Cruz sends another nastygram to ICANN.
Senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz is at it again, blasting ICANN for its perceived evasiveness when it comes to China and internet policy.
Cruz, along with James Lankford (R-Okla.), and Mike Lee (R-Utah), sent a letter to ICANN Chairman Stephen Crocker today, demanding a response to unanswered questions from previous congressional oversight letters concerning ICANN’s relationship with the Chinese government and the planned transition away from U.S. government oversight of the Internet.
The three senators also blasted former ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé for disparaging their previous letters:
This series of events comes on the heels of ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé’s failure to respond to all of the questions in our February 4, 2016 letter addressed to him. We would note that not only did Mr. Chehadé fail to respond to our questions in full, but he disparaged the oversight request during a February 5 question-and-answer session in Los Angeles, California with members of ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization Non-Contracted Party House. During the session, Mr. Chehadé stated:
And you know that this letter is not driven by anyone really worried about the transition. This is someone really worried about politics. So let’s not bring politics into the transition…. Let’s resist bringing the politics of our lovely capital into this process…. I think everyone knows this is political, even those in his own party…. We will answer all these questions… And we will respond to the questions fully, to the Senators’ full satisfaction.
The senators don’t deny the claim because of course it’s true.
Here’s a bigger question, as Michele Neylon points out: what group is driving the Senators to press ICANN?
Acro says
Chehade has left the building. Interesting timing.
MewTwoX says
Ted Who? Why do these politicians think they are someone, I only know Donald Trump because he is famous. This guy should rethink his career, if someone with no political experience can destroy you, what have you accomplished?
Other than being the butt of a joke, and looking like a clown. What good are any politician. No one votes, just screw it. The whole thing, screw it. Red and blue is purple.
Nick says
Who is worse Cruz or Chehade. Very tough call. I think Chehade wins it.
MoveOn says
Anybody wins with Cruz.
Mansour says
Chehadé was born in Beirut, Lebanon to Egyptian parents he may be also Muslim Ted Cruz want carpet Bomb them all.
John says
“nastygram”? “at it again”?
Really?
“The senators don’t deny the claim because of course it’s true.”
Not the other way around instead?
“Here’s a bigger question, as Michele Neylon points out: what group is driving the Senators to press ICANN?”
Does anyone even need a “group” driving them to oppose and have great misgivings about this lovely “transition”?
I read Michele’s piece there, and he doesn’t “point out” anything other than the suggestion that Cruz, et al would have received input and briefing from some with “knowledge of ICANN and its operations” and who can “navigate the ICANN website well enough […]” Oh my, imagine that! What’s the country coming to if members of Congress are sufficiently briefed by those with adequate knowledge or expertise on a topic to enable them to address a matter knowledgeably? And yet, Andrew, why do I have such a hunch that if it were the other way around and they had no such briefing or input, you would instead be joking and having a field day over that, and posting just as sarcastically about how they didn’t even have the sense to gain access to knowledgeable parties and briefing about “ICANN and its operations.”
As for the “claim” being “true,” so was it also just “politics” and “political” when President Clinton also came out publicly against the transition? Or is it only “politics” and “political” when a guy like Cruz and friends is doing it?
Not sure what Clinton would say now, but it seems there’s not enough recollection of his original stance, which can still be found abundantly online, such as:
“Bill Clinton Takes on Obama Over Internet Control”
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-Bill-Clinton-Internet-The-Wall-Street-Journal/2014/03/31/id/562729/
Well, obviously you are not trying to hide your own personal bias and position on these matters, Andrew, but I would suggest you are being unbelievably naive at best in supporting the transition, which you have stated before that you do, and using some cheap “nastygram” tactics of your own in writing about it. Cruz may be an easy target for the latter in the minds of some, but how you can even support the former is certainly puzzling to me. Mostly what I see is just the easy crowd-pleasing Cruz-bashing tactics, however.
James D. says
Andrew, you buried the headline. Cruz was being Senatorial for a moment instead of campaigning.
John says
Oh my, what have we here:
“Ted Cruz slams DNS overseer ICANN a second time”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/05/cruz_slams_dns_overseer_icann_again/
How telling:
“Not the first time
ICANN is notoriously poor at answering questions it doesn’t want to answer, even when they come from powerful figures.
In 2011, it infuriated the general counsels of the world’s largest public international intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) including the World Bank, World Trade Organization (WTO), World Health Organization (WHO), NATO, the OECD and the United Nations when it continually ignored their requests [PDF] to protect their names under new top-level domains.
The issue escalated to the point where the world’s governments had to intervene and the program itself was nearly derailed.
In 2013, ICANN also simply ignored increasingly angry letters [PDF] from the Article 29 Working Party, which is made up of the European Union’s data protection authorities, over how it was breaking European law with its domain name registration policies.
In both cases, when the pressure became such that ICANN’s policy processes came under threat, the organization’s staff made changes in the background in an effort to appease them.
ICANN has also been heavily criticized for years for failing to provide any useful information to requests sent through its formal “documentary information disclosure policy” (DIDP) – a system set up in 2012 in response to previous complaints about how opaque its systems were.
In one of the most egregious examples, ICANN refused [PDF] to even provide information about how it made the decision to refuse prior requests for information.”
Reminds me of local “dictatorships” at home. Yes, exactly the kind of organization I want set free from all US oversight where both the Internet and DNS were born, which has kept it from the wolves all these years.
Now I have not commented over there and don’t even have an account, but among the comments one by a “Big John” is particularly sensible and applicable it seems:
“Big John
They see the name “Cruz” and just like one o’ them corn-ditioned reflexes, out comes the pre-programmed (and tedious) ad hominem attacks. Sure would be nice to see some vague shred of reason associated with their opposition, but I guess just being a “creepy” republican is more than enough, right?
Gentlemen, start your downvotes!”
And this one:
“Big John
Can anyone actually be given a pass for avoiding answering uncomfortable requests from US senators, about issues that will affect everyone? I guess so, according to you.”