[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-530 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
JOE BARTON, Texas Ranking Member
Chairman Emeritus JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky Chairman Emeritus
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GREG WALDEN, Oregon BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
LEE TERRY, Nebraska ANNA G. ESHOO, California
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania GENE GREEN, Texas
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee LOIS CAPPS, California
Vice Chairman MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio JIM MATHESON, Utah
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi JOHN BARROW, Georgia
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey DORIS O. MATSUI, California
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky Islands
PETE OLSON, Texas KATHY CASTOR, Florida
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
CORY GARDNER, Colorado JERRY McNERNEY, California
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois PETER WELCH, Vermont
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida PAUL TONKO, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Missouri
BILLY LONG, Missouri
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio ANNA G. ESHOO, California
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
LEE TERRY, Nebraska MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan DORIS O. MATSUI, California
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana PETER WELCH, Vermont
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
CORY GARDNER, Colorado FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
BILLY LONG, Missouri JIM MATHESON, Utah
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, ex
JOE BARTON, Texas officio
FRED UPTON, Michigan, ex officio
------
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
TED POE, Texas GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MATT SALMON, Arizona THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina KAREN BASS, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
MO BROOKS, Alabama DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
TOM COTTON, Arkansas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
PAUL COOK, California JUAN VARGAS, California
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania Massachusetts
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
TREY RADEL, Florida GRACE MENG, New York
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
TED S. YOHO, Florida JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
LUKE MESSER, Indiana
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade
TED POE, Texas, Chairman
JOE WILSON, South Carolina BRAD SHERMAN, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TOM COTTON, Arkansas JUAN VARGAS, California
PAUL COOK, California BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,
TED S. YOHO, Florida Massachusetts
------
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and
International Organizations
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania KAREN BASS, California
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
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
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, 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 Lujan, 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, 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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.003
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 multi-
stakeholder 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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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 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.
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, 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.
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 one-way 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.
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 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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.037
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 applications, 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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.042
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 important 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,
contribution-driven 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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.046
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.
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.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Ms. Wentworth. We appreciate your
testimony this morning.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wentworth follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.052
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.
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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.070
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.
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.
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.''
Uh-huh.
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?
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.
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 member-driven 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.
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 supporting 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9530.096