OK, I understand better now. It's more of an abstention than opposition. How should we handle this, Avri?
--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 3:08 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller; [log in to unmask]
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: [ncsg-policy] RE: RE: Revised xxx comment
> 
> Milton,
> I do not have authorization to support a comment on this topic.
> Speaking in my individual capacity, I do not believe ICANN needed to
> engage in a comment period for this case.
> 
> Debbie
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 12:01 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc: 'NCSG-Policy'
> Subject: [ncsg-policy] RE: RE: Revised xxx comment
> 
> Debra:
> 
> No comment? ICANN has asked for comment.
> Actually if you are saying that there was really no need for a public
> comment in this case, I agree with you. The public comment is part of
> the Board's way of attempting to find a rationalization for not dealing
> with this issue. But even so, we need to comment to that effect.
> 
> Avri is right, NCSG EC operates on full consensus, but do keep in mind
> that one-person or one-org blockage of a position that has widespread
> support among noncommercials could lead to similar behaviors by other
> EC
> members in order situations.
> 
> --MM
> 
> >
> > If this comment is intended to be comment submitted by the NCSG, then
> > please let the record reflect that I cannot endorse filing any
> comment
> > on this issue.
> >
> > Debbie
> >
> > Debra Y. Hughes, Senior Counsel
> > American Red Cross