<div dir="ltr"><div><div>That would be a good compromise. <br><br></div>Like others, I fully support the statement. Many thanks to Milton and everyone else who contributed.<br><br>-- Brenden<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Avri Doria <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi<br>
<br>
I think the letter is good.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Perhaps adding a lead-in that say something like:<br>
<br>
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 ...<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
avri<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On 10 May 2013, at 07:01, Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
<br>
> We are not commenting on the Amazon or Patagonia applications. We are commenting on the GAC advice.<br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>] On Behalf Of<br>
>> Flávio Rech Wagner<br>
>> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 9:00 PM<br>
>> To: <a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] GAC comments - and a note on my rhetorical<br>
>> excesses<br>
>><br>
>> I haven't seen any statements from civil society organizations from<br>
>> South America supporting the approval of the .amazon and .patagonia<br>
>> applications. Exact on the contrary. Civil society in South America is<br>
>> definitely against the approval of these applications, as you can see,<br>
>> for example, from the list of organizations signing the document sent by<br>
>> Carlos Afonso in a previous message. Let's stop assuming that this is<br>
>> just a matter of governments and "empty political statements".<br>
>><br>
>> In a few cases, governments may reflect the position of the civil<br>
>> society ...<br>
>><br>
>> Regards<br>
>><br>
>> Flavio<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>> I've not seen yet any valid argument or study from the Argentinean<br>
>>> government why .patagonia should not be approved, not that I'm in<br>
>>> favor but claiming ownership or sovereignty with empty political<br>
>>> statements IMHO has no weight in the evaluation process and the<br>
>>> board can disregard the GAC advice.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I agree with Milton that because government X say so is not a solid<br>
>>> argument to deny an application.<br>
>>><br>
>>> -Jorge<br>
>>><br>
>>> On May 9, 2013, at 4:01 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" <<a href="mailto:ca@CAFONSO.CA">ca@CAFONSO.CA</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>>> While I agree with most of the doc, I do not agree (along with many<br>
>>>> civil society orgs & movements) with the arguments in the paragraph<br>
>>>> mentioning .amazon and .patagonia. Please leave these arguments to<br>
>>>> the commercial interest groups.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> fraternal regards<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> --c.a.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> sent from a dumbphone<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On 9 May 2013, at 14:18, Robin Gross <<a href="mailto:robin@IPJUSTICE.ORG">robin@IPJUSTICE.ORG</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> I agree. These are solid comments and NCSG should endorse them.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Thanks very much, Milton, for the difficult work of drafting and<br>
>>>>> re-drafting to incorporate the views of others.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Best,<br>
>>>>> Robin<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On May 9, 2013, at 10:49 AM, McTim wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Milton L Mueller <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>>> Today in domain incite the writer starts his blog post with:<br>
>>>>>>> " For the last few weeks I've been attempting to write a<br>
>>>>>>> sensible analysis of the Governmental Advisory Committee's<br>
>>>>>>> advice on new gTLDs without resorting to incredulity, hyperbole<br>
>>>>>>> or sarcasm"<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> Exactly what I felt when I took on the task!!<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> So it took him a few weeks to work it out of his system. Can you<br>
>>>>>>> all forgive me - or perhaps respect me - for taking only one week?<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> I have revised the GAC comments. They are tamer. They eliminated<br>
>>>>>>> one mistake that Kathy pointed out to me. the bow to division<br>
>>>>>>> within NCSG regarding closed generics. But they still drive home<br>
>>>>>>> what are absolutely essential points that MUST be made, and made<br>
>>>>>>> strongly, in this important comment period. Please take a fresh<br>
>>>>>>> look.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d6GT0zqLjU6e7Js-TE2Gjlm_-B5xvh" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d6GT0zqLjU6e7Js-TE2Gjlm_-B5xvh</a><br>
>>>>>>> E5CrRPZSV3oV4/edit?usp=sharing<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> I am happy with the re-write in terms of tone and substance.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> It is important that we make a solid statement about this to the<br>
>>>>>> Board, as it gives them political "cover" to say no to the GAC.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> --<br>
>>>>>> Cheers,<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> McTim<br>
>>>>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is.<br>
>>>>>> A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<br>
>>>>><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>