 Now, we'll go to our final witness, Mr. Harold Feld, the Senior Vice President of Public Knowledge. Mr. Feld, thank you for joining us today. We look forward to your testimony, sir. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman. Chairman, Ranking Members, my name is Harold Feld. I'm Senior Vice President of Public Knowledge, a nonprofit dedicated to an open internet. It was also my privilege to participate as an advisory member of the U.S. delegation to Dubai. I am struck by the broad general agreement among the witnesses with regard to the inappropriateness of the ITU as a forum for regulating internet governance, and the very real threat to internet freedom we now face. In particular, I wish to voice my agreement with Commissioner McDowell's written testimony that the danger we face is real, and we must respond quickly with both engagement and firmness. I want especially to applaud and emphasize Commissioner McDowell's observation that we must make the multi-stakeholder alternatives to the ITU accessible to developing nations, which have traditionally lacked resources to fully participate in these forums. This inability to fully participate has created a feeling of disenfranchisement and resentment in some quarters, which drives many developing countries to see the ITU as a counterbalance to what they perceive as dominance of the internet by the United States and the developing world generally. But there is good news from Dubai as well. I want to focus on our enormous success in engaging with global civil society and how building on that success is a key building block to winning the global debate now in progress between those who agree with an open and transparent multi-stakeholder approach and those who embrace a traditional treaty organization dominated by government ministries and conducted most of its business behind closed doors. As Mr. Sherman said earlier, while the majority of governments may at the moment be in favor of a traditional treaty approach, as we saw in the lead-up to the wicked, the majority of the people of the world are not. The ITU has not traditionally been open to participation by civil society. In the lead-up to the wicked, protests of global civil society forced both the ITU and many member governments to backpedal at least publicly from the most aggressive proposals. The decision of many countries not to sign the ITRs and the statements issued by some signing nations limiting the scope of ITRs come in no small part from the vigorous efforts of civil society organization within these countries. In the lead-up to the wicked, civil society, including public knowledge, made several efforts to overcome barriers to participation. To its credit, ITU's Secretary General Dr. Hamdontore and the ITU staff responded to these criticisms and sought to engage with us, both before the wicked and in Dubai. The ITU webcast its plenary sessions and the meetings of its most important committee, allowing a window into what has until now been an utterly opaque process. In the end, however, civil society were forced to sit on the sidelines, unable to access key documents, unable to observe, never mind participate, in the actual working sessions behind closed doors and unable to speak with our own voices or engage directly with voting delegates. The United States played a vital role in supporting and encouraging the efforts of global civil society. First, the United States walked the walk on civil society by reaching out to domestic NGOs such as public knowledge and including us fully in consultation, proceeding wicked, and as part of the delegation. I am pleased to report that I and my colleagues from civil society were treated with the same courtesy, consideration, as our colleagues from industry. We had the same access and our contributions were given the same weight and respect. This vastly improved the credibility of the United States as a defender of transparency, inclusion, and internet freedom in the ITU process. Second, the United States directly engaged with global civil society. Ambassador Kramer himself held two personal meetings with international NGOs, one prior to the Wicked and one at the Wicked itself. Meeting for two hours was representatives of global civil society, including representatives from the developing global south, and genuinely engaged with them. These civil society organizations were able to take our concerns back to their own delegations and to advocate for support of our positions on limited ITU jurisdiction, not because these organizations agree with U.S. policy generally, but because we were successful in persuading them that their own aspirations for internet freedom were equally threatened by the expansion of ITU authority and the agenda advanced by certain countries trying to extend their online censorship regimes. Even those countries that ultimately signed the ITRs who began willing to dismiss our concerns and accuses of dominating the internet needed to at least reconsider their positions. To conclude, the good news is that the Dubai conference was just the beginning of the discussion around the globe on internet governance, not the end. We must build on this beginning going forward and on the alliances and relationships that we created in Dubai. To ensure that civil society and smaller developing countries can participate fully, the U.S. State Department and Congress should lead by example creating a fund to support the travel and registration of both civil society groups and small countries that are unable to afford to participate in multi-stakeholder processes. I would add that our industries and industries around the globe who depend upon these multi-stakeholder processes and upon coordination through volunteer efforts would likewise be well served to contribute to these efforts. Thank you to the members of the subcommittees for your time and I look forward to the opportunity to answer your questions.