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.

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.

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…

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

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.

Surrendering Internet governance to foreign powers or even a corporate governance structure that is subject to foreign government coercion is akin to surrendering a vital piece of the spectrum to international regulators.

Congress should do everything in its power to stop the transition, if even for an additional two-year period.