To another Intergovernmental Forum and lose a vote, and the rest of the world said they ,ould no longer look to icahn and if a majority agree to point in that direction, what is to stop that from happening . Get to that, listening to comments, there are facts that would need to happen, which are what the functions are and what we do. With respect to what happened in dubai in 2012 when we lost a vote. There is a treaty. Clarification that needs to happen. For those not familiar with filled worlda fun of acronyms, more than you can imagine. We will have a strict limit on acronyms. That is part of the challenge. There are three databases. A three databases domain name is the name that you type that connects you to and ip so you can result internet service. Basic things. Is it updatess three databases on behalf of three different customers. And we area customer not the policy maker of the services. It is a confusing structure, i admit. Implements what third parties ask them to do and does not intervene in the process. All it does is make sure that icahn is all the process of the thirdparty customers of the service. What we practically do in a practical manner is review a template to make sure the process has been followed. We do not exercise judgment. Us in any wayces needs to maintain that neutral management of the system and maintain the openness. , i know peopler are confused about all these different components. They do specifically what groups of parties ask icahn to do. Our role has been to make sure it that process has been followed. Keep in mind, lets say that i inherited this relationship in 1997 when they decided to advertise the management and introduced come petition into the system. At the time there was a monopoly provider. This entire system of was under this competition. That is what this has been about. They wanted to facilitate that decision transition. Lets put some of the facts there to help understand. Im hearing a lot of contracts because there is terminology, but the reason that we do this is because the internet was not developed because the government allowed it to belt, but it is commissioned in a governless way. When you describe it as icahn is effectively the Service Provider to three other customers and they are simply providing these very basic seemscal functions, icahn to have grown beyond a technical third provider. Evil use the analogy of the use theok people analogy of the phone book. Is it seems that there something much more involved in that. We talked about the multiStakeholder Community. We should simply turn all of this over to the multistakeholder. All stakeholders equally situated and do they all have the same credibility am preserving some of these issues . That is something worth exploring. 1998 and hasup in executed its stewardship for 15 years. A couple of things what else does icahn do besides these three services . And i would also like to hear if there are other things going on. How do we make sure they continue to fit into this private sector model . Coordinate thewe performance of these technical functions under the contract. The second thing that we do is we facilitate the development of policy related to these functions. For example, a new program is related to and develop of the other part of icahn. A large part of icahn where the multistate community participates actively. Policies he develop the policies. The same thing when introduced internationalized domain names. It is written in scripts other than latin. That started as a policy development. Theas in conjunction with governmental advisory committee. A number of people have touched on accountability. The functiony, agreement does not provide for accountability for icahn in general. It is limited to icahns performance of a certain function. It has never served as leverage or a backstop for icahns operation in other areas. What is responsible or that is for that is there is a number of reviews and the commitment. It allows for multistakeholder review. Describes a lot of Different Things icahn is doing or responsible for. Instrumental in improving icahn, and it will continue. Commenced thewe rolegue on transitioning a and improving and enhancing icahns accountability mechanism come including the affirmation of commitment. To for the place to go stakeholders who are concerned your it they should be concerned about icahns accountability. It shouldnt look at the contracts or the transition process as a means of enhancing icahns accountability. What do you think about the intersection of policy development and these technical functions . Simplynstitution, is it supposed to execute the wishes of its clients . Isthe other hand, it developing policies that could directly impact of this institutions. What do think about that . How should we think about that as a move forward from the current state to whatever comes after . It is so important to make things more real for people. But in terms of what do we care were as american citizens Internet Users around the world . We really jumped the gun. There was an announcement that was made that was less than a month ago. Already people are designing the replacement. In fact, we have a year and a half. Potentially, two or four years on top of that to design the mechanism. We need to define what the criteria are to know when we have discovered an appropriate mechanism to replace the accountability and oversight provided that the u. S. Government. I think there is a growing conversation in this town and on the hill that we ought to take a look at what we really care about. What are the scenarios or stresses that we need to be sure that any new mechanism will hold up at least as well as the u. S. Stewardship has for the last 16 years . We have put the cart way in front of the horse right now. I will give you three quick examples. A number of us have talked about this affirmation. It requires reviews. Fionas boss and jamie just now rest on affirmation as the anchor of accountability and the presence of affirmation that should give all of us peace. Yet the affirmation the previous chairman of icahn said he thought it was a temporary document i was looking forward they may not have the same people there forever. If icahn can walk away from the affirmation and it is cited as our accountability anchor, the make it would be to into the dna of icahn. Make it dynamic. And getting to the notion of lets decide what are the keys . There could be financial problems. If it were to fail, good come in is no longer icahn the responsible steward . Another might be what if governments increase their power by changing procedures so that icahn board would have more persuasion and move censorship from the edge of the internet to the core . These are scenarios and are not probabilities. They can acknowledge that the u. S. Has to give up this title. His is an inevitable decision it is not something that we can ny for or deny defer or de forever. Encroachment that comes. I think we can do that. Lets define the problems we want to solve before we suggest what structure we offer for. Can i underscore that with a couple of examples . I have expressed my skepticism. What way to translate that into action is, go slow. Icahn has not shown accountability over the years. In thing, i was not in singapore, but it was widely reported that one of the initial proposals put on the table received aggressive pushback for not having enough accountability and had to be withdrawn. I think we need to go very slow. We need to go slow and we need to be cautious. Perhaps we will get into this, i have yet to have explained to me how you are language control of something you can retain control want to relinquish control, you can get control back. The pressure is on these and is consistent and escalating. It is on the present. Omnipresent. Hey put pressure on staffing i have seen this happen at various international organizations. What is standing between us and this incredible pressure to give International Government more control . We should be very cautious and go slowly and very delivery lead. You gave me a chance and very delivery link. Deliberately. You gave me a chance there is no deadline on this. I urge everyone who has got a stake in this to participate in both consultations. The ceo shared a grid with stakeholders to get their feedback on it. Later took their feedback and made changes. They displayed that the following day at the icahn meeting. About makingoint sure that this thing is bulletproof is absolutely correct. View of the multistate model itself is a check against anyone taking it over. Clearly that is not for some not enough for something this important. I went to access some of your expense as a lawyer and a scholar on these issues going back. What sort ofght on contractual accountability , but ins that you made also want to go to this meeting bebrazil that you will participating in and tie in together this concept of stakeholder. Not every stakeholder has the same degree or level of ability on the commitment to open this. Level, multistake meeting is being held in brazil. Brazil doesnt have a great track record on its commitment to this. In fact, brazil was the only democracy that was aligned with some other great opponents for free speech and open internet, china, and iran, sryia, and others and syria and others going back. Sponsoredld be a u. N. Intergovernmental role. What are your thoughts on that . How should we think about the fact that this multistate meeting is being convened in a country and by a government that doesnt have the same level of commitment that the u. S. Has demonstrated. What do think of the legal structures for accountability . I think it is being convened by both the brazilians and icahn. Absencei would say the of the multistakeholder idea is that everyone is entitled to come and contribute their views. That is very much in line with the American Value of the consent of the government in effect. A camp of people that will be in brazil and arguing that the government should come in and collectively regulate in some way. I believe the purpose of this meeting is to see whether there is substantial enthusiasm for another model, one that would be an icahn model in which governments can come and give their view. Civil society will turn out to be a better source of ideas and howributions with regard to decisions would be made. In terms of how you make that accountable, it is not enough to just have everyone show up and promise to listen to them. It is not even enough to make a decision at the level of a board and explain how you did it. You have to give some real power to the individuals who are affected by the rules. That by. S. , we do allowing congress to pass a regulatory statute that constrains what an agency can do in effect. We do not have the equivalent here, but globally we could hit anybody who is adversely affected by the decision made in the icahn, if they believe the process was not adequately followed or if it was abused in some way we would not want her one of steve nash would not want if it was abused in some way we would not want. One of steves stress tests. The committee was trying to [indiscernible] there are two different divides here. There are some who worry about governments coming in and regulating icahn. Something people the u. S. Would find uncomfortable. And then icahn essentially accountable only to itself. There are two different conversations at the same time. We should work through the possible scenarios. Let me ask steve given where there has been a number of pieces of legislation introduced to try and address some of these concerns or grapple with these issues. Maybe you can talk of little bit about what you know about each of those or lease the general concept that they are trying to answer and where that stands. Thank you. Through representatives and three bills inside the house right now. Marked up. Was it calls for the General Accounting Office to do a report within one year after the proposal to transition has been received by ntia. It would assess whether the proposals met the principles and report back whether it is appropriate to transition. Another bill ever presented as kelly suggests that any transition would have to be authorized by congress at the time that the transition plan were complete. And that there by representative duffy is that it may not really push control may not relinquish control. Netchoice and members of our industry do not support any of these pieces of legislation. They had in the direction of deny and delay when it is easy to channel those concerns straight into the area of defining the stress test and scenarios. We should not wait until you are after the proposals into defined concerns. That is like giving people a test and waiting until youre later to tell them what will be on the test. Lets define those concerns now. Take the energy you feel in your offices in the hill and turn those into articulated scenarios we can design around and evaluate proposals as they come in. Lets not think that it is appropriate to deny and defer or delay. Theres a perfect storm of circumstances that brought us to this. It is pressure that was nonetheless powerful. It energized those other governments who have long resented the u. S. Legacy role. Symbolic and low level technical role that superbe acknowledged stewardship. Nonetheless, a lot of pressure coming up because of the brazil meeting. Nationshen the united meet. That is a perfect storm of pressure to make a decision now. We need to make progress down the road of defining the right kind of transition. I do not in cable serve the citizens i do not think it will serve the citizens or the multistate model to try to delay, deny, or box that in. Is there a view on any of these pieces of legislation . Sure. This was asked in a hearing yesterday. We are fully committed to a thoughtful process developing. There is opposition to the bill. We think it sends the wrong signal to the community. Not think it is particularly constructive. Over the last few weeks, the idea of a stress test has been suggested. We think it is a good idea and something that should be considered as part of the process. If i could pick up on that, im a programmer guy and not a government guy. Somethingver built based on principle. We need exact scenarios of what users would do with the software. That way we can code to it. You and your boss came up with helpful edibles on what this transition has to look like. The principles are good as far as they go, but theyre not concrete enough. Theyre not plausible. In a specific enough for us to design proposals that well meet them even after the transition. You could say it is a principle. Use a car analogy. It is in principle to have your teenager practicing driving during weather. A stress test is you put them in the car where theyre backend andwinging on the highway teaching them how to stress. Jamie, i think david talked about some potential solutions about the condition that ntia attached to their willingness to allow the icahn contracts to last. Have put things in place saying that there certain things they will not allow to happen. Icahn has convened the Stakeholder Community to examine end state of its transition would be. Does icahn view the scope of what it is currently engaged in two include a range of options as broad as that . Or does icahn have a view that certain outcomes shouldnt be considered and that there is a core structure that is going to be in place than what we are engaged in now . Excellent question. One of the documents we had put out is a scoping document. What theates consultation is supposed to be about. s document makes clear that it deals with what is on the table. What is on the table is replacing ntias stewardship role. For a out a document number of reasons here and we ran up by the u. S. Government and they have approved it. The purpose of the scoping document is to limit the discussion to what is really at stake not bring on every mutuality and content regulation and all kinds of other things engagedple who are less they do not the privilege of being engaged in icahn matters on a daily basis. So, on the other hand, it is an open process. People can and will make whatever contributions. This is not up to me or icahn. It is up to the multistate community to determine what ultimately comes out of this. Was charged by the Commerce Department to be the convener, the organizer of this global multistakeholder process to design the transition mechanism. In that role, the measure of scoping is quite powerful, quite compelling. It is the scope that jamie just described to limit phone conversations for the next year and a half. Icahn would have succeeded in evading this discussion of what holds them to this infamous affirmation of commitment. The scoping itself ruled out discussion of their agreement with ntia. That might have been an oversight. We can correct it. Glad to do that. We need to understand the accountability did affirmation to the affirmation. Documentp that scope in draft form so we can take care of things like facing the bylawsng the icahn regarding government advice. Teve, if i could, i completely agree. Those are important number stations to have. They are being undertaken in the consultation on accountability. The owner, fiona, they are referring to your work rod. Work product. I think there a little bit of confusion. There would be two processes and right now there is only one document out. Clearlyosal icahn indicates there are broader icahn accountability issues. Steve pointed out the role is very limited. We understand the nature of it. We understand the need to have a conversation about icahn accountability. We are looking forward to that and to the process. We will be actively participating in the conversation. Sure. Guarantee that for that will be happening. Trackssee that clear happening. We are obviously convened here on behalf of the congressional internet caucus. I wanted to make sure there was an opportunity for the staffers and representatives in the room to take advantage of the paddle that has been pulled to grow the panel that has been pulled together. Someone in the far back . Tech freedom. I am not a staffer. This panel seems to me is parallel to the larger iscussion of this issue one we have gotten into a debate about what the right answer is Going Forward in how we should do this. We have not asked the question of Whose Authority is this . What gives ntia the right to decide if theyre going to give up control over vienna . They concluded that they were not sure whether the functions constitute a property and decided it was not necessary to resolve it at that time. In 2003 the circuit decided that domain names are property. You would think that it domain names are property of the right to control domain names are also property. True, the constitution requires that andress decide who and when to whom to transfer u. S. Government property. Even if congress does nothing or they do not pass any of these bills that have been mentioned forward andtia goes transfers control, there will be litigation. If it is property, the transfer will be void. They will have started a process that has been bitterly acrimonious, replacing the previous bipartisan consensus. Gainst the takeover all because congress did not want to go and they were so secure of their analysis. Is that the question . Yes. Is it property . That ites you so sure is not property . Is there even a risk that they will rule this . Why didnt she go to congress to negotiate this beforehand . Is whether you got any legal analysis that goes direct to this point. There are a few things that need to be clarified. The functions themselves do not let people does a native who has the new leader. That is the icann process. Nothing to report was not specific as well. We have conducted our own interpretation. It is a good question. It can only be that congress is going to assert their prerogative. There is no question about that. Rely ona lie steves limited description of a title, there is a very significant question as to whether the executive ranch has the authority to do that, h has therly branc authority to do that. This is going to be a fight. If ntia has legal analysis on this, they will be better off relays releasing it sooner. The fact that it is property does not mean that coordination among private robberies to agree on what rules to follow in registering domain names as private property much Less Government property. There are many examples of government deciding to do for two private sex or sector initiatives. There are instances in which the government decides not to do for one people or coordinating their activities in a way that harms the market. What kind of sector should be supported by the government and not taken over . I disagree with the premise of the question. Thatt also observed theres no affirmative step that needs to be taken for this to conclude this is a contract that expires by its term. In allowing the contract to expire by its terms constitutes some sort of transfer of property. It is a good point that this is an issue that has been raised repeatedly. People in the press have gone back to the gao study. If for no other purpose than to ring some degree of clarity to this discrete issue, it may make sense at some point for it to be tackled directly. I cannot speak to the option of property. Test tot pass the sniff call property. The route table is roughly 400 names and numbers. You can fit them onto or three pages of legal pad. The name. Gov,. Com. The authority dictates who is in charge of managing and maintaining that table. Far be it from me to see that as property in any way. The table is copied and mirrored. I realize it may be a tactically interesting thing to pursue to get into this balance of power. It sends the wrong signal to the world. The u. S. Regardless as its property. That is exactly what many other countries that were formerly our allies on this would point to as the reason that the u. S. Never was going to transition to this after all. It will make things far worse to embark on a property debate. Lets have the debate on solve. S we want to the problems you want to avoid are shared by citizens of this and says all over the globe. They agreed we want to make sure this thing stays secure. We want to not let the censorship creep to the core. We have allies try to come up with stress tests. We will turn them into enemies by claiming the internet naming system is our property. I am with oracle. And you want me to stand . About all of the conditions that would be attached to the transfer. Censorship should not come to the core or the edges. The property should be respected. There should be accountability, etc. Thatss that was the point he was making earlier. How do we know that once we have thaten all of this down the day after the transfer is a fact this is that theres not a rollback. Countriesa lot of with very opposing views on these talk it does on these topics. This transfer is going to happen no matter what. Theres no point in denying the inevitability. I would rather be driving that process than trying to prevent the inevitable. That therese sure not a way to reverse this once it has been written down and some sort of icann constitution . This is exactly my concern. Maybe it is because i am a think tank person. I am concerned what happened 15 years from now. You a months pay right now that 15 years from now if we take this step governments will be in control of these things. The pressure will only ratchet up. There is no way that once you release it that you can maintain control over it. I do not care what contracts are put in place. They will change in time due to an anonymous amount of pressure on one side of the equation and only engineers on the other side. I asked earlier we take a great deal of comfort in the u. S. Contract now. How really sticky is that . We do not have control in the way one would think of control in a legal or a factual way. We have a series of agreements oft a very diverse loop actors have concerted two. How strong is the contract . I wanted to start with this clarification. Or theot control icann internet. No one does. It is important to understand that people understand that. Is important to understand the multistakeholder model. We keep talking about icann. This is made up of thousands of people that participate in a variety of different structures. Dissipate through the advisory. We debate and decide the issues. Advised of all the governments in all the government agreed that it has some sort of it ortiz or standing in the community. The rest of the community corporations. It is really a site to see. The idea that they will let this captured is not possible in my mind. A. There are thousands of people in the room talking through Different Things. They are not above other stakeholders. Im not familiar with this scenario. Im not quite sure what happened in the past. And not sure if it is comparable to what the multistakeholder is. One of the reasons he wanted to take the step was to recommit to the world that we really do build the lead in a multistakeholder model. While it is a different organization, all of the same the igfakeholders or at in. 1997 when it was over and we were unplugging our laptops, the commandeer thee podium and pounded his shoe and went on a rant about how it was critical that the government the given control of these functions. Those are all the same stakeholders in a different venue. This is fun. Lets go over here. Former congressional staffer. I work with a variety of clients. Beenof the genius has privatesector leadership, not just private stakeholder. Up to now the role of government has them they have not been equal stakeholders. I think that is going to change the statements. It calls for globalization of the function. The ceo has talked about the stakeholder model. Politically with the transition is that it will in some way be enhanced. Given the strong possibility that the role of government will be enhanced and they will go from subordinate to at least should one of the stress tests be to figure out how to limit it so it does not go from that to some future scenario ments try to become dominant . Even if the image he were to join in as equals in the policy development process, one of the notciples is that you do get a binding policy unless there is consensus. Can have enough of a veto so that they can be listened to. Notll determines whether or ae board that there will be consensus before it adopts a policy. Whether theres some way to challenge this. Eson as separation of powers and the ability of bringing a complaint to the judiciary. I think we have some good models to draw it. What you are getting in the questions with one another and the questions that are coming from the audience. It really underscores that we are at a beginning state here. These are all precisely the kind of issues were going to have to engage to make sure that we come to a conclusion felt warned weinst some of the outcomes are afraid of. It answers some of it on the ultimate private sector. I work in this and operations. Quite a bit back i was involved in a work with the itu with data network standards. A lot of good work was done. The real problem was too slow. Is was developed outside of the context of the itu. I do not see much alternative to go into that kind of regime. Anyhow multinational stakeholders who are old over the world . What is the problem you see with this becoming involved with this . Im going to let tom take this. Assigned aeen response. The first time i ever went to a meeting at the United Nations organization it was a five date meeting and they spent the entire first day giving each is congratulating the chairman of being elected of chairman. That was day one of five. They are slow. Sometimes slow is good if people are trying to do bad things or cause mischief. The design of these institutions , consensus is a device built for stalemates. Ive seen this happen so many times in these organizations. The demand to achieve consensus means that nothing happens. Very easy to is tie these organizations up in knots and meet for years and not get anything done. Done, dont something not give it to a bureaucracy. Sure do not give it to an international bureaucracy. If i could, on that real quickly. Lets not be too optimistic. Our multistakeholder process at icann, we are not multilightning fast either. It took us seven years. Internet times when you compare it to the itu. It takes time. There has to be competing me to drive it along or else people would just give it up. The beauty of the process is that changes and improvements that are truly needed by a broad but germ, those are the things that can survive running the consensus process. Let me close by saying at itu, remember the rule. Every country no matter how small or large 50 same onevote. Roomnly entities in the r that can vote is governments. Anyone else eye candy. The multistakeholder process is antithetical to multinations were every nation gets every vote and private sector gets noble. Often thenishing how u. S. In that standing alone in these organizations. This acts as a block. Be tens to promise the United States that they will be with them and when it comes down to the actual vote they abandon them without the colonial guilt for the african group. Japan will not stand up in advocate. Grosslyt always are outnumbered. That is reality. Questions for you. What are the implications if decide to relocate internationally outside of the United States . What assurances can there be that that is not going to happen . We have no intentions of moving outside the United States. It is important to note that we have hundreds, maybe thousands s with the registries. Nd registrars it makes no sense for us to move out. Worlde offices around the but no plans to move headquarters anywhere. There is no question that there is no comfort in the fact that is the usbased corporation. I take great comfort in the fact that it is based in the United States. What can guarantee that it does not change . Nothing can guarantee it does not change. A little bit of clarification of my perspective. Sometimes government and up in situations where the best option is not on the table. It may be that Something Like this is inevitable. My reaction is we better be there he careful and very deliberate and go slow if it is inevitable. If it is inevitable, it is inevitable because of a year of diplomacy and because of the betrayal by the nsa. We are taking the final step in this process. Do with what we are seeing. We were governing the internet in the same way it had been developed. This is what helps american customers and businesses. This is what leads to this globally. The u. S. Government gains little influence here or. Uthority there if we get this power we can never get it back. Wondering, does commerce have authority that it is not using right now . Congress has the authority under the contract both acting as a steward for the functions and then with respect to the root zone to play a verifying role. Those are important functions. It is an important backstop. Your question about can and never be taken back, i think that is something that will be the subject of consultation. Let me try to respond. Fiona as the holder. We announced our intent to take the final step here and we put the four corners of the framework that we would have and we asked them to have a conversation and come back to us with a proposal. That is what we have done. We have done halfway through the first term of the threeyear contract. And have a 18 months conversation. We havecannot agree, the option to extend this contract. Is there some conflict of views to whether it is just lyrical or does it have the symbolic value with icann . We cross that bridge a long time ago. The u. S. Government did so. Was012 the decided icann not being responsive to the requirements. Led the proposal. The contract has value. He is inviting all of us to find way to find this. They can maintain or recover some kind of control. We want to replicate the symbolic value. It will not be reached by taking the whole thing out. Been a veryhis has helpful and robust discussion at times. That these are matter that are of great interest not just to congress but to stakeholders around the world into industry and citizens. Were going to have to hold together all these views into a process in the next 15 months or longer to get to a place where i think we all agree that the operation has been successful in something we want to preserve. The legal structures are ones that were going to have to be thoughtful and creative new model. Good ability to do that. Thank you for convening this. We wish everybody a great afternoon. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2014] comedian lewis black will talk about politics and social issues at the National Press club. We will have that live at 1 00 eastern. Authorst experts and discuss human rights in north korea with michael kirby, the chair of the United Nations commission of inquiry. He will talk about a recent report finding that the goebel atrocities in north korea. You can watch satellite getting at 3 00 eastern. The first thing i would do is tv let the largest cable second largest cable tv company. That is where i would start. My advice is to raise these concerns. He seems like a really smart guy. My job is to ask him a tough question. They have 107 lobbyists on capitol hill. They are swarming us. 100,000 people, more, write me their objections. The first thing i would do is stop this deal. I would not let this go through. It is not up to me. Its up to me. Senator franken weighs in on the merger. Monday on cspan2. Tonight, q a with tom coburn. Senator coburn announced to retire at the end of next year