if not, i'll go to this person here. just wait for the mike. >> i'm a senate staffer. i was hoping mr. beaird 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. beaird 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. beaird, 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 to the itr. i wondered if you could expand on those. >> thank you for the question. so i had an 800-word op-ed, a statement of fact saying 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 dick beaird. you walk into meetings with thousands of international diplomats, and he is known by all of them. and i think his body is coated in graphite because he is able to walk through these crowds as if he's made of velvet. he is talented and there is a team at the state department plus the ambassador phil verveer working on this, regardless whether there is a head of delegation. i don't want that to be a distraction. there is no sunlight between republicans, democrats, left,

right and center, ngos or government on this issue so i think it's important to stick to the substance. we have six months before dubai but more importantly we have years to go, we need to make this a standing coalition of coalitions to make sure that the internet is governed by multi-stakeholder model and not by a top-down intergovernmental regime. and i would let dr. beaird speak about the majority aspect but historically the itu has been governed by consensus but there is a concern when you see the thrust of some ideas, a general sense being adopted by large voting blocs, some are in this room but shall remain nameless, were telling me late last year there were maybe up to 90 countries out of the 193 who were supportive in general of granting the itu more authority

in this area. if we don't sign on to the treaty we don't abide by it, but i wanted to give that sense of how much support there was so somewhere perhaps in the 90, maybe that has grown since then, i don't know. hopefully there is a whip count somewhere in the state department or elsewhere knowing where each country stands. >> dick, you want to add anything to what commissioner mcdowell said? >> simply commissioner mcdowell has nicely, i think, indicated where we are on the leadership issue and i'll leave his comment there. we are looking forward to the head of delegation arriving very shortly, and ambassador phil verveer has been offering considerable leadership in this area so we are always looking for the head of delegation and welcome that person when the white house will make the announcement. on the sovereignty issue, the

itu has as a historical matter when, i think, remarkable in the fact that there are actually very few votes at events such as this treaty conference. there have been and of course i have witnessed a number of these votes but it is not a vote, it is not an institution that relies upon votes for decisions. it relies upon consensus. and i think in part its success has been owed to the fact we're talking about communications. and communications relies upon the consent of those who are communicating, and there is such a considerable interest globally in sustaining and maintaining and growing a robust communications network that consensus seems to flow. now, sometimes it's not easy, it takes late hours and sometimes in the last four days of the conference will no doubt be

around the clock but a consensus will emerge. i think 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, scott had a question. i'll call on you. in the meantime, just while the mike's coming over, i know jackie ruff, when she spoke initially, talked about the fact that the regulations could possibly affect, if they -- certain things were adopted affect the commercial success of the internet and all of the enterprise that takes place and

obviously that's an important part of the internet as well. i talked about about some of the social and free speech aspects. jackie, i thought if you could, briefly just elaborate if you have in mind particular concerns. and how they might dampen or impact the internet as it's used, 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 cover. if they cover processing of data, then that automatically means they cover the internet. at the other end you have what's the enforcement mechanism for

rules. there are proposals to be intergovernmental dispute resolution mechanisms. then you have the meat of the proposals in the middle all of which become treaty. and therefore binding as treaty. 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. i want to make that clear. there is a reason to be concerned about them, it's just that the mechanisms to address them tend to be intrusive. i think one of the hopes is to figure out how to meet the concerns, meet people where they are and figure out other ways to get at them. the final one that has been

mentioned by several speakers is that the internet is a network of networks. it is handing off traffic between those networks, informal agreements or commercial agreements and to turn that into a regulated kind of exchange will create all sorts of distortions of the system and complexities. i hope that's a good summary. >> yes. thank you. dick, we mentioned your boss. ambassador verveer several times. i called him out. i had the privilege of actually serving with bill three decades ago at the fcc. most of you wouldn't know this. fortunately for you, you're too young to possibly know it. but in the short time span that i was at 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 eighth floor was. the ambassador filled all of those positions ably. he's a terrific example as well of a public servant. scott. >> yes. scott cleeland, net competition. question for dr. beaird. it's a nontransparent process. are there crunch time or process points maybe two or three, that we should be tuning into to get a sense of whether this is going in a good direction or a bad direction as we watch from the outside? >> the council meeting in july to approximately the 14th where the chairman reports to the conference will be reviewed. it will not be changed but 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 after august 3rd and see what proposals have come in pursuant to that deadline for the first tranche of proposals by august 3. we'll be watching them 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 interamerican proposals, going into the conference.

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'll 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. >> we have time i think for one more question if we have one. while i'm looking around or you may be thinking, i want to acknowledge again that we are very privileged to have two ambassadors with us, ambassador mickey gardner, who is here, then the other ambassador is ambassador david gross. he serve d in phil verveer's position in the previous administration, i think

ambassador gross perhaps holds the record but i may stand corrected as the longest serving ambassador in that position. i keep emphasizing ambassador. david and i were former colleagues in a law firm, and so i was excited when he became ambassador gross. but shortly after he left, i thought that maybe he would just be you know, plain old david again. but he informed me once you are an ambassador, 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 gross, 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 thank everyone for a wonderful panel. i think this is one of the first times that it was extremely -- i got such a tremendous opportunity to learn a lot of new facts and hopefully everyone here as well. my question is, a little bit -- sorry. i'm with emerging markets communications. my question is a little bit different. so the head of the itu, he went to st. petersburg and speaks russian fluently. during last year's meeting with putin he told him and there is a

transcript available on line, he told him that 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 to putin, shake his hand, stops to tell him he is his comrade, a concern, or is this i'm not sure i understand completely how the itu functions in that regard. >> okay. i guess maybe that's for dick or the the commissioner. any one want to 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 guadalajara.

he is 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 would assume but sufficient to earn a 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 as an engineer. beyond that i think i will let him speak to his own biography. >> okay. that sounds like good advice from a diplomat. 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 get more on this topic now as the house energy and commerce subcommittee convene as hearing on whether the united nations should oversee international internet regulations. witnesses include robert mcdowell and deputy assistant secretary of state phillip verveer. they will review potential consequences of recent proposals backed by china, russia, brazil

and india. u.n. member states will vote on the plan at the conference on international telecommunications in dubai. this hearing should get under way in a moment and it's live here on c-span 3.

. good morning. i want to welcome our witnesses and appreciate their testimony today. this is the subcommittee on communications and technology and our hearing on international proposals to regulate the internet. nationings from across the globe will meet at a united nations

forum in dubai the end of this year and if we're not vigil lent just might break the internet by subjecting it to an international regulatory regime designed for old fashioned telephone service. the internet is the single largest engine of global change since the printsing press, from its humble rootings as a network to connect computers for department of defense projects it grew to include research institutions, commercial services and the public generally. it was once the government relinquished its grip on the internet that it began growing. evolving into the network of networks that we all participate in today. with this expansion came the recognition that the organizational structure must evolve as well. functions that had previously been managed by and for the united states government like network addressing, due main name administration, were spun off to private sector entities that can be more responsive to the rapid changes in the

internet. non-governmental institutions now manage the core functions with input from private and public sector. this structure the multi-stakeholder model prevents governmental or non-governmental actors from controlling the design of the network or the content it carries. the multi-stakeholder model provides flexibility enabling the internet to evolve quickly. and this evolution continues at a staggering pace. cisco estimates by 2016, 45% of the world's population will be internet users. there will be more than 18.9 billion network connections and the average speed will be four times faster than it is today. weakening the multi-stakeholder model threatens the internet. harming its ability to spread prosperity and freedom. yet this december at the world conference on international telecommunication, wicket, in dubai, the international telecommunications union will

consider expanding the itu jurisdiction to the internet, replacing the multi-stakeholder model that served the internet and the world so well. they will consider imposing economic regulations on the internet. the itu is originally formed in 1865 to govern international regulation of the telegraph. the itu updated its charter in 1988 by adopting the international telecommunications regulations, but even then the communications world was dominated by voice telly fanny. it was in that world the itu developed settlement rates at which service providers compensated each other across national borders. the end result was high call rates and transfer of money to telephone companies run by foreign governments. it would be inappropriate to apply an international regulatory scheme developed for the 1980s telephone networks to the vibrant and tech no legislately diverse internet.

unlike traditional where the routing of circuit switch calls could be tracked, the networks that comprise if internet do not adhere to political boundaries. give at any diversity of the networks any implementation of a regulatory regime would become so complex as to be unmanageable. we also live in a more competitive world making such economic regulations not only unnecessary but also counterproductive. the internet has prospered under the multi-stakeholder model. that model enabled a world of information to your finger tip, allows small businesses to have a global reach, drives investment and innovation and has even started a revolution or two. as the u.s. delegation of wicket takes shape i urge the administration to continue the united states commitment to the internet's collaborative govern nens structure and reject efforts to bring the internet

under government control. with that i yield the remainder of my time to the vice chairman of the subcommittee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i believe that the bottom up stake holder aploch proch allowed prosperity in all levels of the economy around the world. therefore, when i hear comments from prime minister vladamir putin saying that international control over the internet is one of the stated goals. we cannot allow this to happen. this will diminish economic prosperity. this conference is about telephone, and should not encroach into any discussions into regulation of the internet, whether it's disguised by phone numbers or ip addresses, or cyber security. so i want to put those on notice who want, from russia or from

china or other countries that when it comes to regulating the internet the answer is nua. >> time expired. now recognize distinguished ranking democrat on the subcommittee miss eschew for five minutes. >> good morning to everyone. and thank you for having this important hearing. the internet continues to grow and to flourish thanks to its open structure and its multi-stakeholder approach to govern nens. this is healthy, we've seen it, worked horde to make sure that these are the atmospherics for it. it is one of the great sources of pride to our nation. the role that the government originally played, how it went out into the private sector. and it is one of the great

success stories of american history. i'm very proud so much of it resides in my district. according to a recent study commissioned by the new democratic network and the npi, the new policy institute, every 10% increase in the adoption of 3 g and 4 g wireless technologies has the potential to add more than 231,000 jobs to our national economy. so as the world conference on international communications prepares to meet later this year to review proposals that could actual lly radically alter the internet future to convene this hearing to hear from some of our nation's leading experts and you are all a source of pride to us, from the public and private sectors. the internet has advanced rapidly since wicket last met

about a quarter of a century ago. a quarter of a century ago. i guess they don't meet that often. we've gone from dial up modems to fiber optics. with this dramatic boost in speed consumers can experience high definition video, social networking, videoconferencing, and much more without regard to where this content is hosted in the world. and i think that's the way it should be. there is no question that there are real threats facing the internet's continued growth and sta bit. our three cyber security hearings held earlier this year are evidence of such vulnerabilities but international proposals to impose mandated roaming rates or termination charges for data traffic are a fundamental departure from the international telecommunication regulations adopted in 1988.