We are not commenting on the Amazon or Patagonia applications. We are commenting on the GAC advice. I can add a line stating that many organizations from LA oppose the applications, but the point about the GAC acting extra-legally _must_ be made if we are to be taken seriously as a principled voice. > -----Original Message----- > From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of > Flávio Rech Wagner > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 9:00 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] GAC comments - and a note on my rhetorical > excesses > > 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_-B5xvh > >>>>> E5CrRPZSV3oV4/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.