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

what is on the table is replacing ntia's stewardship role. for a out a document number of reasons here and we ran up by the u.s. government and they have approved it. the purpose of the scoping document is to limit the discussion to what is really at stake not bring on every mutuality and content regulation and all kinds of other things engagedple who are less -- they do not the privilege of being engaged in icahn matters on a daily basis. so, on the other hand, it is an open process. people can and will make whatever contributions. this is not up to me or icahn. it is up to the multistate community to determine what ultimately comes out of this. was charged by the commerce department to be the convener, the organizer of this global multi-stakeholder process to design the transition mechanism. in that role, the measure of scoping is quite powerful, quite compelling. it is the scope that jamie just described to limit phone conversations for the next year and a half. icahn would have succeeded in evading this discussion of what holds them to th

ntia has no operational role it's true. we do our functions without their involvement operationally but symbolism to the world has allowed the model to survive and become very successful. so that's symbolism once we remove it has to be replaced with clear strength and clear safeguards and we will be at the forefront of making sure these are in place. >> i just need to jump in because i want to make it clear, we are not going anywhere near or far away as perhaps you were thinking based on the discussion so far. all we have put into play here is that very specific role we play with the functions contract. in terms of what we actually do, all we do is serve as a check on the accuracy of changes to the root zone file meaning first all the policies developed at icann through its existing stakeholder processes, that may then lead to a change being administered by the organization. it comes to us, we look it over and again it's largely a clerical task, verify its accuracy and we sent it on to verisign that does the up dating all w

what the role of ntia and u.s. government and state department is critically important but as larry said, must remain calm and we trust it will remain and it should remain. we should also strengthen the presence of our own businesses and their own institutions. i just appointed a full-time senior executive at icann focus only on bringing business, more businesses to the table. we are very keen in making sure the voice of the private sector is there. >> ambassador sepulveda, you've heard many of the concerns expressed on capital and media and elsewhere. how do you view some of the concerns? are there some that fit in the category of this reflects not an understanding -- either some usage of the core issues we need to be focused on going forward? >> having worked on capitol hill for a long time, when of a big decision like this is announced, everybody sort of processes it and gives the first got him pressure. from the first got the impression you for a number of expressions of concerns about some the things commissio

i think the decision of ntia is remarkably strategic. it actually tells the world we mean what we say. we mean no government control. we are going to make sure that we do not end up in the wrong place. i am with you on that. globally, iy and think the u.s. government is doing the world a huge service by making that move at this time. of results that that it actually opens up the focus on this conference on a multi-stakeholder road. was invited to be cochair of the conference. we will make sure that it heads in the right direction. these are all good trends. we should support them. we need our private sector involved. we need our civil society involved. all the people that believe in the open internet, that is it. 's conversation has been so enlightening. switch it offto for a minute. have for the reactions to this conversation? about how you see this thing out? globally --te totally where i think this is headed. the positive trends that are emerging in the importance of bringing a focus to these larger questions. it is a very small piece

movementther is the from the broad band map from ntia's responsibility to the f.c.c.'s responsibility and how we pay for it. can unpackee if i each of those quickly. information technology, request.lion is our is -- our i.t. is old, inefficient and insecure. 40% of our i.t. systems are more than 10 years old. this means that for many of them no vendor support. maintain.re costly to we have, amazingly, i discovered in, 207 different computer systems for an agency of 1700 people. there's not a business in withca that would put up that. our systems are incompatible, other.n't talk to each inefficient.ighly worst of all, they're insecure. happy to go into more detail about that in a nonpublic serious but there are challenges that we have. $13 million, as you pointed out, money.t of we the reality here is if don't spend that now, we will spend that in the next two years the bailing wire and glue that we have to do to hold the existing systems together. the second issue, universal service fund reform is about a $10.8 million expenditure. an $8.4 billion universal fund, unive

and the other is the movement from the, of the broadband map from ntia's responsibility to the fcc's responsibility and how we pay for it. let me see if i can unpack each of those quickly. information technology, 13 1/2 million dollars is our request. our i.t. is old. it is, it is inefficient and it is insecure. 40% of our i.t. systems are more than 10 years old. this means that for many of them there is no vendor support. and they are costly to maintain. we have amazingly, i discovered when i came in, 207 different computer systems for an agency of 1700 people. there is not a business in america that would put up with that. our systems are incompatable. they can't talk to each other. and they're highly inefficient. and worst of all, they're insecure. i would be happy to go into more detail about that in non-public setting but there are serious challenges that we have. $13 million as you point out, mr. chairman, is a lot of money. but, the reality here is, if we don't spend that now, we'll spend that in the next two years in the bailing wire and glue that we have to do to hold the ex

i applaud what very strickland has done -- larry strickland has done by saying that provided the ntia gets an acceptable untied tofor it to be department, to become and enhance its multistate approach to governance, that is a really good way to go. there has been a tremendous amount of concern expressed u.s. abandoning the internet in some fashion which is it is not doing, but providing a multi-stakeholder approach which hopefully will not result in it being a consortium of government. >> you don't see a risk and some authoritarian regimes could get ahold of the internet and create policies that nobody here in this panel would favor? icam being a multi-stakeholder approach and certainly not under the circumstances that has been put stricklandsecretary on how -- what will be an acceptable governance regime. morelipside of that is the the u.s. government is perceived as controlling the internet, and does give voice energy to those that would -- >> that would be injured -- incorrect, right? to thoseoes give voice trying to great rules that would be constraining the internet in their coun

we call it ntia here, from turning over its domaincies testimony, oversight responsibilities pending a g.a.o. report to congress. let's put this report in front of the action. let's have a great discussion about what taking that action of relinquishing oversight would mean. to each eafer -- and every person that is asimbled in this -- assembled in this great room. how is that going to affect our constituents? how is it going to affect american innovation? let's have those discussions now. let's not make a mistake. i also highlight h.r. 4070, a piece of legislation i have authored. the internet freedom act to barr the funk particular and their actions on net neutrality. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. pursuant to rule 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today. records. there are other records held by third parties, for example, e-mails, searches of the thatnet, financial records i believe are covered under to 15. i am just trying to figure if that is your understanding. >> the ways we are tr