...and I used to think "House of Cards" was fiction.
On 16/09/2016 10:58, Michael Oghia wrote:
> To be completely frank, as a US citizen living in Europe, I could not
> be more disgusted with Cruz's behavior. Even though I try to stay as
> politically neutral as possible, I am more than happy to express my
> feelings about this because I can and should criticize someone
> misrepresenting my passport country and spreading false information as
> he does.
> I'm sincerely sorry you have to witness this spectacle. It is
> beyond embarrassing.
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Nurani Nimpuno <nur...@netnod.se
> <mailto:nur...@netnod.se>> wrote:
> > On 15 Sep 2016, at 16:06, Jim Reid <j...@rfc1035.com
> <mailto:j...@rfc1035.com>> wrote:
> >> On 15 Sep 2016, at 14:44, Johan Helsingius <j...@julf.com
> <mailto:j...@julf.com>> wrote:
> >> it has become a veritable soap opera...
> > I thought it always was a soap opera.
> > FWIW I watched yesterday’s hearing. [Yes, I need to get out
> more.] Cruz’s conduct was disgraceful and shameless. His
> whatabootery was off the scale.
> > Strickling and Marby were asked questions equivalent to “is it
> true you’ve stopped battering your wife?”. They carefully avoided
> rising to his bait. Cruz’s sock puppets were asked “do you agree
> it will be bad if Russia, Iran and China get control of the
> Internet?”. Cruz threatened NTIA staff and accused them of
> breaking the law. Elected politicians simply shouldn’t attack
> blameless civil servants like that and certainly not in public.
> Agreed. I was glad to see that they didn't get sucked into trying
> to answer some of those rather absurd questions.
> > He was pursuing his own flawed agenda and ignored anything that
> contradicted that. His starting assumption is/was remarkable: USG
> is compelled to uphold the US First Amendment (free speech) and
> that somehow this extends to ICANN because of the IANA contract
> with NTIA.
> Indeed. I must at that I thought both Strickling and DelBianco
> were brilliant. I have never seen Strickling quite so animated.
> Their explanations were clear and straightforward and very
> eloquent. But clear explanation of the facts only works on people
> who are interested in understanding the facts of course. Let's
> hope reason prevails. :)
> > Much as it pains me to say this, Kieren’s article in The
> Register absolutely nails it:
> I also share your pain. :)
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD