[CCWG-ACCT] latest letter from Cruz et al FYI

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 11:13:38PM +0000, Phil Corwin wrote:
> Indeed, there is no definitive determination as to whether property is involved. 

What is never clear to me in these discussions is what property people
think there _could_ be.  I don't mean this to be a rhetorical
question.

Let me put it another way: suppose there were property there for the
US Government to hold, and they decided to hold it and refuse to let
people in the world use it.  What is it that people think would go away?

This is probably not a subject for this list, since it's not directly
relevant to the CCWG.  But I would appreciate off-list observations of
anyone who wanted to provide them.

Thanks,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com