mr. Feld, thank you for joining us today. We look forward to your 

testimony, sir. 

STATEMENT OF HAROLD FELD 

Mr. FELD. Good morning. Thank you, Chairmen, Ranking Members. My name is Harold Feld. I am senior vice president of Public 

Knowledge, a nonprofit dedicated to an open Internet. It was also 

my privilege to participate as an advisory member of the U.S. delegation to Dubai. 

I am struck by the broad general agreement among the witnesses 

with regard to the inappropriateness of the ITU as a forum for regulating Internet governance and of the very real threat to Internet 

freedom we now face. In particular, I wish to voice my agreement 

with Commissioner McDowell’s written testimony, that the danger 

we face is real, and we must respond quickly with both engagement 

and firmness. 

I want especially to applaud and emphasize Commissioner 

McDowell’s observation that we must make the multistakeholder 

alternatives to the ITU accessible to developing nations, which 

have traditionally lacked resources to fully participate in these forums. This inability to fully participate has created a feeling of disenfranchisement and resentment in some quarters, which drives 

many developing countries to see the ITU as a counterbalance to 

what they perceive as dominance of the Internet by the United 

States and the developing world generally. 

But there is good news from Dubai, as well. I want to focus on 

our enormous success in engaging with global civil society and how 

building on that success is a key building block to winning the 

global debate now in progress between those who agree with an 

open and transparent multistakeholder approach and those who 

embrace a traditional treaty organization dominated by government ministries and conducting most of its business behind closed 

doors. 

As Mr. Sherman said earlier, while the majority of governments 

may at the moment be in favor of a traditional treaty approach, as 

we saw in the lead-up to the WCIT the majority of the people of 

the world are not. The ITU has not traditionally been open to participation by civil society. In the lead-up to the WICT, protests of 

global civil society forced both the ITU and many member governments to backpedal, at least publicly, from the most aggressive proposals. The decision of many countries not to sign the ITRs and the 

statements issued by some signing nations limiting the scope of 

ITRs come in no small part from the vigorous efforts of civil society 

organization within these countries. 

In the lead-up to the WCIT, civil society, including Public Knowledge, made several efforts to overcome barriers to participation. To 

its credit, ITU’s Secretary-General, Dr. Hamadoun Toure ́, and the 

ITU staff responded to these criticisms and sought to engage with 

us, both before the WCIT and in Dubai. The ITU webcast its plenary sessions and the meetings of its most important committee, 

allowing a window into what has, until now, been an utterly 

opaque process. 

68 

In the end, however, civil society were forced to sit on the sidelines, unable to access key documents, unable to observe, never 

mind participate, in the actual working sessions behind closed 

doors, and unable to speak with our own voices or engage directly 

with voting delegates. 

The United States played a vital role in supporting and encouraging the efforts of global civil society. First, the United States 

walked the walk on civil society by reaching out to domestic NGOs, 

such as Public Knowledge, and including us fully in consultation 

preceding WCIT and as part of the delegation. I am pleased to report that I and my colleagues from civil society were treated with 

the same courtesy and consideration as our colleagues from industry. We had the same access, and our contributions were given the 

same weight and respect. This vastly improved the credibility of 

the United States as a defender of transparency, inclusion, and 

Internet freedom in the ITU process. 

Second, the United States directly engaged with global civil society. Ambassador Kramer himself held two personal meetings with 

international NGOs—one prior to the WCIT and one at the WCIT 

itself, meeting for 2 hours with representatives of global civil society, including representatives from the developing global south, 

and genuinely engaged with them. 

These civil society organizations were able to take our concerns 

back to their own delegations and to advocate for support of our positions on limited ITU jurisdiction, not because these organizations 

agree with U.S. policy generally, but because we were successful in 

persuading them that their own aspirations for Internet freedom 

were equally threatened by the expansion of ITU authority and the 

agenda advanced by certain countries trying to extend their online 

censorship regimes. 

Even those countries that ultimately signed the ITRs, who began 

willing to dismiss our concerns and accused us of dominating the 

Internet, needed to at least reconsider their positions. 

To conclude, the good news is that the Dubai conference was just 

the beginning of the discussion around the globe on Internet governance, not the end. We must build on this beginning going forward and on the alliances and relationships that we created in 

Dubai. 

To ensure that civil society and smaller developing countries can 

participate fully, the U.S. State Department and Congress should 

lead by example by creating a fund to support the travel and registration of both civil society groups and small countries that are 

unable to afford to participate in multistakeholder processes. 

I would add that our industries and industries around the globe 

who depend upon these multistakeholder processes and upon coordination through voluntary efforts would likewise be well-served 

to contribute to these efforts. 

Thank you to the members of the subcommittees for your time, 

and I look forward to the opportunity to answer your questions. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Feld, thank you for your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Feld follows:] 

69 


79530.053
70 


79530.054
71 


79530.055
72 


79530.056
73 


79530.057
74 


79530.058
75 


79530.059
76 


79530.060
77 


79530.061
78 


79530.062
79 


79530.063
80 


79530.064
81 


79530.065
82 


79530.066
83 


79530.067
84 


79530.068
85 


79530.069
86 


79530.070
87 

Mr. WALDEN. And thanks to all of our witnesses here and abroad 

for your testimony. It helps in our work. 

I will lead off with the first set of questions, and then we will 

alternate back and forth. 

So I have a question for all the witnesses. What impact do you 

think the congressional resolution last year had on discussions at 

WCIT? And do you think the discussion draft we are considering 

today, which takes the language of that resolution and makes it 

the formal policy of the United States, might be helpful going forward? 

Mr. Feld? 

Mr. FELD. Thank you. 

I believe, as others have stated and as we stated in our testimony, that it was enormously helpful for us to see the United 

States speaking with one voice. What we need is a combination of 

diplomatic engagement and firmness of resolve, and I believe that 

the legislation shows that firmness of resolve. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. 

Ms. Wentworth? 

Ms. WENTWORTH. Thank you. 

Yes, as an organization that was not on a national delegation, I 

can say that the bipartisan congressional resolution and the bipartisan resolve in Congress did help to strengthen the U.S. position 

and the U.S. credibility in the negotiating process. And I think the 

strength of the legislation will be extremely helpful in the Internet 

discussions going forward. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. 

Ambassador Gross? 

Mr. GROSS. Thank you very much. 

I can be a fact witness for you, having been told by a number 

of senior representatives from other countries that they not only 

knew of the resolution but took it into account in understanding 

where the U.S. was coming from on our positions. So, therefore, 

from my perspective, there is no doubt it not only had an impact, 

it had a substantial impact on the treaty negotiations. 

I would also note that there is now a history of such resolutions. 

There was one also before it, with regard to the World Summit on 

the Information Society back in 2005, that had exactly the same 

impact—very substantial in that U.N.-heads-of-state negotiation. 

So, clearly, when the committee speaks, when Congress speaks, 

the world listens. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. 

Commissioner McDowell? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Well, it is hard to build on all those answers, 

so I will incorporate them by reference. But I can also be a fact witness for you. In bilateral negotiations between the U.S. Government and other governments, this issue came up of our Congress 

being unified, unanimously unified. And I don’t mean this as a flippant remark, but that was seen as something quite extraordinary 

abroad, internationally—— 

Mr. WALDEN. And domestically. 

Mr. MCDOWELL [continuing]. And was very powerful. 

Mr. WALDEN. Good. 

88 

Mr. MCDOWELL. I think it focused the resolve. And I think going 

further, making it the law of the land, would be even more powerful. And we should do that sooner rather than later to make sure 

we are prepared for 2014. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. 

Commissioner, I have a question for you. You were one of the 

first to warn that the WCIT could veer off into Internet governance 

issues, and we appreciate your persistence. 

The international community will gather again in May in Geneva 

for the World Summit on the Information Society Forum and the 

World Telecommunication/Information and Communication Technology Policy Forum. What should we be on the alert for there? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. WTPF will have squarely in its sights Internet 

governance. I think this will lay the groundwork. While it doesn’t 

maybe technically feed into 2014, the plenipot, it really does, because a lot of the same representatives, the same actual people who 

will be at the WTPF in May will be negotiating the new treaty in 

2014 in Korea. But this focuses squarely on Internet governance. 

So, yes, the WCIT could have been worse, but it was pretty bad. 

So what the proponents of international regulation did not get explicitly in Dubai they will try to get explicitly in Korea in 2014. 

And so this May is the next big opportunity to influence that treaty 

negotiation in 2014. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. Thank you. 

Ms. Wentworth, I get the sense that if other nations better understood the opportunities available to them to participate in the 

multistakeholder governance model, the less need they would see 

for international regulation and the more likely they would be to 

see the harms. 

Can you share with us some of the steps the Internet Society is 

taking to promote greater global inclusion in Internet governance 

process? 

Ms. WENTWORTH. Yes, and thank you for that question. 

The Internet Society has long believed that more engagement 

and more participation from all countries in the processes, in the 

multistakeholder processes that make the Internet work is the 

most effective way forward. To that end, the Internet Society does 

a tremendous amount of work at the national level, working with 

countries to help build and sustain technology in-country and build 

the capacity of the technical community in that country to sustain 

the technology going forward. 

At the global level, we provide a lot of opportunities, a lot of fellowships for developing country participants to participate in 

things like the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Governance Forum, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 

Development, and a host of other meetings where we think the 

more voices that are at the table, the more rich and enhanced the 

dialogue will be. We are committed now more than ever to keep 

that activity going. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much. 

My time has expired. I would now recognize the gentlelady from 

California, Ms. Eshoo, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

89 

And thank you to each of you, our witnesses. I think the entire 

country owes you its gratitude for what you have done. And I think 

that what you have shared with us today and more than nailed 

down is that we have a ways to go, but that the action of the Congress—and I know that there were some smiles, Commissioner 

McDowell, when you said that other countries found it really rather exceptional that the Congress was united. We have to re-appreciate that, that when there wasn’t any daylight—any daylight between any of us in the Congress, bicameral, bipartisan, and in the 

executive branch, that that is a powerful message to people around 

the world. And it is powerful because it is really a restatement of 

our great values of our Nation. This isn’t just the innards of something technological that has just taken off; this has embedded in 

it the great values of our democracy. And I want to thank you each 

of you for advancing the ball down the field. 

My question to all five of you is: For what lies ahead, what do 

you think the United States should do in working with developing 

nations to help turn them around? What are the ingredients? 

We know what has worked, we know what hasn’t. We know, obviously, the countries that disagree the most with us are far more 

closed societies, they are not as open as we are. 

I hope that there is not contagion of that thinking. And, first, I 

would hope that you can tell us that they didn’t gain new friends 

in Dubai and bring people over to their side. But what do you think 

are the most effective strategies for turning this around? 

Because we all agree with each other here. And you all agree 

with each other at the table. And I am thrilled that civil society 

and the roles that you played with your organization, as well, on 

the public side are involved in this. And these are very, very powerful tools. 

So tell me, how do we keep hope alive here? What is the strategy, moving forward? Now that we have come through this, I mean, 

I think we are wiser. So whomever wants to go first. 

Sure. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Thank you. I think that is an excellent point, 

and I agree with everything you just said. 

I think we need to offer an alternative. There are countries, especially in the developing world, who feel left out of the multistakeholder model. 

Ms. ESHOO. I heard that. That is why I said ‘‘developing.’’ Uhhuh. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. And I think we need to broaden the umbrella 

and find new ways for inclusion and sort of modernize that. 

So sometimes these representatives can’t afford to fly to these 

far-off meetings. So is there a way to fund that? Is there a way to 

have them participate remotely, as our friend from Kenya just did? 

Ms. ESHOO. Now, who would fund it? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Well, you know—— 

Ms. ESHOO. I mean, where would we get that from? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. That could be—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Everyone chips in or—— 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Everyone chips in. You know, there are 

ways—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Our side chips in? 

90 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Yes. 

So, I think we also need to educate them on the facts. We need 

to recruit allies in civil society, as Mr. Feld said—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. That is very powerful. 

Mr. MCDOWELL [continuing]. In all these countries. And one key 

fact, for instance, in Africa, 1999, 70 percent of all Internet traffic 

from Africa went to the United States. Today it is less than 5 percent. 

So there is the myth out there that the Internet is somehow 

U.S.-dominated. More and more traffic is going to come from within 

these countries and develop their own economies in a beautiful 

way. We need to let them know that that is the beauty of it. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. And thank you for the great role you 

have played in this. You rang the bell a long time ago. We are 

grateful to you. 

Mr. Ambassador? 

Thank you. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Well, thank you very much. 

Ms. ESHOO. Wonderful work. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. You are very kind. Thank you. 

Ms. ESHOO. Important work. 

Mr. GROSS. There is no silver bullet here, and we all recognize 

that. At the risk of stating the obvious, what we need to do is to 

continue that which we have been doing: the hard work of putting 

together the evidence, honing our arguments, and to making our 

case. 

Now, having said that, there are many realities that we also 

need to work on. One is we need to think, as we do, about what 

it is we do, how we support organizations. If I may suggest, for example, one of the organizations that is near to my heart, or one of 

the processes that is near to my heart, is the Internet Governance 

Forum, created as a result of the World Summit back in 2005. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Mr. GROSS. It was created because the United States said that 

although we did not believe in international control of the Internet, 

we believed it was important to have a dialogue with the world on 

Internet-related issues and that we would meet with and talk with 

anyone anywheres because we thought it was that important. 

I am concerned about the future of the Internet Governance 

Forum, in part because of funding issues. It has been kept together—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Where does the funding come from? 

Mr. GROSS. The funding is a very complicated method. 

One is, in theory, because it is a U.N. event, the money flows 

through the U.N., there is a mechanism for donations to be made 

by countries, by regional groups, by civil society, and by corporations and others, some of whom are here today, that have been 

very generous in their contributions. But it is clearly insufficient to 

keep it going, at least in the long term. 

If our view is that the multistakeholder approach is the way it 

should work, which I believe is true, then it is important that at 

least this, which is probably the most significant and well-known 

of the multistakeholder global meetings, needs to be supported and 

enhanced. 

91 

Obviously, there are many other places and many other organizations that do terrific work in this area. I don’t want to sound like 

I am picking one out. But this is one where the world gathers that 

is extraordinarily important. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. 

I am more than out of time, and I hope that the other two witnesses will, in writing, be instructive to us on the question that I 

posed. Because I think you have a great deal to offer, very importantly a great deal to offer, given who and what you represent. 

Thank you. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATTA [presiding]. Thank you very much. 

And Chairman Smith is now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Commissioner McDowell, you testified that three promises, key 

promises, were made by the ITU leadership: no votes to be taken 

on the WCIT; a new treaty will be adopted only by unanimous consensus; and a new treaty would not touch the Internet. 

And I am wondering if that promise, if they were duplicitous, or 

did events that they had no part and could not control intervene. 

And did that affect or mal-affect, if you will, our strategy? 

I look at the list of countries, the 89, and it is very clear that 

many of those are developing countries. Europe pretty much 

stayed—the European Parliament, as we all know, like here in the 

United States, took a very strong action in terms of a resolution. 

The Europeans pretty much stayed with us. 

So my question would be, did that duplicity—were we prepared? 

Were we demarching? Were we doing the work—and, Ambassador 

Gross, you might want to speak to this, as well—that needed to be 

done in advance of the Dubai meeting that would make the difference in terms of outcome? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. To the second part of your question, I don’t 

think it affected U.S. advocacy. I do think, however, that both civil 

society, the private sector, nonprofits, and the U.S. Government 

could have gotten started sooner on working on the WCIT. I don’t 

know if that would have changed the ultimate outcome, but I don’t 

think reliance on those promises changed U.S. strategy. 

On the duplicity aspect of it, I don’t know. I can’t tell people’s 

intentions. You have statements by ITU leadership saying one 

thing, but, as Ambassador Gross pointed out, that it is a memberdriven organization. So you have the member states doing what 

they were going to do regardless of what ITU leadership may or 

may not have said. 

Mr. GROSS. Thank you very much. And it is a great pleasure to 

testify before you again. 

I agree with what the Commissioner said. I think the key here 

is, to some degree, it is not a question of individual motives, it is 

a question of governmental interests. And as we have discussed in 

the past, there is no doubt in my mind that some governments 

would like to seek to control the Internet in any way that they can, 

not only domestically but internationally, because it will further 

their interests. 

92 

Our advocacy with those governments has been ongoing, needs to 

be ongoing. It needs to be strengthened, of course, as well. But I 

don’t come with any illusions that it is merely a question of if we 

can come up with a slightly better formulation of our arguments 

or if we start a few months earlier, that those governments will 

change their mind. 

Having said that, there is a large number of governments who 

can be directly influenced by the correct arguments. We have heard 

from the Kenyans today, as well. I would note that there are about 

193 countries that are members of the ITU. As we have heard, 89 

of those countries signed the treaty in Dubai, but that means almost half of the countries, maybe more than half the countries, 

have either not signed or did not attend that conference. As a result, there is lots of opportunities for our effective advocacy. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. 

You know, in 2006, as you know better than anyone, I chaired 

the first hearing of a series of hearings on the misuse of the Internet by human rights violators, particularly gross violators like the 

People’s Republic of China. Representatives from Google, Microsoft, 

Cisco, and Yahoo! testified, and they told us how they were compelled to conform to surveillance and censorship policies placed 

upon them by Beijing, making them unwittingly a part of the ongoing crackdown of indigenous human rights activists. 

This also goes on in Vietnam, it goes on in Belarus, it goes on 

in Iran, as we all know. Today the Laogai is filled to overflowing 

with human rights activists, put there precisely because of the 

Internet and because they were surveilled and caught by the government. 

Pervasive censorship is not just about information exclusion, but 

it is about redirecting netizens to government-favored information 

and Web sites. And that is the rule of the way it happens in China 

today. 

My question is, exactly what did China and other Internet-restricting countries gain in Dubai? Are their policies reinforced? Are 

there any mitigating aspects to this treaty? Will it have any kind 

of curtailing impact on the great China firewall or not? And how 

will this treaty be enforced on the 89 that have signed on to it? 

Mr. FELD. Let me take a first shot at that, cautioning that I am 

not an expert in international law. 

I will say that the last-minute debate with regard to what I can 

only describe as the usurpation of human rights language by countries for the purposes of subsuming that language to their own end 

was profoundly shocking. I think it reverberated to our advantage, 

ultimately, in the political sphere by making clear to many in global civil society what the stakes are here. 

Particularly as China articulated a theory in which countries, 

rather than individuals, would be the ministers of the U.N. fundamental right of free expression, could not have been more calculated to send chills down the spine of every organization that had 

foreseen precisely this effort to extend censorship regimes through 

the ITRs. 

That said, I must add one note of caution which we need to take 

account of in our diplomacy, which was when I asked a fellow activist from the Africa bloc why the African countries were supVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Jun 05, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-2 CHRIS
93 

porting this, she said, We have families who cannot call home to 

Sudan because telephone cards will not work because of the sanctions. 

And so while we fully support the sanctions and we believe in 

protecting human rights, we also need to be aware in our diplomacy as we move forward that many countries may choose to support some of these not because they love censorship but because 

they have alternative concerns. And as Commissioner McDowell 

has said repeatedly and appropriately, we need to be showing that 

we are sensitive and engaged on those concerns while continuing 

to isolate those who would violate human rights. 

Mr. GROSS. I would just add that, in answer to your question, 

time will tell. I take the importance of how the language is interpreted. It doesn’t go into effect until January of 2015. The WCIT 

treaty will be incredibly important. 

I hope and expect that the ITU leadership and others will continue to advance the view that the language of the WCIT treaty, 

the new ITRs, revised ITRs, are telecoms-related, not Internet-related. And so it will take long and hard work by the U.S. and others to ensure that that promise continues to be kept. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. If I could add very quickly. I know we are over 

time. I apologize. 

The authoritarian regimes have crossed a regulatory Rubicon, 

and that is their biggest victory from Dubai. So from now on—remember, at the outset I said these regimes are patient and persistent incrementalists. So they won’t stop at this; they will want 

more. 

And they will also try to argue that current treaty language says 

more than what it says on its face, because that is what they did 

with the 1988 treaty language, which clearly did not contemplate 

giving the ITU control over the Internet. But even ITU leadership 

and ITU staff in a PowerPoint presentation that I have right here, 

which is on is the ITU Web site, claimed that the 1988 treaty language incorporated the Internet. And that is still up on their Web 

site; I hope it remains there. And so I think we need to keep that 

in mind. 

So what they got, their big victory, they were able to create a 

new paradigm and destroy the old paradigm. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Sherman, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I would like to pick up on that concept, and that 

is, we have got a lot of language adopted from 1865 to 1988, and 

one can imagine that the opponents of freedom will try to apply 

that to the Internet. 

In addition, the Internet is broadening its scope to include voice, 

some would say telephony. As the Internet, Ambassador Gross, includes voice, does that bring it under the language adopted in 1988 

and prior? 

Mr. GROSS. The fortunate answer for us is that the 1988 treaty 

that resulted in the ITRs dealt with issues other than what we are 

talking about. That is, it dealt with issues about how state-controlled enterprises, in essence, exchanged traffic in ways—financial 

arrangements and related arrangements. 

94 

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, but my focus is not just on the 1988 language. From 1865 to 1988, people were writing treaties about telegraph. Then they started including telephony. And did they stumble into language that would either apply to the Internet as I use 

it today or that would apply to an Internet that is even more used 

for telephony than what we see today? 

And I know Mr. Feld will want to respond, as well, but first Ambassador Gross. 

Mr. GROSS. As I mentioned, fortunately, that which was done by 

the ITU in terms of treaty language, binding treaty language, does 

not go to the sorts of things, I think, that would concern us with 

regard to Internet. And I don’t at all suggest that what it does applies retroactively to the Internet. But, rather, it really dealt with 

the relationship between states and how those transactions took 

place with regard to the networks. 

In addition, it is important, I think, to recognize that the way in 

which the Internet has evolved has resulted in many of us now 

looking afresh at how these things should be done. And, importantly, in the 1988 treaty, what the ITU did was very important; 

it allowed for the private sector and others to make their own commercial arrangements. That part applies regardless. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Feld, I do want to pick up on your idea that 

the U.S., perhaps the private sector as well as government, should 

be chipping in a bit to help those from poorer countries participate 

in the multistakeholder forums. And I would note that we provide 

$11 million a year, which seems a rather modest amount, to the 

ITU itself. And it wouldn’t be such a bad idea if both businesses 

and the government would help strengthen the multistakeholder 

approach. 

So thank you for those statements. And now please comment on 

the question I asked Ambassador Gross. 

Mr. FELD. To focus on the question just asked, I think what is 

important here is to recognize that even under the traditional ITU 

approach to telecommunications, it never approached questions of 

content, it never attempted to extend the controls of one country 

into another country, which are precisely the issues that are of concern here. 

Nothing in the ITRs ever would have suggested, for example, 

that countries could regulate prank phone calls or unwanted telephone solicitations, but somehow countries persuaded themselves 

that it was suitable because of the Internet to try to regulate spam. 

And what we need to be careful of here is to not make this a 

telecom/nontelecom distinction, but to much more focus on the appropriate role of the ITU as tied to traditional technical coordination. 

Mr. SHERMAN. So we should be saying, No content regulation, 

whether it is text or voice, whether it is over old telephony wires 

or new Internet technology; the ITU is there to provide for international payment recognition, not content regulation. 

I know others want to respond to this, but I want to add one 

other question. Our colleague, Congresswoman Bass, pointed out, 

as we all know, that the Internet is sometimes used by bad people 

for bad reasons. And she gave a great example, a terrible example, 

and that is those engaged in human trafficking. 

95 

How does the multistakeholder approach respond to those who 

say, We need the ITU to regulate; otherwise, and if you don’t believe in that, then you must be helping human traffickers? 

Mr. McDowell? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Thank you for the opportunity. 

So for the first part, you know, voice is now an application. It is 

all part of a slurry of ones and zeroes. So as we just saw from our 

friend from Kenya, was that voice, was that a voice communication? Was that video? Was it data? The answer is, it was all of the 

above; it was all a slurry of ones and zeroes. 

Packet-switch networks, the networks of the Internet, operate 

very differently and have a different architecture completely from 

the traditional copper voice analog networks of yore that the old 

ITU rules were set up for. That is an important distinction, actually. So we are talking about new networks and old rules, and we 

need to avoid blurring the two or putting the old rules on the new 

networks. 

And regarding the other issues, it could be trafficking, it could 

be intellectual property, it could be a lot of other things. There are 

still national laws, there is still national sovereignty. And what 

growing the jurisdiction of the ITU or maybe another U.N. organization yet to be born undermines is national sovereignty in these 

areas. And there are other treaties that can be put into play for 

trafficking or intellectual property and all the rest, with the Internet as a tool, perhaps, in those crimes. But we need to make sure 

that we are not subjecting to the Internet to international control. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I will just ask a question for the record because 

the chairman has been very generous with the time. And that is, 

should we have done more to tell countries that, to use the language here in Congress, we are scoring the vote? That is to say, 

that those making other important U.S. foreign policy decisions are 

taking note of now countries vote at the ITU? Is that undue pressure or a demonstration of how important Internet freedom is? 

And I will ask you to respond in writing to that. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Poe, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POE. You hesitated on that ‘‘gentleman’’ part. 

Mr. LATTA. You are a gentleman. 

Mr. POE. Thank you once again for being here. 

It seems to me that there is one thing that we do all agree on: 

that the Internet, as great as it is, is a tool for freedom. It promotes 

freedom of speech, and it promotes economic and political freedom. 

Freedom is kind of something we do in this country, whether it 

is here or somewhere else. And I would hope that, as we move forward, we would continue as a body to bipartisanly promote that 

concept that we believe in as a nation, even though it may, as Commissioner McDowell said, shock a few countries that we all agree 

on this one issue. And so I think that is important and that is why 

this hearing is important. And what we do as a body, Congress, 

does make a difference, and especially other people notice what we 

do. 

96 

But that is, to me, the underlying issue, it is about freedom, liberty. It is not corny, it is not old-fashioned; it is just what we do 

in this country. 

One thing that concerns me is the ITU’s kind of secret plan. 

They meet in secret. They don’t reveal to the public what they do 

behind closed doors, as Mr. Feld has pointed out. Transcripts sometimes aren’t available. Other things that take place, no one knows 

what occurred. 

I don’t know if you want to weigh in on that as whether we can 

do something about that as a procedure matter or not. 

It seems to me, also, that on this issue we have those that are 

determined to have control, government control, ITU control, over 

the Internet. I mean, their motives are obvious. Russia, Iran, 

China, Saudi Arabia, UAE—those people will never be converted to 

our philosophy, I don’t think. Then on the other side we have the 

United States, Sweden, Great Britain, Kenya, and some other 

countries. 

So I think most countries are still in the middle, from what you 

say, that most countries are still trying to find out where they 

stand on this issue. And that should be our goal, is to promote that 

concept—which is in their best interest, not necessarily ours, but 

their best interest as well—diplomatically, however we can. And I 

know that I couldn’t do that. I have been called a lot of things, but 

I have never been called a diplomat. And I am glad that you are 

in that assignment, that you want to do that. 

So my question to you is, should there be, first, on one end—and 

I am just asking for your opinion—any consequences for countries 

that seem to want government control of the Internet, or not? And, 

second, a little more specific: how can we be prepared to communicate better to these—the vast majority of countries, as Ambassador Gross has mentioned, that still haven’t made up their mind? 

So three questions: ITU procedure; any consequences; and what 

can we specifically do. I will let anybody who wants to answer, if 

you do. 

Ms. WENTWORTH. Thank you for the question. It is an important 

question, and it goes to, I think, some of the other comments earlier. 

First, the ITU does need to become more transparent. And, hopefully, the pressure and the attention that the world put on the ITU 

over the last 18 months will make a deep impression going forward 

that processes need to be more open, more inclusive of civil society, 

more reflective of a broader community, and not a closed-door 

intergovernmental place where work gets done, which I think promotes this feeling that it is a secret plan. 

The question about what to do about the countries, as you said, 

in the middle is a really important one. Organizations and groups 

like the Internet Governance Forum are incredibly important. 

It is also really important to build the technical capacity in these 

countries. And by ‘‘technical capacity,’’ that could mean the actual 

technical infrastructure, but also the human capacity, the technical 

people in this country who can build the technology, sustain the 

technology, and work with their governments in forums like the 

ITU to defend the technology and to defend the model. 

97 

As we see more engineers from developing countries involved in 

the technical community, involved in growing the Internet in their 

countries, we then see them on national delegations, like the Kenyan delegation, like the Philippine delegation, across a number of 

delegations that had Internet experts on that delegation helping to 

inform their governments about what the consequences of these 

treaty proposals were. 

So it wasn’t just a matter of us saying to them, this is wrong or 

this is bad, they actually had homegrown, national citizens in their 

countries who truly believe in the model because they are building 

it in their countries. 

And I think that it is important to really push and to support 

that kind of technical capacity-building, both at the architectural 

level and at the human level, so that you build a sense of buy-in 

within these countries that is sustainable over the long term. 

Mr. FELD. Yes, I would like to just add, one, with regard to ITU 

procedure, the United States, as a member, has the discretion 

when to disclose official documents and to whom it chooses to designate to have access. And to the extent that the members of the 

member states of the ITU do not agree to open this in transparency, the United States and other countries that believe in that 

principle can unilaterally say, well, we plan to make copies of these 

official documents available. And if the ITU insists on operating 

through official documents, then that is going to be the mechanism 

through which the rest of the world gets to judge the proposals that 

are being put out there. And the United States can drag this as 

much into the light as possible. 

With regard to engagement, I think it is important for us to continue to walk the walk. And that includes not just at the ITU. I 

will point out that I and my colleagues were thrilled and delighted 

with the reception we had at State for the delegation with regard 

to Dubai. I would say we have gotten a somewhat different reaction 

when we have talked to USTR with regard to negotiations, for example, in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It plays into the hands of 

our opponents if we are totally about openness and civil society and 

engagement in the ITU context and not in the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other trade contexts. 

And the fact that European activists and some in the European 

Parliament were referring to the ITU as ‘‘ACTA by the backdoor’’ 

shows us, I think, unfortunately how far we have fallen on the 

trade front. And it would be enormously helpful for us to walk the 

walk consistently with regard to engagement with civil society. 

Mr. POE. I am out of time. Ambassador Gross, if you don’t mind 

just responding in writing. 

And also if the four of you, if you wish to respond on the issue 

of consequences in writing. 

And I will yield back my time. 

Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman. 

And the chair will recognize himself for 5 minutes. 

And if I could—oh, I am sorry. I got ahead of myself. I am sorry. 

The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes, Mr. 

Lowenthal. Sorry about that. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. That is all right. 

Mr. LATTA. You pass? All right, thank you. 

98 

Going back, again, I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

And if I could, Commissioner McDowell—and for all of our panelists, thanks again for being here. It has been a very, very informative hearing this morning. 

And if I could go back to your testimony, especially your five fundamental points that you were bringing up, and especially your 

point number one, stating that ‘‘proponents of multilateral intergovernmental control of the Internet are patient and persistent 

incrementalists who will never relent until their ends are 

achieved,’’ which you started on. And I think you were talking 

about crossing the Rubicon. 

And the three points, if you could maybe touch on briefly again, 

especially in light of what has been going on, especially the cyber 

attacks that have occurred on businesses and, of course, on other 

government agencies in this country from abroad. 

But could you comment on especially your bullet point stating 

that ‘‘subjecting cybersecurity and data privacy to international 

control, including the creation of an international registry of Internet addresses that could track every Internet-connected device in 

the world’’? If you could start with that point, especially in light of 

the cyber attacks. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. This sounds like fiction, but I in my written testimony have it heavily cited so that people can see those proposals, 

and these are very real. They can read it in black and white. So 

this is an outstanding question, as to what is the future state of 

international regulation of cybersecurity. 

So if China, in particular, is pushing hard for something along 

these lines, one has to ask why. And is that to use it as a shield, 

as a way of having other countries live by a set of rules which they 

then can break? That is a legitimate question to ask with any treaty negotiation but especially this one. So is it a sword and a shield 

all at the same time? 

So this is something that I think these patient and persistent 

incrementalists will be back for more, to have more multilateral 

control over what probably should be something conducted by nations in their own national interest. 

Mr. LATTA. Let me ask, on your last bullet point under that 

heading, ‘‘centralizing under international regulation Internet content under the guise of controlling ’congestion’ or other false pretexts, and many more,’’ if you want to expound on that. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Right. So if we look at the provisions on spam 

that came out of Dubai, there is a legitimate argument to make, 

which others on the panel have made, that this enables governments across the globe to look at the details of Internet communications. It actually gives them cover because many of them, of 

course, do this already, China being the best example. But this 

gives them international political cover to do this and starts to 

make it, through international treaty, the worldwide norm for governments to do these types of things. 

And back, also, to the registry point of the first part of your question, that is ultimately where this can lead. If these proposals will 

ultimately result in having an international registry for IP addresses, each device—your mobile phone, your tablet, your computer— 

has an IP device. And in the future, as we grow the Internet of 

99 

things, you know, your refrigerator, goods on cargo vessels, all the 

rest, will have their own addresses. And if there is an international 

registry of these, that enables the tracking. 

It sounds like black-helicopter conspiracy theories, but so did my 

op-ed a year ago in The Wall Street Journal, and it became a reality. So this is very real and is a very real threat, and it could be 

international law before we know it. 

Mr. LATTA. And then finally, on your bullet point dealing on 

peering, do you want to talk a little bit about that? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. So peering, just in a nutshell, these are the 

long-haul pipes, the Internet backbone that carry large volumes of 

traffic. And from the inception, there have been contracts between 

the builders of these pipes to swap traffic as they see fit. And it 

has been mainly a swapping arrangement without compensation. 

But if we go in the direction of there being some sort of international economic regulation of peering, that is really going to start 

to dry up investment and squelch innovation in this regard. It will 

upend the economics of the Internet as we know it and cause a tremendous amount of disruption and increase costs, ultimately. 

And these costs will be borne by every Internet consumer in the 

world. So a lot of things that are free on the Internet—for instance, 

MIT and Harvard recently announcing that they were going to 

have free classes offered on the Internet. Well, those free classes 

all of a sudden incur a cost because the costs of these technologies 

start to rise dramatically. 

And, at a minimum, it creates a tremendous amount of uncertainty, not knowing where these decisions are going to go. These 

decisions would be politicized inside these sort of sclerotic international bureaucracies by appointed, not elected, people. And we 

don’t know where they are going to go. And that uncertainty really 

starts to dampen investment and innovation. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

And the chair at this time recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Long, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you all for being here today. And it was especially interesting to have the doctor from Kenya testify here at the hearing 

today over the Internet that we are discussing. So that was pretty 

nice, being able to hear from him, and glad no one decided to block 

the content there. 

And I will disagree with my friend from Texas, Mr. Poe. He says 

that most countries will never be converted to our way of thinking, 

and I think that, hopefully, I believe they will. I think the citizenry 

of these countries, from what I have seen, my travels around to different areas, that everyone has an iPhone, everyone has an iPad. 

There are ways to get information to go around some of this blocking, whether they are trying to block The New York Times from 

coming into their country or whatever it is. 

So I, for one—I have always been an optimist. I was a salesman 

before I got here. So I am hopeful that these other countries will 

come around to our way of thinking. And I think that the citizens 

of those countries will be the ones leading the charge, probably not 

us here in Congress. 

100 

But, Commissioner McDowell, you state in your testimony, in 

2011, then-Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin declared that 

his goal and that of his allies was to establish international control 

over the Internet through the ITU. In your position, what can you 

suggest as policymakers here to combat this domestically? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. To combat this domestically? 

Mr. LONG. Yes. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. So I think we have a tremendous opportunity 

here. Congress has a huge role to play, as we have all agreed earlier that the unanimous bipartisan resolution coming out of both 

Houses of Congress last year was very powerful. So I think amplifying that as best you can. 

And I subscribe to the position that I don’t tell Congress what 

to do, you tell me what to do. But you are asking me, so I think 

codifying—— 

Mr. LONG. We tell a lot of people what do, but they never listen. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. So codifying this as U.S. law I think is very 

helpful. But I think that helps fuel the conversation internationally. 

And you are absolutely right, the citizenry of these countries are 

crying out for an unfettered Internet. And as we see the information spread—and, you know, there is more computing power in the 

hands of pineapple farmers from Ghana than we had for the entire 

Apollo program that put people on the moon. It is in their hands 

now, and that is incredibly powerful. 

It is threatening to a lot of authoritarian regimes, but it is truly 

transformational for the citizenry around the world, some of 

whom—you know, one of the biggest challenges in the world is just 

finding drinkable water. And there are wireless devices that have 

applications that allow them to do just that, or to find the proper 

market price for their crops that they sell in the market. It is just 

absolutely transformational. 

So you are absolutely right. As these technologies are allowed to 

proliferate and if information is allowed to flow unimpeded, it will 

have an effect on their governments ultimately. 

Mr. LONG. So you, like me, are a hands-off-the-Internet guy. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Yes, sir, I am. 

Mr. LONG. OK. 

Yes, I think that it is very telling and very interesting to note 

that our Embassy in Beijing a few years ago hung an air pollution 

monitor, and we were putting out the air pollution number in Beijing, which did not thrill the Chinese. And they took us to task for 

it and said we had no business doing that. And it went from that 

point to now they have more—we only had one place to hang one, 

but they have several monitors. And sometimes their daily pollution index will show a number higher than ours does from the Embassy. 

And the other day, I had a Chinese general pull out his cell 

phone proudly out of his pocket, his iPhone, and hold it up. And 

through his interpreter, he told our delegation that he had the 

American Embassy app for the air pollution index in Beijing, and 

he turned around and showed it to us very proudly. 

So I think things are changing. And like I said, I am an optimist, 

hopeful. And thank you all again for your testimony. 

101 

And I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. The gentleman yields back. 

And I believe the gentleman was our last Member to ask questions. And the record will remain open for 10 business days for 

Members to submit questions for the record. 

And if there is no further business to come, this joint meeting of 

the subcommittees—I again want to thank all of our witnesses for 

being here today. You have done an excellent job. We appreciate it 

and appreciate your time. 

And, at this time, we will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:27 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

102 


79530.004
103 


79530.005
104 


79530.006
105 


79530.007
106 


79530.008
107 


79530.009
108 


79530.010
109 


79530.011
110 


79530.012
111 


79530.071
112 


79530.072
113 


79530.073
114 


79530.074
115 


79530.075
116 


79530.076
117 


79530.077
118 


79530.078
119 


79530.079
120 


79530.080
121 


79530.081
122 


79530.082
123 


79530.083
124 


79530.084
125 


79530.085
126 


79530.086
127 


79530.087
128 


79530.088
129 


79530.089
130 


79530.090
131 


79530.091
132 


79530.092
133 


79530.093
134 


79530.094
135 


79530.095
136 

Æ 


79530.096