Marco Rubio

Transparency is important, however the notion that the U.S. Government should let the transition take place in order to get bylaws changes that bring more transparency to the domain name system is exactly backward.

Now they need to get behind the Cruz-Duffy Protecting Internet Freedom Act to extend the contract for another two years.

The very fact that ICANN would consider making something as constantly changing and politically motivated as 'internationally recognized human rights' part of their underlying mission even as Congress faces the decision on whether they can…

No guarantee you receive from ICANN or anyone else will ever be as good as the First Amendment and its regime of Federal court intervention.

I just think it has to happen in the right way in the right timing, or we can't get it back.

There are real concerns about the environment that we operate in when some of the largest global players are authoritarian regimes

I think the point and what I intend to communicate here in a letter here that I hope my colleagues will join me on is that before any plan can be implemented, we ensure that changes in the transition proposal are applied, that they operate…

Congress has wisely chosen to defund the Obama Administration's effort to transfer oversight over Internet governance.

I want to say that one of the reasons why the world should be grateful that America innovated it is because we have a concept in this country of free speech that doesn't exist in many other democracies.

We have one chance to get this right.

In my opinion, those political concerns are substantial and eventually will require the U.S. to end its historical relationship with ICANN.

I would oppose the transition.

It is better to get this done right than to get it done in any specific timeline.

The United States government stands as the protector of freedom on the Internet.

It's not about not giving it up at some point. It is about whether we do it the right way

I think that is a prudent course of action, to proceed cautiously and to go forward on a sort of test drive of this new process and make sure that it is operating effectively and as we think it's going to.

If this thing goes off the rails, if, in fact, it's used in a nefarious way, what leverage do we have to pull back on it?

Hope is no substitute for rigorous empirical real-world testing.

I honestly don't believe that proceeding cautiously on this is to our detriment, and I think that's fully understandable, given the scope of what we're talking about here.

The notion of a delay simply sends the signal that the U.S. believes that the role we hold is so valuable we're not giving it up

What assurances do we have that can be provided that ICANN will remain headquartered, not just maintain a principal office, in the U.S., considering these deficiencies as it currently stands?

What I do dismiss, however, is this notion that if we somehow don't do it on this accelerated timeframe, then the world is going to rebel.

I am not opposed to the transition.

Details of the proposal that have yet to be developed

Would create a radically different governance structure for ICANN