Governing the Internet

MR. BAILY: (In progress) …on the discussions surrounding Internet governance that happened last weekend in Geneva and will continue on to the summit in Tunis in November of this year. This is an issue, which has not exactly been on the front pages, but when one thinks about the importance of the Internet in our lives and the lives of everyone around the world, it's an enormously important subject for consumers, for journalists, for exporters, for business, for any user of the Internet.

So I'm pleased to welcome Ambassador Gross and Assistant Secretary Gallagher. They'll open with a statement about where we are in this issue, what our concerns are and then they'll be happy to take your questions.

Ambassador.

AMBASSADOR GROSS: Well, I'll just start off. Good to see you. Welcome. Let me sort of just give a little background about the world summit first and one small correction which is, I thought this was not in the makings of a front page story until Friday, the International Herald had it as a lead article, which is quite interesting when you wake up in the morning and you see that on the hotel door.

The world summit is a really historic event in a number of respects. It's the first time the UN has held a summit in two phases, which is supposed to reflect the importance of the summit. It's a summit that's supposed to focus on the issues of technology, including the Internet, and how it can help the developing world.

The first phase of the summit was held in Geneva in 2003 and I'm told that it was the largest UN summit ever held; large numbers of heads of state were there, large numbers of delegates were there. It was a tremendous success, I think, from everyone's perspective. The documents that were produced both a Declaration of Principles and a Plan of Action were first rate.

The second phase, which is the phase we're working on right now, is a phase where the summit will be held in Tunis, Tunisia in mid-November of this year. We've been working on preparing for it now for quite a while, really since the end of the first phase.

I would say that, in many respects, frankly, there are two sets of issues that we grapple with there: Internet governance, which is what we'll probably spend most of our time talking about because it seems to be the one that gathers the most attention; but a second set of issues, which I think are important for us, at least, to underscore, which are the issues about how we bring the benefits of technology to the developing world. We really live in an extraordinary time where, as you know, people regardless of where they live now have access to information, are able to express themselves, have freedom of expression in ways that it can be heard by more than just their immediate neighbors, regardless of where they live, whether it's in the steppes of Russia, whether or not it's in the middle of the United States, or whether or not it's in Southern Africa or China or elsewhere, the ability to communicate now is without precedent.

And so our goal has been -- the U.S. goal here -- has been to try to continue to focus the summit on bringing the benefits of technology to all the world's people. One of the things that Mike and I have used is a chart that was in The New York Times the end of the summer, which just is really a (inaudible) of the tremendous growth in terms of (inaudible), in terms of the Internet. It's basically for those of you who are online reading this rather than looking at it, it's just a chart that shows the growth as if it were a rocket ship going virtually straight up.

We see our role here as to try to continue that rise because what that really represents are people in the developing world having access to technology and using technology to bring benefits to themselves and their families, rather than the distractions of political arguments about the technical issues and so forth, which as far as I can tell will not lead to more people being connected but in fact pose the threat to the reliability and stability of the Internet in a way that would retard that growth and make it harder for people to have access, to have better access to technology and to be able to express themselves.

So that, in a nutshell -- Mike?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GALLAGHER: Thank you, David. It's a pleasure to be here with you all, especially because we're talking about a piece of our economy that the President is acutely focused on and it's one that we understand is the platform for the growth of the U.S. economy and the world economy for the 21st century.

The importance of the networks that are the digital underpinnings of the digital economy can't be overstated. When we look at the factual growth of what we see, when we look at the growth of mobile phones, we look at the declining cost of computers, we look at the increased capacity in storage and the trends we see in that marketplace. We see the ability to move ideas, whether it's health care, whether it's education, whether it's commerce over broadband pipes. It's extraordinarily important that we are focused on these issues.

And the benefits to the U.S. are really part and parcel of the growth of the world in this space. Metcalfe's Law shows us that the value of the network increases by the square of the number of participants who are on the network. There are 300 million Americans and billions more people for us to work with, to share with and to trade with over these pipes. So we are very committed to creating an environment that fosters growth throughout the world in this space.

What we are seeing with great optimism and what we are embracing here in the United States, we're also seeing it grow around the world and we want that to continue. It's important when we focus on the Internet governance piece that David mentioned when we look at what is working very well.

Ten years ago, private sector leadership in this space was an untested concept. Today, it is a proven success. Governments are not capable of change at a rapid enough level to meet the demands and the growth that we have seen in the Internet. But the private sector has answered the call in an enormous way. And I have some facts and some statistics I'm happy to share with you that my staff can also make available.

Domain registration reached an all-time high of 83.9 million in the second quarter of 2005. According to another source, gTLDs increased 31.3 percent from January 2004 to January 2005, climbing to 46.4 million registrations. From January 2004 to January 2005, all gTLDs signed increased in the number of registrations, COM and NET grew by 27 percent and 22 percent, respectively; ORG and BIZ saw increases of 19 percent; and DOT.INFO registrations rose 207 percent. CCTLDs account for 36 percent of all domain registrations. These are the Country Code Top Level Domains for specific countries.

We are seeing a growth across this space and we are seeing it at a time when threats are also increasing. When we look at -- for the week of April 17th to April 23rd, 2005, six out of the ten top selling software titles were anti-virus or computer security titles. I think that is a clear indication of where the priorities and the degree of risk that we face in this -- in cyberspace.

In 2004, the number of viruses encountered per 1,000 PCs worldwide increased almost 50 percent to 392 and up rather significantly from the 2000 figure of 91. In addition, viruses accounted for 6.1 percent of all email received worldwide in 2004, up three percent, up from three percent in 2003 so essentially doubling as a share. And spam now accounts for 67 percent of all email. So we see the growth in the positive opportunities for our economies and all the world; at the same time as we see the risks expanding. At this time, it is incumbent on the United States and the rest of the responsible world leaders to send clear signals to the marketplace that those things that are working will continue to work. Those things that are serving the e-commerce expansion we are seeing the world will continue to work.

And we stand here today and are very willingly engaging with the rest of the world to provide that strength, to provide that certainty and to provide that clarity. But again, it's a very shared architecture; it's a very shared mission that we have and it's one where we have a track record of working well with other countries over the last ten years.

So that's the opening thought as to why I'm sitting and happy to engage in questions.

MR. BAILY: If I could just remind you to state your organization and name when you ask your question.

QUESTION: Hi, Wendy Leibowitz from Bureau of National Affairs, Electronic Commerce and Law Report. I have two questions. First, what happened in Geneva from your perspective? We've read -- or is it true that the United States is now virtually isolated in that the European Union has swung over to a stance that would favor the formation of a new multinational organization, perhaps anchored in the UN, to run things that as far as the U.S. position is that "we're working very fine, thank you," and obviously it's not the position of the EU and some of us are very worried that the U.S. doesn't seem to be responsive at all to the rest of the world. And you say everything is fine, look at these statistics, really doesn't go --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GALLAGHER: So don't bother with the facts?

QUESTION: Well, for instance, take the statistics that you're reeling off about the registrations, which are -- a lot of these registrations might be in the "who is" databases and the accuracy of those databases run by -- I can't use -- it's very questionable, these could be bogus spammers that are using false, you know --

AMBASSADOR GROSS: And an extra layer of bureaucracy, worldwide bureaucracies are going to make that happen more efficiently and faster.

QUESTION: I certainly don't think so, sir, but I don't hear any suggestions other than "everything is fine now" so, you know, we'll just stall and the Tunis summit will blow over and we'll be okay.

AMBASSADOR GROSS: Let me address that before Mike explain (inaudible) you point out. One is, let me first talk a little bit about where we are. Where we are is certainly not isolated. In fact, I was very heartened to see as the PrepCom -- as part of the PrepCom was coming to an end -- that there were a number, I thought, of very constructive proposals put out, particularly out of the developing world.

For example, the Africa Group, which is made up of -- I don't know how many countries, 50-sum, I think, it is a very large number of countries, of course -- had a proposal that we thought was very much worth talking about. We talked about the importance of engaging in the dialogue to capacity building. And in our discussions and Mike and I have had the honor of meeting with the Africa Group during the PrepCom so that we could hear directly from them. And their message to us was very clear, I thought. Their message was, "Don't get distracted by these Internet governance issues that warrant (inaudible) add one more Internet customer to the continent of Africa. Help us focus on implementation. Help us focus on growing Internet so that our people can have access to the technology." That's what they want.

Similarly, there were some proposals by a group of countries -- Argentina, Singapore, Canada, Australia -- a whole host of countries that put together a proposal towards the end of this part of the PrepCom. There also are a lot of very positive things in there. Again, the focus on creation of an opportunity to exchange information in forum to work on these things.

We certainly don't say that the status quo is where we need to be and should be. To the contrary, what we see is that the Internet is extraordinarily dynamic and we want to do what we can to ensure than dynamism. What we see is that in order for that dynamism to continue to evolve, including inputs from all parties not just governments but other parties as well, that it is important that governments don't stifle that.

One example is that the Internet -- the way in which it is governed, to use that term broadly, is extraordinarily participatory. Not just by other governments, which all of whom already played an important role in this, but also by what's called civil society, by private enterprise, by a whole host of actors, by technical people, academics and the like. We see the European proposal as actually putting a damper on that extraordinarily participatory approach. And instead, ceding the control to some sort of amorphous intergovernmental group made up of countries such as Iran, Cuba, and the like, who as far as I can tell have no interest in ensuring that the Internet grows and prospers.

An important piece here I think as well and part of why we speak with such passion about this is, is it's not just the growth of the Internet from a commercial type of prospective, as important as that is, but it's also important to recognize that the Internet has become, I think, an extraordinary mechanism for freedom of expression. Each year, publications are available on the Internet; people are able to directly communicate with them, with each other, through the Internet. And we are very concerned that countries that do not support that freedom and that openness, taking control of these types of aspects of the Internet in order to, among other things, ensure that that doesn't continue. We see this as an important component. We see the way in which the Internet has worked so far and we support its continuing evolution. What we don't want to see in an intergovernmental group coming in to stifle that.

One last point -- and then I'll let Mike talk a little bit about this as well -- and that is the concern that we're just saying no. It's exactly the opposite. What we have long wanted to do and long have done is engage in dialogues on these issues with all parties -- governments, private sector, civil society and the others. We do that in a way that we think gives them the most direct voice that they don't have to speak just through governments. We wanted to ensure that they can speak directly to the growth of the Internet, the change of the Internet, both technically and otherwise. We see these proposals as actually stifling that very participatory group, to in fact narrow it down to just being governments or be basically driven just by governments.

So we actually see this as being very open and very participatory. And we don't see ourselves as being isolated. Although we do recognize, of course, and that was part of the surprise about the European Union's position, is where they came out.

One last example of that, if you don't take my word for this, you go back and you look at what happened when the Europeans actually went on a microphone and announced the details of what they were proposing, immediately, support for that proposal was expressed by Cuba, Iran, China, the Arab Group and others. These are not, I submit, the types of people who necessarily see eye to eye with us in terms of the importance of the growth and the participatory nature of the Internet.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GALLAGHER: I'll start off with a few thoughts. David is clearly the expert and David and his team travel the world and they gauge extensively in the international arena. I participate in these things as I'm able to from the domestic viewpoint. But I will share that I thought there was great support for the underpinnings of our position. When we met with groups individually or we met with the Africans and there was applause for our visit with them, I felt like we were enjoying broad support for the direction that we see the world evolving in this space.

And I would also say that if the EU wants to cast its lot with digital trailblazers like Iran, Syria and Cuba, then that's their choice. But I would suggest that when they're doing that, it's a step towards preserving their 1.3 percent GDP growth rate and their unemployment rate that approaches 9 percent. In fact, to be competitive in the world of tomorrow and looking forward, it's going to take a much more nimble approach to policymaking than an additional layer of bureaucracy over the top of things that are already working very well.

AMBASSADOR GROSS: One last thought -- I should've mentioned this before, Wendy, and I apologize. And this goes a bit towards the isolation issue, I think. As Mike and I have talked to, I don't know, almost countless governments --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GALLAGHER: Scores.

AMBASSADOR GROSS: We've really tried to be very broad in this. There is one message that's much -- that's singular. Everyone starts their talking points with us with a message: Job one for governments is the reliability and the stability of the Internet. And in fact, the burden has been put on us for now for a couple of years to -- because the question is usually posed to us, "What is it the United States Government, which is often the creation of this wonderful thing, doing to ensure the reliability and stability of the Internet?" And that was addressed in part by the four principles that came out in June. But it is clear to us that the Internet as it is (inaudible) to right now and as it evolves is remarkably stable and remarkably reliable; that proposals for intergovernmental intervention to the technical aspects of the Internet cannot, in my mind, be squared with the need to ensure continued stability and reliability. Having been in industry, I know that that sort of uncertainty leads to less investment, less growth and just in a time when that growth and those investments are particularly important for the developing world. I think that's partly -- I can't speak for them -- but I think that's partly the reason why you see Africa, much of South America and other parts of the developing world not looking for the distraction of Internet governance in the world summit where it's a heads of state summit but rather looking for ways to grow the Internet.

QUESTION: So where is it going to -- Charlene Porter with the Washington File -- so what is the position of getting past this deadlock as you go to Tunis?

AMBASSADOR GROSS: We will gather again to discuss these issues on the three days, on the eve of the summit in Tunis when the preparatory meeting resumes. We will be actively engaged in those discussions. Between now and then, we are already and we'll continue to be very actively engaged in bilateral discussions, not only with governments but with other groups -- industry, civil society and the like. And, you know, we are very hopeful that when the world leaders gather in Tunis in November, that they will have a document to endorse that we can all be proud of.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GALLAGHER: And the one thing you can count on is that the Internet is going to continue to grow and expand to millions more people in the world between now and then and thereafter. The debate that's going on with the bureaucracy is almost of marginal relevance to many of the people who are actually benefiting from the Internet today.

QUESTION: Sir, a very quick follow-up. What will happen in Tunis? I mean, you said that you are not -- you are against the status quo. Does it mean that you are ready to give in something before that?

And my second question, if I may, it's about the negative aspects of Internet. You said about viruses, spam and so on and so on, do you think that the private sector is really capable to handle these negative issues?

AMBASSADOR GROSS: Let me take the first one. On the status quo, nobody thinks the Internet stays in status quo, I mean, because it's, I mean, the part of the genius of it is how rapidly changing it is. So we don't seek to preserve the status quo. In fact, we seek ways to ensure its faster and faster expansion, adoption around the world and work very closely with other governments and other groups to do that.

Having said that, that doesn't mean at all that we are looking to change the way in which our government and other governments are involved in this or the way in which other groups are involved in this, although, even that constantly evolves.

For example, many of the governments are involved in the GAC, which is the group that gives advice to ICANN and I'll let Mike talk about this, but of course, both ICANN and Department of Commerce and others have been very actively involved in trying to ensure that the GAC continues to evolve to ensure that it is a way in which governments feel comfortable providing advice and counsel to ICANN. But we also do it through various other mechanisms as well. We work very closely with other governments on technical aspects through things like the ITU. We do it, as you point out, law enforcement groups get together and talk about the cyber crime, cyber security and the importance of that to ensure, you know, reliable and trustworthy Internet.

And so governments do play a very important role, will continue to. The question that's on the table is whether or not government should be more deeply and actively involved in the technical aspects of design of the Internet. And there we feel very strongly that it should continue to be private sector led.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GALLAGHER: Let me just start. I could give you a couple things on that.

First, with respect to the status quo, what we are doing now, the path that we share is the world today, which is a rich one for all of us that are walking on the path of the Internet and the expansion of the Internet in our societies, is working. It's unqualifiedly working. There has been no responsible suggestion of a workable alternative. There are theories that are proposed, there are talking papers that are circulated, but this is the Internet and it's inner workings are not easily captured or -- and should not be relying upon such fluid, flexible documents. It's not responsible and it's not technically accurate, it's misguided. And I would say that: 1) it's a strong measure and we ought not be sending -- those of us who want to benefit from the growth of digital technologies and our economies, we ought not be sending messages that would disincent investment. And by projecting this notion of a world cup of bureaucracy sitting over the top of the Internet is only going to disincent that investment that we very much want to see, not just in the United States, not just in Europe, but around the world.

AMBASSADOR GROSS: Let me just add one thing maybe with a Russian focus to that, if I may. When Minister Reyman and I talk about these issues, I am struck by the challenge that he and the Russian people face. It's such a large country to bring conductivity to all the Russian people. We think there's been tremendous progress made in Russia -- remarkable progress, not only on the Internet but also basic telephone service and the like. To the challenges he has explained to me in our discussions is to try to ensure that that progress continues, that is, the implementation -- making sure that the Russian people have full access to these technologies. We think Internet governance issues are a distraction and will make that more difficult, not easier. And so when we've talked to the Minister, that's been our message and I think one that he understands well.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GALLAGHER: That in the private sector question that you raised, the private sector is the unquestioned and sole capable responder to the threats to this point in our evolution in the Internet. Each time a threat has emerged to the Internet -- a virus, malware, different types of malicious code -- the answer has come from the private sector, not from a government. No government has offered that, no bureaucrat has come forward with a solution. And I would suggest combinations of them are only going to make things slower and make the Internet more vulnerable than it is to the threats that are out there today.

QUESTION: I'm sorry, sir, a quick follow-up. The governance, however, better good they are, they are not spammers. The private sector is a main spammer. And if you like to let the private sector control itself, wouldn't it be self-contradictory? That was basically my question.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GALLAGHER: What I would say is on the issues -- the answers to the threats are best addressed in the private sector. Now, if there are issues of education, issues of enforcement and issues of policy, those are the affairs of government. The technical response to meet these threats is very much what the private sector has shown it's able to deploy.

When it comes to those other three elements, there is a very strong role for government and that's one of the places. When you look at our four principles we announced in June, the fourth one says we were very willing to engage with the rest of the world on the policy discussions of great importance like spam. And we have done that with the Australians, with the UK, with the Russians. So yes, there's a rule for governments and those discussions are on the policies and on those three elements that I described.

AMBASSADOR GROSS: Just on that, just to be very -- we worked very closely with other governments, including the Russian Government, to do that which we think the governments ought to do. For example to ensure that bad acts are made unlawful, that there be vigorous law enforcement. Those are not easy issues often. We've been working very closely through APEC and otherwise with Russia and with many other governments to help on the capacity building there, to share information to work on those things together. So yeah, there is a role for government. What Mike articulates, though, is that governments are only part of that and a ways from the predicate. But the real solutions, ultimately, we think, are likely to be technical solutions and the like to come out of the private sector.

MR. BAILY: A question from Italy?

QUESTION: Yes. Giampiero Gramaglia, Italian News Agency, ANSA. I want to come back to the question on the Tunis ending point. What do you expect? What do you hope for the summit? What is the final result you would like?

And I have another question. I'm sorry, I'm not an expert, so it's a real clarification I need. If I understand what the Department of Commerce has a say in the decision of ICANN. Now, recently used a certain power to influence some decision of ICANN. Have other governments, other countries or group of countries the same power of, say, on the decision of ICANN?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GALLAGHER: You take the first, I'll take the second?

AMBASSADOR GROSS: Thank goodness. I'll (inaudible) the second one.(Laughter.)

In terms of the outcome of the summit, our hope is shaped by the fact that this is a summit of senior political leaders. This is not a technical meeting. This is where heads of state come and other senior political leaders. And so what we hope is that we will have a success similar to what we had in Geneva in 2003, the first phase, and that would be a focus by the senior political leaders on the benefits that can come to the people in their countries from the use of technology, whether it's the Internet, cell phones and other types of technology; to bring educational benefits, to bring governmental benefits, to bring health benefits, and to bring the opportunity to have freedom of expression to those countries. We hope and expect that we will have a document that can be adopted that will reflect those views. So I'm optimistic that we will get such a document.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GALLAGHER: On your second point, what I would say is that the Department of Commerce, let's be clear, the predicate of your question is flawed. The actual letter itself, when you read it, simply asked ICANN to take into account -- take additional time to take into account the views of others who may have been left out of their decision-making process. It did not suggest or dictate a specific outcome or result.

Now, as a result of the United States asking for them to fairly consider all viewpoints, many other countries have written to ICANN, including the Chairman of the Government Advisory Committee, of the GAC, and the EU and -- who else, Fiona -- there's like two or thee others?

STAFF: Norway.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GALLAGHER: Sweden. Denmark has expressed concerns and then there was another one recently, just in the last week, but another communication was sent to ICANN that said we would like to participate in that discussion. And now ICANN is expected to take that issue up for discussion at its December Government Advisory Committee meeting in Vancouver, Canada. So in fact that might be a signal that the United States is working with the rest of the world to make sure all views are heard. It was not a unilateral action along the lines of your question.

Just one other point about the challenges we face specifically with the EU proposal is a close reading of the proposal reveals that, you know, it's a Trojan virus in bureaucratic clothing. What you have there is an internally consistent, inconsistent suggestion.

The first portion of it describes a setting that says no day-to-day meddling in the operations. The second setting goes into a very detailed list of specific actions that this body would do, this group of bureaucrats from around the world. When you look at those decisions, not a single one of those has risen to my level of consideration within the Department of Commerce.

So when you -- just to give you a snapshot of the proposal versus where we are now, we participate in this in the form of final technical implementation of solutions that are derived by ICANN. That's been our performance from the beginning and it's been our performance through today. The EU proposal looks for a much more robust level of involvement by a much broader group of individuals from around the world which leads to the strong view that that's a mistake in direction to follow.

QUESTION: I'm sorry. Can you clarify that now? Did you just say that the European proposal is calling for this board of governance to deal with technical day-to-day matters none of which --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GALLAGHER: Are dealt with -- I deal with today.

QUESTION: Okay.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GALLAGHER: Personally.

QUESTION: And so those matters are dealt with solely within the confines of ICANN?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GALLAGHER: ICANN and then the final technical level of approval and insertion into the authoritative roots (inaudible) on file by the Department of Commerce. And I would just refer you to the middle block of the proposal itself to read the specific thing, so you can just use their own words.

QUESTION: Let me try to -- it was very clear the answer, but it's true that the Department of Commerce has a right to veto on some decision of ICANN?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GALLAGHER: It's not a right and it's not a veto. It's a process and a process that follows the sequence of decisions that are made.

QUESTION: Let me rephrase. Is it true that the Department of Commerce can veto some decisions of ICANN?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GALLAGHER: It's not a veto in that -- it's a process that we have a step that we preserve within the Department of Commerce. It's not called a veto, it's not referred to as a veto. It's not --

QUESTION: But it's a block -- you can block a decision of ICANN.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GALLAGHER: I think as a technical matter, we probably could. To date, we have considered hundreds, if not thousands of directives from ICANN and we have not "blocked," to use your word, a single one.

AMBASSADOR GROSS: In contrast, one of the things that concerns us greatly, as Mike points out, is that as we read the EU proposal, there will be a group of bureaucrats from countries around the world that will be able to restrict the innovation -- the technical people in Italy, for example, currently bring to the Internet and their ability to be able to continue to innovate. Italy has been a source of great innovation in these areas, particularly in the (inaudible.) And so that to us is (inaudible.) We would like to see people, whether it's in Italy, Russia, United States, around the world, be free to continue to innovate and not have to seek permission or make sure that they structure what they do in a way that meets some predetermined outcome set by a bunch of international government bureaucrats.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GALLAGHER: And they show their true colors in Geneva. The private sector was excluded from a number of meetings and procedurally challenged throughout the course of the discussions by the very people who say that they would not be meddling in the day-to-day operations of the Internet.

QUESTION: Well, where does the impression seem to arise that the U.S. is policing the Internet, that the U.S. won't give up its policing powers and your talking about a non-veto record here? So, you know, where's the disconnect here? Where has this impression arisen in Europe and how is it that you can --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GALLAGHER: You think it's the media? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Yeah, I do. (Laughter.)

AMBASSADOR GROSS: I don't know. I think the proof, though, is in the growth that we see -- what policing or non-policing, what role everyone plays and so forth. We do play an important role to ensure the stability and reliability of the Internet. It's something that we have said that we will continue to do and that's obviously important.

We don't, in fact, seek to restrict in any way content and anybody that goes on the Internet can see very clearly that we don't seek and certainly have not played any role and constitutionally we can't play a role with regard to that. So the question really is we don't do that, but do people think that some group of international governments and their bureaucrats will keep their hands off of both content and technical aspects over time? We don't think so.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GALLAGHER: I'll tell you one (inaudible) where does this come from? And I think it's a general misunderstanding of what the Internet is. The world and governments themselves deal very well with tangible known structures and things. The Internet because of its international nature, because of its rooting in a very technical standard -- now, the Internet is nothing more than a standard for communication and then the networks that it rides over -- the ability of people at the edge of the network to influence and direct and create the content of what's flowing through it, these are concepts that countries don't understand well and there is a general nature to say, "Well, then we must control it, we must go use the old ways to solve the new challenge, to look at this new thing." And where they look for it, they look for order. That's their first starting point.

And the one place where there's order, where there's a loose gravitational attraction of the control, if you want to call it that, but there is an order, is in the DNS. It's in the Domain Name System because there is a translation that occurs from a series of letters to a series of numbers and that is really the only order in the Internet.

The secret to success is embracing the dynamic nature of the Internet and not trying to control it and that's where the United States policy is very much focused so that we can continue to harness the energy from that dynamism and not seek to control something that is, by its nature, not controllable.

AMBASSADOR GROSS: And that's why there's a very fundamental issue for us and one that, frankly, surprises us about where the EU came out or Brussels came out. As Mike indicates, our approach to the Internet, as is our approach with many of these things, is to have a bottoms-up type of structure. By that I mean that the innovation and the dynamism comes from the people who use it, from academics, from industry, civil society, with virtually very, very little, if any, governmental role.

What the EU seems to propose is a top-down bureaucratic structure that was the way of the last century and that seems to us to be counterproductive because it stifles innovation, it stifles the very thing that's made the Internet as successful as it is. And so we were surprised because the EU, of course, has made great strides in many areas. We're trying to reform away from a top-down command and control and this seems to be a step back to the old ways that we don't think worked very well then and certainly won't work well going forward.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GALLAGHER: Yeah. And just one thing historically, there may be some disconnect because the Internet was a creation of the U.S. Government originally back in the '60s. And then there's a very clear chronology in history that says in 1991 or so, it was turned over, you know, evolved to a -- that is much more -- it's driven by the private sector. There is no U.S. Government control even though it started within the U.S. Government, there is no U.S. Government control of the Internet as a whole. It has long since evolved away as a historical matter.

MR. BAILY: Any other questions?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GALLAGHER: You have any answers? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I just want to bring forward one thing, I appreciate getting these responses, but one thing that does seem to grate on people and, again, I just bring their concerns to you, because like --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GALLAGHER: Who are "they"? That's what I want to know? Who are they?

QUESTION: (Inaudible) a look at ICANNWATCH.ORG. These are people who are very, very involved with dealing with ICANN, I'd say, a daily basis or -- these are not some of the (inaudible) the fringe. But many of them are mainstream people, okay. You can't just dismiss them as these are "way over last century. They don't understand how the Internet works." It's really kind of condescending and they react to it by saying, look, here's how ICANN messed up our CCTLD, the Country Code Domain, and why should they have to go for technical day-to-day matters to a California-based organization to deal with a policy for DOT.ES for Spain or DOT.RU or DOT.IT. You know, and they're saying right or wrong, that the Internet has evolved to the point where they want to bring their sovereign priorities and not have to deal with the U.S. at all and that was (inaudible.)

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GALLAGHER: I'll give you two thoughts on that. One is read the second principle that we announced in June. Okay, we were very clear about a willingness to engage with the rest of the world on their CCTLD.

AMBASSADOR GROSS: I can help you with that. That goes very much to the heart of where we want to go with this. All right. You were absolutely right when we have heard from governments and others who say things like the CCTLD, which is the Country Code Top Level Domain names, that there is, in fact, an important sovereignty component.

And so as Mike points out, we have very clearly heard the role on that and we even went so far as to put that into one of our four principles. What we need to do now and what we've invited and what we would like to see come out of whether it's the summit or whether or not it's quite apart from the summit, is to engage with the world, with other governments and other groups, to understand better how that should happen.

What is it? We agree, but now there's some disagreements about technically what does that mean, how do you go about that, as we go through that transition that shows the maturation. We think that's a dialogue issue. There's no A-priority clear answer to that. And so rather than have us go and try to impose such a thing, instead we want to engage in a dialogue with all the groups that are involved, in countries, private sector and others, to try to make sure that -- how that evolves is effective and works for everybody.

Thank you all.

MR. BAILY: Thank you.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY GALLAGHER: Thank you very much.