tv Washington This Week CSPAN September 17, 2016 4:00pm-6:01pm EDT
new technology. where you see civil society folks and the action on their side is when the law was passed last year -- i believe it was, that bloggers who had over 3000 hits a day had to register as an official news site, and were then put under the control of the same kinds of centers that helped run the russian media. a lot of blockers who were -- af affected by that decided to do something different. there would be a sign up on their website. and they would send an e-mail -- only to one person. they were able to circumnavigate the restrictions of these laws. but it's getting a lot harder. but there are concerns about facebook and twitter being appealed to by these governments
when we don't stand up and take notice that this happens. we as ordinary citizens say -- crack on this, let's try to get people to investigate this so governments and corporations like facebook and twitter aren't just cooperating with government -- you may end up in a situation where our worst fears about government control of the internet can come true. i thought that was a great question because it gets at the theme of what do we expect from the internet. there used to be the phrase "liberation technology, right? it is the main vector
of free speech. that is where context can be shared. it is where people can meet and discuss. thens for a long time open. but i would say it reflects -- our moods about the internet movements in the world. as things are liberalizing globally, the internet was flourishing. clampdowns a global and more authoritarianism, more and more authoritarians are using the internet for oppression. it is part of a broader global trend. it is both things. it is simultaneously the best avenue for free speech in many
time, aand at the same space that is closing. and there is the potential for greater and greater forms of surveillance. russia, we have to get around these restrictions. itin the soviet years -- looks like we are headed that way again. we have the publication of music, literature. that we cans idea use these encrypted networks, messaging services to pass around information, and perhaps that is being done. andcertain that it is urine
i think -- i'm certain that it is. and i think they are using those new tools to undermine the regime. to respondconfidence on technology, but i did want to point to national ideology. i would say we have gone further mean the russian state, we have gone further back than the soviet period. it has gone back to zoller is an, the -- to tsarism, to tsarist ideology with the russian orthodox church. it's not only the russian orthodox church.
plays an important role, russian society increasingly, but also in his foreign policy. i'm from the public affairs council. it seems to me the issues you many about exists in many, countries in the world where you have authoritarian regimes who tried to maintain their control and mask their violations of thec human rights under aegis of terrorism or security or those kinds of things. and when we talk about the russian orthodox church, religioussay it's the community or it is the official understanding of islam. if you violate that, you are speaking against the profit or whatever. and they use these laws to quash
dissent against governments that are authoritarian and not democratic. the united you think states brought this about? do things like arrest sins of thousands of people and brought them into guantánamo or ?se black sites and how much have we lost the moral high ground in saying -- look, you can't use terrorism in these broad brush strokes? i feel like some of them may be using our playbook -- if not now , then in using terrorism to do things that are not appropriate. international law does restrict --
>> international law does not restrict religion. that is the high international standard. when we think about russia, we , thereremember russia were various wars in chechnya. i don't think russia looks to us to learn a lot of techniques. >> hannah and miriam? hannah: i would say precisely what catherine said. using security as excuse, russia really learned that in the 1990's when it was fighting these wars in chechnya and dealing with some of the ideas of separatist states. not only chechnya. there were these religiously or ethnically different regions and -- i am russia and at the
time, that was one of the tools that was utilized. we have time for one more question -- >> with time for one more question. the lady in magenta. >> hi. i know you expect an anti-russian question here, but since this is the last question, i wanted to see if any of you will venture an answer, and that is how many more cycles of westernizing and repression do we have to live through in russia to get them to be a western democracy? you know? as a transatlantic cyst, i think i as a transatlanticist,
think of russians as europeans. how many more cycles of this are -- are we going to see a liberal democracy china before we see this? >> anyone want to take a stab at that one? >> russia is eurasia. so it will always perhaps be, you know, and they kind of -- thank you. >> it is a little bit of a slope between the two. is -- i think it is a hope that a lot of people have. you go to russia. cities,arly the larger it does feel more open than it would have in 1989. there has been a change in the everyday lives of people.
they have been much freer now for 25-some years. well succeed in closing that space again, but i have a hard time believing it will ever go away among that generation of people who came of age during perestroika and glasnost. off and die, i have a hard time thinking the country will ever go all the way back to the 1930's. but the symptoms are there. bes something we should extremely worried about. russia -- kaplan: russia is the most religiously diverse and ethnically diverse country in the world, and instead of making the most of this, it doesn't, as we have been discussing. you abouting to ask
two different russian dissidents. ov, wholexandra yan published a book called "the russian idea" in 2000. idea ofthrough this russian history and said liberalism never become systematic. he says there are traces through russian history. it is always suppressed by some horrible dictatorship and it will slowly, slowly thought, yeah,is an opening, and everything changes except the stereotypes of political change. so, if you are projecting onto what you are saying now, you would see the 1990's as the , it can'tng period systematize it self and goes back to the horrors, very
similar to its past. >> i have another one. the killingar after decidedw, and it was ,hat no one should speak because they should not be criticized. it was starting to rain. they said, ok, we are not going to criticize. it was mostly people who worked thereer, her friend. at was an older gentleman with an umbrella and he takes off his raincoat and he is wearing a vestment and he starts to pray -- he turns around
to us and says, what is this faith, this faith you're supposed to have? what is it? [speaking russian] that good will triumph, even in russia. that is from father gleb. perfect note to end on. if you have time -- i'm sorry, if you have time, we can take questions, but we should really close at this point. thank you. [applause]
>> president obama give his seventh and final keynote address at the congressional black caucus foundation dinner today. hillary clinton will also receive the inaugural trailblazer award as the first woman nominee of a major party in the u.s. live coverage at 7:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> president obama said this week that the united states is ready to lift economic sanctions against myanmar at a meeting at the oval office. he made the statement at a meeting at the white house on wednesday. obama: it is an extraordinary moment for me to aung san suu kyi to the
statehouse. this is not her first visit to the oval office, but this is her first visit in her official capacity. , shei was first elected was still under house arrest. advocacyse -- in part by the united states and others in the international community, but more importantly because of the courage, strength, and resilience of the people, what we have seen over the last several years is a transition to , a legislature that still has significant strengths from the previous military government that is giving voice to the hopes, dreams of a new
,eneration of bernie's people and as a consequence, now aung positionyi is in a with her government to begin social andemarkable political transformation and economic transformation. in part because of the progress we have seen over the last several months. the united states is prepared to lift sanctions imposed on burma for some time. it is the right thing to do to ensure the people of irma see
rewards from a new government. time, -- burma sees reports from a new government. -- as they time, enter into the global economy and if you combine those two efforts, i think this will give the united states, our businesses, our nonprofit greater incentive to participate in what will be a democratic and prosperous partner in the region. to the political transformation, she has helped
conferencea piece can begin to be resolved -- a peace conference can begin to be resolved. they can reach out and address some of the people who historically feel discrimination. and so, there is a broader process of transformation, reconciliation, and hope in a wastry that for decades burdened by a military youatorship, and i can tell when i first visited, i could see the in enormous potential
about to be unleashed, and betterrepresented that than aung san suu kyi. we are very hopeful about the future. we are hopeful about building a friendship and partnership we have already established -- not just with the government, but with the burmese people. i would encourage americans who have the opportunity at some point to travel to burma to do so. it's a beautiful country with a rich culture, wonderful people, mistaken, there is a very welcome tourist industry developing. so, we look forward to on a wholewith you
range of issues and congratulations on the progress you have made. it is not complete. a lot of work remains to be done. but it is on the right track. and if you predicted five years san suu kyi would be sitting here as the duly elected representative of his country, many people would have dismissed it. but it is a good story in an era in which so often we see countries is going in the opposite direction. thank you. i'm very happy to be here because this is an opportunity. a point where,
as president obama said, people did not expect us to reach five years ago. but now we have to go ahead. there's too much that has to be done in our country. said thearty always most important thing is national reconciliation. we have never known a time of peace in the country. there was always fighting going on. there are officially 135 ethnic groups. to onekeep them all purpose is not an easy matter. but we think we can do that. we need a truly democratic federal union, a union in which we can create through diversity,
in which we can celebrate diversity. .e are trying to do that now we are grateful to all our friends. the united states is helping us in this process. but unity also means prosperity. people have to fight over limited resources. they forget that standing together is important. we have to develop material resources. we have to make sure that people are better off materially. there is also the commission headed by dr. kofi annan. communal strife is not something
we cannot ignore. it is to important. it is too serious -- it is too important. it is too serious. we want everybody who is a citizen of our country to be to the full rights of citizenship and we want to make sure that everyone entitled to the right of citizenship is accorded citizenship as quickly and fairly as possible. and we are sincere in trying to -- iftogether communities we can all come together and to eliminate the poverty that so destroys the unity, i think you will be helping not just one
that webut we can prove can overcome. aside put misunderstandings and come to an agreement we can all possess together. hasunited states congress been helpful to our efforts for democratic reform. this is one of the many steps we the democratic reforms. now is the time to take back the sanctions that hurt us economically. position tois in a .ake part
we invite all of you to come to -- to oury inns the country and see how you can invest there and innocent as much as we can. i expect you businessmen to come and make profits. it can make profits for us as well. interested iny successful companies, successful as this enterprises coming to burma, to making new use of the opportunities presented them. and and new investment law will be adopted by the legislature quite soon. we think that our country is in
a position to take it on. ross, economic development is economic- for us, to developer is part of the democratic process. there is still a lot to be done. we have a constitution that is not entirely democratic because it gives the military a special place in politics. i am personally very attached to our military. i want our military to be an honorable institution, respected by the people and capable of protecting and defending our rights. believe that -- cy we will continue to make our country the democratic union our
father stripped off. we will continue to work with the united states, our friend, to make progress socially, politically, economically. and we look for to the day that a say we, too, are in position to help those less fortunate than we are in the world. i would like to take the opportunity to thank the people of the united states and the united states congress and all nongovernmental organizations. also to president obama personally for coming to our country as the first american president ever to have done so and to recognize the potential of our people. thank you. president obama: thank you, everybody.
>> [indiscernible] president obama: good to see you. thank you. we talk with a los angeles reporter about campaign financing in california's 24th district race. how a congressional race in santa barbara, california came one of the most expensive in the country. ,he reporting of javier panzar who works for the los angeles times. think you for being with us. thank you forst: having me. host: tell us about the two candidates. hena: -- caller: -- guest:
has the backing of the whole democratic establishment. justin for reed a 28-year-old. his parents all in a medical devices company in santa barbara and after graduating from ucla works for congressman ed whitfield of kentucky for a year the four moving back to the district, and now he is making his second run for congress. he ran in 2014, but did not make it out of the primary. an expensive race. how much will be spent by the candidates and outside money? is 1.5 million dollars in outside spending. i expect that to go up. i don't know how much, but because santa barbara is such a cheap media market compared to los angeles in the bay area, you can see a million dollars, in
before election day and both campaigns, the last filings are sitting on about $200,000 for for read and $500,000 for the opponent. host: much of that money spent on advertising. here are some of the ads now on the air. >> when congress can't agree on the budget, they shut down the government and keep their salaries. when the great recession hit and county workers were furloughed, he stood with them and gave up his salary as a county supervisor. everybody is trying to make inns meet. i thought it was important we do the same thing. ajal and i carb approve this message. was born andeed
raised right here on the central coast. he was an unstoppable running back. building a small business, he never would take no for an answer. he went to washington just long enough to realize it needed fresh ideas. choose fresh. choose fareed. host: just eat up of many ads on the air in california fell 24th congressional district. that includes salud carbajal and fareed. joining us on the phone, javier story. following the eight different, generational approach almost between the younger republican candidate and the older democratic candidate. more: you could not get different candidates. areed is 28 years old.
his experiences a staffer for a year. carbajal has been in local politics for 20 years. he is fairly well known for his fundraising apparatus. not only now, but when he was running for county supervisor. he has the backing of most of the powerful democrats in california. , lois capps, lois capps's daughter, who for a time wanted to run for her mother's seat -- she is backing him. for being aeen hit career politician, i guess is one way to put it, whereas muchn fareed does not have
of a career in politics. he gets to come at it from i'm young, i'm a new kind of republican, and really run against the dysfunction in congress. of loshe district, north angeles. who does it paper? it's an interesting district. for a long time because of gerrymandering, it was known as the ribbon of shame. the district cut a thin slice from the coast down to malibu. .ow it goes further inland you start at the coast with liberal cities like santa barbara and you go inland and you get more of the republican crowds. you get more farmers, more ranchers. group ina significant santa barbara, california. that has produced more
republicans. abel maldonado came out of santa maria. he's a republican. it is an interesting area in that sense, that the democrats do have the advantage among registered voters. they have a six-point lead over republicans, and it being a presidential year, that alone should favor salud carbajal. becoming one of the most expensive races in the country you are panzar, think being with us. thanks for having me. >> president obama will give his seventh and final keynote address at the congressional black caucus foundation dinner today. hillary clinton will also receive the inaugural the firstr award as woman nominee of a major party in the u.s. live coverage here on c-span.
c-span's "washington journal," live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. morning, theday national review editor will talk campaign 2016, recent polling, upcoming debates, and key senate races. chiefhe national memo in role will talk about his in the clinton foundation and campaign 2016. these sure to watch c-span's "washington journal," live at 7 a.m. eastern. join the discussion. >> now the applications of the obama administration's proposal a domain name. -- this portion of
the senate judiciary hearing is an hour and 45 minutes. senator cruz: this hearing is called to order. .elcome the internet is one of the most revolutionary forces ever unleashed on the world. this transformational technology has changed how we learn, how we communicate, how we do commerce, how we live our lives. meet and get- married over the internet. and of course, the internet did not invent itself. it was not invented by politicians. it was invented by the incredible ingenuity of the american people with the
financial support of american taxpayers. in the spirit of freedom and generosity that is the essence of our great nation, the american people did not try to just forinternet themselves, but made it available for the benefit of all humanity. since the internet's inception, the united states has stood guard over critical internet functions. in almost any other country, that power could have been used to deny internet access to websites that were deemed politically undesirable or unpopular or threatening. but not here. not the united states. because of the first amendment to our constitution, which affords more protections to speech than anywhere else in the world, the united states government, as long as it has the authority to oversee the infrastructure of the internet, has a duty to ensure no website is denied internet access on
account of the ideas it espouses. has become truly in a way sis of freedom. but that could soon change. , without seeking the consent of the american people, without seeking the consent of congress, the obama administration has stated it intends to relinquish the guardianship and give it to an international body known as i can. what is i can? -- ican? is not a democratically elected -- it is not a democratically elected group.
sadly, officials have begun showing extraordinary affinity worstina, the world's abuser of freedom according to freedom house in 2016. icann's recently departed president and ceo, who shepherded the transition plan through the obama administration, made china a central focus within icann and the future of that organization. he is on record saying "from standpoint, engagement with china is not an option. if we do not engage with china at every level of our community, we frankly lose a part of our lobal legitimacy." it is striking that in organization we are being told we should trust
censor on the internet. he left icann after the transition plan was approved to lead a high level working group 4 -- wait for it -- china's world internet conference. the conference that was rightly criticized for refusing to let and washington post reporters cover it. reporters without borders calling a boycott, china an enemy of the internet. yet, we are being asked to trust an organization without our
government having the authority to protect the speech, to trust an organization whose former leader who shepherded this plan has gone to associate himself with those who are the enemy of the internet. once the government is out of amendmente, first protections go away. the first amendment finds government. it does not bind by the individuals. that means when icann escapes the government authority, government escapes worrying about your rights or my rights. run likef internet is one of our large private universities today. with speech codes. an internet that determine some terms are too scary -- micro aggressions are two troubling.
we will not allow them to be spoken on the internet. or like far too many european countries that punish so-called hate speech -- a notoriously malleable concept that has often been used to suppress rules disfavored by those in power. or imagine an internet run by many middle eastern countries that punish what they deem to be blasphemy. or imagine it internet run like china or russia that punish or incarcerate those who engage in political dissent. now some will say none of that parade of horribles will happen. there is nothing to fear here in handing control of the internet to this international group of .takeholders well, that is what this hearing
is here to determine. is there something to fear? a questionpoint out i think a lot of americans are asking is why risk it? internet right now works. it's not broken. what is the problem that is trying to be solved here? that is what this hearing is about as well. i welcome the witnesses. welcome the congressman. >> thank you, chairman cruz. talk about the freedom of the internet. that is something that i believe everyone in this room, regardless of their partisan stripes, will support. i am going to take a moment and talk about what should be happening. a meeting on the present's
nominee to the supreme court, chief judge merrick garland. i would not think that would be a partisan issue either. yet, six months has passed since the present nominated chief judge garland. six months without a hearing of this committee, six months since the president nominated someone, and six months since we have the opportunity for this nominee of experience, intellect, and character outages to answer questions before the american people. there is also important work that this committee has left an done so far. we sent a letter about whether our jurisdiction sufficiently protect our american elections from the interference of foreign entities and since then are often more reports of cyber attacks targeting multiple boards of elections. unfortunately the subcommittee has not responded to this
concern and it appears that there may not be any such hearing in advance of november's elections. with a vacancy on the supreme court and foreign cyber threats, both issues, which at unaddressed threaten our democracy. this is an important issue that the senate has reviewed in great cap. we are here to talk about the transition of these functions to a multistate older community. there have been twofold hearings on this topic in this congress. internetip of the -- under itsority current contract with the internet corporation for assigned numbers or icann, the establisheds that
procedures are followed. thatit has performed verification, it authorizes the implementation. remove theion would intermediary in this essentially clerical process, allowing it to be completed more quickly. it is not the united states it giving up ownership of the internet. the united states does not own the internet. repeating. today, the united states does not own the internet. and transitioning of this function our government has had a small role in performing to a non-governmental group of technical experts is a process that has been ongoing since 1998 across republican and democratic administrations. it is important we execute this transition properly to ensure
these security of our homeland and are fundamental value of expression. done properly, this transition can enhance our credibility on the international stage and allow us to play a role in keeping the internet free and open for decades to come. good reason or done improperly, we miss a key opportunity to demonstrate our leadership to the internet. that is why a multi-stakeholder group, including technical societies have engaged in a thorough process to chart this organization. the committee has exchanged over 30,000 e-mails. i want to thank our witnesses. these stakeholders have carried out the important task of making key that this satisfies
requirements. that includes the maintenance of the security and resiliency of and the maintenance of the openness of the internet. would not -- they would wouldcept a proposal that replace it with a governmental or an intergovernmental solution. after this multi-stakeholder process over many years the plan has not only garnered the support of the ncaa and has the support of troops and civil society organizations who share our interest in the freedom, security, and opportunity represented the internet. i ask unanimous consent that a articles be entered
into the record. of many, i will briefly mention -- facebook, cisco, hp, the internet association, the internet society. the u.s. chamber of commerce. ambassadors. seven civil society groups and many others. this is an important part of the record of this hearing. local, leading internet companies in the united states. marketplace is a for global business, and i know we must engage with individuals, the private sector, and other governments to preserve the
internet as a platform for communication. there has been a lot of charged rhetoric about this transition in recent months. i am eager to move eons the rhetoric and to understand in detail how this can protect u.s. interests and promote the free expression on global commerce to flourish. thank you. senator cruz: thank you, senator coons:. senator grassley? it is theassley: united states's stewardship and its role over key internet management functions that helps this openness, security, and stability.
today, this administration intends to end this role, not considerations, but for political reasons. this is happening despite the fact that the number of police transferred a transfer of united states government property, how the transfer will affect human rights and free speech issues, if u.s. controlled top level domains .mail could bed compromised or the assigned names and numbers would be subject to increased antitrust scrutiny. we have continued to engage about this transition and to date, the answers we have
received have been inadequate. it is clear the administration has not conducted a thorough legal analysis of many issues icann,ding, and i -- in we see an organization lasted just this last july by an for itsent review panel inability to conduct the basic duties of self governance. governance committee has "failed several transparency obligations, engaged in cavalier treatment of constituent requests, and failed to undertake an examination of whether icann staff or contractors complied with their obligations under the articles and the laws of incorporation." seriousrriers raise
concerns about the ability of globalo exercise proper oversight and call into question icann's maturity. these problems make icann susceptible to corruption and abuse and call for the extension 's contract in oversight and involvements. reasons why i have always questioned whether the transfer is in the best interest of the american people and global internet users. these concerns still persist, indicating this course is misguided and premature.
i appreciate, senator cruz, you're taking the leadership during this meeting and i look forward to what the witnesses have to testify about. you, mr.ruz: thank chairman. the witnesses in our first panel are the honorable lawrence e. st rickling, and administrator for , a graduate of the university of maryland at harvard law school -- mr. strickland previously served as a senior official in the federal menstruation. mr. goran marby is the president and ceo of icann.
thereviously served as director general of the independent regulatory body swedish post and telecom authority. prior to this he served because the chin of ceo at -- he served gate.o for ap andpga i would ask both witnesses to rise and raise your right hand -- your left hand will do. [laughter] and i hope that you recover soon. do you affirm the testimony you are about to give both of the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? well. , we will hear your testimony first. mr. strickling: thank you for the opportunity to come here testify for freedom --
specifically internet freedom. i come here to testify for free speech and civil liberties. transferring to the global stakeholder community is the best hope for protecting internet freedom. it has been a key criteria for transmissions from the day we announced your the best and most effective way to preserve internet freedom is to depend on the community of stakeholders who own and operate, transact information over the myriad of networks that comprise the internet. thes protected iv open centralized nature -- by the open, decentralized nature of the internet and the commitment of stakeholders to maintain openness. freedom house reported recently internet freedom around the world has declined for the fifth
consecutive year. but the prescription was clear -- to encourage the u.s. government to complete the transition to a fully privatized domain name system. what will not remain in effect is the continual of the functions contract -- that is too limited in scope to be a tool for protecting internet freedom. tosimply designate icann maintain the functions of parameters, ip numbers, and the root zone file. authorityt grant ntia cyclic committee. could lead to the loss of the internet freedom we want to maintain. the potential of serious issequences from extending
very real and has implications for the credibility of the united states and the global community. privatizing has been the goal of republican and democratic administrations since 19 nice seven. prior to our announcement to complete the privatization, some tia'snments used n stewardship to justify that other governments should take control of the domain name system. failing to follow through on the transition or unilaterally agreement -- as for homeland security secretary michael chertoff and james cartwright of the joint chiefs of staff recently wrote --
rejecting or delaying the transition would be a gift to those governments threatened by a free and open internet. the global internet community has comprised governments engaged in some of the most compelling demonstrations of a multi-stakeholder process ever undertaken. the plan and obtaining support from all aspects of the community, it is no surprise they support the transition. they want the united states to follow through on it long-standing commitment to privatizing the system. i realize the transition raises important questions. none are more important than the prioritized.
upon the community's completion of the plan, in tia -- ntia mr. strickling: no one has taken issue with our conclusion. despite the open and transparent misperceptions and misrepresentations continue to circulate. we will have time to talk through those this morning. let me close with a commitment and an observation. my commitment is this, after the completion of the transition, ntia and the u.s. government will continue to be a forceful
advocate to advance american interests. nothing about the transition will reduce the level of effort we put into representing american interests on these issues. let me quote an analysis released yesterday. "in reality, the internet is not ours to give away. if congress blocks the transition, it will only make it more likely that the internet will be hijacked by a authoritarian governments and special interests." give a giftdo not to russia and other authoritarian nations by blocking this transition. show your trust in the private sector and the work of american businesses who have delivered a thoughtful plan. please support this long promised privatization.
thank you. and i look for to your questions. >> thank you. chairman, ranking members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here. i am honored to discuss those issues and welcome the opportunity to answer your questions. step in the next internet's addressing system is coordinated. if i were to leave you with one point today, it is this, no one controls the internet. you can think about it as a machine with many moving parts. can be replaced and that machine. has nothing to do with
protecting free speech on the internet. internet with its many moving parts is currently running smoothly. a voluntary arrangement among private actors operating on the basis of trust. 's primary job is to coordinate the top level of the internet naming systems. essentially we publish the telephone book for the internet. icann plays a small but insignificant role working together with other organizations. it is important to note that icann is not a regulator. the only power we have is through contracts and agreements with entities across our
community. california ifis a it nonprofit organization, and these agreements are subject to california law. let me add that icann is not now or ever been exempt to antitrust laws. contract expires, nothing will change for the world's internet users. the ending of this contract will not increase the role of governments. in fact, there will be a strict requirement. governments that do not support a free and open internet do not support the transition. they hope it will fail or be delayed. the proposal submitted to u.s. government were developed by industry, businesses, experts,
civil society, and academia. stakeholders engaged in two years of discussions and compromises, devoted thousands of hours of work to ensure always taken into account. the proposal built in checks and balances to hold organizations accountable. this is why the transition is widely supported by the u.s. business community, u.s. human rights organizations, and global internet stakeholders. the global internet community including all these u.s. companies, organizations, and users has called for this. ready and we will proceed without delay. thank you. i look forward to your questions.
>> thank you, gentlemen. , you said you are here to testify in support of freedom, and you said freedom "depends on the network of stakeholders." now you and i are both graduates of harvard law school, somehow we have survived that. mr. strickling: you better than me it appears. >> the first amendment by its terms applies only to state government actions, american governments. the first amendment does not wind foreign governments -- bind for governments and private private corporations.
would you agree? mr. strickling: yes, sir. >> none of the stakeholders are bound by the first amendment with protecting our rights, and indeed you cited a number of the global technology companies. in your judgment, do the global technology companies have a strong and an impeccable record of protecting free speech online? mr. strickling: sir, i would like to make two comments in response. in your opening remarks, you posited a vision or a scenario of icann and the u.s. government's role that does not comport with the facts. >> i ask you a simple question. do the global technology companies have a good record of protecting free speech online? mr. strickling: i would believe they do a fine job of that, but
i'm in no position to say they have done a perfect job. the comparison is how it will be different between the existing situation and what will be in the future. when you talk about the first amendment protecting content online, you're talking about website providers operating at the second level, third level of the domain name system. and the u.s. government has no role whatsoever with respect and how itmain names is handled internationally. when you posit some first amendment protection exists today, i'm not sure which are talking about. when you're talking about website owners, we are not involved in that. i will say it israel
markable and distressing to see a senior representative of the obama administration saying you what i'm talking about when it comes to first amendment protections. right now under the existing disagreedt, if icann with the political content, i am assuming your agency would step in. mr. strickling: you are not positing a realistic scenario. we are talking about the names that other people would use to develop their own websites, so innn would never be involved a takedown of a second level or third level site except to the extent it is involved with their compliance issues. sen. cruz: you just said that it asld not do that except it
part of their contract compliance, but this is all part of the context under which they contractting under a with the u.s. government. mr. strickling: please don't interrupt me. : i apologize. shiftsuz: the oversight to multinational stakeholders. testified in response to the question i asked you earlier that you think that the global technology companies have a "fine" record protecting free speech. i am not comforted with trusting our freedom to companies with an "fine" record, although you said not perfect. because for example microsoft, facebook, and youtube, all of whom are supporting this
, signed a code of conduct with the european union to remove so-called hate speech from european countries in less than 24 hours. that is not what i would call a fine record of protecting free speech working with governments to take down speech they disagree with. recently facedok serious allegations of censoring speech on its platform to silence conservative voices. and i would note that this is not uniform one direction or another. that i would suggest is not a the record of protecting
first amendment. they are not government entities bound by the first amendment, but the united states government is, and for those of us that want the internet to remain free , want to avoid internet , being told that we stakeholdersthese when their conduct over and over again in deed recently the journal of law, technology, and policy said "prominent american corporations including cisco systems, microsoft, sun microsystems have all played a part in quickly equipping china with censorship equipment." asking the american people to trust private companies with control over their free speech and remove the u.s. government role. mr. strickling: i am not, senator vitter that is absolutely not correct. sen. cruz: what is incorrect? mr. strickling: the united states involvement is only
involved with the functions performed by icann, top-level domains. this has nothing to do with what choices individual companies make in terms of what they put on their own websites. whats nothing to do with is happening with the content of what is causing on the internet day by day. authority inle or that. all we are suggesting is that contract in which all we do is verify that changes to the root zone file have been made accurately no longer has a technical reason to exist and no longer has a political reason to exist because of anything it is being used by authoritarian governments who do want to control content, who do want to affect what goes over the internet, it gives them the opportunity to argue for that andrnational then you attempt to take control away from the multi-stakeholder body that performs these functions today. sen. cruz: you testified before this committee that the american
government would remain, i think an term you used was "forceful advocate" of free speech. that is very much the same qnguage used on the ntia's and a doctrine that says the united states "will continue to play an active leadership role in advocating for a free and open internet within icann as a member of the governmental advisory committee and other international venues." simply being told that we will argue the first amendment and try to convince russia, try to convince china, try to convince iran that the first amendment is a good idea within the governmental advisory committee of this transition goes forward, with united states government have any greater ability to defend its position than what russia or china or iran? mr. strickling: the important
point to take away from the government advisory committee is that for it to render advice that has any force with the board, it has to be consensus advice, meaning it has to be a advice to which no government objects, which means there will of thet vies coming out governmental advisory committee that compels the board to take action with respect to it. rejectse, the border can bad advice as they do today. mr. strickling: just to clarify your answers to the question. ,t the transition goes forward the united states would be on the very same footing as would russia, iran, or china? mr. strickling: that is correct. what i am telling you is that nothing will go forward that the united states does not agree with. sen. cruz: very good. we will continue this questioning. that we havee sure got our basic facts right.
first, it has been presented political this is a agenda by the obama administration to "relinquish the historic guardianship of the internet to an international body." if i understand your testimony correct, the choices before us are continuing on a transition path that would privatize, not relinquish, 29 nations or the itu or a multi-government body to privatize the dns function essentially to allow icann to continue to perform its function, which is technical and does not involve censorship of the internet. mr. strickling: that is correct. have thes: does icann ability to censor internet content? mr. marby: no, we don't. sen. coons: is this a political
agenda of this administration or has this enjoyed bipartisan support across several administrations and across a wide range of members of congress? this has been a long-standing commitment of administrations both democratic and republican going back to 1998. sen. coons: one of the questions asked, do we have something to fear is a question i will put you in a different way. what concerned should we have if this transition doesn't go forward? how would other stakeholders act? how would it embolden authoritarian regimes? what is the alternative if we delay this transition? what happens next? mr. strickling: the long-standing debate over internet governance over the last 10 years has been do these stakeholders who built the internet, the businesses, the technical experts, civil society , should they be the ones making
decisions about how the internet grows and thrives? they have been the ones doing it and you have to like the record they created based on the incredible growth, innovation, job creation, that has occurred as a result of the internet, or under the other hand, do governments run it. several years ago in 2012, that debate took an ugly turn when at an international conference in dubai for the first time a majority of governments wanted agency a united nations more authority in the space. many speechesy and testimony before, people use the fact of this functions , people being other governments, as an excuse to argue that if the united states is in there, we ought to be there as well. we saw the outcome of that in ofai where the vote
the u.s. was in a minority. since then, we have through international diplomacy worked hard to reverse that impression and have worked hard to build support for the multi-stakeholder model among governments in the developing world, governments that had not made up their mind yet. said nothing about this transition will change the views of russia and china, and .hey are right russia and china cannot do this by themselves. it works by their ability to convince other countries to vote with them on these things. if this transition does not go forward, our credibility as a power in terms of supporting the multi-stakeholder model will be shot. thee will be people who say united states has reneged on its promises and it will be exploited by these foreign governments at world conferences that will be starting up as early as october. we havens:on the one
governments who censor content within their own countries advocating for a transition of this function to a united nations body, a body run by government. mr. strickling: yes. you are part of a multi-stakeholder process that is in stead the alternative seeking to privatize it. mr. strickling: that is correct. out coons: to take the ntia of a purely clerical functions that does not censor our control antent in order to take away argument that authoritarian regimes have? mr. strickling: yes. sen. coons: if we don't perceive proceed, those of the authoritarian regimes will have a hand. how many countries do you think delaying this transition might persuade them that some multigovernment agency is better than privatization?
sen. coons: through the efforts of the state department and ntia over the last 2-3 years, we have basically brought about 30 of those governments on board. they and evenat like-minded governments who have long been supporters of this the see a backtracking on u.s. government support of the multi-stakeholder model as perhaps an argument to go a different direction. a few quick questions before i relinquish this round. continue to be subject to u.s. law after this transition? we will be subject to california law, yes. sen. coons: any reason to be concerned that icann might suddenly change its state of incorporation, by laws compliance with u.s. law? at all.y: not
everything is based on california law. i would like to add that my biggest concern is not about the governments. i also want the committee to understand that this is a voluntary system that nobody controls with different moving parts. if the transition does not happen, there could be another icann outside the u.s. with no protection of anything else. it is a voluntary system that works together for the in a fit of it all, but it could be replaced. so just because the structure, the architecture come of the network of networks that is the internet was initially developed and designed in the united states by u.s. agencies and companies does not mean that that has to continue to be the case. if the international voluntary global multi-stakeholder community that currently maintains this architecture and
function internationally, if they lose confidence in the process towards a privatization transition, they may instead set up competing systems. current network of networks might begin to fracture further, and that would harm the internet functioning in its current architecture? mr. marby: yes. sen. coons: what safeguards are there in this transition against what has been raised as one of the things we should be concerned about, what safeguards are there against potential capture of icann by foreign governments in the future? mr. strickling: there are many. governments can't sit as voting members of the board of directors. two, there has now been a strengthening of the provision under which the -- can provide consensus advice to the board. it is now the find in the
bylaws, advice to which no country objects. that means that advised to which the board has to provide special attention or special consideration now only will apply to advise the united states government agrees with. that ito the extent created this empowered community , exercise powers against the board in terms of reviewing and approving the budget, even removing board members, governments, if they choose to participate in that and they haven't yet and indeed it the position of the united states that governments should remain advisory and not participate in the community, all theld be one of other members of the community and indeed they would not be able to participate if the advice that was being challenged by the community was advised that the government advisory committee have produced, so there is no possibility of
governments being able to take therol of icann through provisions that have now been put in the bylaws. this was one of our core criteria when we announce the transition in 2014, and the community responded quite thoroughly in making sure that the plan that they drafted would prevent that from ever happening. to. coons: i would like thank you both for your testimony so far. this is a complicated technical area, but imported to keep the simple facts straight. we are debating between two potential paths, one where authoritarian regimes have greater likelihood of compelling a transition to control the functions we are talking about an agency or multigovernment agency, or a future where the international structure of the internet fractures and competing where theare set up transition that has been underway across several
administrations republican and democrat that has been worked out marching through a consensus process, much of it private sector led, it is essentially a privatization of a. really clerical function that is essential to the operation of the internet, but is in no way involved in censorship on the internet. is that your testimony today? mr. strickling: yes or. sen. coons: thank you both very much. mr. strickling, i agree on the importance of continued u.s. domain of the top names. in 2015, you testified that you would take a look and make sure that if there is a way we can strengthen the u.s. government's rights to those names, we will do it. and while it was affirmed that only be madede can
with the express approval of the u.s. government, we have come to learn that the information has come not through a binding legal agreement, but by an exchange of letters, and it remains possible that icann could re-delegate these. why is the administration content to receive so little assurance, a mere letter, instead of a binding legal agreement from icann? has the ntia consulted with the justice department, a member of the dns interagency working group regarding this language? if so, what was their response? mr. strickling: the answer to your first question is the united states does not wish to cede sovereignty that we may have, and that is why we have done this as an exchange of letters. the united states prior to the creation of icann had the complete authority and control. that condition exists today and
will continue on in the future. contract in some respect risks that they have rights or control or authority over those names that it does not have today. in evaluating the desirability of doing a contract it became clear that understanding the history of these domain names, that that was a risky maneuver and might lead to the united states ceding some form of authority over these names we enjoy today. what aboutey: consulting with the justice department? mr. strickling: we consulted with the department of defense because it operates .mil. i don't recall whether there was a specific discussion about it, but this was the course of wish tohat the operator take in terms of doing this as an exchange of letters as opposed to doing a contract. opposedssley: is icann
to executing a binding legal agreement with the administration that would ensure that the u.s. continue to top-levelrtain domains like the ones i mentioned permanently into the future? . i think it is up to the u.s. government. restate the like to fact that if the transition does not go through and icann is replaced with something else, which it can be technically, there will be no safe haven for those names. sen. grassley: let me ask you hashing that senator oons has touched on. the location of icann could
potentially change. your predecessor went so far as to announce in 2014 that icann board had "given him the green light to begin working on the creation of a parallel legal international structure and sizzlin for icann." no matter how much the wish toration and icann downplay this issue, it is one that many people are rightly concerned about and an issue that has not truly been settled. opposed ton including requirements in icann 's bylaws to definitively ensure place ofn's incorporation never changes from california, or is it impossible and a reason why this transition should not go for? the protection is stronger than the bylaws. is whole concept of icann
built around california law. to do it, you have to go down to how we are organized. it is a stronger protection than just the bylaws. sen. grassley: mr. chairman, i am done. sen. cruz: thank you, chairman grassley. >> thank you, mr. chairman. , i would like to start with you. observers, some legal scholars and other analyst of this industry have contended that any protection from that icanniability may have enjoyed ended in 2009. however, there is a 2015
decision rendered by a panel of the u.s. court of appeals affirming the dismissal of antitrust claims brought by namespace. the ninth circuit suggested that some insulation from antitrust .iability may still remain more to the point, the ninth circuit's reasoning supports a conclusion that this continuing measure of protection, what ever it is that remains of the protection from antitrust liability, may fall away with the expiration of the ntia contract, that somehow whatever insulation remains would disappear. in particular, the ninth circuit reasoned that you could not inferred that icann into it into an anticompetitive agreement as part of an insider driven
process for shaping the bidding process for new top-level domains was "fully consistent with its agreement with the department of commerce." explanation, the court noted "that it was understood inception that its board would include industry insiders and that the board would approve the application process." so i would like to ask you the thetion, did given uncertainty of the situation as far as antitrust law goes and the uncertainty that is acknowledged by the ninth circuit in this opinion, did ntia reach out to the department of justice antitrust division for an opinion on possible liability risks that icann might and its boardann of directors might face
following the removal of insulation from a normalized and analysist brought about by the contract?" during theing: evaluation of the transition plan, there was an interagency committee of federal agencies, including the department of justice as part of that process. the department of justice looked at whether there were competition concerns that might result from this transition, and they concluded that there were none. it has been our view that icann has not enjoyed antitrust liability not going back to its , sotion in the late 1990's we have never seen a transition as taking away something that they hold today because we do not recognize that they have any antitrust immunity today. is also the department of justice's view, so that the transition obviously then would
not change that circumstance because they don't have it now, and they won't have a going forward. youso that was all if i waited as part of our overall review of the transition proposal. don't dispute that some courts have seen it differently? mr. strickling: i don't hold as an antitrust expert. i know the department of justice for thered a briefing chairman, and i assume members intoe subcommittee, to go that and greater depth. i am aware of a 2009 case that has been cited as providing some level of immunity. it is not really an antitrust immunity. it is derived from sovereign immunity, but that case did not involve icann. it involved a predecessor. the court case you are describing in the ninth circuit, the 2015 case, i thought that holding was there was no cause
of action stated. i don't believe they made any finding of immunity as part of their holding. it was a different sort of ruling. they did not find they were immune and the same sense that the they would have been if they were a government actor, but there was this connection to the government entity that seem to be significant in finding the liability. mr. strickling: am i correct that they found no cause of action sen. lee:. ? sen. lee: correct. my time is expiring. nonprofit corporation and it is organized under california law. it has been since its inception in 1998. to remainingitted domiciled in california subject to both u.s. and california law post-transition? mr. marby: yes.
sen. lee: ok. in a position of saying we want to keep our options open? it is committed to remaining in california? mr. marby: as i said, the basis of icann is built around california law. the bylaws are founded on them. the charter of the organization is founded on california law. the 2000 plus contracts we have with you from registrars around the world are all based on california law as well. sen. lee: thank you. i see my time has expired. sen. cruz: thank you, senator lee. mr. marby: could i have 15 seconds please. sen. grassley: i would like to know from you for clarification whether or not it is in the
you canis there no way see it here and definitively place of that icann's incorporation will never change? mr. marby: first of all, let me explain my role. i am the president of the icann organization. made has to that is be made by the community, and not by me. that is the way this is set up. i am here to execute the wishes of the community. you can't assure us then that it is always going to be under california law in california? mr. marby: to be able to change where we are because of the fact we are built upon california law, we have the charters and bylaws built on california law, i would say it would be a very hard thing to do. i think it would be easier to start a new icann elsewhere with
no california law as a basis. thank you, mr. chairman. let's stay focused on this question. you have made a lot of references to the bylaws. and we were told we should entrust the bylaws because we were told that nothing could go out without consensus. under california law, does anything prevent icann from changing his bylaws? checks andthere are balances built into the system to change those bylaws. can cruz: so, yes, icann change those bylaws. after the transition, icann could change the bylaws? mr. marby: if you're referring to the icann organization, the answer is no.
sen. cruz: icann cannot change its own bylaws? mr. marby: to be able to make sure that nobody takes control which consist of the community, the board, and the organization, which is a support organization. the only ones that can change the proposed bylaws is the community, which is consisting of businesses. so to clarify your testimony is the community, the u.s. businesses who have had a questionable record of protecting free speech in the past have the authority to change the bylaws in the future, is that correct? stated earlier, if someone really wants to change this setting, it is easier to start an alternative icann outside the u.s. sen. cruz: i'm asking if the bylaws can be changed. it isrby: i would say
hardly possible with so many checks and balances in the system? sen. cruz: this is not a hard question. either the bylaws can be changed or they can. mr. marby: i cannot do it. community has checks and balances, but the bylaws are built on california law. sen. cruz: under california law, the bylaws can be changed by the stakeholder community, correct? mr. marby: the checks and balances represent u.s. users and the internet system as well. it's not only u.s. companies, therefore that's why this transition has so many parts. yourcruz: follow up on exchange with chairman grassley. can you tell this committee today that there is zero possibility that icann will choose to move abroad to a foreign jurisdiction? mr. marby: i don't have the mandate to take that decision,
as i explained earlier, and we have no intention of moving icann. cannot saybut you there is zero possibly be that it will occur? mr. marby: i would say it is highly improbable to do that. sen. cruz: let me ask you. on february 21, 2014 before the french senate first, to begin working on the creation of a parallel legal international structure may be in switzerland for icann ." french he telling the senate something different from what you are telling the american senate. mr. marby: first of all, i cannot read it. i cannot expand it because i don't know what the circumstances under which he said that. sen. cruz: you have no explanation for your predecessor making reference to grading an international organization in switzerland for icann. mr. marby: neither him or me
have that mandate. if you look back to how we set it up, also the u.s. government was satisfied with the protection we built in. talking about your predecessor, let's talk about another aspect of his record. that he stated if we do not engage with china at every level of our community, we frankly lose part of our global legitimacy, and indeed after , he became cochair of an advisory committee to the world internet conference organized by china. reportersafter without borders called for a boycott on that conference, saying that china was an enemy of the internet. do you agree with his views of china? maybe this is my english, i don't really understand the question.
withcruz: do you agree your predecessors views about china, but the legitimacy of china, about the need to work with them, even when they are censoring the internet? mr. marby: my understand is there are 300 million internet users in china can we are a nonpolitical, technical community that works to be able to make sure that the internet functions technically. i cannot vouch for what my predecessor set in different surroundings. sen. cruz: well, let me ask you this, do you agree with what reporters without borders said , that china is5 "the world's leading enemy of the internet." do you agree with with that? mr. marby: the reason i'm working for icann and took this job and let the private sector
is because i think internet is a vehicle as you believe, senator, to be able to open up hearts and minds of people around the world . what't even go close to you do when it comes to policy and what happens on top of the internet. cannot prevent any country or network owner to prohibit their use is to be able to prohibit access to information on the internet. what we do is to create the opportunity for a network, for other ones to use or not use. it is a voluntary system. thiscruz: sir, let me ask question again. you did not answer it. do you agree with reporters without borders that china is the world leading enemy of the internet? mr. marby: many countries around the world unfortunate prohibit access to information. i think it is bad. sen. cruz: do think china is an enemy of the internet? mr. marby: i don't have the
competence to rank those. sen. cruz: i said you agree that china is an enemy of the internet? mr. marby: i think there is a high potential that if the decision does not go through, that china with other countries we use the possibility to move the position of the icann. sen. cruz: is icann bound by the first amendment? mr. marby: i think you know the answer to that question. sen. cruz: i am asking your views. mr. marby: to my understanding, no. sen. cruz: i want to find and make a point that the criticism, the opposition to transferring control of the internet to an international community of stakeholders without any authority of the u.s. government is bipartisan. it is across the spectrum, because freedom, ensuring the internet free of censorship, is and should be a bipartisan objective. that former obama
administration federal trade commission german has stated that it "it was difficult for the commission to get straight answers out of icann and that if congress cuts the umbilical cord before these issues are ironed out, there will be a lot of risk to consumers." likewise, delaware secretary of from thefrey bullock home state of the ranking member on this committee expressed his views of icann in an august 2016 letter in which he wrote, that legitimate policy concerns have been brushed to the curb by icann to disguise predetermined decisions." likewise, i want to point to yet another famous right-wing organization, the washington
post. the washington post editorial board said "it is bad enough that he's authoritarian governments repress online expression within their borders. they should not be let anywhere near the governance of the internet's global infrastructure." one has yet had a convincing explanation for how the multi-stakeholder model will be immune to pernicious influences of governments. this criticism is widespread. it is bipartisan. it is unified behind the need to preserve freedom online. thank you, mr. chairman. very briefly with out objection i would like to enter those three statements into the record. to my if i might speak friend, neighbor, and former colleague in government, now secretary of state.
the comments he has made if i understand him correctly a related narrowly to -- and whether or not they were being governed are managed in a way that could be misused by entities that are not in fact legal corporations to represent them. it has nothing to do with the transition process that is before us today. let me ask you to bring questions and then make a comment if i could. first, to the assistant secretary, is there anything about this transition of the functions that will newly and power foreign governments to censor the internet? >> no. is there anything about failing to make this transition that might and power foreign governments to have a greater role in the structure and architecture of the internet if we don't afford? their ownling: within
countries, governments can do what they wish today. that is what has led to the common such as the chairman pointed out about china and the practices it engages in to restrict content from its own citizens. there is nothing about the way the internet runs today that us, icann, or anybody else to step in. our hope has to be that over time as the stakeholder groups grow in influence and importance in their own countries, that they bring about the change internally. whole floor of the stakeholder model. what we have seen over the last several years in developing countries is that as countries and businesses in these countries come to meetings and see how this works, as their nascent civil society groups start to develop and emerge and they see how they can participate in this process, as
they work with their local internet society chapters, as they emerge and grow, you are seeing these movements being held up in these developing countries to build this tradition and form of multi-stakeholder control and against government control. that is what we risk losing at this transition does not go forward in terms of cutting off those measures at the knees because countries give up hope was they see the united states is no longer serious about supporting the model. we will hear from a number of witnesses who support the concept of the transition, who support the privatization of the clerical function, but who don't say, but who say it is not ready yet. do you believe this transition plan has been adequately tested and are you confident in the continued security and stability of the internet post-transition? or should we listen to those who
caution, who urge caution and delay? the transitionrickling: is ready now. the only technical it aims that occurs is that the united states will no longer be in the middle of route to zone updates that take place today. today, the change is transmitted to us. withansmitted to verisign instructions to implement the change. technical role would be eliminated. there has been testing over the last many months of this new system that will allow that to occur without the government in the middle, and that system checked out over 90 days of testing error free. we are ready to go forward. what is getting confused and all this are the accountability and improvements. as i said in my opening statement, today, the united states government does not have control over the accountability of -- that has to come from the
community. we have advocated and been a 'srticipant in improving icann accountability. icann committed to conducting three-year reviews top to bottom of their accountability. i per se participated on the first two of those reviews, and import and improvements were made as a result of that. accountability's as a constant effort. it is not something we done once and we are done. these measures that are being talked about in terms of the accountability measures have nothing to do with the functions contract and will come in place on their own authority. is it possible that the editorial from the washington post that was just shown and which is about a year and a half old does not reflect the testing, the improvements, the progress that has been made in preparing for this transition? mr. strickling: more importantly, that editorial was written before a transition come
been completed. sen. coons: i want to ask one last question that i think is important because there was a big display put up, a quote from mr. -- your predecessor and icann leader. i want to be careful about this and get it right because i think the point that was being made with his quote demonstrates the way in which the whole thrust of this hearing gets exactly wrong the moment before send the decision before us. testifying to the french senate, saying that we should begin to develop or allow legal, international structures perhaps in switzerland. i don't know him. i have not read that testimony. i don't know anything more than what was just put up here. isseems to me that what he advocating for is exactly the negative outcome that you are saying is likely if we delay
othersansition, meaning who are fans perhaps of china, russia, or other authoritarian states, others who are suspicious of any u.s. role will begin to actively advocate for creating an alternative to icann that is incorporated in the united states are headquartered in california or largely guided and led by this private sector multi-stakeholder community, but is instead outside the united states headquartered in switzerland. that comment did not reflect an intention for icann to relocate outside the united states. that comment reflected the possibility that a completely alternative competing function, competing group to icann, may well be set up in may will be the first up towards a competing connectionarchitect, of the internet. system, have a global
deposit a clear example, where airplanes takeoff and land all over the world in various airports, and there is essentially one global system by which airplanes and airports communicate with each other and convey their schedules and decide who will take off and land where, by which control towers make decisions about communicating with airplanes and who is going to land win. they are not talking about and advertising of airlines, governing the conversations happening on those planes, but there is one global system for the management of air traffic. imagine there were a competing system for the management of air traffic internationally that did -led system ofu.s. managing air traffic. or not talking about the content of the traffic, just how it flows. if i understood your initial testimony correctly, moving forward with this transition, which you have tested and have confidence is a way to show to the world that we can continue with the current architecture of
the flow, the network of networks, that characterizes the internet. but your predecessor was talking about the very real threat that if we don't proceed with the systemion, a competing for the architecture and control of the internet through a competing corollary, a parallel structure to icann, may move ford. is that correct? mr. strickling: yes, that is correct. there are test of those systems today where you're looking to alternatives, which is happening outside the u.s.. sen. coons: the idea that somehow that court supports that icann is thinking about relocating to another country or that icann is thinking about affiliating with china is exactly wrong. thatquote makes the case there are already efforts to set up an alternative competitor to the open, private sector-led
structure of internet that this transition to icann represents? mr. marby: one of the most accountable aspects of what icann is doing is that we have to serve the internet community, the board, and the community. if we don't perform, we can be replaced. expire,ontract is not we can be replaced. i know this is a technical thing that might seem to be a threat, but that is how the u.s. wants to set up the internet. upt is why when the u.s. set this organization and all its parts to make sure no country or nor organization can control it. that is why the internet consist of so many different moving parts that work together. under the assumption that the u.s. will allow this contract to expire. it is intentionally set up by
the u.s., and the world is grateful for having this model, because it is beneficial not only for the rest of the world, but also for the u.s. and u.s. businesses. today, you can reach 3.4 billion users around the world, but it is set up, tiny parts working together, all of them important, and they can be replaced. sen. coons: thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for testimony and i apologize because i have to run quickly. i just want to ask one question with regard to the second panel coming up that we will be hearing from. from an arizona cubby trying to register a top level don't name and wound up paying over a million dollars to do that at auction. domain name and wound up paying over a million dollars to do that at auction. address the icann
concerns of american trademark holders like >> let me start in terms of the impact by the transition itself. what you are describing is the process established the community as to how they would expand the list of top level domains that are available. as a result of this, hundreds of new domains have gone into the root file. it has nothing to do with the functions. the contract we have with icann that they perform, they say the -- reach files to not this policymaking activity. it will still be up to the community of businesses and everyone to set the policies. the example you are talking about comes right