Thanks, Milton.

I might want to only mildly suggest that it is important for all of us who support the transition to just keep 'soldiering on', describing why and how this transition benefits the global Internet, how it does not disadvantage the US overall, and how we can ensure ICANN plays it limited but critical role in contributing to an open and interoperable and resilient Internet, as it fulfills its limited functions. 

Years ago, I spent weeks and then more weeks, and then more weeks meeting with Congressional members to explain the then narrow band Internet. We were all new then.

Perhaps we might want to think about the story of the Internet and the WWW as it is today, and help to celebrate that while the technology launched in the US, at the edge, the benefits are only actualized ... I do not want to assume that anyone opposes a transition but I assume that all want a secure, reliable, responsible, accountable ICANN.

As do I.

M

From: milton@gatech.edu
To: gregshatanipc@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 16:09:33 +0000
CC: accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] latest letter from Cruz et al FYI

The NTIA is fully committed to the transition and will decide for itself whether the CWG and CCWG proposals meet their criteria. This letter will have no impact on that. It is a partisan effort and full of dishonest or completely discredited arguments (such as the “government property” claim, or the absurdly out of context quote from Kavouss).  

 

This is just the Republicans in Congress positioning themselves to attempt to block the transition. It is not clear whether they have enough support even among Republicans to do that. Cruz remember is a failed Presidential candidate and very unpopular in his own party. Even the funding cutoff is questionable in terms of its effect on the ability of NTIA to end the IANA contract.  

 

--MM

 

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 11:54 AM
To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>
Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] latest letter from Cruz et al FYI

 

Well, that's an honor I neither expected nor asked for.  But thanks, I guess....

 

I agree with Nigel -- sending this to the head of the Commerce Department (Secretary Pritzker, a member of President Obama's cabinet) ups the ante.  A letter to ICANN is an extragovernmental communication.  This is a communication to the Executive Branch from members of the Legislative Branch.

 

Greg 

 

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:

I don't think 'thank goodness' is the right reaction.

I read that as upping the ante.


On 20/05/16 15:59, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

well and thank goodness that the letter was not addressed to ICANN this

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

 


_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community