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. >