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

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.

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

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

I would oppose the transition.

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.

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

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…

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

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