tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 14, 2014 4:00pm-6:01pm EDT
idea that there should be diplomatic arrangements made behind closed doors and a failure to allow the charts failure to allow charter to operate at the acted to operate. the permanent five members have voting mandate without which the united would probably -- nationsrvived would probably not have survived. the price of utilizing that mandate, the veto as it is called, is that it should be done openly and should be accountable not only before the bar of history but before the international community. that is another matter that i have been urging upon a all who would listen. this is an important time for the security council to step up and consider its obligations as the guardian of peace and security which includes peace and security which is at risk in
a country that executes the second or third highest officeholder in the country within the space of free or four days. >> mark, any comments? we will go right here, and then to the back. >> peter humphrey, i am an intelligence analyst. nuts andndia went of aed to kill millions class distinction, the u.n. would not hesitate to call that genocide even though it is a class distinction. i am troubled by that inconsistency. this is very much genocide against the class, no different than slaughtering other regions. your inclination is the same as the spring commissioners. be thatwe think it may
international law has developed to the point that if you take religion as a reason, religion is not something born in you, a view of your place in the world and the relationship to moral forces and to god. therefore it is much more analogous to politics. we commissioners were inclined to agree with your view, but the plain fact is when the genocide convention was being rented did not extend to politics. cuba and the distant regime recommended that it be expanded to politics can add united states of america was opposed to the expansion give and it was defeated, and it did not happen. this is an area of international law that is involving -- involving, and it should be evolving under the direction that you think is appropriate.
we do not think it is very conceptual at the moment. we had so much evidence of crimes against amenity -- humanity that we did not want to push the envelope when we could deal with the matter with perfect satisfaction under the tribes -- crimes against humanity. >> i see no one in the world working to topple the regime before this idiot has a son of his own. so let me ask the question. >> i am old enough to have gone theots of meetings before all six states were free -- baltic states were free, animal nests -- and i'm old enough for people of to have said nothing would happen. never say nothing. we never took the step in the commission of inquiry to a
regime change. that is not part of our mandate nor did we suggested. what we said was that if you wanted to join up to the united nations as you have come and if you want to sign onto all of the great world human rights treaties, as they have, and if you want to go to the human rights council and participate, as they do, then you need to do better than you have been doing. they are the only country in the world that hardening universal periodic review which goes through the standards of being reserved. they received 167 recalls for improvement that they should adopt. they rejected them all. they did not except one. the only country in the world that has refused to accept a single recommendation. they are not participating in the united nations system as it is intended to participate, and they have to be told by the world community that this is not
acceptable. that their standards are not acceptable. it won't happen overnight, but do not despair. at least this can be said of and we were told this by ambassadors from albania and from the czech republic, and other countries of eastern europe, all of which voted in the human rights council in favor of the recommendations of the commission of inquiry, we were told to never think that what you have done has been without value. you have shown that at this moment in history the united world has taken their suffering seriously, has conduct did a very serious investigation, has done it promptly and has pointed before the appropriate organs of the and and nations. i believe that ultimately the rationale and that is inherent in our dna will reach a conclusion that will make the change.
how it will happen, when exactly will happen, not clear. but it will happen. >> questioned in the back, in the quarter? wait for the light please. >> myto be a great big writer.cam, and i am a judge to congratulate kirby for the historic and extremely monumental work that you have accomplished. yourticularly admire how consider the evolution of international law as an important part of what you have done, in addition to addressing the specific case of north korea. i want to ask if you might consider trying to advance international law are there -- further by stating perhaps through the u.n. general
assembly, because of the political issues of the security k does nothat if dpr follow the map you have laid out on how they need to fundamentally change their way of governing, to respect these basic human rights, that the question of their legitimacy must be addressed because the 1948 issue of which government controls the korean peninsula was never adequately addressed, obviously everyone knows that there was a major war that broke out and it ended in an armistice, not a peace agreement. to this day, you have the republic of korea constitution its sovereignty is
that of the entire korean peninsula, including the northern part. and dprk makes the opposite sort of claim. given what has happened over the dprk is and how the founded on atrocity crimes. lost whatever legitimacy claimant had to a sovereign straight -- state. is interesting, i've not heard a challenge to credentials argued before, and no doubt exists in the literature, but i've not had that raised before. as you know, and was the challenge to the credentials of hands ofen in the china taiwan that led to the soviet union being absent from the security council at the time of the crucial votes that was taken to respond to the korean
south with the united nations force. the soviet union rushed back into the security council, but the motion had already been passed. when the security council became locked when the soviet union was returned, there was a famous uniting for peace resolution which follow later in that year when the general assembly asserted a power to do things as uniting for peace to maintain the united nations presence in the korean war. as to whether they would be wise or useful events, my answer is, in a sense that is not my responsibility. i have to be careful not to exceed my responsibility and authority. ,y responsibility was to report
make findings and make recommendations, and leave it to the political branches as it should be left. the data that you have raised is something that will be considered in various quarters combat i don't think i would like to comment on it. it is an interesting question. you just had to make sure that a permanent member of the security council always remains in the seat. [laughter] >> next question, the woman back there? thank you. thank you for a spectacle report -- spectacular report. on going to the un security council, i have been listening for 20 years to statement saying we are taking things to the u.n., i have also listened to north koreanhe
refugees on the run in russia saying they turn us away. we go to u.n. agencies and we get arrested as we go. i'm getting to the question quickly, but this is the point. anyone who has been to the unh in beijing is guarded by the --e tiny set turn them into return them to the north korean state. , how manyes not work years go by before something else should be done? how much longer does this go on? what is the next resort? this is this great collection of information, but a lot of it has been known for many years now already. what do you do if russia, china, look back at you and say they will do something, but then liana do nothing? or say sorry, go away, or if you
cannot extradite kim jong-un? do we just wait until this works through another generation? >> i refuse to take a negative view. certainly this week i'm not going to contemplate what and if. the correct attitude of mind that if i can say subreport american audience is a very one.ive the power of positive thinking. the power of determination. the power inherent in winston churchill's mottos, never give up, never give up, never give up. i think that is what we have to people,as free and people with the privilege of rights, liberty, and individual courts to uphold them and independent legislature to change things when they are wrong. we have to have a positive
attitude, and not to be thinking well, we're wasting our time. i refuse to think that nine months of my life has been a complete waste of time, and i'm not would be thinking that this week. >> i'm asking you this does not get done in the relatively near term -- are many fallback positions, but the position of the commission of inquiry is that certain steps should be taken. targeted sanctions, referral of , as waser to the icc fur, in the case of dooar as was done in the case of libya, their presidents on this. asse two cases, egregious they were, falling far short of the horrors that were revealed over so many decades in the report on north korea, that would be the proper thing for
the international community now to do. isthis week especially, that what we should all be focusing our attention on. what is the proper thing? so far i must insist the united nations in this matter has acted with great propriety, with great determination, and with integrity. --adopted in the committee the commission the council on they chose three people, all very independent minded people who could be counted on to provide a completely honest report, and that has been done. that report was then voted on by the human rights council, it 1.ted 36-1 -- 30-6-11.
for, six against, 11 abstained. amongst the abstainers, surprisingly perhaps, were india, which at this moment is conducting the greatest exercise in democracy in the planet to the south africa led by nelson mandela whose. we have just witnessed -- funeral we have just witnessed him and indonesia a battleground for respectfully its own dignity and for its human rights. there is still work to be done, nations on this occasion has acted with great energy, propriety, and effectiveness. now his handed over to the political branch, and that is as
it should be. now we have got to see what happens. if it doesn't happen this week about it may happen next week, or next month, or in a month or so's time. we must not take a negative view, we must remain positive and consistent. as democratic people we must all make it clear what our views on this matter are to our respect with -- respective governments. >> the gentlemen toward the back, with the glasses on the right? yes. do ever being here -- thank you for being here. your recommendation has made me focus on legal aspects. you had some political recommendations in your report to improve north korean human to easeituations, and
the pains of the people. the peace talks cap and humanitarian assistance. did you put that political recommendation as a customary thing, or how much weight do you put on those things? >> well, it is true that there are in the proposal recommendations would you could classify as political. in a matter of international law, and in the matter of the developing world of international law, and particularly when you're dealing with subjects such as france against humanity, we tried to international law as crisis shock the conscience of humanity. that can be categorized as law, but it can also be categorized as optics. therefore, the two are not entirely separated.
in our ownuming that country they are entirely separated, law and all it takes -- and politics, they are the sides of the same going. what is that when one enters the world of korea? my connection with korea was very minimal. the top of the street where i lived in sydney, australia, there was a large methodist church. the wesley methodist church, concorde, sydney, australia. it is now a free and methodist church -- korean methodist church. that is all i knew of korea i knew about. this greatome with advantage of a lifetime of study of the situation in korea, or the disadvantage of the judas or hatred. i know prejudice or hatred against anyone on the korean peninsula.
i am great respect for everyone on the peninsula, and the one lesson you learn when you encounter coria is the enormous suffering of the people of korea in the north, and in the south. the tremendous trauma that this suffering did to the psyche of a who had been united for millennia, and suddenly they are subjected to a carbon bombing and terrible suffering, and tremendous of people and the grabbing of hundreds of thousands of troops all over the place. it was her read this. the commission of inquiry says in his report how it knows that the wounds have not yet healed. until they have been helped to hear, we must know what happens es.h armistic it thesed not in
treaty but in an armistice at the end of it, there's never been a treaty to finish the korean war. so in a sense, unless you address these issues, and above all encourage people to people contact and do this sort of thing that noland has said new york country is probably the world leader, or certainly one of the two world leaders in information technology. across orders. we have not yet been able to version ofuthorized our short 20 page report. this is the report for the korean people. i would see as quickly as possible. your media should do a commit
should be publishing a report to and getting those people into north korea. certain ambivalence about this. on the day before it, it was number one news item for a day and half on the bbc. the number one newsletter on cnn, the number one news item on al jazeera, as the number five news item on south korea. this is not a joking matter, this is a serious matter. it came behind a building collapse in south korea. the about the errors of modern media, concentrating only physicalwn pathetic backyard when you have a room a report detailing what was told in this united nations inquiry. i do hope you will take it upon
yourself to make sure that the message of how to get to our ward and how to get in korean language is addressed as quickly as possible. it is not acceptable that a korean language version does not yet available. i made that clear to the korean onassador when i saw him saturday. >> i would like to take the prerogative of the moderator to ask a question. angry with your long-term perspective that some point theeen -- at some point dmz will come to an end, and we will be united. this does raise a question going forward. --t would be the vest best way to build a structure north korea that would facilitate over the long term the protection of international
human rights. ,his is a little bit outside feel free to climb to answer. i can certainly provide some good advice, and i knowledge your prerogative to your questions and it is also being said by the resentment of that we are part of the hostile forces. the hostileart of forces. as a matter happens my grandmother married the national treasurer of the communist party. i was in young boy in sydney, was privy tod i the propaganda by the soviet union. soviet --stile to the to the. m. north korea has strayed greatly
from that. in the united nations system they are a member of the united nations, and it is not my prerogative to step into the situation of planning, participating, contributing to the termination. and up to now, and even the illustrious circumstances of the brooking institution, i'm just going to hold my tongue. [laughter] >> with that we come to the end of our exchange. i would like to invite for burma to make a few remarks. she is worth throughout her whole career to -- she has worked her whole career to promote this. she was the director of the center on international displays. roberta? >> i would like to congratulate robert kirby because this is the very first report issued by the united nations that finds north
korea guilty of crimes against humanity. and so implicates china indirectly and possibly aiding and abetting crimes against humanity. fromis a tremendous change what has been in the past. the report describes north korea as being one without parallel -- in the contemporary world. this the tuition is gone on for decades. gone on for has decades. the report notes that. it is not the kind of atrocities that one sees in a wartime situation such as syria. but the report shows that this human rightse emergency going on in this country of north korea with
tremendous crimes that also some tribes of atrocities. the gap between the findings in the report and the capacity and willingness of the international community to do something need to be bridged. on aere the report calls very wide array of act is =-- actors. it calls on the united nations, regional groups, civil society about foundations, business enterprises, concerned institutions, and asked words -- experts to raise the priority of what has been found in this report in their own policies and their programs. to all of uslly up
to try to do something. the challenges are obvious, the political hurdles, the security complicated legal issues with courts, the noncooperation up north korea, and the road in china. but then there is this report and in this -- and it is about 350 pages read more than 300 people witnessed this and have been interviewed, have given their testimonies. very difficult for everyone to continue to ignore the nature of this regime. now, i think that we have to
thank justice kirby for doing what nobody else has done. that is to raise the visibility extent issue to such an that it becomes very difficult not to do something. this is not an issue where you tellhat now should we do, us what to do. you have to look at the report, the recommendations, and see how this fits into the policies and programs you are associated with. that happens to cover all of the factors that i've already mentioned. anyway, therefore in the challenger on -- in a way the report is a challenge to everyone. it should guide us all to taking this issue forward. let us all thank justice kirby for coming from australia and
spending a year of his life in one of the more her read this situations, and coming up with some conclusions, findings, and really find or commendations for the whole international community. [applause] >> thank you very much. roberta is also the cochair of the committee on human rights in north korea. thank you for her and her cosponsor hosting this event. thank you again justice kirby. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]
>> i move for consideration. mr. baker i move for consideration. >> the gentleman moves to stand. >> fujian when both on the prevailing side. >> well i, until the game started. >> then you call a fiv -- qualified. ust be madeon m from someone on the sidewalk qualifies. >> parliamentary inquiry. >> the motion to reconsider laid up on the table. objection is heard. >> parliamentary inquiry? our limiter inquiry? >> the gentleman from maryland.
>> i'm not going to object. democraticn say, the rosses is that we come to this floor. we have 17 minutes to vote. clear, he sent us the notice, he said, 15 minutes and we will give you two more minutes. this boat has now been held open longer than any vote that i can remember. i've been here 23 years, prep some of you have been here longer. the outrage that was discussed when speaker wright held the less time thanar this was palpable on your side of the aisle. democracy is about voting, but just as you cannot say on tuesday of election day we will keep the polls open for 15 more hours until we get the results
we want, you ought not to be able to do it here mr. speaker. we have prevailed on this vote, arms have been twisted, and votes changed. i will continue to reserve. >> the house will be in order. on ourore highlights facebook page c-span2 are created by americans cable --mittees 35 years ago created by amerco's cable companies 35 years ago and brought you the service of your local tipple or satellite provider. >> a discussion on the future of theynet overnights right announce plans to transition stewardship roles for the glory global coordination of domain names to the global community. this our 20 minute event was sued by the hudson institute.
-- was issued by the hudson institute. >> good morning, i will be your moderator today. the greatness of innovation can often be measured in many ways. the other part of the greatness of america is the discussion of major issues. issues that are decided not a top that are discussed wrongly throughout the united states. beenf the issues that has occasionally mentioned in the press has been the future of internet governance. if you wanted to know about the
future of internet governance, i think today we have here some of the people who you would most want to hear about that from. we are going to have an informal discussion. , imagine if you can, we are sitting in someone's living room on a fine spring day, and you have an opportunity to bend your ear a bit and hear from them people who really know about the future of internet governance. let me introduce our panel today. on your far left is the swallowed upniel he is from the international telecommunications policy for the state department. he has joined us from a flight from dubai, it just arrived early this morning. we are very pleased to have him with us.
sitting next to me on your left is the president and ceo of the institution that has been mentioned a few times in the media about internet governance. we are very pleased to have mr. shahani with us. he will be taking off later today for many other countries around the world. is larryer side strickland, the executive assistant secretary of commerce, and the head of telecommunications administration. headingpling has been up our governments telecommunications policy. >> i have no travel plans. [laughter] sitting next to mr. stri
dowellis my calling mr. someone who is been deeply involved in internet governance issues over the years. begin with just some of the background about cann, how it is organized, and almost a chicken and egg western about which came first the internet or icann. us tonk you for inviting this very civil conversation this morning, and open-minded conversation. came after the internet, but at some point in the evolution of the internet nearly 16 years ago it became clear
that we needed to organize ourselves to coordinate three of the core identifiers that undermine -- underpin the technical infrastructure. they are unique in that they make the internet one internet. the internet is tens of thousands of networks that are linked together. what makes them as the internet is that they have unique identifiers that identify the various parts connected to it. ordinate and manages these identifiers that are working, and ensure they are stable and secure so that you always get through to that website you always wanted to go through, for when you connect to the internet with the device it has a unique id number. institution ofe
icann with a great idea. it is a model that underpins the government -- internet. it is a model that is unique, and looks like the internet itself is a decentralized, distributed model. it is difficult to capture, just like the internet. everything in the icann structure was designed brilliantly from the beginning with good genius to ensure that all of the stakeholders can participate equally to build the policies and to manage these unique identifiers that i mentioned without the risk of capture. icann has done its job very well for 15 years but we have an of providingecord best.
not one nano second of downtime. we continue to do this into the future. >> secretary, could you tell us about the current relationship between the department of converse -- of commerce and icann? for would like to thank you organizing this conversation here today. it is obviously a topic that a lot of interest and it is good that we can sit down and talk about what has been happening and tried to clear up any misconceptions about the announcement and the implications of it. currently the united states has a very important relationship with icann. it is multifaceted. the one aspect of it that has been the subject of so much press discussing the past few weeks has been our role in terms of a contractual relationship with icann under which it performs what are called the ia
no functions cover the activities we just described. , governments have a role as a set of stakeholders in -- making anding whichdvisory committee bu --y used to prevent advisory aspects.dvisory icann has committed to the international internet community areas things in regards to its accountability and transparency community,mittee -- and other matters that are set forth in that document. under that document, there are a set of review teams that operate on a regular basis. the most of orton woolwich is
the accountability and two. the review team that has not gone through two cycles of work. -- that has gone through two cycles of work. in 2010 anded both last year in terms of an overall review of the accountability and transparency of icann to its community. out of that we made a series of recommendations that icann adopted in 2011. we give them a report card on that last year with the second report, and then made additional recommendations that the board is currently evaluating. thesementioned, stakeholder processes of and the multi-stakeholder model of governance is a very important one in terms of what has led to the growth of innovation on the internet commander has to be very strong commitment from the top-down down in these organizations to be accountable and transparent to the stakeholder community as a way to build the legitimacy and
validity of these organizations. we have taken our role in the steve's very seriously, to the point where i have spent personally many hours on these issues with respect to icann. it is an important part of our relationship when it comes to the very specific contract that we made an announcement about about three weeks ago. the signing documents for icann, and the memorandums of understanding or the contract that we have at the icann website are really quite fascinating. some of the early documents atcribing the contract, and some point there is the value of speakes and bureaucratic it is less than tell those in dollar -- than $10,000. >> it is actually no money and
no cost with respect to those functions. >> could you tell us a little bit about the review process, that relationship, and how it is evolved of the past many years? >> it has evolved. i think that the major document in that regard rye or to our announcement on the functions three weeks ago was the affirmation of commitments in 2009. what that really sets the stage for was much more of an ziation, rather than any continuing sense that the united states provided with the oversight of expanded tos include the community at large. these review teams are now a major way in which they can provide oversight to icann. those committees have operated 2009 in their very
international. they are representatives from around the world. this most recent accountability team that operated in 2013 at representatives, just the government representatives, from denmark, australia, china, costa rica, there were all members of the team as well as other international representatives from other constituency groups inside icann. i think that was a very important part of the evolution of icann back in 2009. could you tell our audience about the administration's proposal, and the ambassadors as well? proposalround on the and what led to the announcement a few weeks ago? >> three weeks ago, we announced our intention to transition our role with the functions contract to the global internet
community. as thed icann, contracting party to convene the global internet community to come forward and develop the plan for that transition. nothing will change until the plan is developed, so i know there was an immediate concern that somehow our relationship had changed at that time, and nothing has changed. it will be status quo as this brought us moves for -- process moves forward. ,n making this request to icann we set some parameters around the transition. we said that any plan would need to respect the multi-stakeholder process. it needed to preserve the security and stability and resiliency of the internet. it needed to meet the needs of the customers and partners of the functions, and it needed to preserve the openness of the internet. we also made it crystal clear that we would not accept a
replacement for the united states that would be government led or be intergovernmental organization. we made that express right from the outset of all of this. to convene then community, they within a week did convene two large public sessions as well as a large number of other conversations within the individual supporting organizations and advisory committees as to how to organize the community to move forward and develop the transition plan. the first task is been how to develop a process that will develop a plan. we have made it very clear in our towns been that we wanted the other internet technical organizations can the internet society, the engineering task force, the international architecture board, the regional internet registry, they also play major leadership role in this process, so we were not asking icann to come back with
implantable we wanted them to convene the chart community to do this. , think that was accomplished at least the first date, by the sessions that were held in singapore. and i'mare expecting, sure he can speak to this more willtly because now icann be facilitating this process going forward, but we expect community to come together and organize itself to develop a plan that meets the conditions and presented to us a consensus plan at some point when their work is completed. we had noted that the existing contract expires at the end of september 2015. we did not intend that to be a deadline, after which that things would happen, but there has been some misapprehension about the idea that we're trying to impose a deadline give and we were not. we were simply noting that in any work stream coming out to
have some sort of schedule, and that seemed to be a good target date for the community to look to. contract can continue on beyond next september. we have the ability to extend it by exercising options of up to four years in two your insolence -- installments. we have plenty of time to develop a consensus proposal that meets the conditions we went out. -- laid out. >> would you like to describe how the administration has look at this and what some of the reactions have been her mother countries? -- then from other countries? theoth the preconditions of contract and taking the initiative to take this movement moving forward, in large part because as they have said in 1998 when we transferred the snited states government' authority to icann we had 40,000
people on the internet connected to each other. now there are 2.7 billion. thes our goal to connect rest of this platform as well. if you're going to a global globalm it requires a consensus on the underlying infrastructure. to that effect, one of the things that this has done is move not only towards us and a stronger fashion, it moves democratic-- governments that had already supported this. also see governments that were undecided. easy the brazils of the world we saw the african union what out a statement of support for the transition. has really done a shifted the conversation from one where people are wondering what is the future of the internet governance structure going to be? as a going to be lateral because swing states like priscilla countries in africa and others are leaning toward the views of
some authoritarian state, or will it be more stable if america wanted to be? this has fundamentally shifted the conversation for that -- toward our point of view. think about how that system is going to evolve in such a way that it can win not just mobile acceptance, but global involvement. global embrace. i can tell you how the conversations that i have had in dubaiubai have -- k and other places have been fundamentally different. america's open, truly committed to the stakeholder system and really believes in the bottom of truck sure. really believe that the engineers, firms, users, activist academics, and governments who are all stakeholders in their infrastructure and the future of the internet can work together
to to fill the underlying goals of what is an underlying infrastructure that flex our alleys and human values of values and human values of greater democratic participation. has metannouncement with some hesitation, skepticism from some quarters. could you describe some of the people to theme administration's announcement, and what is been taking place on capitol hill recently? >> sure. first of all i want to congratulate you on assembling this panel. this has to be the place right now for the discussion of this topic, the trifecta of the big guns that you brought in while i was on vacation in italy with my family last week.
looking for extra help year. -- here. what this means is i should go on vacation to italy with my family more often, and you can pull these off very quickly. for the is quite a coup house to institute under -- hudson institute center for the internet. i want to thank the three officials other than the former commissioners who are here as well, and my calling for coming here straight to the airport, on the way to the airport, waiting for the next airport. [laughter] these three gentlemen live in the aluminum twos at three 5000 ubes at 35,000 feet. as i said in my blog post not long after the announcement, this is a complex issue. nuanced.w want --
it cap some people from acting impulsively in reaction. words matter. i want to operate from the jeopardy school of doing a panel which is some of my statements might be in the form of the question. i have lots of question, i have reviewed the senate letter that came out this week in which i thought had a lot of very thoughtful questions, some of hash secretary strickling already started to answer. this is a great preview, we do here before the senate does of what something restaurants -- what some of the answers to these questions might be. when we talk about multi-stakeholder, a starkly --t has met no government
historically that has met no government. the engineering task for the architecture board, the internet's authority card these are not comprised of government. government show up to meetings, their concerns, they're not looted, they have a seat at the table, but they do not own the table. in my view, multi-stakeholder means that governments are not involved. in terms of actually making the final decision, they do not have the power of law, they do not have the power of international treaties. i think that is important. we hear other terms, and varieties of understanding here today. in diplomatic speak means government. intergovernmental, hopefully that is easier understood, that means government. there are terms of art that have
been used for years. words here are very important, look'm thinking we need to very carefully some of the words that are used. there are a lot of concerns here. one is the affirmation of commitments that we talked about. can they be, or will they be obligated by treaty in the future? cord is snipped, i'm all for privatization, i'm all for government being further way, but one of the questions and fears is who can grab onto that heather? -- tether? we have heard one of the conditions will be that nothing will be government led, but what about government influence? how would icann be influenced? there is the government advisory
committee within icann, what when it's future the -- what would it's future be? as we get to the world conference on international telecommunications, and the first time in the context of the international telecommunications union, a treaty-based organization out of the u.n., two over civil five, we saw a vote.way toward majority that is future that is very important. -- is thatgoing going to be the future of internet governance, will it be consensus? will it be consensus without governments voting? these are important questions. also, what is the timeframe? until september of 2015, but that it has two-year terms after that. they are automatically
renewable, so we might be talking until 2019. from what you just that government is not automatically renewable, so that is something new. >> they can exercise the option. >> what about the idea of some sort of revocable trust? that is just something that imposing that should governments become involved, there is a release of this multi-stakeholder, nongovernmental about local community the way we have with the iab, and internet architectural board, and the ebola terms -- umbra let terms -- umbrella terms. one of the questions i've had is a global panel that am working other luminaries given i'm not sure how many ended up there.
it is just the accountability. when something goes wrong, historically nothing has gone wrong in the but i am normally an optimist and i also have to -- i am also half irish so i believe in murphy's law. so when something goes wrong, what is the rule of law, what is process tois the resolve these conflicts should something go wrong? then the developments in turkey in the past couple of weeks are troubling. wrong,correct me if i'm by the way, we do have a twitter for people to talk to us. @hudsoninstitute. it is my first time in front of this new green wallpaper. it used to be blue. it is not easy being green, but today we are.
and we have the turkey experience, where it it was a state created national -- what does that tell us about technical abilities? others are asking questions, and they think they are all legitime questions. very for congratulate launching the process and making it transparent. it will go on for a wild. these complicated things tend to take longer than one expects. to hear we have first crack outside of congress. turn first to several questions about the governance nn itself. i'm sure you're hearing this all the time.
please tell us their views of how this might play out. >> let me be clear on a few things about ntia and then i will talk about icann. icann is not hushing that process. we do not want to rush this rosses. we want to get it twice. we have one chance of getting this right. the fact that there is talk of a deadline, there is no deadline. government has many years on this. ways a very, injudicious through the process. back they we come rock postal it will be dead on arrival. i would not bring a proposal to
larry that does not meet these guidelines. and the internet. it is not serve anyone. we are completely aligned with ntia on the importance of doing this in a very measured way. all we are doing now is starting a very good process of discussion. we cannot even tell our community any framework. spend hoursrally having people come up and tell us their idea. the genius is that it sorts of self out. everyone has a voice at the table. now we are just listening to keep all not just on the substance. we're saying how do we do it? who needs? the transparency? we will take our time.
there's no rush. that working to notes along with the public consultation we started on responding to the request for a proposal? -- on the same date we started aimedcond consultation squarely at how we make sure icann remains accountable to its commitment. we need to make sure that on its own change its constitution and being something it is not today but is not adhered to the core principles we believe in. an externale is force that captures some of the mechanisms that make it what it is.
we are hosting that conversation as well. that extremely important you understand that we have a public ross us to assure will remaint icann accountable. it means that we ensure that anyone involved in the affairs has clear mechanisms to watch what we are doing. we'll transparency. to keep us accountable through mechanisms like reviews are in mechanisms of redress that when people feel we are not making decisions according to our processes that they have a mechanism to go and get repeals. these are important discussions we're having. i view that these are very toplementary to responding
the request for a proposal on how we replace their current role in the stewardship of our functions. these need to happen. they need to have a timeline that is similar. government does theright thing, and ambassador spoke eloquently about the immediate value we're are ready gifting as a global community and as a country? we need to continue these two things. increases, as we strengthen our role as a global leader, we need to make sure that we manage these charts together and we get to the result before the united states steps away from its unique involvement today. i insist we will not let go of this important role the u.s. has played before we are all
comfortable that both the transition will happen smoothly without risk of capture or security to the internet and will be possible under every possible scenario. this oak about stress tests. we will put together the whole framework of stress tests. we will study every possibility that could come at us in the future and ensure that we strengthen our accountability mechanisms. one last thing. a lot of people say the role of the united states has been symbolic. so what if ntia steps away from the role? symbolism is very important. has no operational role in what we do. it is true. we do our functions without
their involvement operationally. symbolism to the world has allowed the multi-stakeholder model to survive and become very successful. that symbolism, once we remove it, has to be replaced with a clear strategy and said her. we will be at the forefront of making sure it these are in place. >> i want to make it clear. we are not going anywhere or far away at this as perhaps you are thinking based on the discussion so far. all we have put into play here is that very specific role we play with the diana functions contract. in terms of what we do, we serve as a check on the accuracy of all theso i'll. policies developed at icann through the multi-stakeholder processes may lead to a change iana administered by the
organization. it is largely a clerical task. we send it on to verisign that does the maintenance. we said we need to stop -- step out of that particular aspect of this at which point there is no longer a need for us to have a contract with icann to perform the iana functions. we are not going anywhere to assure our accountability of icann or respect to our role to engage with other governments to the advisory committee on the public wallace he aspects. pubic policy aspects. we are talking about something that is very narrow, very specific and is largely going to existingsed by the customers in terms of whether
there even needs to be a replacement for that particular function we perform. can be done machine to machine and no replacement for that aspect needs to be developed. is that happened though it has led to these questions being asked that have always been in existence about icann. they were with the affirmation of commitments. how does one and forced their accountability commitments? we are currently operating under the affirmation of commitments. it is important to the extent our announcement is going to lead to renewed action and energy innovation/for everyone to come back and focus. that is a good and. teed upt what we have and turns of the announcement we made three years ago. -- three weeks ago. there is something of a merging
of these issues and questions almost metaphysical questions about icann and two it is responsible to that has always existed and have now come back to the surface as a result of our announcement. they need to be discussed. we will participate in the discussions because we have a stake in the outcome of that. it is not something that somehow .e have created some vacuum all it has done is refocused attention on questions that have always existed about the organization. >> weirs eking about the government. -- we are speaking about the u.s. government. it is much broader than that. every major american company is , there at the table. verizon, google, at&t.
been engaged for years and they will remain engaged. society institutions. our center. they all there at the table. the role is quickly important. it must remain. we trust it will and should remain. we should also strengthen the businesses our own and our own institutions. i just appointed the full-time seater executive at nti icann focused on bringing more businesses to the table. we are keen on making sure the voice of the private sector is there. sepulveda, youpull have heard the concerns being expressed on capitol hill and elsewhere.
how do you view some of the concerns? are there some that fit in the category of this reflects not an understanding? are there some you say these are the core issues that we need to be focused on going forward? whenever a big decision like this is a noun everyone assesses it and gives this. from the first impression, there are a number of concerns about the things the commissioner talked about in terms of what is the worst-case scenario. it is a fair question. he is onlying issue, the legislation. he's in favor of a multi-stakeholder system. we are united with our colleagues in ensuring the preservation of the freedom is the stakeholder system.
how are you going to keep it from being taken over by government? it isct of the matter is not -- it is set up to not let any one to take over the system. governments can no more take over icann in a single engineer icanndemic and takeover nti . if we need to look at the structure to make sure there are , it isones in place clearly perfectly valid questions. we will be briefing the hill regularly on how the process that it is convening bringing the stakeholders together will answer the questions and ensure the proper protections are in place. at the end of the day, we
should be in a place where there will be a united america decision in support of what should be a per medic solution to the challenge. commissioner, can we talk a little bit about process? is there a sense that people on capitol hill were surprised i the announcement or -- by the announcement or is there a sense that this is really just the first step and no final decision has been made in this will go on years and thisof is just an announcement of a process? what is your sense of how this is being perceived in terms of the process here? >> because it is complex and
nuanced, the tendency is to oversimplify it. given the fact that they have been saying that this is going to be a long process, a couple of years at least, i think the more it is talked about and as she policymakers try to get educated on this they will start to understand a little bit more. i'm not saying they will buy into a plan. just now thatged you prefer to have consensus here at home before the plan is adopted. of the questions i had. there are a lot of moving parts to all of this. they are legitimate questions. i think the send letter has a lots of terrific westerns. i would love to drill down two
more thought maybe there was ambassador sepulveda about the structure of icann and how it can be controlled by the government or a company or an academic or any single entity. how does that work? who appoints the icann? what would that look like going forward? that,could drill down on what guarantees are there? how does that work? how can it not use of assumed somehow or abrogated by treaty? >> we need to know exactly what it does. it is not a typical ward in terms of setting policy. it's job is to acknowledge that consensus policy has been developed i the stakeholder community. it is somewhat limited compared to a board.
critics the chairman of the board is here. he was a guest here just last this is an important question. many boards over the years. this is probably one of the toughest boards. it is not the typical. it is truly a community board. we have 16 board members in liaison foritional members who participated in the discussion that they cannot vote. of the 16 board members, 10 our elected through the community. lady --ple, one line
one young lady was elected to the board. it took a year on must for the process to happen throughout the community. she represents the community that has 160 user chapters around the world. when all of this bubbles up at the top, we end up with all of them picking one board member. it is hard to capture that kind inprocess with 160 chapters countries all over the world leading up to that one board member. a processould drop for every board member. have an independent nominating committee that selects the other 64 members. the last election is the executive director of a great is the school in paris. you look at the level and
quality of people that are coming and the processes by which they come and you end up with and actually diverse board that is really elected a very deep and long prophecy that have their tails into the community. it is important to note that all 133 governments at icann do not have a seat on the board that is a voting seat. they will not buy the design. the chairperson they picked her which today happens to be the representative of canada, she sits on the board as an observer and liaison. she cannot load. to appreciatet when you look at a board like that and structures of change in reelection and so on, which we should not get into in deep detail but is on our website, it becomes very difficult under any
scenario for it to be captured. it is important to note that we are a california corporation. we operate under u.s. law. our board is responsible to these laws. our board does not make policy decisions. our board job is to ensure the processes were followed in the multi-stakeholder model is upheld in all things have to be committed. bodies that bring advice to the board. the decisions are made by the community. that is powerful. thatite any of you here have been to a meeting, it is far more fun than disneyland. it is one. it is remarkable. it is a remarkable exercise. the next one is in june.
to come. it is an exercise in the peers form of democracy. you should come. you should watch it. our meetings are open, free. inclusive. live around the world to in all the languages plus portuguese. it is incredible. everything we do is transcript at on our website. we are about to announce open systematicallyn search for anything. it is a very trans parent organization. is one of the most transparent organizations. there is a lot to see and appreciate and how the system worked. the coffeey close brand in our cafeteria without someone in the community saying this was not the decision. it does happen.
it is a cap community. thousands of volunteers watch every step we make. everyone has a voice. it is quite impressive. >> i can challenge the contention here that into both disneyland and the meeting. how do you keep an international treaty or abrogating or reserving the authority? challenge. a new countries have been proposing to take the naming and numbering authority and give it to the united nations for many years what we have done is created and worked in alliance with europe all then and canada and typical democratic actors to make sure that does not happen. our challenge is to grow the community of nations that
realizes we can have faith. we can trust in the underlying infrastructure of activist. they are performing an excellent function. the legitimacy -- the legitimacy is in success. access.an deny that the ultimate defender is not our government. it is stakeholders themselves not just here but around the world. talks to young people that were creating businesses and are starting innovative new firms and they are born global on the internet, they are just as passionate about the system as any of us here on the platform are. ultimately it is a winning message. i think those alliances will hold. those are two separate conversations.
the united states will not allow that. >> let me push back on that a little bit. at the treaty negotiation there ended up being a majority vote. the united states could not stop it. voted threef europe to >> let me stop you there. it was a treaty negotiation on which regulations were being negotiated. there was is let. that is not binding on the united states because we are not a signatory. the question of naming and isbering on the internet different than an international telecommunications regulation treaty. in part because the actors on the internet would have to recognize and respect decision of the authorities. at the end of the day, one of the things we have done, that was an anomaly. recommitted ourselves
and worked very hard to ensure that the organization itself understand it needs to return to consensus is processes. we have gotten the commitment of the journal. we will fight for the commitment of any future secretary-general. >> leading up to the wicked there were proposals at the human for the main function to orsubsumed by the itu separate body. i'm not making this up. it is in black-and-white. people can look it up. >> we repeated them all. >> but barely. the momentum is going in the wrong way. you had a revolutionary change of a departure from consensus to majority vote. let me go back to the secretary-general.
he is now recommitted to consensus. before.committed it did not happen. commitment by any secretary-general will have this. these are all legitimate areas of concern that the arrows are purging -- pointing in the wrong direction. >> let me respond. asse are legitimate concerns long as there are authoritarian nations that want to use international law. legitimate concern. i totally disagree with the idea of the trendlines. the idea that brazil and almost is a committees that is having brazil together.
of those, a significant number voted. participation to set up a decision by which to move forward with a commitment it self from those to the multi-stakeholder process show that the lines are moving in the other direction. it shows that organization is moving in our direction. i would say the lines are quite clear in our direction. that is a function of our commitment to both diplomacy and taken. like decision has >> i want to jump in here. i think the effort, and then he deserves the credit in terms of what he has been doing for the last two years, have been to change the debate in the developing world. in some small way our function
helps that momentum as well. you are now seeing brazil take leadership in terms of the banding the stakeholder model. you're seeing the african-american coalition saying we support what the united states is proposing and we want to participate with other stakeholders to develop the proposal. you're seeing a much broader acceptance of this among the notloping world that does really have a hard stake in the debate with the authoritarian regime. they are very small in numbers. they have no ability by themselves to affect the kind of change that people are worried in writing editorials about. are we meeting the needs of the developing world? them thehown multi-stakeholder model can meet their needs? they want to grow in their countries. they want to share in the economic growth that has attached to this.
not have the same experience with this model as the united states and other countries have. it is a slow process. the are now showing dividends that come from paying much more attention to the needs of these countries. understand what it is that they're working to do to bring the benefits into their countries and showing them how the model and deliver the benefits to them. is very much moving our direction on that idea with the developing world. >> i think they're going to fundamentally disagree. definition, i know we're running out of time. we have time from the hotpants -- the audience q&a. the redefinition of what is multistate is in. there many to believe that is the state. the secretary general has a to
make it more democratic democrats should control. very powerful countries with client states. it can achieve the goals they're looking or. these are legitimate questions to ask. >> i think your concerns and the alarms you're raising should keep us on our toes. we should not being we are necessarily prevailed yet. i was at the wicket with many of us. people were looking for theirons on how to solve internet governance issues. we do not have good answers. we kept saying all we know is that cannot be solved here.
year go back later this and when they see where do we solve it we say not here. this is not sustainable. i agree with you. doing as we been have been energizing process governments that there is a way in place for them to solve internet governance issues. is one part of this but there is more to be solved and he multi-stakeholder way. the target for us is not necessarily the countries at the edge though we know have their regimes and their agendas. we're not going to change it. that we haveember over a hundred 50 countries in the middle that were white lost. they do not know where to go.
why do these middle governments throw away? we did not have good answers for them on where to go to solve multi-stakeholder issues. we have been working on that. the fact president of brazil flips completely in her position and went for making a speech at to asking the united nations to step in and address tose issues, within a month announce a multi-stakeholder conference on internet governance and invite many of the mental countries that were ghana, south, korea. all this countries in the middle that did not know where to go. they are all part of this. we have a glimmer of dissolution. we should support it. lower our guard.
we do not know what it happened. the trendlines are starting to trend our way. the amounts and -- the announcement of ntia is actually helping in that trend. we go to government and we tell them, i'm talking about the middle governments, and we tell them come along for the ride, no government control distributed this. they say yes. the one example you have a multi-stakeholder management you say no and icann government control but our government. youoes not quite work your cannot say no government control but our government should control. 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 of the larger debate and i'm glad we're
getting into today. we arely from our this of defining the role of government in this case. has beenann itself there questions of the advisory committee. it does operate by consensus. that is very important. it is also important that governments have a seat at the tole at icann to be able provide input. if you are able to stay put the walls up and say government is not welcome and cannot participate or have in pit -- input, all it does is you'll be desire to take this to an organization. we paid a lot of attention to making sure that government have the discipline to provide
consensus advice and to clearly articulate when they were providing consensus advice. at the same time we were heart of the lord in terms of making sure that having received consensus advice that the board would take it seriously as they are required to do under the bylaws during that has been a over improvement of icann the last two or three years. the credibility and the legitimacy of icann in the eyes of governments around the world. they see they can come to the meeting and expressed their views. they can work with other governments to provide consensus input into the process. that is important. it is a feature we will continue to look at. thegovernment subscribed to outcome of this process. we need to be involved in that. those who would say government has no role in the process are
just wrong. differentmuch question than saying the government should be given control of this at the end. that we're all of those two. this goes to how nuanced and complex this is. ofernments need to be part the process. that actually increases the chance they do not demand to be the solution at the end of the day. describing wey started a process and we will see how this lays out in terms of the default position as we renew the contract of things not move in the right direction. how will the administration decide whether we have reached the right point to move forward ?ith transition processeshe internal
with the administration? what is what you're hearing about how involved they will ultimately be in that process? i think there is a thirst on capitol hill to know what is going on and he kept apprised of that. we certainly understand that. we will do whatever we can to our sure not just legislator but all part of the government are cap informed of this. that is a key aspect of this. at the end of the day nothing happens until we get a consensus community proposal presented to us. it'll have to be one that meets the conditions that we have laid out in terms of the announcement and weight -- we made three weeks ago. as to what process may be employed have not been worked out.
nothing happens unless and until there is a consensus community base proposal that addresses and satisfies the conditions we laid out. just a few minutes left. i'm going to open it up to the floor for some questions. we have a microphone that will be circulating. if the speaker could please identify themselves. please identify yourself for our audience. a question for the ceo that i welcome. three days from today will be the day after the conclusion of the conference. planver transition discussions take place there will be other discussions on
.roader issues my question is, i think perhaps more important than the ntia announcement is a line in the statement of last october in which the participants called for the globalization of icann and iana functions toward an environment in which all stakeholders purchase a paid on an equal footing. this has been private sector leadership. the subordinate advisory roles. if governments become equal stakeholders, to questions. changesimply that some would cost more than advisory? perhaps the head becomes a voting member of the board. maybe this is all fine. guard against the
national tendency of governments not to want to be equal stakeholders but to want to be in charge? the natural instinct of government is to want to be in charge. that is not lost on any of us. the internet is very powerful. we like our. we're going to control it. i think he was the most plainspoken one of all. goes to about a way it the minds of many governments. are very aware of what governments would like to do. it is very important to look at the choice of words. we use the word participate. policy,. we need to make sure that everyone can participate. it is the purchase of dust which is up for it -- participatory
nature. knowing should tell that i can participate because i am a government. participation has to be on an equal footing. does not mean every opinion will it.dopt mustarticipatory nature remain completely open. governments have an equal seat at the table. what rolesres define people play and how the board is structured. these are very well defined. this is huge. it is not something simple that we can meddle in. we will stress test these things. to putrequire us suspenders and bylaws will. you are right. it is an important point.
chinesed the representative make a proposal that maybe the governmental advisory committee should become a policymaking committee. this would be counter to how it is working. i invited him to participate like everyone else. the advisory committee has an advisory role. these are important things. >> could i add just one thing? ideaof the concern is the that when he think about government stakeholders there are government stakeholders and then private stakeholders. only two sets of stakeholders. governmentworks with . there are many others. within government each government has equal footing to each and other government.
governments do not act in coalition. it is important to understand the structure in relative risk. advisory committee that was mentioned many times here is a consensus-based body that can only produce a device. that is all they can do. consensus to get 133 countries to build consensus is not easy. it takes an enormous test to even come back with a device that they all agree on. that is a good inc.. >> the question on the site over here. >> thank you. i am a little concerned. being aed about icann
los angeles-based corporation covered under u.s. law. there have been number of stories in the international press. part of your long-term objective is to move to geneva. nowou like that to rest that would be helpful. my larger concerns have to do with the fact that when you were in brazil, the president seems to be taking any position that tries to organize the way of nonaligned stakeholders. a be think of how the chinese try to organize the nonaligned nations. it was a block that would develop a consensus that would control the internet. her position is that the united states has lost the right to deny the oversight it maintains because of what happened with the nsa and that you certainly appeared to have agreed with that position.
this is actual punishment for the nsa misbehaving not some kind of step toward governance. you just brought into icann administratively the fellow that shut off the internet as they were trying to tell the world what they were trying to do to depose an authoritarian regime and replace it with a democratic government. none of this secures in the minds of those who helped pay for the construction of the internet and put it to the world. the ideas of freedom and speech that show the values of this country continue to intending to the day at icann they continue to make the internet work. without freedom of access and speech, the internet does not work. it does not work for commerce and it does not work for
information. >> you have three questions. lumia to than three statements. no one has worked harder to make the internet remain open. no one has built or companies on this panel than me. on thedren work internet. i work on the internet. for years i've raised over $100 million to build companies in this country. let me start with that. did not say i am moving i can to geneva. this is speculation. we open an office in geneva in many places. you can find a statement where i said we are moving to geneva, i would like to see it. if cannot change the copy in the .afeteria with wh i cannot even make that decision.
i cannot even change the coffee. the board will have to make this decision and cannot without community agreement. do you think our community will agree to move thousands of contracts that we have today that are working marvelously in california to another place? why will we do that? let's stop the speculation. i have no plans to move icann to geneva. we have an office in geneva. that is it. on your second question, please acknowledge what the president of brazil did. her she hadsited made a major speech at the u.n. in which she was proposing that the u.n. is the place where she will get back and solve a problem. i engaged in the president with a demonic discussion. i told her i'd knowledge or frustration. many of us acknowledge your frustration. what is the solution? how do you plan to solve this issue?
frankly, she looked at me and said "i don't know." then i said "why did you go to the u.n.? where do you want me to go? you forged a path forward. why did he set up a conference based on the multi-stakeholder in brazil an have used?" she loved it. that day she tweeted three times that she is not going to support the multi-stakeholder approach. that is a huge change in a position that we should welcome from the president of a country like use that have the ability to build a huge coalition. she did. when critical no. picked 11 countries to join her in the sponsoring of that conference. 10 ourthe 11 she picked,
middle economy countries. germany, france, ghana, etc. , the uniteduntry states of america. that is the sign that she was not telling the world walk away from the u.s. she selected the united states. they accepted her acceptation -- her accepted her invitation. thethird point, which is one that will get me even more passionate than this, is about my colleague. was hired at the same time i was almost. he's to be the minister of telecommunications in egypt. a member of the internet society. more internetht to africa single handily than anyone from a policy standpoint.
he is the father of the internet. day the real story of what happened when the internet was shot in egypt will come out. he is much too humble to come out with it. you can ask my team there. we have been begging him to speak he story. he is saying it is not my place and i do not want to put my on a on his pedestal -- pedestal. i tell you this because they're absent when this keeps coming up. he put his life on the line that day. his family's life on the line that day. he slept on the floor on his office for three days with the village in cairo was surrounded by people who had escaped the prisons of muslim brothers, refusing relief until h they allowed him to turn it back on. one day we will recognize him as a hero. for now i will leave it at that. with that, stories about
heroes of the open internet, i could continue- longer. we have a hard stop at 12 ready p.m. please give me -- 12:30. please give me a round of applause. [applause] >> i moved in consideration. consideration. thanks to your arm-twisting -- >> mr. speaker. >> i was until the game started. >> it doesn't qualify.
>> the motion to reconsider must be entered by someone you voted on the pervading site. >> parliament or inquiry. after all the razzle-dazzle, what with the prevailing side? it.the ayes have >> objection heard. >> objection is heard. parliament or inquiry russia parliamentary inquiry? i'm not going to put people to the purpose of voting. i will again say the democratic thatss i will remind you we had 17 minutes to vote. , use it it very clear as a notice, you said we will give you two more minutes.
this boat has now been held open longer than any vote that i can remember. i've been held here for 23 years. perhaps in a few have been here longer. the outrage discussed with the forker held the vote open far less time than this was palpable on your side of the aisle. democracy is about voting. you cannot say on tuesday of election day we will keep polls open for 15 more hours until we get the result we , you ought not be able to do it here. we have prevailed on this boat. tess been twisted and vo change. i will continue to reserve. >> the house will be in order. >> find more highlight on our facebook page.
it was brought to you today as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. during this month, c-span is pleased to present our winning entries in this year studentcam document or a competition. it is the annual competition that encourages middle and high school students to think critically about issues. the question we asked students to base their documentary on was "what is the most important issue the u.s. congress should consider in 2014?" the second prize winner is a sophomore at cherry hill high school from cherry hill, new jersey. she believes tonga should make cell phone use while driving their most important issue. >> the car spun around in a circle. one girl got a jet did. the driver is only want to know where the phone was.
>> she was in the backseat. she was alive about 45 minutes before they cut her out. >> hello. i am madelyn brown. i am ready to start driving. i am very scared. many diverse are focusing their attention on the cell phone rather than the road. distracted driving is incredibly dangerous and cell phone should have no place behind the wheel. something needs to be done about this.
>> obviously, we have disney people getting killed or injured. believer that this is a serious problem that has to be addressed. >> driving is a combination of cognizant and manual concentration. >> driving takes great concentration. it takes a lot of focus. especially for new drivers who lack experience and knowledge behind the wheel. is traveling at 50 miles per hours and looks at a text for five seconds, he or she will have traveled would hundred 20 yards, a link of a dusty length -- the length of a football field completely blind. driving increases the risk of an accident 23 times. using a cell phone while
driving delays the reaction as much as having a blood-alcohol content of point 08%. >> oh he just hit. oh my gosh is crashing over. they have been affected by the dangers of distracted driving. >> she was really shy growing up years she would not talk to anybody. when she got into high school and freshman and sophomore year, something clicked in her. she became everyone's friend. she became the most helpful person that you can imagine. she was a real good equestrian. she rode horses. and we didn't even have to give her lessons. all the other kids had to get lessons. she got on it and knew how to take a horse and run it wild. it was amazing. people against distracted driving was founded in honor of my daughter nikki, who was killed in a distracted driving accident. what we want to do basically is end distracted driving. >> nikki's law was passed in new jersey in 2013. this law called for signs to be placed along roads to remind
drivers of the dangers of distracted driving. >> and it reminds us of the need to continue to educate the public throughout our state and throughout the country to put down the phones, put down the distractions, and pay attention. >> do you think the law should be adopted on a national scale? >> every state is unique. new jersey is a very congested state. federal rules and laws should blah, blayhh, has blah, with population come up with roads, then they would be required to do so. >> so far 39 states and d.c. have banned texting while driving, yet only 10 states and d.c. have banned all the uses of handheld devices while driving. what is the other argument? why wo