This opinion piece (behind a paywall) appeared on The Wall Street Journal's website yesterday. http://www.wsj.com/articles/ted-cruzs-fight-to-protect-the-open-internet-143... I'm not sure what's more troubling; his embrace of Ted Cruz or his misinterpretation of "consensus." Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) wants to safeguard the open Internet from
authoritarian regimes. You’d think that would be an easy position to take, but it’s not. The Texas senator and presidential candidate is bucking the leadership of his Republican Party to push hard against the Obama Administration plan to abandon America’s protection of the Internet from political interference. The Obama plan for Icann if the US contract ends now requires only a “consensus” among governments to dictate Internet policy. That’s a far lower standard than today’s requirement of unanimity and would further sideline US influence. The majority of authoritarian governments could act together to politicize Icann. Instead of censoring GayRightsInRussia.org or LiberateTibet.org only in their own countries, Russia and China could forge a “consensus” to impose a global ban. Protecting the open Internet was a bipartisan issue for many years and should be one again. The Obama Internet giveaway invites a high-profile campaign issue for politicians who oppose it. Considering the popularity of the Internet, being for it is better politics than being against it.
I wonder if Crovitz (and Cruz) would see a bylaws commitment to Human Rights as a way to "protect the open Internet" and combat "political interference" from "authoritarian governments"? It might be the first time they were Human Rights crusaders (other than for things like the "right" to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs, e.g., regarding gay marriage).... Greg