corporate plot. that's where we see our role. the second note of caution i want to put out there is we have to be a little careful not to hold up multi-stakism as sort of the magic coin that solves all matter of internet policy. randy asked me, i will take an extra 30 seconds to explain what they're basically groups that include industry, civil society, a public sector, government that come around to table to discuss sometimes technical issues, sometimes governance or policy issues. so they're just very, very big round tables, where, you know, sometimes that actually govern the standard that control the

net -- again, other than having government at the table, they don't have many other roles. >> gigi, you can take another 30 second bus just a few minutes ago you referred to icahn. just for the benefit of our television audience, just explain briefly what it is and what it does so everyone is on the same page. >> okay. so you may even be the better one to actually explain that is correct rick. i can do it but go ahead. i'll turn it over to you for 30 seconds. >> so icahn is a multi-group stake holder of sorts that has fairly limited function at. there's a misnomer that it controls the internet, which is simply not the case. there are certain elements of identifying and using certain resources to make sure it flows in the internet and ican, it's

been and there have been period yik of folks to say that's not the right model, you should h-- >> i'm the visor of a technical working group which looks at issues of network management and whether network providers are reasonably managing their networks. i obviously have a belief that the multi-groups work best where most groups are singing from the

same song book, where questions are more technical than policy driven. that's why i think the b-tack is really important and i though heem are paying attention to what's going on here. the other concern i have with throwing all internet policy questions to multi-stake holder groups is the the imbalance in resources. civil society can't be at every time in full force. i'm another multi-take holder. which is dealing with an agreement between nt national service proceed verse, and have people come and say, well, why don't you join this -- unless i'm like an aamoeba and you can cut me up, i just can't do it, right? so sfl service is at a

disadvantage if every pocy requirement is established by a multi-state group. it's good to see where organizations and companies agree and disagree but government still has to in some cases serve as a back stop. questions of net neutral, you can have multi-take soldier but at sop point someone has to make the ultimate decision on what is the policy and more importantly, i'd love to hear dick beard talk about this in the context of the icu is who is going to enforce those norms or principals or regulations. i think we have to think harder about what multi stake holders do, what they're best of doing and when the role of government

is when they are multi-stake holder organizations. >> so, rick, you're going to wrap up the initial sellment and you can expand opinion multi-stake holders groups or i can or whatever you place. >> do i lose 23 seconds for talking about icahn? >> you do. >> good afternoon, everybody. it's a pleasure to be here. thanks to our distinguished government speakers today who really have been leaders on this issue in ways that you probably can't even imagine. i mean, in terms of the long hours they've spent talking to people at cocktail parties around town and around the world where often times a lot of these conversations lead to outcomes. i'll be very brief. one this evening i wanted to focus on is sort of guiding principles coming at this from the google perspective because we are an internet company, over the top as opposed to under the bottom like our friends at verizon. sorry, it's a joke. we look at the internet and we

look at it as sort of this thing that has developed over the course of -- over 40 years now through the very good work of lots of experienced engineers, through what's called rough consensus, through bodies like icahn but lots of other places. there's a constellation of acronyms out there that represent what these folks have done. so the one phrase we would leave with you is as policy makers look at the internet, they should respect the integrity of the ent net. there are certain fundamental design at tru buts of the net that make it what it is today, that empower all of the innovation, the user empowerment and the end to end principle, which allows data pacts to flow freely between networks.

the other is the mod independent lar architect of the union the itself. third is the voluntary interconnection that comprise the agree who sign up to basic core principles of the net, which is basically passing track and by doing so join that fourth community and the next is agnostic protocols. my friend once said ip on everything. the fact is ip has become this global unifying protocol. sorry, gigi. >> i'm slow. >> on which all kind of applications and comment and services can run itself. these are the four architectural attributes. our concern of what's going on with the itu is.

of the proposals would attack or hinder one or more of these principles, of these attributes in ways that then would have really teg tiff secretaries on all the benefits, the things we like about the net, we think we want to preserve. if we i also thought it would be fuseful if woo douched briefly on polly sen trick government earns and, the idea to po are in country the operation of the various cools and comments in the ent net. i think whole they're should be explored. and perhaps allow some folks who

have typically not been involved in some of the day-to-day conversations monday the power blokes are to have of the at the table just as comencitizen and concerned policy makers beep can support our friends in the state department. members of congress, they can use their contacts and their influence around the world. with their counterparts as an opportunity to discuss these issues. i think a key aspect of this is that this cannot be the u.s. against the world. if that is the formula, we lose, plain and sim. this has to be something where we engage in all the communities around the world.

(they experiences where that) i've been doing that here in the u.s. but again, find ways to expand that influence the unions. there are a ton of great academic studies out there but there are a ton more that can be done. the academic world can be really fruitful in the the next six to nine months as we head toward dubai. this has been a process going on for many years now. so we'll get past december, we'll i think hopefully be able to breathe a small sigh of relief but only a small one because i think the threats will continue to be out there, there will be other places where they will develop and we just have to be ever vigilant. thanks. >> thank you, rick and thanks to all the panelists for those initial remarks. you know, when i started, in

trying to capsulize what we were discussing today, i contrasted the existing internet governance model which i called a privatized bottoms-up multi-take program with a top-down intergovernmental control approach that we want to avoid and then rick comes along here at the end and then he described google as an over-the-top providers and verizon as on the bottom sm. >> they've been referred to on the top prerepeatedly. >> i don't know what the -- >> an over-the-top company that pees on everything. >> remember we have a television audience here today. >> okay, now, also remember i --

i appreciate everyone has been so wrapped and they haven't been e-mailing their wives or whatever and that's great. but if you want to tweet while you're here, it's hash tag fsfnetgovernance. that's it. okay. now, i have probably a question or two and then we're going to have some from the audience. but i wanted to ask our panelists whether they have had anything that they want to comment on or respond to that was said initially. commissioner mcdowell. >> i want to make sure there's a clarification, especially for the press in the room and the folks watching at home that indeed the many member states of the itu, there are 193 countries as was mentioned earlier, have offered ideas and propose als

for internet government to be subsumed by some type of government body, there are resolutions by china and uzbekistan but also if you look at the arab state proposal from february the 1st within the context of of the wicket, so there are different angles to attack this from. a general u.n. resolution, misbe the process of the wicket. if you look at the arab state proposal, which is a very small, slight change definition of the itu's jurisdiction to subsume processing. well, that would be computing which is pretty much anything within the internet it does plant that seed of expanded itu jurisdiction and is this sort of

small, that we have to be wary of. it's going to be insidout. this won't be a full frontal assault. you'll hear me say that a couple times tomorrow. it's going to be be in the long run, whether it's between now and december or years from now, it will be something small, seemingly innocuous. this can't be the u.s. word the rest of the world and the stick, twisted high ronnabove to find allies within developing nations, to let them know and give them platforms for disseminate being the notion that an unfettered internet is really the best thing for their countries and their living standard. >> okay. i want to ask dick this

question. well, first just as a practical matter, are there proposals that commissioner mcdowell just referred to, are they on the itu web site? if people want to follow this also see what's developing, where do they find the proposals? then have i a substantive question for you as well. >> that's a question, randy, that was posed, i was in geneva a couple weeks ago and the civil society raised questions about access to information regarding proposals coming in to the itu and the wicket. the situation today is the following: that the council working group operates within council rules, which is stlau to -- first of all, be a member

of the itu, but secondly have access to their particular messaging system and what is password protected. that's the situation. now, the access to the proposals of course, as i have done and others have done, is if you ask me, i will give you those proposals. i don't want to you have a flood of requests coming in from the room or from those in the television audience. >> i thought you were going to say you were going to give us the password. >> no. i can't do that. but let me tell you what then followed up because it was a very important discussion that took place in geneva on this point. and civil society has through the auspices of the groups affiliated in that particular context and i don't know who all of them are, gigi, but they have

written the secretary-general of the itu a letter going to the issue of transparency. what i told them, representatives of civil society, is very would through the auspices thatcy would make a proposals in a public way. i expressed that to -- we'll be giving indication that we'll be addressing that with the council. i think the process benefits by making available those proposals so that people can see them. >> thank you. my other question is -- is this: you can tell by virtue of the interest we have here today and in other places that in the u.s.

there's beginning to be a knowledge about and concern about potentially the propose as that could be raised. and we've mentioned some of the countries from which there might be concern or proponents of the concerns that we have but just really briefly, are there around the world are there countries in which they are as united and are working the same way that the u.s. government is working to be prepared to address these and just name the countries if there are some, briefly, or comment on that. >> well, the answer is yes. the united states is not alone is the first part of that answer to yes question. it's always the old problem of

naming names. we won't be able to get all of them and i don't want to offend anyone. by region week have considerable support out of asia pacific, particularly companies that are leaders in deployment, and broadband deployment, who is seen the benefits. we have a considerable number of allies in europe and in our own hem is fever there are beakons of that reflect positions that we take. and let me focus -- and i think this is important -- let me focus a bit on africa. for those of us who have spent their lives internationally in public policy over many years, one of the things that has been most notable, i think, is the response of africa to the

internet, if i can put it this way and principally as commissioner mcdowell has indicated as a global matter through mobile is a practicality coming from the continent, as to how to deal with these issues. we may not always agree on how to deal with them but that's a function of differences of where we sit many cases. but there is a practicality from africa and we have found as we found at the world radio communication conference and i am sert we're going to find at wick et that we 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.

>> it's not. i stole dick's password. one example of something that russia proposes. one sentence. i think it gives you a flavor of something 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 mind 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 brenner with 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 presented. were they approved as a treaty or what happened to them in terms of u.s. government

adoption and what would happen, say something comes out of dubai that we like or don't like, what's the next step in the u.s. government's review of the outcome of this itr revision. >> thank you, dan. they are treaty. 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 dubai conference, all things being acceptable, 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 of delegation signs those final acts. those final acts then are given embedded in them is a date of coming into force. 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 into force until it has been fully processed through the ratification, true ratification. but regardless there is coming into force date. 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 forward to the senate for advice and follow

the usual pattern of a treaty. that has been done as i say 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 questioner, ask the question, not one with four or five subparts. >> 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 proposals, 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 to public access to the proposals, and i'm taking on board your comment, i'm taking on board civil society colleagues, a couple weeks ago. the united states will prepare a position for counsel to try to find some way to make those documents public. i think it's best to leave you with the impression that we will be raising that point but it's not something that 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 point. >> i 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. >> anyel