I'm sorry Milton, but if you want to say that equating disagreement with you to belief in flat earth is not an "epithet" . by all means. My dictionary says an epithet is "a derogatory or contemptuous word or phrase" and I think saying "you could claim to believe in squared circles and a flat earth" fits that definition pretty well. As for my "defense" - it is not in these missives, but in the thousands of words I've written about why I hold the views that I do. Here is a link, in case you want to read it: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/04/icann-transition-proposal-t he-us-should-proceed-with-caution. Here, I'm just making the record clear that you are a name-caller, and not much more. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] My PGP Key: <http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/> http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 3:09 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <[log in to unmask]> Cc: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: 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 <[log in to unmask] <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 <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] My PGP Key: <http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-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 <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] My PGP Key: <http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/> http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ From: NCSG-Discuss [ <mailto:[log in to unmask]> mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 10:07 AM To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Transition: For US Citizens (apologies for problems with earlier versions) From: Paul Rosenzweig [ <mailto:[log in to unmask]> 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, <http://spp.gatech.edu/> School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project <http://internetgovernance.org/> http://internetgovernance.org/