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

[Nigel Roberts]

I'm happy to set up a side discussion list since this is one of the key 
'known unknowns' in this process.


On 22/05/16 07:58, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> 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
>