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