Hi All,
As we move towards a common denominator, I support not including 
anything in the statement about .amazon and .patagonia (just as Milton 
has graciously agreed not to include anything on closed generics).
Best, Kathy

:
> 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_-B5xvhE5CrRPZSV3oV4/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
>>>>
>>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.