Thanks Milton,
 
very balanced, very clear, full support.
 
An interesting side effect of the GAC communique is that the GAC more or less disclosed that they are unable to find consensus on clear and workable advise. In  You get different interpretations from different GAC members how serious the long and different lists with various degrees of "concerns" should be seen from a political and legal point of view. The only consensus was about the two cases of .africa and .gcc. All the others cases mentioned in the communique are open for interpretation (and can be also ignored). I would like to see a cases where ICANN just moves foreward, taking into account, that the GAC has raised something like a concern but concludes that this is not sufficient enough to slow down or stop the process. One could also say that the intergovernmental process, if it is pushed to come to concrete workable results, has reached its limits. It becomes more and more questionable whether the GAC as a "committee" is able to act united. This opens the door for new "rainbow coalations" among various constituencies within ICANN if some GAC members decide to take the "early engagement" seriously and become pulled into a process which later could lead to controversial discussions within the GAC plenary. :-))).
 
w
 
 
________________________________

Von: NCSG-Discuss im Auftrag von William Drake
Gesendet: Fr 10.05.2013 13:52
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] GAC comments - and a note on my rhetorical excesses



Hi

I agree, the letter's firm and principled and gets the tone right.  Thanks much for doing all this, Milton.

Bill

On May 10, 2013, at 8:24 AM, joy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> hi Milton - thank you so much for your work on this, you are forgiven
> :-) i found this clearer and more cogent and very persuasive.
> I am happy to endorse this statement
> Kind regards
> Joy
>
> On 10/05/2013 5:27 a.m., Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> Today in domain incite the writer starts his blog post with: " For
>> the last few weeks I've been attempting to write a sensible
>> analysis of the Governmental Advisory Committee's advice on new
>> gTLDs without resorting to incredulity, hyperbole or sarcasm"
>>
>> Exactly what I felt when I took on the task!!
>>
>> So it took him a few weeks to work it out of his system. Can you
>> all forgive me - or perhaps respect me - for taking only one week?
>>
>>
>> I have revised the GAC comments. They are tamer. They eliminated
>> one mistake that Kathy pointed out to me. the bow to division
>> within NCSG regarding closed generics. But they still drive home
>> what are absolutely essential points that MUST be made, and made
>> strongly, in this important comment period. Please take a fresh
>> look.
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d6GT0zqLjU6e7Js-TE2Gjlm_-B5xvhE5CrRPZSV3oV4/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>>
>> Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of
>> Information Studies Internet Governance Project
>> http://blog.internetgovernance.org <http://blog.internetgovernance.org/> 
>>
>>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRjJKcAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqi1IH/144h6PckcBcmt2NXSNIZlSH
> w0XS8l8JK/h/Fenj5vnqx1hUkD7+i/naVgEQaWXmzSQUVhG5SyzCAIroqvQXs8vO
> Yhb6bRzA2EmATAJUuVpSo2Gi9NjE/S2o2E8EWvq24pj7cAyHrvrTbA3S/OZYeBDg
> NRa9tV/k0K7fytebAKnlDxGjVnr8ON6PVr04r0vYB7Urmt+cMJ4SIQY5r45ts5Tb
> qFHKbmWUfmM2u+8YWoNmNh5R4e+nMhkYPgxCnUvZkmsBprc7n7BUEpj6vGDTqpCE
> AfUWR4k0O3qzHl8hH3pYn7nXdyTmga6vu6kX3eRCdgGVICaaBTOT81zOatIuURc=
> =MOYX
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----