The problem with the document is that is 150% political verbiage without
any substance to argument an opposition to any application, I don't think
that arguments just based on "because we say so" will have a very long
shelf life in this process.

My .02
-J



On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Erick Iriarte <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> Is more than that. Is an oficial document from the ministerial meeting for
> información society in LAC. Signed by the countries of LAC (all of them).
> These countries Also are part of the gac, so this document support a
> regional position against that.
>
> One more in elac as part participate the technical Community (lacnic,
> láctld, Isoc, icann) that support the document, and the civil Society
> (represent by APC) and prívate sector (represent by ahciet and aleti)
>
> Is a polítical document? Of course. That is the reason for the document:
> support position of countries in the gac meeting.
>
> So the question is: icann/gac Will take note of the document or want a
> strong opposition of LAC countries in the future?
>
> Erick
>
> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>
> El 07/04/2013, a las 10:25, Jorge Amodio <[log in to unmask]> escribió:
>
>
> AFAIK what was attached on Erick's email is not a GAC Communique ...
>
> -J
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 2:41 AM, David Cake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 07/04/2013, at 1:40 PM, Jorge Amodio <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Erick,
>> >
>> > declarations like this are worth not much in this process, what really
>> counts is serious studies and facts showing how the approval of such
>> applications will have a negative effect to the communities involved and
>> the Internet in general.
>> >
>> > The declaration of this, or that, here or there, being mindful,
>> recognizing, or citing organizations and meetings completely alien to ICANN
>> are totally useless, yes they help to bring up the point but they do not
>> provide a strong argument against the applications, bureaucratic government
>> verbiage is not part of the new gTLD process.Try again ...
>>
>>         Jorge, perhaps you have a different impression of the GACs role
>> than I do.
>>         The GACs role is in part to represent government policy,
>> including that made in other forums, such as Ministerial meetings, within
>> ICANN. Or to put it another way, the GAC ensures that bureaucratic
>> government verbiage is relevant to the new gTLD process (so supplement the
>> bureaucratic multi-stakeholder verbiage, which seems to be in more than
>> adequate supply).
>>
>> >
>> > The problem with these applications are not the strings but what
>> process/criteria will be used to evaluate applications for exclusive use
>> that include strings that represent regions that are not clearly defined or
>> listed on any international standards, since this will set a precedent for
>> future applications.
>>
>>         And it appears that we have at least one answer in this round -
>> where cross-government geographic concerns do not fall within the remit of
>> a single government and otherwise fall through the geographic nomenclature
>> rules in the Applicant Guidebook, but that nevertheless cause concern to
>> governments, they can be brought up through the Independent Objector, who
>> has objected to these applications this time around.
>>
>>         Regards
>>                 David
>>
>>
>