since its privatization in the early 1990s, the internet has flourished waith deregulatory ra seim not only our country but internationally as well. in fact, the long-standing international consensus has been to keep governments from regulating poor functions of the internet's ecosystem. yet some nations, such as china, russia, india, iran, saudi arabia and many, many more have been pushing to reverse this course by giving the international telecommunication union, the itu, regulatory jurisdiction over internet governance and other aspects affecting the internet. some of the arguments in support of such actions may stem from frustrations with the internet corporation for assigned names and numbers, ican. but any concerns regarding ican should not be used as a pretext

to end the multi-stakeholder model that has served all nations and the developing world now more than ever so well for all of these years. constructive reform of the international telecommunication re lation, the icr, the rules, may be needed. if so the scope should be limited to traditional telecommune kantelekmu telecommunication services. modifications of the current model may be necessary as well, but we should work together to ensure no intergovernmental regulatory overlays are placed into this sphere. not only would nations surrender some of their national sovereignty in such a pursuit, they would suffocate their own economies as well while politically paralyzing engineering and business decisions within a global regulatory body.

every day we hear about industrialized and nations awash in debt facing flat growth curves or worse. shrinking gdps. not only must governments including our own tighten their fiscal belts but also spur economic expansion. an unfettered mobile internet offers the brightest ray of hope for growth during this dark time of economic uncertainty. not more regulation. indeed, we are at a crossroads for the internet's future. one path holds great promise, while the other path is fraught with peril. the promise, of course, lies with keeping with what works. namely, maintaining a free and open internet while insulating it from legacy regulations. the peril lies with changes that

would ultimately sweep up internet services into decades-old itu pairtiradigms. if successful, they would imprison the future in the regulatory dungeon of the past. even more counter productive would be the creation of a new international body to overseeing internet governance. now, shortly after the internet was privatized in the mid-1990s, a mere 16 million people were online worldwide in 1995. as of earlier this year, more than 2.3 billion people were using the net worldwide. internet connectivity quickly evolved from being a novelty in industrialized countries to becoming an essential tool for commerce, and sometimes even basic survival. in all nations, but especially in the developing world.

in fact, developing nations stand to gain the most from the rapid pace of deployment and adoption of internet technologies. by way of illustration, a mckinsey report released in january examined the net's affect on aspiring countries, report called it. 's in 30 specific aspiring countries studied including malaysia, mexico, more rack oh, nigeria turkey and vietnam and others, internet penetration has grown 25% per year for the past five years. compared to only 5% per year in developed nations. now, obviously, broadband penetration is lower in aspiring countries than in the developed world, but that is quickly changing, thanks to mobile technologies. mobile subscriptions in developing countries have risen from 53% of the global market in 20 20085 to 73% in 2010.

in fact, cisco estimates the number of mobile connected deviceless exceed the world's population sometime this year. increasingly internet users in aspiring countries use only mobile devices for internet access. the effect that rapidly growing internet connectivity is having on aspiring countries economies is nothing short of breathtaking. the net is an economic growth accelerator. it contributed an average 1.9% of gdp growth in aspiring countries for a total of $366 billion u.s. in the year 2010 alone. in some developing economies, internet connectivity krinlted up to 13% of gdp growth over the last five years. in just six aspiring countries alone,s 1.9 million jobs were associated with the internet. these positive trends must continue.

granting the itu authority over internet governance could result in a partitioned internet. in particular, faultlines could be drawn between countries that choose to opt out of the current highly successful multi-stakeholder model and live under governmental regime and those member states who decide to stick with what has worked. a balkanized internet would not promote global free trade or improve living standards and also an engineering morass, and undermine developing nations the most. as evidenced by today's panel, attempts to internet relevance rallied on a bipartisan basis. i'm grateful the distinguished stock contributor is here with me today. i encouraged my friend and

colleague ambassador indication will name a held of the u.s. delegation to wict soon here in june and also note that my friend and colleague sec chairman jankowski has been working also tom raise awareness of this important issue as other key members of the obama administration. just saw danny white here in the lobby for a different event. invited him to this but he had to go. further buoyed by the leading role played by the private sector not only domestically but abroad as well. many entities of all stripes including public interest groups, telecommune kankmucommu companies, think tank, internet access service providers, nonprofit internet governance groups and network manufacturers, equipment manufacturer, network operator es standing together to help sprepd the message and education policymakers across the globe. i'm also delighted that jacqui

and gee yee are here today. a solid coalition in place help to name the soon to be named leader to begin or a strong and positive note. finally, even if this current effort is unsuccessful in december, we must continue to be vigilant. given the high profile, not to mention the dedicated efforts by some countries involved in this, i cannot imagine that this issue will merely fade away. similarly, we should avoid supporting the minor tweak or the light touch, as we all know every regulatory action has consequences, and as i saw adam here earlier. there you are. as he says, regulation only seems to grow.

put another way, when tinted with care and patience, even a tiny mustard seed of regulation can quickly grow into jack's beanstalk, to mix my metaphors and mary tales. fairy tales. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and i look forward to your confers and the powerful insight of this panel. thank you. thank you, randy. [ applause ] >> well, thank you very much, randy, for this invitation. and to the free state foundation. it's a great pleasure to be here today and to be with this panel, which is commissioner mcdowell has indicated is a distinguished one and we will all benefit, of

course, from listening to their comments and to reflect upon their questions as we will upon your questions. before i begin, though, i would like to acknowledge commissioner mcdowell. commissioner mcdowell has been a leading voice in reminding us of the importance of internet freedom, and how vital the internet is the to innovation and economic growth and once again in his opening, exit opening remarks, he has done that again and for that we are very much appreciative and it has had a very positive impact, we believe, as we go forward in our preparations for the world conference on international telecommunications. at the outset, let me make one point perfectly clear -- the administration, of course, the department of state, firmly supports the position that the united states is not the place for the day-to-day technical

operations of the internet. we have made this point repeatedly and we will continue to make it. the united nations and the itu can do many things, and they can do those things effectively and importantly, and areas of development and the areas of training as a forum for discussion of international policy matters, and in the case of itu, of course, preeminently in the area of spectrum allocation and management, on an international basis. but managing the internet is certainly not one of the u.n.'s roles. the internet and this seems to have increasingly gained public support, at meetings that i attend, and a few have attended, the internet is best left to a multi-stakeholder structure. where decisions are made on a

bottom-up basis. and in which, of course, all stakeholders can participate in their respective roles. this is the environment that has proven the test of time, and has left the internet to innovate and for that we have gained extraordinary benefits socially and economically. let me focus my remarks on the itrs themselves. i have noted to friends that the itrs seem to be a subject that has gained a tremendous amount of comment and interest, but those who have actually read the itrs are still a decided minority. but let me try to put them into some context. what are they? first of all, they are high-level principles. they are not detailed.

the radio regulations of the itu go to four volumes, and we just recently had a world radio communication conference where those regulations were revised and we appreciate commissioner mcdowell's presence at that conference. this is not the case in the itrs. they are nine pages long. they are nine pages of treaty text. in those nine pages, they refer to three appendixes. an integral part of the treaty are about 4.5 pages long. this treaty text, then, is fopped by resolutions, decisions and opinions, which run about eight pages long. those resolutions, sdix decisid

opinions are not treaty text. the united states has always been very firm on that position, that they do not go to the senate for advice and consent. second, they have had a long history. their origin is found in the 1875 bears convention, one of the first international conventions that brought about member states for the purpose of agreement on how to manage and indeed regulate, if you will, a communications medium, and that was the telegraph. from that point until 1988, they have had periodic review, and revision. they were typically, however, integrated into radio treaties as a supplement. not as a stand-alone document. and it was not until 1973 that the united states signed the international telecommukmucommu

regulations. up ask, why was that the case? because they were only focused on europe, and they were int integrated with the preambulatory language that said, these treaties, documents, or this treaty, is focused on europe and those of you who wish to participate in that, that is, countries participate in this treaty, may do so by your own volition. so it was not until 1973 that they were globalized and at that point the united states, which attended the conference, agreed to assign them. they have had one subsequent revision in this modern era and that is in 1988. they have been, as i indicated, reviewed periodically, and in the -- in most instances at long

intervals between their review and their revision. therpdly, they have thirdly, they have been remarkably stable. from 1875 to the present, they have essentially done four or five things -- first, they have affirmed that the transmission, in the case of telegraph or telecommune caucuscake cases should be open to the public. there should be a privacy attached to those publications, that governments should agree to provide sufficient infrastructure globally to maintain global connectivity. a pledge to do that. a commitment to do that. and they weren't designed and by agreement of the member states, to agree upon a basis for sharing revenue, as

communications was between parties, how was revenue to be shared? and lachtly, a lastly and significantly, notwithstanding everything i said or they found in treaty, there was always a provision that said, notwithstanding what we've agreed to, member states may agree to enter into special arrangements unique to those particular circumstances. from 1875 to the present, those essentially have been the elements of the international tele -- now known at the international telecommunications regulations. i mentioned member states. it is terribly important to understand that the itrs are agreements among member states. sovereign currents come together for purposes of agreement on international communications. as a result, i think, going back, then to the point, nine

pages of text is practically all number states could ever agree to in any case. why? because no member state is going to sacrifice their sovereignty. no member state goes to a conference with the intention of agreeing to compromise its sovereign right to regulate or otherwise manage its communications as it deems appropriate. i think this is a very important point to keep in mind so that member states agree among themselves as a result, as i emphasized, the subjects that can be agreed to are rather minimal and of a high level principle. now, having said that, and understanding, of course, that the itrs have this tradition, and that they were last revised in 1988, it sk inevitable to the

situation we face today in 2012 is not the world of 1988, which was essentially a narrow band world. a world emerging into a, into privatization and telecommune kapgss infrastructure, a world with a distinctly different architecture and a world in which there could be an agreement among member states on how revenues would be slayered. shared nap was a different world in 1988 than the world that we enjoy today. so if we say that as a firm position that the united nations and the itu should not be engaged in the day-to-day operations of the internet, we also say that the world of broadband, of internet, the world today, it would be counterproductive to try to

impose upon this situation the context of the past, the practices of the past. the past. nothing should be done at the conference in dubai to slow innovation or attempt to bring about a top-down and centralized control over the internet. those are fundamental principles that the u.s. delegation will take with it to dubai and will seek, of course, it all of our energy to support. now, in terms of what we've seen so far in terms of proposals coming into the international telecommunications regulations, let me put into context those proposals and then explain a little bit about the process. there has been an itu counsels, 48 countries that manage and

govern the itu which happen every four years. that counsel organized a working work, a working group has been preparing for this conference over about two years and about eight meetings. that counsel working group will send to the conference a report. the report will contain all of the possible options that have been discussed during this period as to how they -- there could be revisions of the itrs, so nine pages of actual text today has grown to 70 pages if you include all of the options that will go forward to the conference. and then, as a first date, august 3rd, governments are expected to send in their first proposals for the conference itself. we will begin to see, i think, in very real terms, what will be

the parameters of the conference once these proposals come in from member states after august 3rd and start -- and will continue to approximately two weeks before the conference. but we already have, i think, an indication of what we'll see by the council working group's reports itself. i can say we have not seen a proposal to bring the day-to-day technical operations of the internet under u.n. control. there are these proposals seem to reflect, and i need to be cautious because it's still an unfolding story but these proposals seem to reflect a distinctive regulatory issues arising from the different world regions. so that for example, fraud seems to be a preoccupation in the

middle east. in our hemisphere, roaming is a preoccupation. and in also i should say europe. network security seems to be a preoccupation coming out of eastern europe. various forms of revenue sharing seems to be a preoccupation coming out of africa but these are some of the outlines of proposals coming in. but none of them to date propose moving from ican to the united nations the day-to-day operations of the internet. so, i have indicated that we've had this counsel working group, a compilation that that group has developed and the member states will come forward with

national contributions. from the united states's point of view, we are very much on that track. we've been participating actively in the counsel working group, and we will now begin to prepare for the conference itself. we have formed a core delegation of leading agencies of the government who are most interested in this subject and have equities, and secondly, we await the white house announcement of the head of delegation and that person will come forward shortly, i understand, and of course the cordell awaits that person's leadership. once that person is on board, we will start an aggressive schedule of bilaterals internationally, meet with all of the principle players, and to sell the u.s. positions, which as i say in its first tranche will come forward august 3 and continue through the fall.

we will form a delegation in september, and that delegation, of course, is traditional would be composed of private sector and government representatives and i would encourage you to take that on board as something that may be of interest to you. my last point is, and i see friends and colleagues in the room with whom i have had the great pleasure of working over many conferences and i know because of their either having been in government, ambassador mickey gardner of course, ambassador gafd gross, and i'm sure there are others in the room and i hope i haven't missed another ambassador. if i have i may not be able to go back to my department. but all of you have either been in government, who have been in government, then transitioned to the private sector or been through this period in the private sector know one fundamental truth. that is, this kind of process

relies heavily upon a partnership between government and the private sector. and that partnership will continue as we have an active consultation through our advisory committee structure and we will look forward then to form the delegation composed of the private sector and government. i look forward to your questions, again randy, thank you very much. [ applause ] >> thank you, dick, very much. it's great having two of the senior officials of the government here that are involved in this issue. now as i said, what we're going to do is we're going to move down the line with our commenters. i've got to ask them to speak for only four minutes or so. i'm going to -- i couldn't cut off these distinguished gentlemen but i may feel more comfortable with the commenters,

so i want to make sure we have time for interaction with the audience especially and among ourselves. i'm going to turn to jackie first. you've got four minutes. >> thank you. thank you for organizing this. thanks to everybody for being here today because i think that this very full room is an illustration of the fact that this topic is important in many different ways here. and i want to commend of course our first two speakers for their leadership. commissioner mcdowell and dick baird in the different critical ways. so, three points which i'll try to do quickly. why is verizon engaged, what's at stake and how can we get a good outcome here. so i'm pleased that dick set the stage with the notion of the

public private collaboration here, and verizon is definitely a part of that when you heard my bio, it listed all of these different organizationses in which we are engaged and clearly the itu is one of those. but so is the internet governance forum and the multi-stake holder organizations. why do we do that, three main reasons. our customers, everywhere, u.s. and elsewhere, are all communicating via ip technologies, internet protocol technologies. secondly, globally we carry a lot of this internet traffic on our global network which includes capacity on understood ground cables and satellite capacity and we often speak of those as the digital trade routes of the 21st century. of course they are also the channels for freedom of expression as was commented earlier today. and third, we provide global enterprise services to enter

prize solutions, to large enterprise and government customers around the world. 150 countries at a minimum. probably more. these are a combination of what you would think of as i.t., information technology, telecom and media services. services like ours, they are drivers for economic growth and innovation and they will only succeed in accomplishing that if the internet is remains in fact, globally seamless, data can get across borders and communications can flow unimpeded. so, what's at stake and in this regard i would agree, i thought it was interesting the way that the commissioner started his remarks talking about wireless here, talking about wireless as the key trend globally over the next period, and cisco put out a great study