I have checked with Flavio and others, and we agree with Kathy's
proposal. I think Flavio has made clear why we see it as problematic.
--c.a.
On 05/09/2013 10:09 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> 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.
>
|
