organizational home for the internet task force whose missions it sow make the internet work better. we produce high quality relevant technical documents that influence the way people design, use and manage the internet. these technical documents include the standards, guidelines and best practices that created and continue to shape the internet today. the international telecommunication union's upcoming world conference on international telecommunications has rightfully drawn heightened attention from the global community as some it member states proposed amendments to a key treaty, the itrs that could have far-reaching implications for the internet. while the internet society has no voting role in the it process we dplibt a sector member. in that capacity we have raised significant concerns rather than enhancing global interoperability, the outkuchlt wict meeting could undermine the security, stability and innovative potential of networks worldwide.

the internet society understands why some of the it member states are focusing on the internet and its infrastructure. the internet has fundamentally changed the nature of commune kapgss globally and many nations view the changes as falling under the auspices of the it u. some stem from the very real economic pressures developing nations face seeking to yaup date allowing to engage fully in the global information economy, but we are not convinced the international treatymaking process represents the most effective means to manage cross-border internet communications or to achieve greater connectivity worldwide. we are concerned that some of the proposals being floated in advance of the december meeting are not consistent with the proven and successful multi-stakeholder model, and finally, we are concerned the wict process itself which severely limits meaningful nongovernmental participation could create negative outcomes for the internet. the internet model is

characterized by several essential properties that make it what it is today. a global unified network of networks that is constantly evolving. that is proiped enormous benefits that enables extraordinary innovation and whose robustness is based and a tradition of open standards, commune collaboration and bottom-up consensus. as the internet has flourished, internet policy development at the global regioning and national levels has continued to evolve to work harmoniously with the internet to assure its ongoing development. this process has provided the capacity to cope with the necessary and fast-paced technological evolution that has characterized the internet to date. in contrast to this approach, some wict submissions seek to apply an old line legacy telecommunication regulations to internet traffic in a manner that could lead to a more fragmented, less interoperable gloek internet for all. for example, proechls related to traffic routing, numbers and

peering, significant impacts on the growth of the internet. while we find strong cause for concern about the agenda of the wict meeting there is no reez didn't cannot produce thoughtful, worthwhile policy developments that advance the mission of the itu and the ongoing expansion of global communications without imposing dangerous and unnecessary burdens on the internet. many itu member states including the u.s. have shown they understand the value of the internet and its unique multi-stakeholder model. those dell guilt are in a critical position to advance an agenda at twhact respects the internet and its gloebl contributions continuing to support the pro-competitive policies that have been so successful since the itrs were first negotiated in 1988. working with allies from around the globe the united states government has an opportunity to help chart a productive course forward at wict. and to ensure that the value of the multi-stakeholder model and light touch regulatory approach

are highlighted. we're ready to stand for this and thank you very much for this opportunity. >> thank you for your testimony. we'll go into questions now. and i want to go straight to you. you mentioned in your testimony there are other parts of the united nations that have activities concerning internet governance, and if the itu meeting is not the only place where this is being discussed, what other things are going on we should be aware of? >> yes. thank you for that question. i do think it's important that we put the wict in context. the wict is an extremely important event in 2012. it is a treatymaking conference. but the discussion of internet governance will not stop there. there are ongoing discussions within the united nations framework in the commission for science and technology for development within the international telecommune kachgss yoon and and within the general seam pli that seek to take on the internet governance

with a great deal of specificity. all of these discussions are things that we at the internet society are following careful lif, and we think that multi-stakeholder engagement and discussion of these issues over the next several years is going to be extremely important. >> mr. cerf, you seem to be weighing in there with a nodding head. >> i'm certainly in agreement with ms. wentworth. first of all, the itu is not the only element in the united nations that is interested in internet matters. the point about the committee on science and technology is one example. ecosock is another. there's a long list of players who see the internet as a fundamental part of the environment now and would like very much to have influence over it. i worry about even activities as the internet governance forum champion emerged out of the world summit on the information society. the reason it has been successful, at least up to now,

is that it started as a multi-stakeholder activity, but as responsibility for the sunt m subject matter under discussion 14i69ed from one body to another, the question who controlling the agenda now becomes a big issue. the process of involvement in the united nations has one unfortunate property that it politicizes everything. all the considerations that are made, whether it's in the itu or elsewhere, are taken and colored by national interests as a long-standing participant in the internet borpd and internet task force where we check our guns at the door and we have technical discussions about how best to improve the operation of the internet, to color that with other national disputes, which are not relevant to the technology is a very dangerous precedent and that's one of the reasons i worry so much about

the itus intervention in this space. >> there are press reports out of this hearing already that would tend top say that ambassador verveer's comments mean there really isn't a grave threat to the internet and that there aren't these serious threats on the table. would you characterize, would you agree? >> i am still vrs nervous, mr. chairman, about this process. i will make one observation, that it is not just a matter of the voting question and the one nation, one vote. this substance of the changes or additions to the treaty are critical, and here we have somewhat more leverage i think. those are not necessarily just a matter of voting. i think ambassador gross probably amplify on this, but the negotiations for the actual language probably gives more leverage to us than the actual voting process does. but i have to say, mr. chairman, that there is a notion in what's

calmed chaos theory called the butterfly effect. the butterfly waves its wings in indonesia and we have a tsunami some else. i do worry that small changes can be used and interpreted in ways that could be quite deleterious to the utility of the internet. >> ambassador gross, what strategies did you employ when you had the honor and opportunity to fend off international regulation of the internet that the u.s. government should follow now? >> thank you very much. and if i may, before addressing that i just want to echo exactly what vint ker-of-just said. this is not a discussion at the wict about broad policies that happens at conferences on a regular basis and are very important. something that this chamber can particularly appreciate, the negotiations over our treaty text, language. language is important. language has impact.

and so what will be a real test for our negotiators and for all of us is to be careful as to the language. so that the language doesn't come forward and mean something today and mean something very different in the way in which, for example, commissioner mcdowell talked about where it morphs into something very difficult and something very dangerous. this is not an issue of the itu secretariat, an issue for member states to negotiate and be very, very cognizant about. with regard to strategies, strategies already some adopted by the current group. that is, it's very important to be clear. one of the problems and one of the opportunities you always have in international negotiations is to find fuzzy language to cover up. one of the keys here, because of the importance of the issue, and because of the implications of the issue for the over 2 billion users of the internet worldwide is to be very clear as to what it is the u.s. is interested and

willing to discuss and to negotiate, of which there are many things, and those areas which are red lines. things for which we will not agree. and it's not a question of finding precise language. it is, yes. it is, no. it is very, very beinnary in that sense. i they will be very clear and the building of coalitions as was discussed in the first panel i think is obvious and important and i'm confident we'll be able to do that. >> i appreciate your answer to my questions. all the panelists. we'll go to the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey, for five minutes. >> thank you, from chairman, very much. so mr. cerf, which countries are you most concerned about in terms of their agenda? >> as we heard earlierish the ones most vittable in my views, russia and china who have their names on a number of professors but others have come forward, surprising ones. brazil, for example and india surprise immediate with their interest in intervening and ob containing further control. the others are the ones that you

would normally expect. we hear from syria. we hear from other repressive regimes. even those in saudi arabia, for example. those who are threatened by openness and freedom of expression are the ones that are most interested in gaining control through this means. >> uh-huh. >> there are other motivations, however, that also drive this whole process. the developing world has h historically generated through telecommunications services, i'm sure you're aware. the internet has become the alternative to much of what had been the telecommunications environment, and i see them looking for ways of adapting the earlier telecommune kangss settlement arrangements, interconnection arrangements and the like as a way of recovering revenue that they didn't have. so -- >> what's a -- what's a -- just give us, ambassador gross

mentioned this, give us one red line subject that we should never entertain. >> i think two things in particular. i would never want to see any of the itu standards being mandatory. they should stay involuntary form. and, second, i think we should run away from any settlement arrangements on enforced interconnection rules interfere wig the open and very private sector aspect of internet connectivity. today it's a voluntary system. it grows biologically and has benefitted from that. >> is there a, an analogy here to the satelli system 23457elli aloud running con treer wharp should be the policy 0 to ensure every citizen has real access to a phone network? >> this is an economic question of an engineer. i have a feeling you might

deserve the answer. to be honest, i think that we see a great desire to take advantage of internet in ways that damage the freedom and openness and the permissionless innovation which has allowed it to grow, to allow any rules that sequester this innovation and inhibit others would damage the future of the internet dramatically. when you see new applications coming along, they come from virtually anywhere in the world. they don't all come from the united states. and it's important that we preserve that capability. >> thank you. no. but i appreciate the, kind of the global nature that you bring to it. the butterfly effect in indonesia here, creating a tsunami in 2340another place. here in the united states, mrs. o'leary's cow that burns down america. that's too american. innovation can occur, disaster

can emanate from and the impact on the global internet system but that's who you and what this panel is really all about. ambassador gross, give us your one red line. do you awe agree with mr. cerf? >> i always agree with vint, but there are a number of red lines. >> give me one of them. we're going to go to ms. wentworth. >> i think the number one red line is there should be no top-down control of the internet, directly or indirectly, associated with any international governmental institution, including the itu. >> okay. and ms. wentworth. do you have one? >> we would certainly agree with the comments of mr. cerf with respect to making voluntary standards mandatory. that would have considerable impact on the engineering architecture that goes into the internet. and we are also very focused on the definitions in the treaty, as we know definitions will give you are the scope, and a number

of the proposals to change the definitions would, in fact, clearly imp plap kate the internet in the treaty. >> mr. cerf, give us your 30 seconds. what do you want this committee to remember, as we go forward over the next six months and over the next six years in terms of what we should be apprehensive about? >> so you've already started. this hearing is a wonderful beginning. the proposed legislation speaking to this problem in a a -- bipartisan. i'm thinking bilateral. >> it's so rarely used. you know, i know why it's hard too -- >> bipartisan. also voicing your concerns to the executive branch also extremely important and making this visible around the world is also very important. so i think you've started that process, and i'm deeply grateful for it. >> great. thank you. my time expired. i apologize. >> recognize myself for five minutes.

this is really -- i mean, i really enjoy this discussion, because when free nations give up their decision-making process to a world organization that is not totally defined to be free, then there's credible -- there should be credible concerns. and i think we're raising those today. and based upon -- i got to pull it up. it just went to sleep. the -- you know, we debate this issue about the u.n. we get asked by our constituents all the time about the role of the u.n. should we be involved in the u.n.? should we fund the u.n.? and i've tried to keep a balance pd view where i haven't voted to leave the u.n. but i have -- been skeptical about the troel plays. keep current funding. get reforms. some of the things the u.n. has

done. cuba was vice president of the united nations human rights council and china, russia and saudi arabia also serve on that council. north korea and cuba serve as head of the conference on disarmament. mugabi just named a u.n. leader for tourism by the u.n. world trade organization. iran sits on the u.n. commission on the status of women, and formerly chair the board of the u.n. development program and the u.n. population fund. saudi arabia is a member of the executive board of u.n. women. and so that's -- i'm not making this up. and you can't. but -- i mean that is a concern. and there's also been some international debate and discourse about having a world organization based upon shared values. democracy, freedom, rule of law. things that would make this

process a little bit easier. than trying to negotiate with totalitarian regimes who been not have -- the best interests of free discourse and exchange of views and ideas and values. so i appreciate you coming. i appreciate raising this concern, and making sure that we're all in. and prepared to keep this great architecture. i took a picture of y'all when we started and i tweet like a lot of people, and, you know, kind of did the headline of the hearing. and i said, if it's not broken, don't fix it. that's the system. obviously, there's tinkering some of you agree must be done, or is there not? is it -- should we not touch it? or -- if there are tinkering --

if there's tinkering to be done, what should be done? mr. gross? >> thank you very much. the answer is, there are always opportunities to improve anything. except for my wife, who's sitting behind me, of course. but instead, i think the key here is, who does the tinkering and what the mechanism is. i think the genius of the internet has been, not only its decentralize nature but multi-stakeholder processes for making decisions. bringing thoegz with the best and brightest ideas from wherever they are, no matter their positions to have a say and make those decisions in a voluntary bottom-up approach. that approach is the key. i think of the rug here as you've heard this morning and early this afternoon has been concern about a top-down governmental set of ways of dealing with what are undoubtedly real issues for real people around the world. whether it's security, fraud, a variety of things that you know

there are many issues that need to be addressed. who does the addressing what those mechanisms turn out to be, i believe, really is the key to success and the way to deal with these way to deal with these issues. >> i want to got a different question. any tinkering now matter how well intentioned could it be flexible enough to keep the process moving forward or will tinkering itself really mess up the stake holder involvement in the system we have today? >> so i think several observations might be relevant here. the first one is that we can't run away from the united nations because it's too important a body for us to ignore. so we have to participate in its processes. but we have another opportunity which i think we should emphasize that is to encourage more vovlt, more international involvement among the various nation states in the multistake

holder processes that are open and available to them that includes is the internet governments forum, the international task force and all the multistake holder processes. if we make those increasingly attractive thisltertive to the focus of attention which is leaning in the direction of u.n. based activity. this would re-enforce what we discovered over the last 15 years is a multistake holder process. they do bring many point of views to the table and they result in better policy. >> thank you. i appreciate it. i don't have time to ask my follow up question. thank you for your testimony. i'd like to recognize the ranking member of the full committee, mr. waxman. >> thank you very much. earlier today the ambassador stated that the u.s. is advocating for the conference report to be made available to the public in addition to this

proposal for increased transparency. what other specific measures can be taken to shine more light into the processes? >> the obvious possibility would be to open this process up to other stake holders which is not a typical conclusion one reaches in international agreements. it strikes me reflecting back on our written successes with mull stake holder processes that transparency and openness produces much better results. whether anyone in the current governmental world could be persuaded of that i don't know. but i'm a great advocate of trying to include civil society and the private sector in matters that will have a direct effect on them. publications of proposals and involvement of over stake holders would be very attributive. >> i would think it's critical for the countries that have seen the impact of the internet on

the economy to highlight the potential negative consequences of the regulation of the internet and the world's economy. but what would be the role for the private sector in this process? how would they participate? >> the private sector actually operates most of the internet. i don't know what the numbers are. it probably exceeds 90%. in some sense no matter what we do. no matter what anyone say it's the private sector that operates this entity and its actions determine what kind of internet we all have. so my belief is that we have an opportunity here to empower the private sector to engage in policymaking, which does not have an avenue to do today at least not very effectively. you'll hear them say you can be a sector member. miss went worth might agree with me that even as a sector member having paid your dues you don't always either get to participate

or even have current information about what's under debate. once again i think openness is going to be our friend here. but we have to advocate strongly and loudly for it. >> miss wentworth, mr. gross, do you have additional comments to increase the transparency of the itu process? >> the internet society has certainly been an advocate of opening up this process. in general the internet policy related discussions that are happening within the united nations more broadly we think that the discussions can only benefit from more transparency. we come from the technical community and we look at some of these proposals and think there's a lot that could be said about the technical implications of what's being proposed. how do networks actually work? would those proposals be consistent with the architecture that we're trying to keep in

place and the answer is no in many cases. but that voice is not heard in the current process. we speak up when we can. but we have even as a sector member very limited opportunities to engage. >> mr. gross. >> i think there are two direct things. one is we should to continue to advocate for other members, governments to open up their domestic processes to allow for greater participation. the u.s. has greatly benefitted in terms of our negotiation but decision making by the openness that we have always traditionally had and want to encourage that of others. at its core the problem here is that the itu is by definition an intergovernmental organization. they are only governments that have votes. ultimately part of the question is this issue is not a big issue when you deal with certain sets of issues.

when you deal with internet issues, for example, that at their core are about over two billion people in their access to information, those are the ones that sort of call for the question not only of transparency, but also whether or not where the lines are about what the itu should be focussing on. that's where a lot of the issues can get resolved. >> thank you very much. i yield back my time. >> he yields back his time. the chair recognizes mr. christianson for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for your testimony and for your answers. mr. gross, in the ambassador's testimony he stated and all of us -- all of your voices and concern that allowing governments to monitor and restrict content or impose economic cost on international data traffic are of particular concern to the united states.

we've talked a lot about the monitoring and restricting of content. but could you talk, share with us your coalition's views on the proposals regarding imposing economic costs on international data traffic. >> sure. i think it will come as no surprise to anyone that those are critically important issues. there are a number of different pieces to that. it's not just about the fact that it may change from a system in which there is voluntary market driven decisions, contractual decisions made toex change traffic into one with some proposals to have some top down regulatory regime to the old settlements and accounting systems of old telephone system. that's certainly a substantial concern and should be a substantial concern to everyone. it extends to the issue of economic regulation and control about the issue of innovation

generally throughout the internet ecosystem. the ability has been talked about of innovations and changes and new technologies and new applications coming from anywhere, from anyone and the ability for all of us to benefit from that. and ultimately all of that often boils down to one of i think the great core issues for all of us which is the seamless flow of information. the ability of information whether it's commercial, political, economic, social to be able to flow seamlessly across the networks in ways that benefit the global community. >> thank you. >> i'm wondering if i could amplify on this just if you would permit. there it's there's this notion of nontariff trade barrier. i'm sure you're familiar with that. what i worry about is the insidious effect of putting in detailed rules that amplify former telephone practices in

projecting those into the internet destroys -- has the potential to destroys the information. it has the possibility of destroying potential markets. this is not just an american issue. we care about it because at google we're a global operation and we want to reach everybody with our products and services. but the inverse is true. anywhere in the world should be able to reach anyone else in the world. countries that those cho go away from that openness are harming themselves and their opportunities to explore the internet for improved gpd growth. i worry greatly about that. >> thank you. >> we talked about this griefly earlier. how should we respond to