[House Report 112-564]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
112th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 112-564
======================================================================
EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING ACTIONS TO PRESERVE AND
ADVANCE THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER GOVERNANCE MODEL UNDER WHICH THE INTERNET
HAS THRIVED
_______
June 29, 2012.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
_______
Mr. Upton, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H. Con. Res. 127]
The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 127) expressing the
sense of Congress regarding actions to preserve and advance the
multistakeholder governance model under which the Internet has
thrived, having considered the same, report favorably thereon
without amendment and recommend that the concurrent resolution
be agreed to.
C O N T E N T S
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 2
Hearings......................................................... 4
Committee Consideration.......................................... 4
Committee Votes.................................................. 4
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 4
Statement of General Performance, Goals and Objectives........... 5
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures 5
Earmark.......................................................... 5
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 5
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 5
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 5
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 5
Section-by-Section Analysis of Legislation....................... 5
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 6
LEGISLATION
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and
Information, in consultation with the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State and United States Coordinator for
International Communications and Information Policy, should
continue working to implement the position of the United States
on Internet governance that clearly articulates the consistent
and unequivocal policy of the United States to promote a global
Internet free from government control and preserve and advance
the successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet
today.
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
H. Con. Res. 127 expresses the sense of Congress that the
United States should continue to preserve and advance the
multistakeholder governance model under which the Internet has
thrived as well as resist the imposition of an International
Telecommunication Union (ITU) mandated international settlement
regime on the Internet. The resolution asks the Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information to
consult with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and U.S.
Coordinator for International Communication and Information
Policy to continue implementation of the consistent policy of
the United States to promote an Internet free from government
control and advance the multistakeholder model of Internet
governance.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Pending international proposals to regulate the Internet
could jeopardize not only its vibrancy, but also the economic
and social benefits it brings to the world. Nations from across
the globe will consider changes to the International
Telecommunications Regulations at the December 2012 World
Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai. These
regulations, adopted by treaty, govern the international
operation of traditional telephone service. Some countries,
however, are proposing to expand them and the jurisdiction of
the United Nations' International Telecommunication Union to
apply to the Internet.
The Internet has been successful because it has been
managed under a multistakeholder model in which a number of
non-governmental institutions oversee critical parts of its
architecture with input from private- and public-sector
participants. This bottom-up, decentralized structure mirrors
the decentralized nature of the networks that make up the
Internet itself. It maximizes flexibility and innovation,
helping to prevent any one governmental or non-governmental
actor from exerting control over either the design of the
Internet or the content it carries. That is why the Internet
has been able to evolve and grow so quickly, both as a
technological platform and as a means of expanding the free
flow of commerce and ideas. Deviation from that
multistakeholder model weakens the Internet, harming its
ability to spread both prosperity and freedom. Consequently,
there is bipartisan agreement that the United States should
stand firm in international negotiations and oppose any treaty
provisions at the WCIT that expand the jurisdiction of the ITU
to cover the Internet.
The origins of the Internet and Internet governance
The Internet finds its roots in ARPANET, launched in 1969
by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to connect
universities and research laboratories working on Department of
Defense projects. Over the next two decades, ARPANET
transitioned from a government network to include civilian
users under the auspices of the National Science Foundation and
became NSFNET. As the NSFNET grew and standards evolved to
connect computer networks, a larger ``network of networks''
emerged. Then, in 1992, the Scientific and Advanced-Technology
Act allowed the NSFNET to interconnect with other non-
governmental networks and opened the door to commercial
participation. It was at this point that the network began to
grow exponentially, and the modern Internet was born.
When network use was limited to U.S. government purposes,
the Department of Defense managed the network. By the 1990s,
however, most of the growth was coming from non-military users,
and the NSF created the Internet Network Information Center
(InterNIC) to manage both numeric addressing on the networks as
well as the databases of sites. As the number of commercial
users grew, Internet addressing and domain name management
became exceedingly complex. By 1998 these functions were moved
completely out of the U.S. government and control of InterNIC
was transferred to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers, a California non-profit corporation contracted by
the Department of Commerce to manage a number of Internet-
related tasks.
A series of ad hoc groups form the engineering corps of the
Internet. The Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet
Architecture Board, the Internet Engineering Steering Group,
and the Internet Research Task Force, now collectively
organized under the international non-profit Internet Society,
are run by volunteers and all work to create voluntary
standards for Internet users to make interconnection of all
networks easier.
ICANN, as well as the groups that oversee the creation of
voluntary Internet standards under the auspices of the Internet
Society, receive input from governments, Internet users,
corporations investing in the Internet, academics, and
engineers that develop the technology that makes the Internet
possible. The flexibility of this governance structure,
referred to as the ``multistakeholder model,'' is what has
enabled the explosive growth of the Internet as a driver of
jobs, commerce, social discourse, and innovation.
History of the international telecommunications regulations
International telecommunications service is governed
pursuant to regulations adopted through treaty by the 193
nation members of the International Telecommunications Union,
the United Nations' specialized agency for information and
communications technologies. The ITU was originally chartered
in 1865 to organize the international regulation of telegraph
service.
The ITU convened the World Administrative Telegraph and
Telephone Conference in 1988 to consider a ``new'' regulatory
framework for the international regulation of
telecommunications. Among the resulting International
Telecommunications Regulations were revisions to the way
telecommunications providers pay each other for completing
international phone calls, often referred to as ``settlement
rates.'' The United States Senate ratified the International
Telecommunications Regulations in 1992. These regulations
specifically addressed voice telephony, not data processing
capabilities, and resulted in large payments to telephone
companies often owned or controlled by governments.
Current proposals to regulate the Internet
The ITU will consider changes to the International
Telecommunications Regulations at the December 2012 World
Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai.
Proposals by Russia and China to establish an ``information
security'' regime are of particular concern. They: (1) appear
to enshrine an international cybersecurity regime; (2) could
serve as a justification for countries to engage in Internet
censorship in the name of national security; and (3) seek to
authorize regulation of the Internet by an international
governmental body within the ITU, replacing the
multistakeholder model that has served the Internet and the
world so well.
Proposals by a number of countries to regulate rates for
the international exchange of Internet traffic is also of
concern. The settlement regime for telecommunications traffic
was developed for old technology in a less competitive
environment, and even then resulted in high rates. It is ill
suited to the dynamic and diverse technology and more
competitive environment of the Internet, especially since the
Internet does not adhere to political boundaries. A top-down
regulatory regime quickly would become untenable.
HEARINGS
The Subcommittee on Communications and Technology held a
legislative hearing on May 31, 2012, entitled ``International
Proposals to Regulate the Internet.'' The Subcommittee received
testimony from Mr. Vinton Cerf, Chief Internet Evangelist at
Google; Ambassador David A. Gross, Former U.S. Coordinator for
International Communications and Information Policy; FCC
Commissioner Robert McDowell; Ambassador Philip Verveer, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of State and U.S. Coordinator for
International Communications and Information Policy; and Ms.
Sally Shipman Wentworth, Senior Director, Public Policy at
Internet Society.
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Representative Mary Bono Mack, together with Rep. Fred
Upton, Rep. Henry Waxman, Rep. Greg Walden, and Rep. Anna
Eshoo, introduced H. Con. Res. 127 on May 30, 2012.
On June 20, 2012, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered the resolution to be
favorably reported to the House by a voice vote.
COMMITTEE VOTES
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes
on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto.
At the June 20, 2012, open markup session of the Committee
on Energy and Commerce, no amendments were offered and the
resolution was favorably reported by voice vote. There were no
recorded votes.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee held oversight and
legislative hearings and made findings that are reflected in
this report.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The goal of H. Con. Res. 127 is to encourage the Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information to
consult with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and U.S.
Coordinator for International Communication and Information
Policy to continue implementation of the consistent policy of
the United States to promote an Internet free from government
control and advance the multistakeholder model of Internet
governance.
NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES
In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.
Con. Res. 127 would result in no new or increased budget
authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or
revenues.
EARMARKS
In compliance with clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI
of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee
finds that H. Con. Res. 127 contains no earmarks, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits.
COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE
The Committee finds that H. Con. Res. 127 would result in
no new costs to the Federal government.
FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT
The Congressional Budget Office estimate required pursuant
to clause 3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, and the estimate of Federal mandates required pursuant
to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act were not
requested from the Congressional Budget Office as this
resolution would result in no new costs to the Federal
government.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF LEGISLATION
The resolution states ``[t]hat it is the sense of Congress
that the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and
Information, in consultation with the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State and United States Coordinator for
International Communications and Information Policy, should
continue working to implement the position of the United States
on Internet governance that clearly articulates the consistent
and unequivocal policy of the United States to promote a global
Internet free from government control and preserve and advance
the successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet
today.''
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
This legislation does not amend any existing Federal
statute.