We are part of a debate team.  If this were just scholastic training, we 
would be given our point of argument and our opposition theirs.  If 
members of one team are arguing in favor of their opposition.......  
This is the real world and has real consequences.  There seems to be a 
conflict of interest among us.  Just my two cents.

Lou

On 3/5/2013 9:23 AM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote:
> Sure, go ahead and delete it.
>
> I'm more interested in hearing a cogent counter argument to that 
> point.  I hope those opposing it submit a comment.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> Brenden Kuerbis
> Internet Governance Project
> http://internetgovernance.org
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>     Seems a good suggestion to me.
>
>     will people sign on if it is changed?
>
>     avri
>
>     On 4 Mar 2013, at 23:09, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>
>     > Hi people, I generally agree. I suggest we do not use derisive
>     expressions like "We find these claims to be hysterical...".
>     >
>     > frt rgds
>     >
>     > --c.a.
>     >
>     > On 03/04/2013 06:22 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>     >> Dear NCSG members:
>     >>
>     >> A group of us, including so far Robin Gross, Avri Doria, Andrew
>     Adams, Nicolas Adam and Brenden Kuerbis, have developed a comment
>     with ICANN on the closed generic issue.
>     >> You can read our comments at this Google docs link:
>     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tPuEELJ2y6-d0hwF_qPupQb0V5OEFpqkMwcApDRNZf0/edit?usp=sharing
>     >> We can still add names to the list of supporters, or you could
>     file a quick and easy individual comment with ICANN expressing
>     your support for the statement after it comes out.
>     >>
>     >> Milton L. Mueller
>     >> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>     >> Internet Governance Project
>     >> http://blog.internetgovernance.org
>     >>
>     >
>
>