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 >