>Hi,
>
>As Milton is not currently the chair or in an official role for NCUC 
>(I don't think), I am not sure why NCUC needs to repudiate him.
>
>I am sure we all don't agree with what any of us writes and am not 
>sure that we need to write a repudiation every time someone says 
>something the NCUC doesn't agree with.  I would not expect the NCUC 
>was reading everything I wrote in my blog and deciding whether they 
>agreed with me or not or whether they needed to publicly rebuke me.
>
>Not making any personal comment on the content of this yet, since I 
>have not done the research.
>
>I would also be surprised and disappointed if anyone were to take 
>his personal words and his personal blog , whatever their 
>characteristics, as a cause for action against the NCUC.


Unfortunately, people do associate Milton with NCUC. And as changing 
such perceptions is hard, it's best to just say he doesn't speak for 
us.

And the post, in its substantive parts, does read like an NCUC position.

Adam




>a.
>
>On 23 Sep 2009, at 05:10, Adam Peake wrote:
>
>>At 5:58 PM -0400 9/22/09, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/9/22/4329523.html
>>
>>
>>I hope the NCUC will make clear it does not support Milton's 
>>inaccurate, personally vindictive blog.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Adam
>>(member of ALAC and NCUC. Opinions are my own.)