+1 On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 12:09:24AM +0300, Siim Tuisk ([log in to unmask]) wrote: > 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