Agree Avri.
On 12/09/2016 16:27, avri doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think it is not as of date as you think, but it is backwards.
>
> At ITU Council just last year there were suggestions that the ITU needed
> to discuss names and numbers because of the US control. This was
> stopped in its tracks largely because this transition was ongoing.
>
> If the oversight transition is thwarted by the US because of Heritage
> and its fellow travelers, I expect action to start up again in ITU
> council. Some may laugh at the possibility as Bill says, but some are
> still yearning. And I expect they are planning on the failure their
> unwitting allies in the opposition to stewardship transition are trying
> to hand them.
>
> In a sense just the possibility of stewardship transition has stopped
> such talk, but only also long as we follow-up ad deliver.
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 12-Sep-16 10:24, William Drake wrote:
>> Unresolved Concerns
>> A. The Transition Won’t Stop an ITU Takeover
>>
>> That’s point number 1? Seriously? I cannot believe this ten years out
>> of date nonsense is trotted out in the Heritage paper. People at the
>> ITU would find it extremely amusing.
>>
>> Very depressing moment,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>> On Sep 12, 2016, at 16:07, Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>
>>> Don’t you believe the Board when it promises that the accountability
>>> changes will happen no matter what the transition?
>>>
>>>
>>> MM: Mostly, Paul, I don’t believe you or other opponents of the
>>> transition when they say they favor a transition but want it delayed.
>>> As you know, I don’t believe a period of abeyance is a viable option.
>>> If the transition is shot down during this administration and we have
>>> to wait for a new one, everything we have agreed to do as part of the
>>> transition is up in the air. It could all be completely changed by a
>>> new NTIA head giving us new criteria, or a new Congress passing new
>>> restrictions or requirements in order to appeal to deluded and
>>> uninformed rightwing constituencies. Whatever happens would depend
>>> entirely on U.S. domestic politics.
>>>
>>> I also know that many aspects of the revised bylaws simply cannot go
>>> into effect until the NTIA contract is gone, so disrupting that
>>> effectively sends us back to the drawing board.
>>>
>>> You know this as well as I do, Paul, please stop being disingenuous
>>> about your support for the transition. As far as I can tell, you want
>>> the US government to stay in control of the DNS. Full stop. If that’s
>>> not true, I look forward to seeing Heritage as an organization or you
>>> as an individual publicly challenge the dishonest and manipulative
>>> statements issued by Senator Cruz and WSJ columnist L. Gordon
>>> Crovitz. It seems you want to have it both ways, feign support for
>>> the transition but align yourself with irrational politicians who are
>>> seizing on this issue to fearmonger, whip up nationalistic fervor and
>>> attack the Obama administration for purely partisan purposes. Time to
>>> distance yourself from that nonsense, else completely lose
>>> credibility in this group.
>>>
>>> Dr. Milton L Mueller
>>> Professor, School of Public Policy <http://spp.gatech.edu/>
>>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>> Internet Governance Project
>>> http://internetgovernance.org/
>> ************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (direct), [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (lists),
>> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
>> ************************************************
>>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
--
--------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987
|
