The point about Amazon and Patagonia is that the GAC on the one hand says it respects law and wants to apply "applicable law" and on the other it acts without regard to law. If someone can tell me on what legal basis these internet user associations or the GAC have opposed these applications, I will instantly remove the section.

We need to rise above special interests and focus on the principles of governance here. If the GAC can act arbitrarily and without regard to law, it is not a good thing, even if you like the results in this case.

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Área de Informacion Asociación Internauta
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 6:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] GAC comments - and a note on my rhetorical excesses

I agree with Carlos with respect to. Patagonia and. Amazons.
Several Internet users organizations have opposed the approval of these two NGTLD. I´m sending attached documentation on the subject.
Kind Regards

2013/5/9 Carlos A. Afonso <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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