The problem with the document is that is 150% political verbiage without any substance to argument an opposition to any application, I don't think that arguments just based on "because we say so" will have a very long shelf life in this process. My .02 -J On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Erick Iriarte <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Is more than that. Is an oficial document from the ministerial meeting for > información society in LAC. Signed by the countries of LAC (all of them). > These countries Also are part of the gac, so this document support a > regional position against that. > > One more in elac as part participate the technical Community (lacnic, > láctld, Isoc, icann) that support the document, and the civil Society > (represent by APC) and prívate sector (represent by ahciet and aleti) > > Is a polítical document? Of course. That is the reason for the document: > support position of countries in the gac meeting. > > So the question is: icann/gac Will take note of the document or want a > strong opposition of LAC countries in the future? > > Erick > > Enviado desde mi iPhone > > El 07/04/2013, a las 10:25, Jorge Amodio <[log in to unmask]> escribió: > > > AFAIK what was attached on Erick's email is not a GAC Communique ... > > -J > > > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 2:41 AM, David Cake <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> >> On 07/04/2013, at 1:40 PM, Jorge Amodio <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> > >> > Erick, >> > >> > declarations like this are worth not much in this process, what really >> counts is serious studies and facts showing how the approval of such >> applications will have a negative effect to the communities involved and >> the Internet in general. >> > >> > The declaration of this, or that, here or there, being mindful, >> recognizing, or citing organizations and meetings completely alien to ICANN >> are totally useless, yes they help to bring up the point but they do not >> provide a strong argument against the applications, bureaucratic government >> verbiage is not part of the new gTLD process.Try again ... >> >> Jorge, perhaps you have a different impression of the GACs role >> than I do. >> The GACs role is in part to represent government policy, >> including that made in other forums, such as Ministerial meetings, within >> ICANN. Or to put it another way, the GAC ensures that bureaucratic >> government verbiage is relevant to the new gTLD process (so supplement the >> bureaucratic multi-stakeholder verbiage, which seems to be in more than >> adequate supply). >> >> > >> > The problem with these applications are not the strings but what >> process/criteria will be used to evaluate applications for exclusive use >> that include strings that represent regions that are not clearly defined or >> listed on any international standards, since this will set a precedent for >> future applications. >> >> And it appears that we have at least one answer in this round - >> where cross-government geographic concerns do not fall within the remit of >> a single government and otherwise fall through the geographic nomenclature >> rules in the Applicant Guidebook, but that nevertheless cause concern to >> governments, they can be brought up through the Independent Objector, who >> has objected to these applications this time around. >> >> Regards >> David >> >> >