I support the comment and thank the drafters for their hard work, albeit
sharing Wendy's and I'm sure others' views on Y.A.P.

Maria

On 6 May 2010 15:49, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> 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
>