First off, it isn't the US government's to control. Again you don't even understand what being sort of theoretically in control of ICANN actually controls... which isn't "the internet".
And no, it's more like stop claiming to be doing something you aren't really doing anyway because the appearance of impropriety emboldens others.* "Rolling over" - you see things only as an authoritarian can. Too bad all the authoritarians just can't get along, they are all exactly the same.
* For example, pretend we stopped being assholes and murdering people with drone strikes. But 30 years later, we maintain drone bases all over the world, even though we don't actually fly drones for these purposes or even have drones on the bases. Just a couple of people to sweep the floors. But you would maintain those bases just to provoke other idiots. Good plan!
Place that statement in the government context where everything is over-classified and you may have to fight tooth and nail to see completely unclassified documents. None of them pay attention, it's all super above top secret for most practical purposes and that's her intent in what she said.
It's funny how large numbers of people seem to forget all sorts of things they recognize elsewhere when it comes to Hillary, not that i have any interest in defending her.
Never mind the long history of administrations or anyone else who purposely hide or delete their email and records or simply would not respond to any information requests. I would suspect this is exactly why everything was moved off to a personal server -- because occasionally some court agrees that records should be released or someone makes a big enough deal out of it that the records matter. At least briefly in the national attention span. And it's hilarious if anyone thinks Hillary is the only one, or anyone else would be different.
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Ignore the experts, here's what it REALLY means..."
Except that this is not what is at work here. It's an open license, not a negotiated contract. Great Minds adopted and used (supplied) to their own detriment someone else's work without some combination of enough understanding, questions, or lawyers. This might holed if the those bound by the terms (the consumers copying the work) had misunderstood. Which is pretty much the problem everyone who is confused by cc-by-nc-sa has. If you are using a license without reading it, don't expect those who consume your content to read it either.
Trump asserts that the The Daily Mail consciously doubted the truth of the claims in the article, but decided to publish it anyway, and that reporters there can't simply rely on "unsubstantiated" claims and "an unauthorized book written by malicious and bitter 'reporters' who have never met or spoken to Ms. Trump."
So questioning the veracity of something is now "relying on it".
Of course, these people clearly know the value of the public hearing the wrong thing first, even if it is reported in the negative, since they make use of it at every opportunity.