Hi Jean-Jacques,
Thank you very much for submitting this letter. It's been very reassuring
to see so many organizations and people submitting documentation in support
of the stewardship transition.
Best,
-Michael
__________________
Michael J. Oghia
iGmena <http://igmena.org/> communications manager
2016 ISOC IGF returning ambassador
Independent #netgov consultant & editor
Belgrade, Serbia
Skype: mikeoghia
Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia>
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Colleagues,
>
> while the hearing in the Senate is ongoing, I think you might be
> interested to know that an open letter was sent on 12 September 2016 to the
> President of the United States of America, requesting that the
> Administration implement the transition of oversight of the IANA Functions,
> and that the US Congress not impede that transition of oversight.
>
> Similar letters were sent to the Speaker and Leadership of the House of
> Representatives, to the President pro tempore and Leadership of the Senate.
>
> Here is a copy of the letter to the President of the United States
> (enclosed).
>
> Best regards,
> Jean-Jacques.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "matthew shears" <[log in to unmask]>
> À: [log in to unmask]
> Envoyé: Mercredi 14 Septembre 2016 08:54:44
> Objet: Re: AW: [NCSG-Discuss] Transition: For US Citizens (apologies for
> problems with earlier versions)
>
> + 1 Wolfgang.
>
>
> On 13/09/2016 23:00, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> > For me the key question is what will be the unintended side effects if
> the transition is postponed. Please go back to the WGIG report, the four
> models and the compromise language of the Tunis Agenda (2005). We had the
> Indian proposal in the UN (2011), we had the WCIT (2012) and we had WGEC 1
> (2013). We could counter all efforts to enhance intergovernmental proposals
> by arguing that the IANA transition is on the horizon. If this fails now,
> we will see another wave of governmental efforts to create
> intergovernmental alternatives. It is the "irony of life" that people like
> Ted Cruz want to reduce governmental control of the Internet. But what they
> do is to provoke a new wave of governmental efforts to control the Internet
> if the IANA transition fails. WGEC starts on September 30, we will have the
> ITU World Standardization Conference in Tunis in October and we will have
> Wuzhen in November. A postponement will backfrire in a way which will keep
> the fighters for Internet freedom busy for many years. Ted Cruz could
> become the "father of Internet fragmentation" if he succeeds.
> >
> >
> > wolfgang
> >
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: NCSG-Discuss im Auftrag von Mueller, Milton L
> > Gesendet: Di 13.09.2016 21:09
> > An: [log in to unmask]
> > Betreff: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Transition: For US Citizens (apologies for
> problems with earlier versions)
> >
> > I don't see any epithets in my message to you, Paul. So if you want to
> keep Posturing as some poor afflicted victim go ahead I guess that's the
> only defend you have now
> >
> > Milton L Mueller
> > Professor, School of Public Policy
> > Georgia Institute of Technology
> >
> > On Sep 12, 2016, at 14:32, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@
> redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> wrote:
> >
> > Once again Milton, you result to epithets when you have little more than
> heated rhetoric to support your view. It is a bit shameful and, I suspect,
> not exactly consistent with the standards of conduct. If you think that
> the disruption would be too great, that's fine. I disagree. Indeed, I
> think that a transition that is completed on September 30, with a reverter
> provision would enhance rather than diminish the efficacy of the
> transition. It would, for example, allow WS2 to be completed. You may
> think that is wrong, but we are both doing little more than making
> predictive judgments about the future. To equate disagreement with you
> predictions to belief in the flat earth is just silly and reflects, again,
> the limits of your capability to articulate realistic arguments.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > Paul Rosenzweig
> > [log in to unmask]<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@
> redbranchconsulting.com>
> > My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/
> >
> > From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 2:07 PM
> > To: Paul Rosenzweig <[log in to unmask]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]>>; [log in to unmask]<
> mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: RE: Transition: For US Citizens (apologies for problems with
> earlier versions)
> >
> > Paul
> > I did answer your question: I said, "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." The ICANN board made
> this clear when it deferred implementation of the new bylaws to the date of
> the transition. We don't really know what happens if there is no
> transition. Avri has amplified this point.
> >
> > Aside from that, people who claim to favor the transition but do
> everything they can to stop it using means that will ensure its fate is
> uncertain permanently, cannot in my mind be considered supporters of a
> transition. I doubt if that would sustain a perjury prosecution, because
> you could always claim to believe differently, just as you could claim to
> believe in squared circles and a flat earth. The point of debate here is
> not your "motives" but the feasibility of disrupting the transition plan
> developed by the community and the NTIA while eventually implementing a
> transition.
> >
> > A supporter of the transition would, I think, have no problem explaining
> to Senator Cruz in his testimony why it is false to claim, as he is doing,
> that "In 22 days, if Congress fails to act, the Obama administration
> intends to give away control of the Internet to an international body akin
> to the United Nations." Once you publicly distance yourself from those
> kinds of lies, I will happily retract my assessment that you are not in
> favor of the transition.
> >
> > --MM
> >
> > From: Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 12:28 PM
> > To: Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>;
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: RE: Transition: For US Citizens (apologies for problems with
> earlier versions)
> >
> > Milton
> >
> > You consistently try to question people's motives, when you disagree
> with them, rather than addressing their point. I have sworn an oath under
> penalty of perjury that I favor a transition if it is the right
> transition. I will swear that again on Wednesday if need be. And that
> means that you have a) purported to read my mind and b) in doing so,
> accused me of felony perjury. That's beneath contempt . I support a
> two-year trial period. Full stop. I've never said anything else and I
> never will.
> >
> > I note as well, that of course you didn't answer the question. The
> Board has said the accountability will go forward with or without the
> transition (or, more accurately, two members of the Board made that
> commitment in a public meeting). I take them at their word. Why don't you?
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > Paul Rosenzweig
> > [log in to unmask]<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@
> redbranchconsulting.com>
> > My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/
> >
> > From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Mueller, Milton L
> > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 10:07 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: Re: Transition: For US Citizens (apologies for problems with
> earlier versions)
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/
>
> --
> --------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987
>
|
