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?

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 bribed paid rather well for speaking gigs to fund their private coffers

political 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

apparently 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.

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).

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’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.