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 >