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