[CCWG-ACCT] L. Gordon Crovitz in the WSJ: "Ted Cruz's Fight to Protect the Open Internet"
Dr Eberhard Lisse
el at lisse.NA
Tue Aug 4 14:47:20 UTC 2015
Chris,
unfortunately the article is restricted to subscribers.
And you'll perhaps are aware that references to ICP-1 in transition
proposals is quite unhelpful.
el
On 2015-08-04 02:17, Chris Disspain wrote:
> Thanks Greg.
>
> I think the key sentences from the article are:
>
> "The Obama administration is conducting “stress tests” for
> what happens without U.S. protection. What’s called “Stress
> Test No. 18” relates to how governments could get control over
> Icann. Under current rules, governments can press Icann on
> Internet policy issues only if no country objects—“any formal
> objection” by just one country vetoes a power grab by
> governments at the expense of the multistakeholder community. “
>
> It is clear to me that someone is briefing Crovitz. Not that
> there’s necessarily anything wrong with that - just important to
> note.
>
> The fact that this opinion piece is out indicates the importance
> of stress test 18 (core value 11) and the necessity to solve the
> current lack of consensus. If it is not dealt with there is a
> danger of the transition being derailed.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>> On 4 Aug 2015, at 00:52 , Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> 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-1438551531
>>
>> 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
>> <http://GayRightsInRussia.org> or LiberateTibet.org
>> <http://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
[...]
--
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421 \ /
Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list