Protect your privacy:
Get NordVPN
[73% off 2-year plans, 3 extra months]
- Meshnet Feature for Personal Encrypted Networks: NordVPN offers a unique feature called Meshnet, which allows users to connect their devices directly and securely over the internet. This means you can create your own private, encrypted network for activities like gaming, file sharing, or remote access to your home devices from anywhere in the world.
- RAM-Only Servers for Enhanced Security: Unlike many VPN providers, NordVPN uses RAM-only (diskless) servers. Since these servers run entirely on volatile memory, all data is wiped with every reboot. This ensures that no user data is stored long-term, significantly reducing the risk of data breaches and enhancing overall security.
- Servers in a Former Military Bunker: Some of NordVPN's servers are housed in a former military bunker located deep underground. This unique location provides an extra layer of physical security against natural disasters and unauthorized access, ensuring that the servers are protected in all circumstances.
- NordLynx Protocol with Double NAT Technology: NordVPN developed its own VPN protocol called NordLynx, built around the ultra-fast WireGuard protocol. What sets NordLynx apart is its implementation of a double Network Address Translation (NAT) system, which enhances user privacy without sacrificing speed. This innovative approach solves the potential privacy issues inherent in the standard WireGuard protocol.
- Dark Web Monitor Feature: NordVPN includes a feature known as Dark Web Monitor. This tool actively scans dark web sites and forums for credentials associated with your email address. If it detects that your information has been compromised or appears in any data breaches, it promptly alerts you so you can take necessary actions to protect your accounts.
The Heritage Foundation are conservative, in the American political sense. So it’s not surprising that they’ve been linked to some of the anti-IANA transition stuff coming from Ted Cruz and Co.
Tomorrow they’re holding an event, which is clearly not aimed at bolstering support on Capitol Hill for the IANA transition.
From the event description:
But is the so-called “IANA Transition” a good idea? Should we rush the Transition to get it done before the election, even if it means jeopardizing free expression and enterprise online? Will the proposed accountability and transparency safeguards really be enough? And either way, what might happen in the courts?
While I, and many others, would find the entire “jeopardizing free expression and enterprise” angle to be total bunkum, it is aimed at tapping into US conservative fears. At least they are consistent, I’ll give them that.
The event will feature Ted Cruz as keynote speaker and he’ll be joined by:
- Berin Szoka – President, TechFreedom
- Brett Schaefer – Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs, The Heritage Foundation
- Paul McGrady – Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP and Chair of Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice
- Philip Corwin – Founding Principal, Virtualaw LLC
- Greg Thomas – President, Governance+Economics+Technology|Institute on Transformation
If you’re in the DC area you can attend the event in person by RSVPing here.
Michele:
As someone who supports the IANA transition but has some concerns about the accountability plan and WS2 issues, and who has agreed to participate as a panelist in this event, I find your description both myopic and prejudiced.
I know from a pre-call held by the panelists yesterday (now including Junathan Zuck, who played a significant role in shaping the accountability plan) that we intend to have a highly informed and nuanced discussion of all aspects of the transition and accountability plans. The panel also includes Paul McGrady, who represents the IPC on GNSO Council (as I represent the BC, although all of us will be speaking in a personal capacity) and Brett Schaefer of Heritage, who has played a very constructive and responsible role on accountability as a member of the NCUC.
Perhaps before labeling an event as “aimed at tapping into US conservative fears” you might actually first watch it.
—Philip
Did Cruz-control engage in the debate or piss off as soon as he received the cash for his speech?
After the opening prayers and the ceremonial fondling of the assault rifles, there was something about building a big beautiful firewall to keep the Mexicans out and make the Internet great again. Once President Trump gets his tiny hands on executive authority over the root zone, it's game over for free riding foreigners on our internet.
Volker:
I have confirmed with the Heritage Foundation that Sen. Cruz received zero compensation from them for his remarks yesterday. That confirms my assumption, as it would be extremely unusual for any member of Congress to receive payment for remarks made on an issue that concerned them from a Washington think tank.
Further, while the Senator left immediately after delivering his remarks, there was nothing unusual in that. I have been dealing with the US Senate for four decades, including working there for the first six years of my career immediately after graduating from law school. Senators have extremely busy schedules. In a minority of instances a Senator making remarks such as this might take a few questions from the audience before departing. I have never seen a Senator deliver remarks at such an event and then stay to listen to a panel discussion.
Finally, to further explain my reaction to Michele’s headline characterizing yesterday’s proceeding as an “Anti-IANA Transition Event”, I posted my comment because I would never agree to take part in such a one-sided discussion. I believe that any fair appraisal of yesterday’s panel discussion would characterize it as well-informed and balanced. Indeed, no one on the panel opposed the transition; the debate focused on whether it should proceed on October 1 of this year with a complete withdrawal of the US or whether there should be a limited “test drive” in which the US retained some residual post-transition authority as the WS1 recommendations were implemented and the WS2 issues were addressed. In my own remarks I pointed out that the blunt force approach of extending the appropriations freeze would not permit a valid testing of the transition and accountability proposals.
Best, Philip
OK, that clears up some of my misconception. I assumed US politicians were
bribedpaid rather well for speaking gigs to fund theirprivate cofferspolitical campaigns, but apparently this is not always the case.
I am still concerned that a politician would not at least try to take in the full discourse and breadth of opinions on a topic
he is milking for his political gainapparently cares deeply about. Basing a political campaign on ones own opinion without listening to counter arguments strikes me as odd.
“Here is what I think about it and while you may have other thoughts on it, I will not even listen to them” is not the form of political discourse someone who once decided to run for president should subscribe to.
In the 2012 cycle, Heritage Foundation donated $4,625 to Ted Cruz, but that's just a drop in the bucket from a very casual search: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000034435&type=P&state;=&sort=A&cycle=2012 That's why Phil carefully phrases it as "received zero compensation from them for his remarks yesterday". No, they did not pay him specifically for his remarks yesterday. The Heritage Foundation is an integral component of the funding/lobbying complex representing the interests of those who want to run the government in accordance with a book written by people who didn't know where the sun goes at night. But as Phil explained, Volker, these types of forums are not where the critical debate and rational discussion occurs. That sort of thing would be in the Senate itself, such as this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-4FQAov2xI
John: Was that contribution from the Heritage Foundation or from Heritage Action, its separate but associated political arm? I'd be surprised if it was from the Foundation given the potential tax ramifications. But yes, DC is filled with organizations comprising the "funding/lobbying complex" spanning the full political spectrum, and that support members of Congress by providing forums, policy advice, and sometimes financial support delivered via legal means. So, for example, on the right you have American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, and US Chamber of Commerce -- and their analogues on the left would be Brookings Institution, Center for American Progress, and AFL-CIO. That's democracy, and "money is the mother's milk of politics". Best, Philip
"Was that contribution from the Heritage Foundation or from Heritage Action, its separate but associated political arm?" Yes, the same group of people file another paper with the Delaware Secretary of State, and develop complete amnesia in their day-to-day dealings. The genus Mustela includes the least weasels, polecats, stoats, ferrets, and minks. Members of this genus are small, active predators, with long and slender bodies and short legs. The family Mustelidae (which also includes badgers, otters, and wolverines) is often referred to as the "weasel family". In the UK, the term "weasel" usually refers to the smallest species Mustela nivalis.
Actually, US laws regarding direct contributions to the campaign of a member of Congress, or a candidate thereof, are quite strict. They set rather low dollar limits and require public disclosure of the name of the contributor and the amount.Corporate funds are prohibited. And a think tank like Heritage would jeopardize its tax-exempt status if it contributed to a campaign fund.
This is not to say that there is not a great deal of money spent on U.S. political activities other than a candidate’s own campaign fund. Very large sums can be contributed to “Super-PACs”, including funds from both corporations and labor unions; such funds can both endorse and attack candidates so long as they are not directly coordinated with a candidate. And individuals who are not currently running for office can receive extremely high speaking fees, the most notable example of which are the speaking fees (up to $250,000 per speech) that Hilary Clinton received from investment banks during the time between the end of her role as Secretary of State and the launching of her Presidential campaign (and for anyone who thinks that last reference is a partisan statement, I’d point out that the most frequent critic of her Wall Street speaking fees was rival Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders).
"And a think tank like Heritage would jeopardize its tax-exempt status if it contributed to a campaign fund." http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000034435&type=P&state;=&sort=A&cycle=2012 Heritage Foundation Among Federal Candidates, 2012 Cycle Total: $77,545 Romney, Mitt (R) Pres $51,800 McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) Senate $5,000 Cruz, Ted (R-TX) Senate $4,625 Allen, George (R-VA) Senate $3,500 Bongino, Dan (R-MD) Senate $2,500 Santorum, Rick (R) Pres $2,300 Feinberg, Evan (R-PA) House $1,000 ... Oh, wait, wait, I know... the Federal Election Commission database is lies! All lies! Probably cooked up by the same people who forged President Obama's phony birth certificate!
I’m surprised by that, and clearly made a mistake in my assumption of their organizational tax status.
But, again, there are lots of organizations on the left that do the same. And the fact that you can so readily find the contributions and amounts reinforces the fact that the contribution limits are rather low in the context of campaign costs (other than the Romney contribution, and I’d want more data on the relevant laws and how that was structured) and that this system of direct campaign contributions is quite transparent.
"I'd want more data on the relevant laws and how that was structured" Well, the way I understand it is that a lady comes onto the stage wearing seven veils. As she dances, she removes them one at a time.
Phil, the question, broadly put, was whether there is a financial connection between Heritage and Cruz. It was not about whatever other bogeyman you want to bring up, Clinton's speaking fees, or "organizations on the left". Does Heritage and its affiliates put money in the till for Cruz? Yes they do. I'm sure it is all lawfully structured, and I'm sure there is a lot of money in politics. Was the question related to political funding generally? No. But it is a simple question, with a simple answer, and obfuscations, distractions, and the squid ink of formal structures does not illuminate the answer to the question.
I’ve watched it.
Cruz makes an eloquent, passionate defense of free speech and his opposition to government censorship, but does not even attempt to say how that all relates to the IANA transition.