summit that france will stay committed to the isef operation and continue to contribute to our training mission throughout the transition period towards the end of 2014, and i highly appreciate that. >> german radio. >> from german public radio, two questions. the first one you mentioned the reverse transit three contracts. does anywnato pay for the rever transit? and the second question is on smart defense, the next steps. probably you can give me the next steps for the smart defense initiative in regard to the fact that some countries, for example, germany, always have to give green light when they would like to participate or send troops somewhere if they would like to participate in a mission. thank you.

>> the first i will not comment on details in the rance it arrangement but it goes without say that go we have concluded agreement that are of mutual satisfaction of the gulf part mers. as regards to the next steps as far as smart defense is concerned, we decided at the chicago summit to initiate some follow-up. first of all, we will it continue to develop multinational projects and, secondly, of course, we'll have to find solutions to a number of issues. one of them is the topics you mentioned, how we can presume

the availability of multinational capabilities. but based on what i heard it at the chicago summit, i'm quite optimistic that there is a strong political commitment to actually use and deploy multinational capabilities when it is needed. obviously that goes without saying it is at the end of the day a national decision whether a country wants to participate in a military operation and deploy military assets and how, but i think all nations realize that if in the future we will

rely increasingly on multinational capabilities, we also have to enhance the presumption that such multinational capabilities will actually be available. if we don't enhance that presumption, then, of course, some countries will be reluctant to actually invest their resources in multinational capabilities. all nations are very much aware of that aspect and all 28 endorse the concept of smart defense at the chicago summit knowing that this is a challenge and based on that i'm sure there is a strong political commitment to actually deploy assets, also multinational assets when needed. >> ap? >> secretary-general, could you

elaborate on what exactly has been done on the follow-up mission in afghanistan since the chicago summit? and what's the time frame for coming up with the definitive proposal? >> we have started preparations already. it's a work in progress. i would be reluctant to present any exact deadline. ultimately, of course, the deadline is by the end of 2014 but for planning reasons, understandable planning reasons, we need clarification some time before that. but having said that it's also a fact that the exact profile of the first 2014 mission will very

much depend on the actual security situation on the ground as we approach the end of 2014 and this is the reason why i would be reluctant to present to you any exact deadline. but i can assure you we have started preparations already and, as you know, the core of that mission will be a training mission with the aim to train, assist, give advice to the afghan security forces. >> translator: regarding the intent to with draw some forces on the part of allied nations, the number is increasing. we now have five or six nations who have expressed their intent to withdraw their troops.

some say this is down to security, protecting the lives of troops. others raised the question of nato's budget. apparently there is a financial crisis within nato. how do you explain this? second question, several months after the fall of gadhafi's regime we are still waiting for the operational report from nato. how is that coming on? >> there is no financial crisis within nato. quite obviously there is an economic challenge. but i feel that we have found responses to that at the chicago

summit. the solution is indeed our smart defense initiative. we are going to promote cooperation on a multilateral basis and, as you are aware, we have adopted a certain number of multinational concrete projects and this is a very compelling response. this is the path to be followed in order to avoid that the financial crisis will become a security crisis so there is no financial crisis within nato. we are, indeed, facing an

economic challenge, and we have found a solution to that challenge. would you mind reminding me of your question on libya? several months after the fall of the gadhafi re jagime we haven' had a final report of operations in libya. why not? we have reported to the united nations in keeping with the established rules. >> secretary-general, a question about the common funding. the purchase of the ags, as we all know, was achieved with some political difficulty. the financial mechanism, and that is a group of 17, now 18 nations are buying the equipment and a large part of the

operating costs will come out of nato's common funding. however, this model is not a rule. it's an exception so far to the way sip works. and my question to you is for smart defense to move ahead if you're going to pursue more of these multinational models, don't you need to reform or do the 28 intend to reform the way that funding is used within the common -- the sip fund? thank you. >> yes, definitely, and that is also one of the follow-up works we adopted in chicago. we will look -- we will look closer into how our funding mechanisms work to make sure that they are fit for purpose, that they work efficiently, that we make the most efficient use of resources, that they are

completed transparent. so, yes, in order to promote multinational projects, we also need to reform our funding mechanisms so that all allies feel confident that multinational projects and common funding are efficient ways of doing defense business. >> that does mean as loosening of the rules. >> you might well argue that is also strengthening rules to make sure that things work transparentally and efficiently. >> thank you. i'm here.

now it's okay. the last week started operations in the north to remove the barricades and soldiers were attacked by local serbs or whoever they were. the statement coming from the serbian officials was that by this is endangering peace and provoking there. for each barricade removed, serbs can build two new. so are they going to continue the game removing barricades in order to see the new ones or this time to ensure freedom of movement in the north of kosovo? >> three points. firstly, our troops acted in self-defense. secondly, i would commend the way in which our soldiers

handled the situation. and, thirdly, i can assure you that they will continue to implement the united nations' mandate to maintain a secure environment and ensure the freedom of movement. and conducts its operations in a status neutral and impartial way. i strongly regret that we saw violence in recent days. i urge all parties to do their utmost to stop violence and ensure peaceful solution to the problems in the region, but i can assure you that kafur will

continue to implement fully the united nations mandate. >> we have another question from ko kosovo media. >> yes, the newly elected serbian president is sending very dubious signals to the region, telling the few towns that belong to serbs, denying genoci genocide, during the air strikes in 1999. from the perspective of having a mission in kosovo, what do you think should you be more cautious now that there is a new political elite in belgrade? >> first of all, on srebinica, i think it's for the tribunal in the hague to make the legal judgment, what they have done alrea

already. in general, of course, we monitor the situation closely. for my part i will not rely on, with all respect, on media reports, from statements from the newly elected serbian president. i hope we can continue the positive dialogue we have had with serbia. my vision as with regards to the western balkans is very clear. i would like to see all countries in the region integrated in the european union and nato and i also hope in that respect to see improvements in the relationship between serbia and nato. >> belgian news agency? >> yes, i have two questions

concerning the reverse transit. the first is you have an agreement with three neighboring countries -- [ no audio ] are you also in agreement for the transit to russia, first, and, secondly, are there some limitation restrictions, for example, nonlethal equipment and so on? >> yeah, in general, let me say that we do not commend on the concrete content of these transit arrangements. with russia we have a transit arrangement, a reverse transit arrangement already. and the fact that we have now concluded a rance it

arrangement, three concrete transit arrangements with central asian countries at the chicago summit will make the use of the russian transit arrangement even more effective. >> japanese media? >> thank you very much. my question is concerning nuclear weapons. in chicago you declared a task committee to develop a concept including the case to reduce so no strategy nuclear weapons. could you speak on this idea? is there any concrete agenda or is there any -- what is the relationship with this committee discussion and negotiation between the u.s.? >> there's no hidden agenda.

you have seen everything clearly expressed in the defense review that was published. it was adopted and published at the chicago summit. the general principles are very clear. we have reiterated what anywnat countries signed already in 1970. in the nonproliferation treaty that the grand vision is a world without nuclear weapons, but we also clearly state that as long as nuclear weapons exist, nato will remain a nuclear alliance. we have indicated in the defense review that we would very much like to see a reduction in the tactical nuclear weapons, but we

have added that in that case we also have to ensure the right balance that such reductions take place in a balanced way. and the fact is that nato nuclear powers have reduced their stockpiles of nuclear weapons significantly since the end of the cold war while we still have quite a number of russian nuclear weapons. and so that disparity has to be taken into account so in case we could writ agreement on a balanced reduction in the number of nuclear weapons, yes, we are in favor of that. we have clearly indicated that, the defense and deterrence posture review. but you can read everything in

the defense and posture review. there's no hidden agenda. >> we have time for one last question. afp? >> do you still have to meet mr. putin in the next few weeks, or do you think he doesn't plan or want to meet you right now? >> we have not discussed the concrete calendar issues. as you may recall, i called him and congratulated him on his election a few days after the presidential elections, and we agreed to meet bilaterally in the not too distant future but, of course, at the end of the day it's also a calendar question and no dates have been fixed yet. >> thank you very much.

each week washington journal spotlights a recent notable magazine article. on wednesday "vanity fair" contributing editor michael joseph gross talks about the internet, how it was created and regulated. tune in and call, tweet, or e-mail "washington journal" live at 9:15 eastern on c-span. federal reserve chairman ben bernanke is on capitol hill this week. he's testifying before the joint economic committee. he's expected to address may's job growth and the unemployment rate. join us live on thursday at 10:00 eastern here on c-span3. finally on a personal note, michelle and i are gratefulful to the entire bush family for their guidance during our

transition. i will always remember the gathering you hosted for all the living former presidents before i took office. your kind words of encouragement plus you also left me a really good tv sports package. [ laughter ] i use it. >> last week portraits of former president george w. bush and first lady laura bush were unveiled at the white house. it was their first visit since leaving office. >> as fred mentioned in 1814 dolly madison famously saved this portrait of the first george w. now, michelle, if anything happe happens, there's your man. >> watch the entire event online at the c-span video library.

federal communications commissioner robert mcdowell gave an update on a proposal to give the united nations more control over the internet. the proposal is backed by china, russia, brazil, and india. other speakers include the state department be and representatives from google, verizon, and the advocacy group public knowledge. this is about an hour and 45 minutes. >> okay. well, that was very nice. i appreciate the cooperation. i'm randy may, president of the free state foundation. i want to welcome all of you to today's event. as most of you know, the free state foundation is a free market oriented think tank specializing primarily in communications, internet, and high-tech policy issues.

i'm always pleased to see so many old friends at our events. today i'm especially pleased to see so many new friends and new faces. i confess we've got a large turnout. there must be several of you or quite a few of you that didn't even sign up, but we welcome you, too. we're glad you're here. and i especially want to extend a warm welcome to our c-span audience today. and thank c-span for covering this event. we appreciate it. today's program is titled the multistakeholder privatized internet governance model. can it survive threats from the u.n.? now i understand that the potential threats to the internet that we're going to be discussing today are going to

arise if at all in the international telecommunications union or itu, but the itu operates under the u.n. usauspis and it's one of the u.n.'s specialized treaty organizations. that's why sometimes today we may be referring to the itu or the u.n., which is apparent body of the itu. now, more specifically, the issues we're going to be discussing today will likely arise in the context of a particular itu-sponsored conference called wicket 2012 which will take place this december in dubai. now i didn't say wicked as in wicked witch, but wict which stands for the world conference

on international communications. so there have been concerns expressed. and fcc commission er mcdowell was one of the early expressers of concerns that some countries might try to use the wict conference to amend the telecommunications regulations in ways that fundamentally altar the current multistakeholder bottoms up privatized governance model that many of us would say has worked really well. the concern is that a new regime would be adopted that would confer more intergovernmental control over aspects of the internet and the way that it functions today. now i'm not going to say any more about the particulars of the potential changes because i don't want to steal any thunder from the distinguished group of panelistses that we have here today.

i will only say this. apart from the economic and social benefits that we're all familiar with, that the internet has given rise to, the internet has been a wonderful medium for facilitating free speech when governments have kept their hands off the net. so aside from the technical standards or whatever else that might affect the internet that will be discuss ed at the wict conference, i don't think any of us want to see movement towards intergovernmental control and new rules that would given the governments more control over the content of the speech. that's why many of you have heard me say this before. i often opt for the first amendment lookout where we're sitting here today because a lot of what we do at the free state foundation is intended to

promote free speech, so i particularly requested and had to bump off someone from the first amendment lounge to be here today. now i'm going to introduce our speakers, and hopefully all of you got bios or most of the bios, and i'm going to, number one, introduce them in the order that they are going to speak, so you guys pay attention. and i'm just going to give you the short version of their bio and a couple sentences about each. if we did the long version, we would be here -- it would take too much time on that. and while i'm thinking of it, i want to remind you we have a special twitter hash tag for those of you that are tweeters in the audience. the hashtag, and i think there's some flyers on the table but the

hashtag is fsfnetgovernance. the last conference we did a few months ago we found out we were quickly trending now, so maybe we'll be able to trend now on twitter for this conference. okay, now i'm going to introduce our speakers and also while i'm thinking about it we're going to have time for q&a after we get through with their initial presentation, so as they're speaking you can think of questions that you might have, and i'm going to given the panelists an opportunity if they have questions for their fellow panelists to ask those as well. okay. now, first off we're going to hear from robert mcdowell. rob, as most of you know, maybe everyone in this room may know,

that robert mcdowell is commissioner at the fcc. he was first appointed to his fcc by president bush, george w. bush, in 2006 and reappointed to the commission in 2009 becoming the first republican to be appointed to an independent agency by president barack obama. now prior to becoming an fcc commissioner, commissioner mcdowell served as senior vice president for the competitive telecommunications association. we had responsibilities involving advocacy efforts before congress, the white house, and executive agencies. now, i'm not going to -- in light of what i said, i'm not going to tell you where all these guys went to school and all of that.