but there is a practicality from africa and we have found as we found at the world radio communication conference and i am certain we're going to kind at wicket that we have many in africa that are very much on the positions. similar positions that we take and with whom we will obviously be conversing between now and the conference to solidify that alliance. >> dick, i wanted to thank you again for the service that you do. i think just by listening to you people can understand better how much work is involved and what you do there. there was a time, i don't know, maybe you remember this, when i was in private practice a long time ago now, i used to attend some of the oecd meetings in paris on behalf of some interests, and the thing i remember most is going to those

cocktail parties which rick talked about at the cocktail parties. while i was just there sipping drinks it was the people like dick and the ambassadors and so forth doing the work. i recognize that even then at the time. so now we're going to open it up for questions. if we have some, if not i probably have more up here. >> read one sentence for you? >> if it's not about a cocktail party. >> i stole dick's password. one example of something that russia proposes. one sentence. i think it gives awe flavor of what we're talking about. so it says member states shall ensure unrestricted public access to international telecom services and the unrestricted use of telecom. there is not a period there,

except, in cases where international telecom services are used for the purpose of interfering in the internal affairs or undermining the sovereignty, national security, territorial integrity and public safety of other states or divulge information of a sensitive nature. >> i'm glad you brought that out, one of the questions i had, i think you probably answered it but i want to be clear whether you have the same interpretation. initially i spoke about how the wicket potentially might change certain things in ways that would affect the free flow of information and free speech. as well as affect commercial enterprises. i know jackie spoke eloquently about that. when i listen to the language you read it seems to me that's the type of language that i had in find as potentially -- governments using that in order

to have a justification or a color for restricting speeches. am i on the right track there? >> yes. that's our interpretation as well. quite damaging. >> okay. now we're going to ask questions so i want you to raise your hand. i'm going to call on people and ask that a mike be presented. kathy baker who is our events coordinator and who of course plays such a large role in arranging this event, making sure that we had almost enough food for all of you here. and did a lot of other things, would you join me in giving her a round of applause. [ applause ] >> okay. questions, raise your hand and wait to be recognized and the mike will come to you. i'm going to call on dan brenner first and when you ask your question, just state your name

and affiliation. >> i'm dan bren wer the hogan levels. i was wondering if you could give us a little understanding of what happened when the 1988 itrs came out. i am one of those americans who read the eight pages. they weren't very controversial. they're guidelines. i imagine they didn't engender a lot of controversy when they were sprented. what happened to them and what would happen say something comes out of dubai, what's the next step in the u.s. government's review of the outcome of this itr revision. >> thank you, dan. they were brought before the senate for advice and consent,

and president's ratification of the documents, they have become so they are treaty. the process follows this route. the head of delegation will, at the end of the did you bf of th, will sign what is referred to as the final acts. the document that comes out at the end of -- december 14 and a signing ceremony. that document which has been translated into six languages and gone through a number of iterations at the conference. it becomes the final acts. the head signs those. those final acts then are given embedded in them is a date of coming into fours. you'll see it at the end of the

1988 version coming into force. from the united states point of view that document does not come intoes for until it has been fully processed through the ratification, through ratification. but regardless there is coming into four states. we'll bring the document back, we will then go through the process by which the department reviews it and the white house has reviewed it. and then it will go fard to the senate or sad vice and follow the pattern of a treaty. that has been done as i kay for the 88 version. >> okay. another question. i'm going to call on this gentleman here. wait for the microphone. while you're getting it we have other questions. i'm going to ask just ask the question.

not one with four or five pub parts. >> david mccally with the bureau of national affairs. following up on your point about the proposals available i would like to have on going access to it. i think a lot of people would. is there any thought to posting profls, especially the government proposals after august 3? >> i can't -- i'm not in position to give you the impression that with a statement on my part something will happen immediately in terms of giving you access. what i can say is that we intend to raise this at the meeting in july. july 2nd to july 14 in geneva. as the public access to the proposals, and i'm taking on board your comment, as i said civil set colleagues, a couple geeks ago.

the united states will prepare a position for counsel to try to make those documents public. let me leave it at that because i think it's best to leave you with the impression that we will be raising that point but not something we can do individually or as a unique country. we have to do it within the context of the decision of 47 other countries. but we will raise that points. >> can i just add, i do think the issue of transparency in international policymaking is becoming a huge issue and not just here. it's a huge issue from my organization in trade negotiations where we're trying to get access to proposals around the transpacific partnership agreement and told well, it's not the way we do things and you know, we've always -- we're negotiating so

we can't do x, y and z. i think the mind-set of international negotiators have to change in that regard because these issues have become so important to the way we live our lives that doing it under the cover of night is no longer acceptable. so i appreciate the efforts of dick and others to try to make this more open. i hope you put the same effort into getting our u.s. trade representative to be as transparent as you guys want to be. >> any one else on that question? if not, i'll go to this person here. just wait for the mike. >> i'm a senate staffer. i was hoping mr. baird and mr. mcdowell can tag team on these two questions i have for you all. i read mr. mcdowell's piece in the "wall street journal." you alluded to the fact there was a lack of leadership on this

from the u.s. and it sounded as if mr. baird when he was speaking that the obama administration and state department were looking forward to these talks and really gaining traction and i was wondering if you could clarify that. second, mr. baird, you said that with the countries and the member states that everyone was fearful of losing their sovereignty and something you wanted to protect. when i read i believe it was "the wall street journal" piece you had said that -- losing my train of thought now. that it seemed like there was almost a majority of member countries that were looking into these itr regulations and based on treaties, the u.s. doesn't have a veto and where we're seven or eight countries short of countries looking to make these changes.

>> thank you for the question. so i had an 800-word op-ed, a statement of fact saying ahead-of-a head of delegation had not been appointed. there is as much if not more concern that also private sector or non-governmental entities had not really organized themselves. i was in europe in london and brussels back in november, and there was a great deal of panic among the private sector and non-governmental groups. not a lot of organization. so i started to encourage them to organize themselves as i did other governments. so, it is what it is regarding whether or not we have a head of dell. we do have by the way for the folks watching on c-span, when you hear about career federal government employees, i want you to think of dig beard.

this guy is a big deal on the international stage. you walk into meetings with thousands of international diplomats, he is known by all of them and i think his body is coated in graphite because he is able to walk through these clouds as if he's made of vel yet. he is talented. there is a team plus ambassador working on this regardless whether there is a head of legal gags. i don't want that to be a distraction. there is no sun light between republicans, democrat, left, right or center or government on this issue so i think it's important to stick to the substance. we have two months. we have years. we need to make this a standing coalition of coalition. to make sure that the int interverned not by a top down

intergovernmental resheem. i'll let doctor speak about the i.t., there is a concern when you see the thrust of some ideas, a general sense adopt bid large voting blocs. some are in this room but shall remain nameless, telling me late last year that there were maybe up to 90 countries outof the 193 supportive of granting the itu more port in this area. if we don't sign on to the treaty, i wanted to give that sense of how much support there was so it was somewhere perhaps in the 90s, maybe that's reseeded, maybe that's grown since then. hopefully there is a whip count knowing where each country stands. >> dick, do you want to add

anything to what commissioner mcdowell said? >> simply commissioner mcdowell has nicely i this indicated where we are on the leadership issue. i'll leave his comment there. we're looking to the head of delegation arriving shortly and ambassador has been offering considerable leadership in this area. so we're always looking for the head of delegation. on the sovereignty issue, itu has a historical matter been, i think, a remarkable in the fact that there are actually very few votes at events such agency this treaty conference. there have been and i have witnessed a number of these but it's not a vaet not an institution that relies upon votes for decisions. it relies upon a consensus.

i think in part its success has been owed to the fact that we're talking about communications. and communications relies upon the consent of those who are communicating, and there is such considerable interest globally in sustaining and maintaining and growing a robust communications network that consensus seems to flow. it's not easy and takes late hours and sometimes the last four days of the conference will be around the clock. a consensus will emerge. let's hope that is going to be the case in dubai which it also will follow that in order for that to happen, the results are going to have to be at a high level of principle, and as a matter of scale they probably will not exceed much more than what is currently the nine pages

in order for it to succeed. i'll leave it at that. >> good. next, i know scott had a question. i'll call on you next. while the mike's coming over, i know jackie rough. when she spoke initially talked about the fact that the regulations could possibly affect if certain things -- the commercial success and all of the enterprise that takes place. that's an important part of the internet as well. i talked about some of the social and free speech aspects. i thought if you could just you know, briefly elaborate if you have in find mind concerns and how they might dampen or impact the internet as it's used to

promote economic prosperity i guess is the best way to put it. >> sure. a number of those points were mentioned by different speakers so i think it's everything from at the beginning, i sometimes talk about it as book ends. at one end you have what's the definition what if these regulations offer. and if they cover, then that automatically means they cover the internet. at the other end you have what's the enforcement record for rules. there are proposals for tomb to be commute resolution mechanisms. you have the meat of the proposals in the middle. then in the middle you have things from the cyber security proposal, you may think of it as a barrier to freedom of expression but it's a barrier to

the internet functioning for all of the economic benefits and social benefits. cyber security ways of looking at spam, fraud. the topics are understandable. there is a reason to be concerned about them, it's just that the mechanisms tend to be intrusive. one of the hopes is how to meet the concerns, meet people where we are and figure out other ways to get at them. the final one that has been mentioned by several teakers, i know the internet is a network of networks. it is handing off traffic between those networks, informal agreements or commercial agreements and to tern that into a regulated kind of exchange will create all sorts of decision torsion of the system. i hope that's a good summary. >> yes.

thank you. dick, we mentioned your boss. i had the privilege of serving with bill revere at the fcc. and most of you wouldn't know this. you're too young to possibly know it. but in the short time span that i was at the the fcc, bill revere served as chief of the cable bureau and the broadcast bureau and then as chief of the common carrier bureau. i was trying to find out where the ninth floor was. he's a terrific example as well of a public servant. scott. >> yes. scott cleeland, net competition. question for dr. baird. it's an emormous nontransparent

process. are there process points, two or three that we should be tuning in to to get a sense whether this is amorphous as we watch from the outside? >> the council meeting july 3rd to approximately the 14th where the chairman of the council working groups report to the conference will be reviewed. it will not be changed, but it will be reviewed so you can see the entirety of the result of that two-year effort going to the conference. which, as i said, will contain a compilation of options in dealing with each part of the current itrs. that is a date. i would look right after august 3rd and see what proposals have come in pursuant to that deadline, which was for the first tranche proposals need to be in by august 3rd.

we'll be watching them obviously very carefully as well. i think, then, periodically, and we can, of course, help you understand when that is, but periodically to see when the regional proposals start coming in, because regions will continue to meet up through september and perhaps into early october. our region, for example, has its last meeting in september prior to the conference where we will finalize interim american proechl proposals going into the conference and then all the way up to the two weeks prior to the conference, which is the absolute drop dead date for contributions coming in prior to the conference. so all along that period, we will see contributions coming in, and just to underscore, one should never forget about the regional groups. there are six regional groups. all of those groups will make proposals to the conference as well. >> okay.

well, we have time, i think, only for one more question, if we have one. so while i'm looking around, or while you may be thinking, if there is another one, i just want to acknowledge again that we are very privileged today to have two ambassadors buy us. with us. mickey gardner who is here and the other ambassador is ambassador david grose. he served in phil riveer's position in the previous administration. i think ambassador grose, perhaps, holds the record, but i may stand corrected, as the longest serving ambassador be in that position. and i keep emphasizing ambassador, because, david and i were actually former colleagues in a law firm, and it's always exciting when he became ambassador grose, but shortly after he left, i thought maybe

he would just be, you know, plain, old david again, but he quickly informed me that once you have been an ambassador, dick, and if this isn't right, i want you to tell me. he said once you hold that title, that you are ambassador for life. so every year when i do my holiday cards i have to remember, you know, it's just ambassador grose, because he told me about that as he was walking out the state department door that last time. yeah. okay. david says it was his wife. but we're privileged to have both of these ambassadors with us here today. okay. is there a last question? it's over here. this will be the last one. if you'll identify yourself, please i. want to the first of

all thank everyone for such a wonderful pam. i think this was one of the first times that it was extremely -- i got such a tremendous information and learn a lot of new facts and hopefully everyone here as well. my question is the a little bit -- i'm sorry. oksana with emergent market communications. my question is a little bit different. the head of the itu, he went to us, saint petersburg, speaks russian fluently. during last year's meeting with putin he told him, and there's a transcript available online, he represents russian federation at the itu. now, is that a point of concern? is the fact that the head of the itu seems to be fluent in russian, speaks -- shake his hands and tells him he's his comrade a concern, or is this -- i'm not sure i understand completely how the itu functions in that regard, but -- >> okay.

i guess maybe that's for dick, or the commissioner. anyone want to the respond? >> well, secretary-general torre from mali was first elected as head of development bureau in 1998 and subsequently in eight years was elected to secretary-general and re-elected in 2010 in quad guadalajara. of a generation of african leaders, many of whom did study in the soviet union. he does speak russian. he claims it's not as fluent as one assume but sufficient enough to earn the ph.d. out of moscow state university. he met his wife in russia. and who is also from mali, but as he points out, and i think

it's important in this case, all of people's biographies are complicated, he spent 12 years of his life in the united states and two of his children are americans. he spent 12 years at intel. sat at s an engineer. beyond that i think i will let him speak to his own biography. >> okay. that sounds like good advice from a diplomat. [ laughter ] okay. well, look, you know, it's -- i have to say it's pretty amazing not one single person has left and i know some of you must have work to do this afternoon. i assume. so we're going to wrap it up, but not before thanking me and please join me for this extraordinary panel that we have with us today. [ applause ] and we look forward to seeing

you at the next free state foundation event. thanks again.

we have more live coverage this afternoon here on c-span3 as we take you to capitol hill for a house oversight hearing looking into the department of veterans affairs purchases of prosthetics. according to the inspector general the va supply cost ins creaseed by 80% over the past four years and that's largely in part due to excess supply. live coverage begins at 4:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span3. all this week in primetime here on c-span3, we're featuring american history tv with a look tonight at america's civil

rights policy. starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern, historians civil rights leaders and former administration officials discussing changes on civil rights policy from fdr to today. american history in primetime, all this week on c-span3. spend the weekend in wit tau, kansas, with book tv and american history tv. saturday at noon eastern, literary life on c-span2. from "business in black and white" and "the barnstormer arnold the lady." also browse the rare book collection at watermark west's rare books, and sunday at 5:00 p.m. eastern, on american history tv, experience early plains at the old cow town museum. flight at the kansas aviation museum and two participants in the kansas civil rights movement in 1958 they sat down for service at