Hi,

I believe that it can be sent as an NCUC statement if that is where the consensus is.

But I will check again if there is an objection to the NCSG Executive Committee endorsing it.

a.



On 6 May 2010, at 15:49, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 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
>