Re: [ALAC] [lac-discuss-en] IO recommends .amazon reconsideration
I have a somewhat different viewpoint. It is true that the position of the GAC and its advice may be changing, but we need to look at the specifics of this particular case. The GAC has given lots of advice. Some is followed, some is rejected and in some cases a middle-ground is found. In all such cases, there is plenty of debate and discussion. In the case of .amazon, the GAC provided no rationale for the advice (they were not required to at the time). But more surprisingly, the Board did not subject this to debate but rather, and without rationale (which WAS required!) simply accepted the GAC advice. The IRP, in my mind, is simply recognizing that the Board did not follow its usual and proper practice of attempting to balance competing interests in this case. Alan At 19/07/2017 09:55 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
Yes mam, this is indeed the key strategic implication from the IRP. In my own view however, ALAC [re]action may be premature for objective.
Recent developments, especially this empowered community model, has already undermined the "GAC advises, Board follows" scheme. I see this IRP decision as adding grist to the mill in any downstream federal court action. If and when a federal district court makes that pronouncement, then stick a fork in it. It is roasted.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 5:36 AM, Jacqueline Morris <<mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com>jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote: But to me, far more important in the long term is the very clear rejection of "the GAC advises, the Board follows" model. The ruling has chipped away at the power of the GAC "advice" , and may change the dynamic of the stakeholder roles in ICANN. Might this be an opportunity for At-Large to work towards balancing the roles of the ACs? Given that the relationship with the Board is different for the various ACs, based on the bye-laws. Jacqueline
On 18 Jul 2017 11:38, "Dev Anand Teelucksingh" <<mailto:devtee@gmail.com>devtee@gmail.com> wrote: The IRP decision: <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-amazon-final-declaration-11jul17-en.pdf>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-amazon-final-declaration-11jul17-en.pdf
Dev Anand
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Carlton Samuels <<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Adds to the kerfuffle surrounding geographic names in the DNS.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: <tel:876-818-1799>876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:CMV/fUuyPTmq0Go815gG9Jsumao2rNupQ1hHg8i+Lus2/PvqCJ6fRkdd721Nv0JyhCSB+/f6N7KrW6IeMKVb3I5D/VBtvPUjfPyyAsMaGm2AS967yrO0mYdb6LoJPOeebnbXvRHoWrLJeGkpMbM0ww== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095);
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
Totally agree with Alan’s analysis. I haven’s seen any real debate or rationale, even none from our government. As I already said. If it was so relevant for our population why our Patent Office granted the trade mark to AMAZON? The use of such brand will be, in this case, similar to .amazon use. I do not see and I believe Amazon .com made it clear that this is brand TLD. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 11:31 To: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>>, Jacqueline Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com<mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com>> Cc: LACRALO list <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>>, 'ALAC List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ALAC] [lac-discuss-en] IO recommends .amazon reconsideration I have a somewhat different viewpoint. It is true that the position of the GAC and its advice may be changing, but we need to look at the specifics of this particular case. The GAC has given lots of advice. Some is followed, some is rejected and in some cases a middle-ground is found. In all such cases, there is plenty of debate and discussion. In the case of .amazon, the GAC provided no rationale for the advice (they were not required to at the time). But more surprisingly, the Board did not subject this to debate but rather, and without rationale (which WAS required!) simply accepted the GAC advice. The IRP, in my mind, is simply recognizing that the Board did not follow its usual and proper practice of attempting to balance competing interests in this case. Alan At 19/07/2017 09:55 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote: Yes mam, this is indeed the key strategic implication from the IRP. In my own view however, ALAC [re]action may be premature for objective. Recent developments, especially this empowered community model, has already undermined the "GAC advises, Board follows" scheme. I see this IRP decision as adding grist to the mill in any downstream federal court action. If and when a federal district court makes that pronouncement, then stick a fork in it. It is roasted. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 5:36 AM, Jacqueline Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com<mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com> > wrote: But to me, far more important in the long term is the very clear rejection of "the GAC advises, the Board follows" model. The ruling has chipped away at the power of the GAC "advice" , and may change the dynamic of the stakeholder roles in ICANN. Might this be an opportunity for At-Large to work towards balancing the roles of the ACs? Given that the relationship with the Board is different for the various ACs, based on the bye-laws. Jacqueline On 18 Jul 2017 11:38, "Dev Anand Teelucksingh" <devtee@gmail.com<mailto:devtee@gmail.com>> wrote: The IRP decision: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-amazon-final-declaration-11j... Dev Anand On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Carlton Samuels < carlton.samuels@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>> wrote:
Adds to the kerfuffle surrounding geographic names in the DNS.
http://domainnamewire.com/2017/07/18/amazon-com-gets-big-win-domain-battle-m...
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799<tel:876-818-1799> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:CMV/fUuyPTmq0Go815gG9Jsumao2rNupQ1hHg8i+Lus2/PvqCJ6fRkdd721Nv0JyhCSB+/f6N7KrW6IeMKVb3I5D/VBtvPUjfPyyAsMaGm2AS967yrO0mYdb6LoJPOeebnbXvRHoWrLJeGkpMbM0ww== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
I agree with Alan's explanation and logic but believe it to be irrelevant within a larger picture. To the GAC -- at least certain specific members whose numbers are surely growing -- any repudiation of GAC consensus advice will undermine ICANN within the eyes of governments who, at the end of the day, have final authority (whether the "empowered community" likes it or not). I remind that governments have no, zero, obligation to respect ICANN's policies and activities. There is no treaty that binds anyone to respect the decision-making process, and I would argue that at this particular time ICANN is an extremely fragile situation. The foreign influence of US-based institutions is at what seems an all-time low. And we are now starting to see cracks in the openness of the Internet as governments increasingly throttle or block traffic deemed undesirable. Many supposedly-open societies do this too, though their targets are commercial (ie, copyright infringers) rather than political -- for now. In other words, attacks by governments on the free Internet are at unprecedented levels and ICANN is now poised to poke a sharp stick in their collective eye. If ICANN's Board has any sanity they will redress the components that caused the reconsideration but come to the same conclusion. The last thing they need is to be seen as defending the interest of a local-jobs-destroying US-based multinational over those of a national government of a smaller country with rebuilding challenges. Paint this as multi-national versus multi-lateral and ICANN loses big. At a certain point it seems to come down to the demand of national governments to explain their decisions and rationale to the satisfaction of ICANN. Such explantions are not owed, indeed it is ICANN that needs to be earning the respect of governments and not the other way around. ICANN is not the bastion of an open Internet, though it may be seen as that from inside the bubble. It is an industry-captured organization that has used one of the Internet's trusted resources -- domain names -- to extract value from the Internet and empower entire business sectors based on fraud and speculation. It never had much capacity for moral suasion and has even less now. This is not the time nor the reason to pick a fight with governments. Overruling a previous agreement -- especially based on technicalities -- is lose-lose. - Evan
I read on a Facebook group, from Barry Shein, an imaginative and IMO effective resolution to the .amazon issue. I offer it here with some personal suggestions added regarding to 'what comes next': Amazon pays for the creation of the ".amazonas" TLD, and entrusts it to a nonprofit whose stakeholders are exclusively from the five countries (Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia) through which the river runs. Such stakeholders could be government, NGO or private. In return, the GAC rescinds its objection to .amazon. (Alternatively, dot-amazonas could be entrusted to the three regional governments -- in Peru, Colombia and Brazil -- that are named "Amazonas".) After all, "Amazonas" is the local name for the river in both Spanish and Portuguese. Since elsewhere governments are turning to local names rather than anglicized ones -- think Beijing, Iqaluit or Bengaluru -- wouldn't this be a Good Thing and a reasonable answer to both the governments and the bookstore? Such an offer would dull most of the logical objection to the bookstore's desire for the name, while calling on the affected countries to actually indicate what they would do with an appropriate TLD, or at least to reserve it for future use. Would such a compromise be workable? Or would it cause a problem by putting the current objectors on the spot regarding what they would do with the TLD themselves? (Perhaps this re-opens a wider problem with geoTLD names, wondering if every possible linguistic name for countries and regions are deserving of protection. I mean, do we need to protect "Schweiz", "Suisse", "Svizzera", "Svizra", "Helvetia" AND "Switzerland"?) - Evan
participants (3)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Evan Leibovitch -
Vanda Scartezini