NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Carlos A. Afonso" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Carlos A. Afonso
Date:
Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:36:53 -0300
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (70 lines)
Actually Argentina is far from the Amazon region, but they participated 
in the campaign regarding .amazon as we supported the one against 
.patagonia.

frt rgds

--c.a.

On 03/15/2013 12:55 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> Congratulations to Argentina on all three pieces of excellent news!
> Kathy
>
> :
>> In Latin America (which now has a Pope to call her own!), we are happy
>> that .amazon and .patagonia were included in the objections. The full
>> list of 24 objections is here:
>>
>> http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/news/
>>
>> frt rgds
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> On 03/15/2013 11:17 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>> I just read the IO's comments and it appeared to me that he will NOT
>>> object to any closed generics simply because they are closed. He also
>>> refuted rather decisively the notion that a term such as .BOOK could
>>> be objected to on community grounds, because there is not really a
>>> book community but a variety of interests.
>>>
>>> As for your last question (Which applications has he objected to?
>>> anyone know?) It is indeed somewhat confusing. The IO site does not
>>> have a clear, simple list of which specific strings/applications have
>>> been objected to, afaict
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>>>> McTim
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 4:23 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Independent Objector Weighs In on
>>>> "closed/private" tlds
>>>>
>>>> HI Robin,
>>>>
>>>> It is not surprising to me that the IO will object to any "closed"
>>>> gTLD  just becasue they are "closed".
>>>>
>>>> However, the last line contains a bit of a shocker:
>>>>
>>>> "The objections I have just filed are based on such assessments."
>>>>
>>>> Which applications has he objected to?  anyone know?
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/the-issue
>>>>> -of-closed-generic-gtlds/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> McTim
>>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>>>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>>
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2