they brought on the court battle over that. the attorney general holder has said he has the option to sue colorado or washington or other states over their drug related laws. it is interesting that he did not say that they should go down that route. >> thanks to both of you for your questions this week. we appreciate you being here. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> there is no indication that they do not the truth to the american public. it is not just about inaccuracies on terms of what actportable health care would do. it is the absence of speaking the truth about where we are. where are we? standard ofs a living the same as we had in 1998. we have per family unfunded obligations and pure death of $1.1 million per family.

that needs to be spoken so that we can build the context build the tough things that are going to come. the biggest problem with congress is this denial of reality. good personl be a and deny reality. we all have flaws. we all deny realities in some sense. the fact is we have not had the leadership in a long time. i'm talking presidential and not that will tell the public about the situation we find yourselves in. >> the reasons for his retirement on the senate at the end of the session tonight at 8:00 on q&a. on the next "washington journal" the new report on the

rise of stay-at-home mothers. then jason millman discusses sylvia burwell. the more than 7 million americans who signed up for health care coverage under the new law. u.s.bureau chief looks at contributions to the peacekeeping missions in daily operations. plus your calls, tweets and facebook comments. on monday night, a debate between former cia and nsa director michael hayden and barton gelman who has written about the edward snowden links. they will speak how the nsa monitors americans overseas of bounds as national security with the right to privacy. here is a quick review. -- here's a quick preview.

[no audio] [no audio] >> you can watch the entire debate about the data collection and surveillance program -- conversations]

>> welcome. i in the executive dreck of the caucus -- director of the caucus 20. we put together a great panel for you. i will get to them in a quick second while i do some house thing. this is hosted in conjunction with the congressional internet cochairs. the the goals that we share with them is that we do not take any particular prescription about the right policy approach for

the internet. these issues are important. is that we hold debates with a variety of perspectives on a particular issue to inform the dialogue. the proposition is one of leadership. we thank the caucus and cochairs for taking this position and supporting our work. we really appreciate it. another housekeeping matter. #netgovic is the hashtag. posted on the twitter account as well. as far as moderators, it was difficult to find a moderator with enough knowledge over the past 15 years to understand this issue very well.

who has agreedkc to moderate in a mutual and fairway. he is with consulting. he also usedn to be the assistant secretaryti of thomas he also used to be the assistant secretary for nti. [cell phone ring] >> i'm getting a theme song introduction as well. i want to thank the caucus for convening this session. 14, in tia -- ntia made an announcement that it was repaired to consider letting certain contracts with the internet corporation to expire when they run out in 2015. onto reportsmoved

of the united states giving up its "control those quote of the internet. it can bring some clarity to what the announcement really means. we can expect going forward and introduce some of the policy concepts around that. it would be very helpful. i think we have it excellent panel to do that. i will introduce them not been seating order. we have fiona alexander, the associate administrator for the nti> o is the executor director for nextchoice. netti is the president of the institute for policy innovation. they have a focus on free markets and limited government.

long-standingis a law professor for internet issues. for thisost relevant discussion is going to be a member of the high-level committee at the global multi-stake level on the future of governance which i think we will find more out about as we talk. last but not least we have jamie ican. who is with toanted to start with fiona take us through. what was the announcement on march 14? why did you make it? what does it make in regard to ican? >> thank you very much. there's been a lot of confusion about the announcement we made. what ntia announced was that it was our intent to transition from roles that we have kept in systems for the multi-stakeholder committee. to do that we asked ican as the

in globalcontractor coordinator to convene stakeholders about the proposal as to how this tradition might take ways. asked them to work closely with some of the key international customers. establishng so, ntia a framework we would like the community to work with. we identified four principles, specifically any is enhancing the multi-stakeholder model to maintain security and resiliency of the dns. it needed to maintain the openness of the internet. we also made it very clear that we would not consider a proposal that would replace this with a government led solution. we took what we consider to be the final step in a 16 year

process to privatize this with a naming system by asking them to limitedether with a role that we continue to have in this space with respect to the functions contract. we did not say we were walking away from nti ican. we worked very constructively. all of that. nutshell, what it is we announced on march 14. there's a question of why do we do it now? there are two main reasons for that. a real growth in maturity. we think it is because the affirmation of commitment that created these multi-holder reviews. they had has served on two of these review things. you think they have made tremendous progress. is what we are

seeing in the international theunity with regards to multi-stakeholder model. that is why we did it now. all we have done is to ask ican to develop a proposal. ican has started the conversation in singapore two weeks ago. >> i want to get your comments on what fiona just described. it would be helpful if you would describe what precisely is it that ican does through these contracts with the government and what has been the u.s. government role in the day-to-day functioning of these contracts options? how do you expect things could or would change if the contract expire? >> the first part of the question is easy. what they have done and what we have done following the had our big we

meeting in singapore. we began the dialogue. they posted the documents for community input. we are very early on in this process. we here at the step where we started a process to design a process that will result in the outcomes. this will take a long time. it is going to require input room all interested stakeholders including folks on the hill. about thesetion functions, i'm glad you asked. there was a lot of misinformation that somehow control of the internet was at stake.

of theiving up control internet to the human or russia and a lot of black helicopter theories. it is easy to debunk that by a description of what these are. there are three functions that are deep down in the internet infrastructure. one of them is maintaining a table of internet standards developed by the task force. they develop the policies. we maintain the table. now there are allocating large to ouregional bodies membership-based organizations. the third function is the one that gets the most attention.

rootis maintaining the zone foul. the root zone foul at a very high level is basically a open directory of the top level the.ns so the right of along with the ip address is in their name servers. there are some 300 30 and growing top level domains. these divide between generic and runl domains or operated under agreements that the operators have with icann. then there is country code top level domains. these are the offer and u.k.eign run domains like. -- .uk, .us.

they're responsible for developing the policies that govern those demesnes. is one of them want to to their entry, they sent a request and the department takes the request and sends it to ntia who verifies the request and then authorizes verisign as a root zone maintainer to update the finals, publish it in distributed. as you can see, these are not terribly sexy functions. >> when people say icann controls the internet or ntia using icann as its vehicle controls the internet, you're controls, that nobody

the internet but there are these core functions? for ave been around this very long time. you have been commenting on these issues. while i think this is really not a function of control, these are important functions. there are opportunities that if for were to be manipulated parochial or some other purposes an area ofis concern. what do you think about the most recent announcement? what do you think about the transition over time? what should we expect? think about this transition. >> it is so much easier to start a simple analogy of what is being transitioned.

the u.s. invented the internet -- the living system for the internet. the bethesda car we built in the 1990's. ana.license plate reads i in 1998, our government have invented the car realize it was not appropriate for a single government to control every element. we needed a designated driver other than the u.s. government. we created icann in 1998 to be that designated driver. jamie the keys and let him drive the car with greater independence. we do this through a joint --tnership him or him him and a memorandum of understanding. we came up with the affirmation

of commitments. fiona had a large hand in development. it required icann to conduct these detailed reviews on stability of the internet. together they do not fully give that to icann. the prospect of the announcement on march 14 ist that they intend to sign the title over to someone at the first available date. it is likely to be september 2000 15. it could go longer if they are not ready. who is the title going to be signed over to? the title itself has a powerful impact. it is not just the three functions. there is the function of accountability. the fact that we held the title

these lack 16 years means that the 16 year held this new and better take care of the affirmation of commitments into where thewardship job title and car has been taken away. sooner or later we were going to have to relinquish the title. perfect storm of political timing has forced our hand to do it early this year. we will cover that early on. us accountability for holding the title is the trickiest thing to replace once we turn this over to icann if icann and that being the one to get it. >> i appreciate the props. that is pretty cool. legalalogy is a instrument. if one legal issue meant as going to be allowed to lapse, are there any thoughts or concepts that might be

instrumented between icann and other private entities or the u.s. government and entities? you are going to this brazilian meeting where the stakeholders are supposed to begin talking about these issues. these alternatives likely to will bringsion that accountability to whatever institution is a charge of executing this? >> there have been a wide range of different proposals. the notion is that the u.s. has become so important that we need to figure out how government can typically only operate within particular limited geographic operations can somehow come together to create and impose global rules.

that some governments will use the technology to impose and enforce the rules that control contact. it might be useful to ask ourselves how can we have gotten in this situation where they rulesllowed to make without regulation of everything. i represented this when it was negotiated. only event tokey this. it was to the contractual agreement i solutions to abide by the policies if they were supported by a consensus among the affected parties. , thewere only on topic

global of resolution of which assures operation of the system. it was quite logical to contemplate that this will become a private-sector standard making kind of activity. it was never desired to be a general purpose regulation of the internet into the u.s. government's credit that has pretty much been the way things have stood. because icann has the last word ,n what gets added to the root and a new top-level level domain, it can and has decided contractual conditions to impose on the top level domains.

in some cases it has impose conditions that were not the result of a consensus process in the bottom of his way. that has led some people to freed should be subject to some kind of constraint on what it could do. accountable for them for not abusing the power. i think the best way to do that would be for icann to signed a contract with some third party promising not to regulate content and not to make rules on behaviors of which there is no global consensus. the government project has made a proposal to a comp list this by taking the domain name registries and all of the country code and registries and creating a body that was

structurally separate the functions and enter into a contract. i am not sure whether they will consider that a proposal. let me ask tom something. the touchstones and limited government's. we are talking about the united states government stepping away from it contractual role. there has been a great deal of discussion and concern that the is that itction prevented any other governmental or intergovernmental body from assuming such a role. i think we have heard from a number of panelists.

that without some sort of oversight, the accountability cannot be guaranteed. what are some of the other contractual or legal structural were agreement second we put in place? there are all sorts of ways this is accountable. i think this is well understood and not very complicated. it sounds like this is complicated. does it need to be? >> you are right. be big to not trester's a government. i guess the question is who do you trust the least? the title of the panel today asks a russian. i think it would probably be a very boring -- asks a question.

i think it would probably be very boring if we said yes. i am very familiar with the institution set up outside u.n. system to perform the next year -- an obscure function for the world. it was set up to administer treaties. it was outside the u.n. name for me any ink that would be taken over by the u.n. in the last 50 years? does a far less effective organization today than it was outside the united nations. there is a reason for that.

accredited ngo. also the world health co. organization. also the itu. once anhave seen is institution of global governance is created, and i agree with you that it is a gross distortion to see what we are talking about here is the renter and control to the u.n. that is not happening. it is not happening now. steps thatermediate we are taking, are we losing the safeguards that could make that happen at some indefinite point in the future. issues happening is that that are entirely unrelated to the organization and coming to their. you will have a situation where countries like brazil or argentina will be frustrated with the united states because they are not getting what they want from us at the wto.

relief ont getting agricultural subsidies. we cannot get what we want at wto but we can make your life very difficult and other forms. you cross that, the game is up and you are in serious trouble. that is not what is happening now. setting aside safeguards now that prevent that from happening? a majority of countries at the last itu niche and favored -- meeting favored treating organizations for the united nations. we were in the distinct minority . why were we able to state that off? was it moral authority? has undermined a great deal by undermining some of our declared value. what is left? it is possible that one of the

reasons we were able to stave off for now the push for international governance was because we still controlled the most basic, most critical functions. not control the internet. we control the strong card -- the trump card. we control the title. we control the crown jewels. when i was in high school in the 70's least are right in arm notebooks naive phrases that if you love something let it go and if it comes back to you it is yours forever. you let this go and it does not come back. challenge to the other folks is explained to me the mechanism by which when you relinquish control you still have control. that is my issue. at the event in january that the internet caucus sponsored, the current president used the word "superb ear cohesive he said the united states had performed superbly -- superbly."

haveid the united states performed superbly. what is the point of taking the risk of that icann suggest we do superb job. i want to ask a question in terms of how how strong is our ability to hold onto these functions? there are contracts between entities. functions reside within icahn not just because the u.s. has a contract with icahn, but the rest of the global internet community agrees it will look to them to perform these functions. exercise at the congress where we had a treatyin