Hi I too support Avri and the rest supporting this letter. Siim Tuisk [log in to unmask] +372 5251 946 On 10.05.2013, at 15:16, Avri Doria 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. >>