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.
> >
>
>