+1

On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 12:09:24AM +0300, Siim Tuisk ([log in to unmask]) wrote:

> Hi
> 
> I too support Avri and the rest supporting this letter. 
> 
> Siim Tuisk
> [log in to unmask]
> +372 5251 946
> 
> On 10.05.2013, at 15:16, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
> > Hi
> > 
> > I think the letter is good.
> > 
> > As for the amazon and patagonia statement, I think the way it is outlined is neutral in the sense to whether they ought to be approved or not - let the objections/replies run their course.  Perhaps it can be even more neutral. 
> > 
> > Perhaps adding a lead-in that say something like:
> > 
> > Without taking a position on the objections against .amazon and .patagonia which are in the dispute resolution process we criticize the GAC communique on this subject because of ...
> > 
> > 
> > avri
> > 
> > 
> > On 10 May 2013, at 07:01, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> > 
> >> We are not commenting on the Amazon or Patagonia applications. We are commenting on the GAC advice.
> >> I can add a line stating that many organizations from LA oppose the applications, but the point about the GAC acting extra-legally _must_ be made if we are to be taken seriously as a principled voice. 
> >> 
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> >>> Flávio Rech Wagner
> >>> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 9:00 PM
> >>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] GAC comments - and a note on my rhetorical
> >>> excesses
> >>> 
> >>> I haven't seen any statements from civil society organizations from
> >>> South America supporting the approval of the .amazon and .patagonia
> >>> applications. Exact on the contrary. Civil society in South America is
> >>> definitely against the approval of these applications, as you can see,
> >>> for example, from the list of organizations signing the document sent by
> >>> Carlos Afonso in a previous message. Let's stop assuming that this is
> >>> just a matter of governments and "empty political statements".
> >>> 
> >>> In a few cases, governments may reflect the position of the civil
> >>> society ...
> >>> 
> >>> Regards
> >>> 
> >>> Flavio
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>> I've not seen yet any valid argument or study from the Argentinean
> >>>> government why .patagonia should not be approved, not that I'm in
> >>>> favor but claiming ownership or sovereignty with empty political
> >>>> statements IMHO has no weight in the evaluation process and the
> >>>> board can disregard the GAC advice.
> >>>> 
> >>>> I agree with Milton that because government X say so is not a solid
> >>>> argument to deny an application.
> >>>> 
> >>>> -Jorge
> >>>> 
> >>>> On May 9, 2013, at 4:01 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> While I agree with most of the doc, I do not agree (along with many
> >>>>> civil society orgs & movements) with the arguments in the paragraph
> >>>>> mentioning .amazon and .patagonia. Please leave these arguments to
> >>>>> the commercial interest groups.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> fraternal regards
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> --c.a.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> sent from a dumbphone
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On 9 May 2013, at 14:18, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> I agree.  These are solid comments and NCSG should endorse them.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Thanks very much, Milton, for the difficult work of drafting and
> >>>>>> re-drafting to incorporate the views of others.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>> Robin
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> On May 9, 2013, at 10:49 AM, McTim wrote:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]>
> >>> 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_-B5xvh
> >>>>>>>> E5CrRPZSV3oV4/edit?usp=sharing
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> I am happy with the re-write in terms of tone and substance.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> It is important that we make a solid statement about this to the
> >>>>>>> Board, as it gives them political "cover" to say no to the GAC.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> McTim
> >>>>>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is.
> >>>>>>> A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel