[CCWG-ACCT] L. Gordon Crovitz in the WSJ: "Ted Cruz's Fight to Protect the Open Internet"

[Dr Eberhard Lisse]

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     ;____/