That would be a good compromise. Like others, I fully support the statement. Many thanks to Milton and everyone else who contributed. -- Brenden On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi > > I think the letter is good. > > As for the amazon and patagonia statement, I think the way it is outlined > is neutral in the sense to whether they ought to be approved or not - let > the objections/replies run their course. Perhaps it can be even more > neutral. > > Perhaps adding a lead-in that say something like: > > Without taking a position on the objections against .amazon and .patagonia > which are in the dispute resolution process we criticize the GAC communique > on this subject because of ... > > > avri > > > On 10 May 2013, at 07:01, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > 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. > > > >