July 2017 - lac-discuss-en - lists.icann.org

Re: [lac-discuss-en] =? Utf-8? Q? Statement = B3n_Final_Amazon_vs = 2E_IC? = =? Utf-8? Q? ANN? =
by fatimacambronero＠gmail.com July 19, 2017

July 19, 2017

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: =? Utf-8? Q? Statement = B3n_Final_Amazon_vs = 2E_IC? = =? Utf-8? Q? ANN? = Desde: fatimacambronero(a)gmail.com Hello everyone, Thank you Humberto and Carlos for sharing this information. Agreement with Carlos comments on the expansion of the gTLD space that Has left the use / defense of the Marks as (only) a possibility of the use Of domain names. And to add some elements to this perspective, in fact, when a Owner of a domain name submits a procedure (UDRP) before the Some of the online dispute resolution providers such as WIPO, The first requisite to be credited (and in general if this Requirement is not met by the referees or review the others) is "The Domain name (s) is / are identical or similar (s) to the point of Create confusion with respect to a * brand of goods or services on Which the plaintiff has rights * ". That is, basically, if there is not a Mark similar or confusingly similar to the domain name in respect of which The transfer is being requested, the UDRP is not applicable. Now, if we refer to the disputes over the new gTLDs, the URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension) is specifically for * holders of a Mark * that have registered the same in the TMCH (Trademark Clearinghouse) And who have conflicts with the owner of a new domain name.further Which is a requirement for applicants for new gTLDs to submit to the URS in case of conflicts (the only difference with the UDRP is that there is no Requests the transfer of the domain name in question, but Suspension for a period of 1 year). Therefore, in both cases, it refers to trademark owners. Why should an end-user (who cares about us) should have Registered a trademark in order to register and use a domain name? You could not prove to be the owner of a mark to request the transfer Of a domain name. Or, in your case, how would you defend yourself from a claim that requires Transfer of disputed domain name if it does not have a trademark Registered the same or confusingly similar to said domain name? It seems to me that many would agree that the new gTLD program Was never thought or took into account the interests of users End users who want to be the owner of any domain name. And, on the other hand, as already mentioned above, if there was no interest of Community (or, more specifically, the end-users of Communities) in defending this disputed domain name, .amazon, for What has been going on for years? It seems to me that We should ask what the real interests are in this matter. My two cents. Best regards, Fatima On July 19, 2017, 20:42, José Ovidio Salgueiro <salgueiro.jo(a)gmail.com > escribiÃ³: > Muy interesante tu analisis Alejandro, coincido plenamente al igual que > con las consideraciones previas que hizo Vanda > > > JOS > > El 19 de julio de 2017, 21:01, Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty(a)gmail.com> > escribiÃ³: > >> Vanda, >> >> coincido en gran medida con tus puntos de vista. AÃ±ado para tener mÃ¡s >> coordenadas en esta discusiÃ³n: >> >> 1. el caso presentado por los gobiernos de la regiÃ³n amazÃ³nica estÃ¡ >> profundamente debilitado por el hecho de que Amazonas, Amazonia, etc. son >> utilizados como marcas y otros identificadores comerciales en los mismos >> paÃses (tÃº ya lo seÃ±alas); >> >> 2. el alto costo de las propuestas de nuevos gTLDs es en efecto un >> impedimento para organizaciones comunitarias muy pequeÃ±as, pero en muchas >> otras formas es deseable desde el punto de vista de registrantes y de los >> usuarios en general, ya que es una forma de filtrar a los proponentes que >> van a operar sus gTLDs de forma duradera. Recordemos que lo que estÃ¡ en >> juego no es sÃ³lo un objeto de comercio, con la volatilidad que Ã©stos deben >> tener, sino un elemento del DNS global. Si ese elemento es inestable, tiene >> el potencial de afectar la estabilidad, robustez, resiliencia y tambiÃ©n la >> confiabilidad del DNS en general. >> >> 3. las promesas de que un gTLD comunitario se opere en beneficio de la >> comunidad son muy poco confiables. La muestra mÃ¡s reciente la dio en las >> Ãºltimas 24 horas el dominio .asia (punto-asia), que ha relajado casi hasta >> lo risible las restricciones de localidad de los registrantes de nuevos >> nombres. Ha pasado de residentes "bona fide" y demostrables en Asia a >> "interesados en relacionarse con Asia", que deben ser unos 6 mil millones >> de personas. >> >> Atraigo su atenciÃ³n al dato de que muy probablemente el tema del dominio >> .amazon sea propuesto para discusiÃ³n en eventos cercanos al LACIGF prÃ³ximo >> en PanamÃ¡ a partir del 1 o 2 de agosto. >> >> Saludos cordiales >> >> Alejandro Pisanty >> >> 2017-07-19 16:44 GMT-05:00 Vanda Scartezini <vanda(a)scartezini.org>: >> >>> No cuestiono precios y si, pequeÃ±as comunidades puedan hacer uso de su >>> identificaciÃ³n geogrÃ¡fica. Todavia creo que las marcas tambiÃ©n tienen el >>> derecho de mantener sus nombres bajo el cÃrculo que les conviene. TambiÃ©n >>> hay innovaciÃ³n sin que la comunidad tenga su proprio TLD aun acredito que >>> es mas controlable. El problema sigue porque ambos tienen razÃ³n a mi ver. >>> Pero pro ejemplo AMAZON, si una comunidad local de la region amazÃ³nica que >>> habla lenguas latinas no vÃ¡ criar, pro ejemplo un TLD llamado Amazon que no >>> es su lengua. Lo criarÃ¡ como Amazonas o Amazonica que aun tenga >>> similaridade puede ser diferenciado. Llegar a un acuerdo puede si tornar >>> las cosas mas viables para los dos lados. >>> Lo que cuestiono es la prohibiciÃ³n simples a los nombres de puntos >>> geogrÃ¡ficos despuÃ©s de las mismas regiones permitirem wl uso en su >>> territorio del mismo nombre. Hay un derecho aqui que tambiÃ©n debe ser >>> repechado. >>> >>> *Vanda Scartezini* >>> >>> *Polo Consultores Associados* >>> >>> *Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004* >>> >>> *01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil* >>> >>> *Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 <+55%2011%203266-6253>* >>> >>> *Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 <+55%2011%2098181-1464> * >>> >>> *Sorry for any typos. * >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: "Gutierrez, Carlos Raul" <carlosraul(a)gutierrez.se> >>> Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 12:54 >>> To: Vanda Scartezini <vanda(a)scartezini.org> >>> Cc: Aida Noblia <aidanoblia(a)gmail.com>, Humberto Carrasco < >>> hcarrascob(a)gmail.com>, "lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" < >>> lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Alan Greenberg < >>> alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >>> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-es] DeclaraciÃ³n Final Amazon vs. ICANN >>> >>> Estimada Vanda, >>> >>> >>> con todo respeto, creo que la expansion del espacio gTLD ha dejado el >>> uso/defensa de las Marcas como (solo) una posibilidad del uso de los >>> nombres de dominio nada mas, no el Ãºnico o principal. >>> >>> >>> Creo firmemente que la expansion del espacio DNS ha abierto las puertas >>> a que otras comunidades (geogrÃ¡ficas, culturales y sociales) pueda >>> desarrollar modelos online. Como ALAC yo creo que la pregunta que debemos >>> hacernos es si el Modelo ICANN del $185'000 por aplicacion y $25'000/aÃ±o >>> por un gTLD para una comunidad pequeÃ±a es sostenible o no. Yo creo que no >>> lo es. Y cfeo que es tema de ALAC de hablar de esto. nostros no somos los >>> especialistas en temas de marcas y propiedad intelectual. O por lo menos no >>> es el objeto de nuestra comunidad. >>> >>> De tal manera, quiero planter a nuestra comunidad una discusiÃ³n seria y >>> profunda, de como podemos vivir en un futuro en donde se pueda compartir el >>> espacio DNS, entre >>> >>> 1. las marcas y la propiedad intelectual, que invierten mucho dinero en >>> el DNS, pero lo usan poco en tÃ©rminos de registros al segundo nivel. Ellos >>> puede darse el lujo de sostener los altos costos de sus jardines enjaulados. >>> >>> 2. los verdaderos nuevos genÃ©ricos, para que estos abran campo a la >>> innovacion de todos tipo evitando la concentraciÃ³n del mercado en pocos >>> operadores >>> >>> 3. comunidades geogrÃ¡ficas, culturales, linguÃsticas (IDN), etc. pueden >>> usar los amplios nuevos recursos disponibles, SIN tener que pagar montos a >>> ICANN que hagan sus ideales insostenibles. En parte este tema se enfoca hoy >>> solo en GeoNames, pero afecta a otras comunidades tambiÃ©n. >>> >>> >>> Enhorabuena la decisiÃ³n del IRP, para poder replanterarnos el objeto de >>> ALAC y LACRALO en particular. >>> >>> >>> Carlos RaÃºl GutiÃ©rrez >>> >>> ================ >>> >>> Mobile +506 8837 7176 <+506%208837%207176> >>> >>> Skype: carlos.raulg >>> >>> Apartado 1571-1000, COSTA RICA >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 19-07-2017 09:34, Vanda Scartezini wrote: >>> >>> Yo tengo una opinion particular que ya he compartido con ALAC y en >>> ingles con otros colegas : no creo que la explicaciÃ³n dada por GAC â porque >>> inexistente, tiene relevancia. Pro ejemplo, se Brasil pensaba que era un >>> nombre que podrÃa traer conflicto para los habitantes de la region entonces >>> porque fue concedida la marca a la empresa AMAZON? El uso que AMAZOn va >>> hacer del .amazon no es diverso del uso que hace de su Marca. Es un brand >>> TLD. >>> No veo razÃ³n real para toda esta discusiÃ³n al rededor de esto tema. >>> QuizÃ¡ solo una negociaciÃ³n entre las partes involucradas y no base para una >>> polÃtica general. >>> >>> *Vanda Scartezini* >>> >>> *Polo Consultores Associados* >>> >>> *Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004* >>> >>> *01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil* >>> >>> *Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 <+55%2011%203266-6253>* >>> >>> *Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 <+55%2011%2098181-1464> * >>> >>> *Sorry for any typos. * >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: "lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" < >>> lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Aida >>> Noblia <aidanoblia(a)gmail.com> >>> Date: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 21:19 >>> To: Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com> >>> Cc: "lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" < >>> lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-es] DeclaraciÃ³n Final Amazon vs. ICANN >>> >>> >>> Muchas Gracias Humberto y tambiÃ©n a Carlos GutiÃ©rrez. Tema importante >>> sÃ. >>> >>> Saludos >>> AÃda >>> >>> El 18 de julio de 2017, 12:12, Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com> >>> escribiÃ³: >>> >>>> Estimados todos, >>>> >>>> Quiero agradecer a Carlos RaÃºl Gutierrez por hacerme llegar la >>>> DeclaraciÃ³n Final en el caso "Amazon versus ICANN. ( >>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-amazon-fina >>>> l-declaration-11jul17-en.pdf) >>>> >>>> >>>> He preparado un resumen de la opiniÃ³n mayoritaria porque es un tema de >>>> absoluta relevancia para le regiÃ³n. La traducciÃ³n al espaÃ±ol la hice yo, >>>> asÃ que perdonen los errores. >>>> >>>> Saludos >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> English >>>> >>>> Spanish >>>> >>>> Claimant Amazon EU S. a. r. l. ("Amazon") seeks independent review of >>>> the decision of the Board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names >>>> and Numbers ("ICANN"), acting through ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee >>>> ("NGPC"), denying its applications for top-level domain names of .amazon >>>> and its IDN equivalents in Chinese and Japanese characters. Amazon contends >>>> that in making the decision to deny its >>>> >>>> applications, the NGPC acted in a manner that was inconsistent with and >>>> violated provisions of ICANN's Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws and/or >>>> Applicant Guidebook for gTLD domain names (collectively, ICANN's >>>> "governance documents"). ICANN contends, to the contrary, that at all times >>>> the NGPC acted consistently with ICANN's governance documents. >>>> >>>> El Demandante Amazon EU S. a. R L ("Amazon") busca una revisiÃ³n >>>> independiente de la decisiÃ³n >>>> >>>> de la Junta Directiva de la CorporaciÃ³n de Internet para la AsignaciÃ³n >>>> de Nombres y NÃºmeros ("ICANN"), actuando a travÃ©s del ComitÃ© del Programa >>>> de Nuevos gTLD de la ICANN ("NGPC"), negando sus solicitudes para nombres >>>> de dominio de nivel superior de .amazon y sus equivalentes de IDN en sus >>>> caracteres chino y japoness. Amazon sostiene que al tomar la decisiÃ³n de >>>> negar sus solicitudes, el NGPC actuÃ³ de una manera que era inconsistente >>>> con y violado disposiciones de los Estatutos de la ICANN, Reglamentos y / o >>>> GuÃa del Solicitante para nombres de dominio de gTLD (colectivamente, >>>> "documentos de gobierno" de ICANN). ICANN sostiene, al contrario, que en >>>> todo momento la NGPC actuÃ³ de manera consistente con los documentos de >>>> gobernanza. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Conclusion >>>> >>>> ConclusiÃ³n >>>> >>>> Based upon the foregoing, we declare that Amazon has established that >>>> ICANN's Board, acting through the NGPC, acted in a manner inconsistent with >>>> ICANN's Bylaws, as more fully described above. Further, the GAC, as a >>>> constituent body of ICANN, failed to allow the applicant to submit any >>>> information to the GAC and thus deprived the applicant of the minimal >>>> degree of procedural fairness before issuance of its advice, as required by >>>> the Bylaws. The failure by the GAC to accord procedural fairness diminishes >>>> the presumption that would otherwise attach to its consensus advice. >>>> >>>> Con base en lo anterior, declaramos que Amazon ha establecido que la >>>> Junta Directiva de ICANN, actuando a travÃ©s de la NGPC, actuÃ³ de manera >>>> inconsistente con los Estatutos, como se describiÃ³ con mayor detalle >>>> anteriormente. AdemÃ¡s, el GAC, como Ã³rgano ICANN, no permitiÃ³ que el >>>> solicitante presentara ninguna informaciÃ³n al GAC y privÃ³ al solicitante >>>> del mÃnimo grado de equidad procesal antes de la emisiÃ³n de su consejo, >>>> como lo requieren los Estatutos. La incapacidad del GAC de otorgar equidad >>>> procesal disminuye la presunciÃ³n que de otro modo se unirÃa a su >>>> asesoramiento consensuado. >>>> >>>> The Panel recommends that the Board of ICANN promptly re-evaluate >>>> Amazon's applications in light of the Panel's declarations above. In its >>>> re-evaluation of the applications, the Board should make an objective and >>>> independent judgment regarding whether there are, in fact, well-founded, >>>> merits-based *public policy reasons* for denying Amazon's >>>> applications. Further, if the Board determines that the applications should >>>> not proceed, the Board should explain its reasons supporting that decision. >>>> The GAC consensus advice, standing alone, cannot supplant the Board's >>>> independent and objective decision with a reasoned analysis. If the Board >>>> determines that the applications should proceed, we understand that ICANN's >>>> Bylaws, in effect, require the Board to "meet and confer" with the GAC. >>>> (See Bylaws, Article XI, Â§ 2.1(j).) In light of our declaration, we >>>> recommend that ICANN do so within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this >>>> Final Declaration. As the Board is required to state reasons why it is not >>>> following the GAC consensus advice, we recommend the Board cite this Final >>>> Declaration and the reasons set forth herein. >>>> >>>> El Panel recomienda que la Junta Directiva de ICANN reevalÃºe >>>> prontamente las solicitudes de Amazon a la luz de las declaraciones del >>>> Panel hechas anteriormente. En su reevaluaciÃ³n de las solicitudes, la Junta >>>> debe emitir un juicio objetivo e independiente sobre si existen *razones >>>> de polÃtica pÃºblica* bien fundadas y basadas en mÃ©ritos para negar las >>>> solicitudes de Amazon. AdemÃ¡s, si la Junta determina que las solicitudes no >>>> son procedentes, la Junta debe explicar las razones que apoyen esa >>>> decisiÃ³n. El asesoramiento consensuado del GAC, por sÃ solo, no puede >>>> suplantar la decisiÃ³n independiente y objetiva de la Junta Directiva con un >>>> anÃ¡lisis razonado. Si la Junta Directiva determina que las solicitudes >>>> deben continuar, entendemos que los Estatutos de la ICANN, en efecto, >>>> requieren que la Junta Directiva "se reÃºna y confiera" con el GAC. (Ver >>>> Reglamentos, ArtÃculo XI, Â§ 2.1 (j)). A la luz de nuestra declaraciÃ³n, >>>> recomendamos que ICANN lo haga dentro de los sesenta (60) dÃas de la >>>> emisiÃ³n de esta DeclaraciÃ³n Final. Como se requiere que la Junta Directiva >>>> explique por quÃ© no sigue el consejo de consenso del GAC, recomendamos a la >>>> Junta Directiva que cite esta DeclaraciÃ³n Final y las razones aquÃ >>>> expuestas. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> lac-discuss-es mailing list >>>> lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es >>>> >>>> http://www.lacralo.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Aida Noblia >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lac-discuss-es mailing list >>> lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es >>> >>> http://www.lacralo.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lac-discuss-es mailing list >>> lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es >>> >>> http://www.lacralo.org >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >> Facultad de QuÃmica UNAM >> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >> +52-1-5541444475 <+52%201%2055%204144%204475> FROM ABROAD >> +525541444475 <+52%2055%204144%204475> DESDE MÃXICO SMS +525541444475 >> <+52%2055%204144%204475> >> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/ >> 22285/4A106C0C8614 >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lac-discuss-es mailing list >> lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es >> >> http://www.lacralo.org >> > > > > -- > > > > > JosÃ© Ovidio Salgueiro A. > salgueiro.jo(a)gmail.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-es mailing list > lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es > > http://www.lacralo.org > * Fatima Cambronero * Responsible for the Area of \u200b\u200bComputer Law of R10S Abogados Www.riosabogados.com Mexico Phone: Mexico: +52 (55) 5252 2581 Twitter: @facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/8513293c08.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] =? Utf-8? Q? Statement = B3n_Final_Amazon_vs = 2E_IC? = =? Utf-8? Q? ANN? =
by salgueiro.jo＠gmail.com July 19, 2017

July 19, 2017

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: =? Utf-8? Q? Statement = B3n_Final_Amazon_vs = 2E_IC? = =? Utf-8? Q? ANN? = Desde: salgueiro.jo(a)gmail.com Very interesting your analysis Alexander, I agree fully as with The previous considerations made by Vanda JOS The 19 of July of 2017, 21:01, Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Vanda, > > coincido en gran medida con tus puntos de vista. AÃ±ado para tener mÃ¡s > coordenadas en esta discusiÃ³n: > > 1. el caso presentado por los gobiernos de la regiÃ³n amazÃ³nica estÃ¡ > profundamente debilitado por el hecho de que Amazonas, Amazonia, etc. son > utilizados como marcas y otros identificadores comerciales en los mismos > paÃses (tÃº ya lo seÃ±alas); > > 2. el alto costo de las propuestas de nuevos gTLDs es en efecto un > impedimento para organizaciones comunitarias muy pequeÃ±as, pero en muchas > otras formas es deseable desde el punto de vista de registrantes y de los > usuarios en general, ya que es una forma de filtrar a los proponentes que > van a operar sus gTLDs de forma duradera. Recordemos que lo que estÃ¡ en > juego no es sÃ³lo un objeto de comercio, con la volatilidad que Ã©stos deben > tener, sino un elemento del DNS global. Si ese elemento es inestable, tiene > el potencial de afectar la estabilidad, robustez, resiliencia y tambiÃ©n la > confiabilidad del DNS en general. > > 3. las promesas de que un gTLD comunitario se opere en beneficio de la > comunidad son muy poco confiables. La muestra mÃ¡s reciente la dio en las > Ãºltimas 24 horas el dominio .asia (punto-asia), que ha relajado casi hasta > lo risible las restricciones de localidad de los registrantes de nuevos > nombres. Ha pasado de residentes "bona fide" y demostrables en Asia a > "interesados en relacionarse con Asia", que deben ser unos 6 mil millones > de personas. > > Atraigo su atenciÃ³n al dato de que muy probablemente el tema del dominio > .amazon sea propuesto para discusiÃ³n en eventos cercanos al LACIGF prÃ³ximo > en PanamÃ¡ a partir del 1 o 2 de agosto. > > Saludos cordiales > > Alejandro Pisanty > > 2017-07-19 16:44 GMT-05:00 Vanda Scartezini <vanda(a)scartezini.org>: > >> No cuestiono precios y si, pequeÃ±as comunidades puedan hacer uso de su >> identificaciÃ³n geogrÃ¡fica. Todavia creo que las marcas tambiÃ©n tienen el >> derecho de mantener sus nombres bajo el cÃrculo que les conviene. TambiÃ©n >> hay innovaciÃ³n sin que la comunidad tenga su proprio TLD aun acredito que >> es mas controlable. El problema sigue porque ambos tienen razÃ³n a mi ver. >> Pero pro ejemplo AMAZON, si una comunidad local de la region amazÃ³nica que >> habla lenguas latinas no vÃ¡ criar, pro ejemplo un TLD llamado Amazon que no >> es su lengua. Lo criarÃ¡ como Amazonas o Amazonica que aun tenga >> similaridade puede ser diferenciado. Llegar a un acuerdo puede si tornar >> las cosas mas viables para los dos lados. >> Lo que cuestiono es la prohibiciÃ³n simples a los nombres de puntos >> geogrÃ¡ficos despuÃ©s de las mismas regiones permitirem wl uso en su >> territorio del mismo nombre. Hay un derecho aqui que tambiÃ©n debe ser >> repechado. >> >> *Vanda Scartezini* >> >> *Polo Consultores Associados* >> >> *Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004* >> >> *01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil* >> >> *Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 <+55%2011%203266-6253>* >> >> *Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 <+55%2011%2098181-1464> * >> >> *Sorry for any typos. * >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: "Gutierrez, Carlos Raul" <carlosraul(a)gutierrez.se> >> Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 12:54 >> To: Vanda Scartezini <vanda(a)scartezini.org> >> Cc: Aida Noblia <aidanoblia(a)gmail.com>, Humberto Carrasco < >> hcarrascob(a)gmail.com>, "lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" < >> lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Alan Greenberg < >> alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-es] DeclaraciÃ³n Final Amazon vs. ICANN >> >> Estimada Vanda, >> >> >> con todo respeto, creo que la expansion del espacio gTLD ha dejado el >> uso/defensa de las Marcas como (solo) una posibilidad del uso de los >> nombres de dominio nada mas, no el Ãºnico o principal. >> >> >> Creo firmemente que la expansion del espacio DNS ha abierto las puertas a >> que otras comunidades (geogrÃ¡ficas, culturales y sociales) pueda >> desarrollar modelos online. Como ALAC yo creo que la pregunta que debemos >> hacernos es si el Modelo ICANN del $185'000 por aplicacion y $25'000/aÃ±o >> por un gTLD para una comunidad pequeÃ±a es sostenible o no. Yo creo que no >> lo es. Y cfeo que es tema de ALAC de hablar de esto. nostros no somos los >> especialistas en temas de marcas y propiedad intelectual. O por lo menos no >> es el objeto de nuestra comunidad. >> >> De tal manera, quiero planter a nuestra comunidad una discusiÃ³n seria y >> profunda, de como podemos vivir en un futuro en donde se pueda compartir el >> espacio DNS, entre >> >> 1. las marcas y la propiedad intelectual, que invierten mucho dinero en >> el DNS, pero lo usan poco en tÃ©rminos de registros al segundo nivel. Ellos >> puede darse el lujo de sostener los altos costos de sus jardines enjaulados. >> >> 2. los verdaderos nuevos genÃ©ricos, para que estos abran campo a la >> innovacion de todos tipo evitando la concentraciÃ³n del mercado en pocos >> operadores >> >> 3. comunidades geogrÃ¡ficas, culturales, linguÃsticas (IDN), etc. pueden >> usar los amplios nuevos recursos disponibles, SIN tener que pagar montos a >> ICANN que hagan sus ideales insostenibles. En parte este tema se enfoca hoy >> solo en GeoNames, pero afecta a otras comunidades tambiÃ©n. >> >> >> Enhorabuena la decisiÃ³n del IRP, para poder replanterarnos el objeto de >> ALAC y LACRALO en particular. >> >> >> Carlos RaÃºl GutiÃ©rrez >> >> ================ >> >> Mobile +506 8837 7176 <+506%208837%207176> >> >> Skype: carlos.raulg >> >> Apartado 1571-1000, COSTA RICA >> >> >> >> >> >> On 19-07-2017 09:34, Vanda Scartezini wrote: >> >> Yo tengo una opinion particular que ya he compartido con ALAC y en ingles >> con otros colegas : no creo que la explicaciÃ³n dada por GAC â porque >> inexistente, tiene relevancia. Pro ejemplo, se Brasil pensaba que era un >> nombre que podrÃa traer conflicto para los habitantes de la region entonces >> porque fue concedida la marca a la empresa AMAZON? El uso que AMAZOn va >> hacer del .amazon no es diverso del uso que hace de su Marca. Es un brand >> TLD. >> No veo razÃ³n real para toda esta discusiÃ³n al rededor de esto tema. QuizÃ¡ >> solo una negociaciÃ³n entre las partes involucradas y no base para una >> polÃtica general. >> >> *Vanda Scartezini* >> >> *Polo Consultores Associados* >> >> *Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004* >> >> *01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil* >> >> *Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 <+55%2011%203266-6253>* >> >> *Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 <+55%2011%2098181-1464> * >> >> *Sorry for any typos. * >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: "lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" < >> lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Aida Noblia >> <aidanoblia(a)gmail.com> >> Date: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 21:19 >> To: Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com> >> Cc: "lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" < >> lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-es] DeclaraciÃ³n Final Amazon vs. ICANN >> >> >> Muchas Gracias Humberto y tambiÃ©n a Carlos GutiÃ©rrez. Tema importante sÃ. >> >> Saludos >> AÃda >> >> El 18 de julio de 2017, 12:12, Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com> >> escribiÃ³: >> >>> Estimados todos, >>> >>> Quiero agradecer a Carlos RaÃºl Gutierrez por hacerme llegar la >>> DeclaraciÃ³n Final en el caso "Amazon versus ICANN. ( >>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-amazon-fina >>> l-declaration-11jul17-en.pdf) >>> >>> >>> He preparado un resumen de la opiniÃ³n mayoritaria porque es un tema de >>> absoluta relevancia para le regiÃ³n. La traducciÃ³n al espaÃ±ol la hice yo, >>> asÃ que perdonen los errores. >>> >>> Saludos >>> >>> >>> >>> English >>> >>> Spanish >>> >>> Claimant Amazon EU S. a. r. l. ("Amazon") seeks independent review of >>> the decision of the Board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names >>> and Numbers ("ICANN"), acting through ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee >>> ("NGPC"), denying its applications for top-level domain names of .amazon >>> and its IDN equivalents in Chinese and Japanese characters. Amazon contends >>> that in making the decision to deny its >>> >>> applications, the NGPC acted in a manner that was inconsistent with and >>> violated provisions of ICANN's Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws and/or >>> Applicant Guidebook for gTLD domain names (collectively, ICANN's >>> "governance documents"). ICANN contends, to the contrary, that at all times >>> the NGPC acted consistently with ICANN's governance documents. >>> >>> El Demandante Amazon EU S. a. R L ("Amazon") busca una revisiÃ³n >>> independiente de la decisiÃ³n >>> >>> de la Junta Directiva de la CorporaciÃ³n de Internet para la AsignaciÃ³n >>> de Nombres y NÃºmeros ("ICANN"), actuando a travÃ©s del ComitÃ© del Programa >>> de Nuevos gTLD de la ICANN ("NGPC"), negando sus solicitudes para nombres >>> de dominio de nivel superior de .amazon y sus equivalentes de IDN en sus >>> caracteres chino y japoness. Amazon sostiene que al tomar la decisiÃ³n de >>> negar sus solicitudes, el NGPC actuÃ³ de una manera que era inconsistente >>> con y violado disposiciones de los Estatutos de la ICANN, Reglamentos y / o >>> GuÃa del Solicitante para nombres de dominio de gTLD (colectivamente, >>> "documentos de gobierno" de ICANN). ICANN sostiene, al contrario, que en >>> todo momento la NGPC actuÃ³ de manera consistente con los documentos de >>> gobernanza. >>> >>> >>> >>> Conclusion >>> >>> ConclusiÃ³n >>> >>> Based upon the foregoing, we declare that Amazon has established that >>> ICANN's Board, acting through the NGPC, acted in a manner inconsistent with >>> ICANN's Bylaws, as more fully described above. Further, the GAC, as a >>> constituent body of ICANN, failed to allow the applicant to submit any >>> information to the GAC and thus deprived the applicant of the minimal >>> degree of procedural fairness before issuance of its advice, as required by >>> the Bylaws. The failure by the GAC to accord procedural fairness diminishes >>> the presumption that would otherwise attach to its consensus advice. >>> >>> Con base en lo anterior, declaramos que Amazon ha establecido que la >>> Junta Directiva de ICANN, actuando a travÃ©s de la NGPC, actuÃ³ de manera >>> inconsistente con los Estatutos, como se describiÃ³ con mayor detalle >>> anteriormente. AdemÃ¡s, el GAC, como Ã³rgano ICANN, no permitiÃ³ que el >>> solicitante presentara ninguna informaciÃ³n al GAC y privÃ³ al solicitante >>> del mÃnimo grado de equidad procesal antes de la emisiÃ³n de su consejo, >>> como lo requieren los Estatutos. La incapacidad del GAC de otorgar equidad >>> procesal disminuye la presunciÃ³n que de otro modo se unirÃa a su >>> asesoramiento consensuado. >>> >>> The Panel recommends that the Board of ICANN promptly re-evaluate >>> Amazon's applications in light of the Panel's declarations above. In its >>> re-evaluation of the applications, the Board should make an objective and >>> independent judgment regarding whether there are, in fact, well-founded, >>> merits-based *public policy reasons* for denying Amazon's applications. >>> Further, if the Board determines that the applications should not proceed, >>> the Board should explain its reasons supporting that decision. The GAC >>> consensus advice, standing alone, cannot supplant the Board's independent >>> and objective decision with a reasoned analysis. If the Board determines >>> that the applications should proceed, we understand that ICANN's Bylaws, in >>> effect, require the Board to "meet and confer" with the GAC. (See Bylaws, >>> Article XI, Â§ 2.1(j).) In light of our declaration, we recommend that ICANN >>> do so within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this Final Declaration. As >>> the Board is required to state reasons why it is not following the GAC >>> consensus advice, we recommend the Board cite this Final Declaration and >>> the reasons set forth herein. >>> >>> El Panel recomienda que la Junta Directiva de ICANN reevalÃºe prontamente >>> las solicitudes de Amazon a la luz de las declaraciones del Panel hechas >>> anteriormente. En su reevaluaciÃ³n de las solicitudes, la Junta debe emitir >>> un juicio objetivo e independiente sobre si existen *razones de >>> polÃtica pÃºblica* bien fundadas y basadas en mÃ©ritos para negar las >>> solicitudes de Amazon. AdemÃ¡s, si la Junta determina que las solicitudes no >>> son procedentes, la Junta debe explicar las razones que apoyen esa >>> decisiÃ³n. El asesoramiento consensuado del GAC, por sÃ solo, no puede >>> suplantar la decisiÃ³n independiente y objetiva de la Junta Directiva con un >>> anÃ¡lisis razonado. Si la Junta Directiva determina que las solicitudes >>> deben continuar, entendemos que los Estatutos de la ICANN, en efecto, >>> requieren que la Junta Directiva "se reÃºna y confiera" con el GAC. (Ver >>> Reglamentos, ArtÃculo XI, Â§ 2.1 (j)). A la luz de nuestra declaraciÃ³n, >>> recomendamos que ICANN lo haga dentro de los sesenta (60) dÃas de la >>> emisiÃ³n de esta DeclaraciÃ³n Final. Como se requiere que la Junta Directiva >>> explique por quÃ© no sigue el consejo de consenso del GAC, recomendamos a la >>> Junta Directiva que cite esta DeclaraciÃ³n Final y las razones aquÃ >>> expuestas. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lac-discuss-es mailing list >>> lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es >>> >>> http://www.lacralo.org >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Aida Noblia >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lac-discuss-es mailing list >> lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es >> >> http://www.lacralo.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lac-discuss-es mailing list >> lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es >> >> http://www.lacralo.org >> > > > > -- > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > Facultad de QuÃmica UNAM > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > +52-1-5541444475 <+52%201%2055%204144%204475> FROM ABROAD > +525541444475 <+52%2055%204144%204475> DESDE MÃXICO SMS +525541444475 > <+52%2055%204144%204475> > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/ > 22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-es mailing list > lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es > > http://www.lacralo.org > José Ovidio Salgueiro A. Salgueiro.jo(a)gmail.com [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/8f8951cf85.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] =? Utf-8? Q? Statement = B3n_Final_Amazon_vs = 2E_IC? = =? Utf-8? Q? ANN? =
by apisanty＠gmail.com July 19, 2017

July 19, 2017

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: =? Utf-8? Q? Statement = B3n_Final_Amazon_vs = 2E_IC? = =? Utf-8? Q? ANN? = Desde: apisanty(a)gmail.com Vanda, I agree very much with your points of view. I add to have more Coordinates in this discussion: 1. The case presented by the governments of the Amazon region is Deeply debilitated by the fact that Amazonas, Amazonia, etc. They are Used as trademarks and other commercial identifiers in them Countries (you already indicate it); 2. the high cost of new gTLD proposals is in effect a Impediment for very small community organizations, but in many Other forms is desirable from the point of view of registrants and Users, as it is a way of filtering out Will operate their gTLDs on a lasting basis.Remember that what is in Play is not just an object of trade, with the volatility they must Have, but a global DNS element. If that element is unstable, it has The potential to affect stability, robustness, resilience and also the Reliability of the DNS in general. 3. promises that a Community gTLD be operated for the benefit of the Community are very unreliable. The most recent sample was in the Last 24 hours the domain .asia (punto-asia), which has relaxed almost until The location restrictions of new registrants Name (s. It has passed from bona fide and provable residents in Asia to "Interested in dealing with Asia", which should be about 6 billion of people. I draw your attention to the fact that most likely the domain subject .amazon to be proposed for discussion at events near the upcoming LACIGF In Panama from August 1 or 2. Best regards Alejandro Pisanty 2017-07-19 16:44 GMT-05: 00 Vanda Scartezini <vanda(a)scartezini.org> : > No cuestiono precios y si, pequeñas comunidades puedan hacer uso de su > identificación geográfica. Todavia creo que las marcas también tienen el > derecho de mantener sus nombres bajo el círculo que les conviene. También > hay innovación sin que la comunidad tenga su proprio TLD aun acredito que > es mas controlable. El problema sigue porque ambos tienen razón a mi ver. > Pero pro ejemplo AMAZON, si una comunidad local de la region amazónica que > habla lenguas latinas no vá criar, pro ejemplo un TLD llamado Amazon que no > es su lengua. Lo criará como Amazonas o Amazonica que aun tenga > similaridade puede ser diferenciado. Llegar a un acuerdo puede si tornar > las cosas mas viables para los dos lados. > Lo que cuestiono es la prohibición simples a los nombres de puntos > geográficos después de las mismas regiones permitirem wl uso en su > territorio del mismo nombre. Hay un derecho aqui que también debe ser > repechado. > > *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: "Gutierrez, Carlos Raul" <carlosraul(a)gutierrez.se> > Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 12:54 > To: Vanda Scartezini <vanda(a)scartezini.org> > Cc: Aida Noblia <aidanoblia(a)gmail.com>, Humberto Carrasco < > hcarrascob(a)gmail.com>, "lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" < > lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Alan Greenberg < > alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-es] Declaración Final Amazon vs. ICANN > > Estimada Vanda, > > > con todo respeto, creo que la expansion del espacio gTLD ha dejado el > uso/defensa de las Marcas como (solo) una posibilidad del uso de los > nombres de dominio nada mas, no el único o principal. > > > Creo firmemente que la expansion del espacio DNS ha abierto las puertas a > que otras comunidades (geográficas, culturales y sociales) pueda > desarrollar modelos online. Como ALAC yo creo que la pregunta que debemos > hacernos es si el Modelo ICANN del $185'000 por aplicacion y $25'000/año > por un gTLD para una comunidad pequeña es sostenible o no. Yo creo que no > lo es. Y cfeo que es tema de ALAC de hablar de esto. nostros no somos los > especialistas en temas de marcas y propiedad intelectual. O por lo menos no > es el objeto de nuestra comunidad. > > De tal manera, quiero planter a nuestra comunidad una discusión seria y > profunda, de como podemos vivir en un futuro en donde se pueda compartir el > espacio DNS, entre > > 1. las marcas y la propiedad intelectual, que invierten mucho dinero en el > DNS, pero lo usan poco en términos de registros al segundo nivel. Ellos > puede darse el lujo de sostener los altos costos de sus jardines enjaulados. > > 2. los verdaderos nuevos genéricos, para que estos abran campo a la > innovacion de todos tipo evitando la concentración del mercado en pocos > operadores > > 3. comunidades geográficas, culturales, linguísticas (IDN), etc. pueden > usar los amplios nuevos recursos disponibles, SIN tener que pagar montos a > ICANN que hagan sus ideales insostenibles. En parte este tema se enfoca hoy > solo en GeoNames, pero afecta a otras comunidades también. > > > Enhorabuena la decisión del IRP, para poder replanterarnos el objeto de > ALAC y LACRALO en particular. > > > Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez > > ================ > > Mobile +506 8837 7176 > > Skype: carlos.raulg > > Apartado 1571-1000, COSTA RICA > > > > > > On 19-07-2017 09:34, Vanda Scartezini wrote: > > Yo tengo una opinion particular que ya he compartido con ALAC y en ingles > con otros colegas : no creo que la explicación dada por GAC – porque > inexistente, tiene relevancia. Pro ejemplo, se Brasil pensaba que era un > nombre que podría traer conflicto para los habitantes de la region entonces > porque fue concedida la marca a la empresa AMAZON? El uso que AMAZOn va > hacer del .amazon no es diverso del uso que hace de su Marca. Es un brand > TLD. > No veo razón real para toda esta discusión al rededor de esto tema. Quizá > solo una negociación entre las partes involucradas y no base para una > política general. > > *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: "lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" < > lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Aida Noblia < > aidanoblia(a)gmail.com> > Date: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 21:19 > To: Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com> > Cc: "lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" < > lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-es] Declaración Final Amazon vs. ICANN > > > Muchas Gracias Humberto y también a Carlos Gutiérrez. Tema importante sí. > > Saludos > Aída > > El 18 de julio de 2017, 12:12, Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com> > escribió: > >> Estimados todos, >> >> Quiero agradecer a Carlos Raúl Gutierrez por hacerme llegar la >> Declaración Final en el caso "Amazon versus ICANN. ( >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-amazon-fina >> l-declaration-11jul17-en.pdf) >> >> >> He preparado un resumen de la opinión mayoritaria porque es un tema de >> absoluta relevancia para le región. La traducción al español la hice yo, >> así que perdonen los errores. >> >> Saludos >> >> >> >> English >> >> Spanish >> >> Claimant Amazon EU S. a. r. l. ("Amazon") seeks independent review of the >> decision of the Board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and >> Numbers ("ICANN"), acting through ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee >> ("NGPC"), denying its applications for top-level domain names of .amazon >> and its IDN equivalents in Chinese and Japanese characters. Amazon contends >> that in making the decision to deny its >> >> applications, the NGPC acted in a manner that was inconsistent with and >> violated provisions of ICANN's Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws and/or >> Applicant Guidebook for gTLD domain names (collectively, ICANN's >> "governance documents"). ICANN contends, to the contrary, that at all times >> the NGPC acted consistently with ICANN's governance documents. >> >> El Demandante Amazon EU S. a. R L ("Amazon") busca una revisión >> independiente de la decisión >> >> de la Junta Directiva de la Corporación de Internet para la Asignación de >> Nombres y Números ("ICANN"), actuando a través del Comité del Programa de >> Nuevos gTLD de la ICANN ("NGPC"), negando sus solicitudes para nombres de >> dominio de nivel superior de .amazon y sus equivalentes de IDN en sus >> caracteres chino y japoness. Amazon sostiene que al tomar la decisión de >> negar sus solicitudes, el NGPC actuó de una manera que era inconsistente >> con y violado disposiciones de los Estatutos de la ICANN, Reglamentos y / o >> Guía del Solicitante para nombres de dominio de gTLD (colectivamente, >> "documentos de gobierno" de ICANN). ICANN sostiene, al contrario, que en >> todo momento la NGPC actuó de manera consistente con los documentos de >> gobernanza. >> >> >> >> Conclusion >> >> Conclusión >> >> Based upon the foregoing, we declare that Amazon has established that >> ICANN's Board, acting through the NGPC, acted in a manner inconsistent with >> ICANN's Bylaws, as more fully described above. Further, the GAC, as a >> constituent body of ICANN, failed to allow the applicant to submit any >> information to the GAC and thus deprived the applicant of the minimal >> degree of procedural fairness before issuance of its advice, as required by >> the Bylaws. The failure by the GAC to accord procedural fairness diminishes >> the presumption that would otherwise attach to its consensus advice. >> >> Con base en lo anterior, declaramos que Amazon ha establecido que la >> Junta Directiva de ICANN, actuando a través de la NGPC, actuó de manera >> inconsistente con los Estatutos, como se describió con mayor detalle >> anteriormente. Además, el GAC, como órgano ICANN, no permitió que el >> solicitante presentara ninguna información al GAC y privó al solicitante >> del mínimo grado de equidad procesal antes de la emisión de su consejo, >> como lo requieren los Estatutos. La incapacidad del GAC de otorgar equidad >> procesal disminuye la presunción que de otro modo se uniría a su >> asesoramiento consensuado. >> >> The Panel recommends that the Board of ICANN promptly re-evaluate >> Amazon's applications in light of the Panel's declarations above. In its >> re-evaluation of the applications, the Board should make an objective and >> independent judgment regarding whether there are, in fact, well-founded, >> merits-based *public policy reasons* for denying Amazon's applications. >> Further, if the Board determines that the applications should not proceed, >> the Board should explain its reasons supporting that decision. The GAC >> consensus advice, standing alone, cannot supplant the Board's independent >> and objective decision with a reasoned analysis. If the Board determines >> that the applications should proceed, we understand that ICANN's Bylaws, in >> effect, require the Board to "meet and confer" with the GAC. (See Bylaws, >> Article XI, § 2.1(j).) In light of our declaration, we recommend that ICANN >> do so within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this Final Declaration. As >> the Board is required to state reasons why it is not following the GAC >> consensus advice, we recommend the Board cite this Final Declaration and >> the reasons set forth herein. >> >> El Panel recomienda que la Junta Directiva de ICANN reevalúe prontamente >> las solicitudes de Amazon a la luz de las declaraciones del Panel hechas >> anteriormente. En su reevaluación de las solicitudes, la Junta debe emitir >> un juicio objetivo e independiente sobre si existen *razones de política >> pública* bien fundadas y basadas en méritos para negar las solicitudes >> de Amazon. Además, si la Junta determina que las solicitudes no son >> procedentes, la Junta debe explicar las razones que apoyen esa decisión. El >> asesoramiento consensuado del GAC, por sí solo, no puede suplantar la >> decisión independiente y objetiva de la Junta Directiva con un análisis >> razonado. Si la Junta Directiva determina que las solicitudes deben >> continuar, entendemos que los Estatutos de la ICANN, en efecto, requieren >> que la Junta Directiva "se reúna y confiera" con el GAC. (Ver Reglamentos, >> Artículo XI, § 2.1 (j)). A la luz de nuestra declaración, recomendamos que >> ICANN lo haga dentro de los sesenta (60) días de la emisión de esta >> Declaración Final. Como se requiere que la Junta Directiva explique por qué >> no sigue el consejo de consenso del GAC, recomendamos a la Junta Directiva >> que cite esta Declaración Final y las razones aquí expuestas. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lac-discuss-es mailing list >> lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es >> >> http://www.lacralo.org > > > > > -- > Aida Noblia > > > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-es mailing list > lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es > > http://www.lacralo.org > > > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-es mailing list > lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es > > http://www.lacralo.org > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Faculty of Chemistry UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico + 52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 FROM MEXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Join the UNAM group on LinkedIn, Http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---- >> Join ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/3afddb6be0.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] =? Utf-8? Q? Statement = B3n_Final_Amazon_vs = 2E_IC? = =? Utf-8? Q? ANN? =
by vanda＠scartezini.org July 19, 2017

July 19, 2017

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: =? Utf-8? Q? Statement = B3n_Final_Amazon_vs = 2E_IC? = =? Utf-8? Q? ANN? = Desde: vanda(a)scartezini.org I do not question prices and if small communities can make use of their geographic identification. I still believe that trademarks also have the right to keep their names in the circle that suits them. There is also innovation without the community having its own TLD I still believe it is more controllable. The problem continues because both are right to see me. But for example AMAZON, if a local community of the Amazon region that speaks Latin languages \u200b\u200bwill not breed, for example a TLD called Amazon that is not their language. You will create it as Amazon or Amazonica that even has similarity can be differentiated. To reach an agreement can make things more viable for both sides. What I question is the simple prohibition on the names of geographical points after the same regions allow wl use in their territory of the same name. There is a right here that must also be repected. Vanda Scartezini Contact Us 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: "Gutierrez, Carlos Raul" <carlosraul(a)gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> > Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 12:54 To: Vanda Scartezini <vanda(a)scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org> > Cc: Aida Noblia <aidanoblia(a)gmail.com<mailto:aidanoblia@gmail.com> >, Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com<mailto:hcarrascob@gmail.com> >, "Lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> " <lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Final Statement Amazon vs. I CAN Dear Vanda, With all due respect, I believe that the expansion of the gTLD space has left the use / defense of the Trademarks as (only) a possibility of the use of the domain names nothing more, not the only or principal. I firmly believe that the expansion of the DNS space has opened the door for other communities (geographic, cultural and social) to develop online models. As ALAC I think the question we must ask is whether the ICANN Model of $ 185,000 per application and $ 25,000 per year for a gTLD for a small community is sustainable or not. I think it is not. And cfeo that it is ALAC's subject to talk about this. We are not specialists in trademark and intellectual property issues. Or at least it is not the object of our community. So, I want to plan our community a serious and deep discussion, how we can live in a future where the DNS space can be shared between 1. trademarks and intellectual property, which invest a lot of money in the DNS, but use little in terms of records at the second level. They can afford to hold the high costs of their caged gardens. 2. the real new generics, so that they open field to the innovation of all type avoiding the concentration of the market in few operators 3. geographical, cultural, linguistic (IDN) communities, etc. Can use the vast new resources available, without having to pay amounts to ICANN that make their ideals unsustainable. In part this topic focuses today only on GeoNames, but affects other communities as well. Congratulations to the decision of the IRP, to be able to replanterarnos the object of ALAC and LACRALO in particular. Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez ================ Mobile +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Apartado 1571-1000, COSTA RICA On 19-07-2017 09:34, Vanda Scartezini wrote: I have a particular opinion that I have already shared with ALAC and in English with other colleagues: I do not think that the explanation given by GAC - because nonexistent, has relevance. For example, did Brazil think that it was a name that could bring conflict for the inhabitants of the region then because the brand was granted to the company AMAZON? AMAZOn's use of .amazon is not different from its use of its Brand. It's a TLD brand. I see no real reason for all this discussion on this subject. Perhaps only a negotiation between the parties involved and no basis for a general policy. Vanda Scartezini Contact Us 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: "lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> " <lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > On behalf of Aida Noblia <aidanoblia(a)gmail.com<mailto:aidanoblia@gmail.com> > Date: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 21:19 To: Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com<mailto:hcarrascob@gmail.com> > Cc: "lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> " <lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Final Statement Amazon vs. I CAN Thank you very much Humberto and also Carlos Gutierrez. Important topic yes. regards Aída On July 18, 2017, 12:12, Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com<mailto:hcarrascob@gmail.com> > Wrote: Dear All, I want to thank Carlos Raúl Gutierrez for bringing me the Final Declaration in the case "Amazon versus ICANN. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-amazon-final-declaration-11…) I have prepared a summary of the majority opinion because it is a matter of absolute relevance for the region. The translation into Spanish I did, so forgive the mistakes. regards English Spanish Claimant Amazon EU S. arl ("Amazon") seeks independent review of the Board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN"), acting through ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee ("NGPC"), denying its Applications for top-level domain names of .amazon and its IDN equivalents in Chinese and Japanese characters. Amazon contends that in making the decision to deny its Applications, the NGPC acted in a manner that was inconsistent with and violated provisions of ICANN's Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws and / or Applicant Guidebook for gTLD domain names (collectively, ICANN's "governance documents"). ICANN contends, to the contrary, that at all times the NGPC acted consistently with ICANN's governance documents. The Applicant Amazon US S. a.RL ("Amazon") seeks an independent review of the decision Of the Board of Directors of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN"), acting through the ICANN New gTLD Program Committee ("NGPC"), denying their requests for level domain names Top of .amazon and its IDN equivalents in their Chinese and Japanese characters. Amazon submits that in making the decision to deny its requests, the NGPC acted in a manner that was inconsistent with and violated provisions of the ICANN Bylaws, Regulations and / or Applicant Guide for gTLD Domain Names (collectively, "Documents Of governance "of ICANN). ICANN maintains, on the contrary, that at all times the NGPC acted consistently with the governance documents. Conclusion conclusion Based upon the foregoing, we declare that Amazon has established that ICANN's Board, acting through the NGPC, acted in a manner inconsistent with ICANN's Bylaws, as more fully described above.Further, the GAC, as a constituent body of ICANN, failed to allow the applicant to submit any information to the GAC and thus deprived the applicant of the minimal degree of procedural fairness before issuance of its advice, as required by the Bylaws. The failure by the GAC to accord procedural fairness diminishes the presumption that would otherwise attach to its consensual advice. Based on the foregoing, we declare that Amazon has established that the ICANN Board acting through the NGPC acted inconsistently with the Bylaws, as described in more detail above. In addition, the GAC, as an ICANN body, did not allow the applicant to submit any information to the GAC and deprived the applicant of the minimum degree of procedural fairness prior to the issuance of its board as required by the Statutes. The inability of the GAC to grant procedural fairness diminishes the presumption that would otherwise be attached to its consensual advice. The Panel recommends that the Board of ICANN promptly re-evaluate Amazon's applications in light of the Panel's statements above.In its re-evaluation of the applications, the Board should make an objective and independent judgment as to whether there are, in fact, well-founded, merits-based public policy reasons for denying Amazon's applications. Further, if the Board should not proceed, the Board should explain its reasons supporting that decision. The GAC consensus advice, standing alone, can not supplant the Board's independent and objective decision with a reasoned analysis. If the Board of Directors of ICANN's Bylaws, in effect, requires the Board to meet and confer with the GAC. (See Bylaws, Article XI, § 2.1 (j).) In light of our declaration, we recommend that ICANN do so within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this Final Declaration. The Board is required to state the reasons why it is not the GAC consensus advice, we recommend the Board to quote this Final Declara tion and the reasons set forth herein. The Panel recommends that ICANN's Board of Directors re-evaluate Amazon's requests promptly in light of Panel's statements made earlier.In its reevaluation of requests, the Board must issue an objective and independent judgment as to whether there are well-founded and merit-based public policy reasons to deny Amazon's requests. In addition, if the Board determines that the requests are unfounded, the Board should explain the reasons supporting that decision. The consensus advice of the GAC, on its own, can not supplant the independent and objective decision of the Board with a reasoned analysis. If the Board determines that applications should continue, we understand that the ICANN Bylaws, in effect, require the Board to "meet and confer" with the GAC. (See Regulations, Article XI, § 2.1 (j)). In light of our statement, we recommend that ICANN do so within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this Final Statement. As the Board of Directors is required to explain why it does not follow the consensus advice of the GAC, we recommend that the Board of Directors cite this Final Statement and the reasons set forth herein. _______________________________________________ Lac-discuss-es mailing list Lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es Http://www.lacralo.org - Aida Noblia _______________________________________________ Lac-discuss-es mailing list Lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es Http://www.lacralo.org [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/819465c56b.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] =? Utf-8? Q? Statement = B3n_Final_Amazon_vs = 2E_IC? = =? Utf-8? Q? ANN? =
by hcarrascob＠gmail.com July 19, 2017

July 19, 2017

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: =? Utf-8? Q? Statement = B3n_Final_Amazon_vs = 2E_IC? = =? Utf-8? Q? ANN? = Desde: hcarrascob(a)gmail.com Dear Carlos, I believe that you have given the essential point. This is how to balance the different interests that are reflected in a domain name. As representatives of the interests of the users we must think again how to face the challenges you are pointing out. Indeed, not all on the internet are trademarks or intellectual property. I join your call to open the debate regarding the role of ALAC and LACRALO before the permanent expansion mark in the DNS world. regards > El 19-07-2017, a las 11:54, Gutierrez, Carlos Raul <carlosraul(a)gutierrez.se> escribió: > > Estimada Vanda, > > > > con todo respeto, creo que la expansion del espacio gTLD ha dejado el uso/defensa de las Marcas como (solo) una posibilidad del uso de los nombres de dominio nada mas, no el único o principal. > > > > Creo firmemente que la expansion del espacio DNS ha abierto las puertas a que otras comunidades (geográficas, culturales y sociales) pueda desarrollar modelos online. Como ALAC yo creo que la pregunta que debemos hacernos es si el Modelo ICANN del $185'000 por aplicacion y $25'000/año por un gTLD para una comunidad pequeña es sostenible o no. Yo creo que no lo es. Y cfeo que es tema de ALAC de hablar de esto. nostros no somos los especialistas en temas de marcas y propiedad intelectual. O por lo menos no es el objeto de nuestra comunidad. > > De tal manera, quiero planter a nuestra comunidad una discusión seria y profunda, de como podemos vivir en un futuro en donde se pueda compartir el espacio DNS, entre > > 1. las marcas y la propiedad intelectual, que invierten mucho dinero en el DNS, pero lo usan poco en términos de registros al segundo nivel. Ellos puede darse el lujo de sostener los altos costos de sus jardines enjaulados. > > 2. los verdaderos nuevos genéricos, para que estos abran campo a la innovacion de todos tipo evitando la concentración del mercado en pocos operadores > > 3. comunidades geográficas, culturales, linguísticas (IDN), etc. pueden usar los amplios nuevos recursos disponibles, SIN tener que pagar montos a ICANN que hagan sus ideales insostenibles. En parte este tema se enfoca hoy solo en GeoNames, pero afecta a otras comunidades también. > > > > Enhorabuena la decisión del IRP, para poder replanterarnos el objeto de ALAC y LACRALO en particular. > > > > Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez > > ================ > > Mobile +506 8837 7176 > > Skype: carlos.raulg > > Apartado 1571-1000, COSTA RICA > > > > > > > > > > On 19-07-2017 09:34, Vanda Scartezini wrote: > >> Yo tengo una opinion particular que ya he compartido con ALAC y en ingles con otros colegas : no creo que la explicación dada por GAC – porque inexistente, tiene relevancia. Pro ejemplo, se Brasil pensaba que era un nombre que podría traer conflicto para los habitantes de la region entonces porque fue concedida la marca a la empresa AMAZON? El uso que AMAZOn va hacer del .amazon no es diverso del uso que hace de su Marca. Es un brand TLD. >> No veo razón real para toda esta discusión al rededor de esto tema. Quizá solo una negociación entre las partes involucradas y no base para una política general. >> 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: "lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>" <lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> on behalf of Aida Noblia <aidanoblia(a)gmail.com <mailto:aidanoblia@gmail.com>> >> Date: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 21:19 >> To: Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com <mailto:hcarrascob@gmail.com>> >> Cc: "lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org>" <lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> >> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-es] Declaración Final Amazon vs. ICANN >> >> Muchas Gracias Humberto y también a Carlos Gutiérrez. Tema importante sí. >> >> Saludos >> Aída >> >> El 18 de julio de 2017, 12:12, Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com <mailto:hcarrascob@gmail.com>> escribió: >> Estimados todos, >> >> Quiero agradecer a Carlos Raúl Gutierrez por hacerme llegar la Declaración Final en el caso "Amazon versus ICANN. (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-amazon-final-declaration-11… <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-amazon-final-declaration-11…>) >> >> >> He preparado un resumen de la opinión mayoritaria porque es un tema de absoluta relevancia para le región. La traducción al español la hice yo, así que perdonen los errores. >> >> Saludos >> >> >> English >> Spanish >> Claimant Amazon EU S. a. r. l. ("Amazon") seeks independent review of the decision of the Board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN"), acting through ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee ("NGPC"), denying its applications for top-level domain names of .amazon and its IDN equivalents in Chinese and Japanese characters. Amazon contends that in making the decision to deny its >> applications, the NGPC acted in a manner that was inconsistent with and violated provisions of ICANN's Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws and/or Applicant Guidebook for gTLD domain names (collectively, ICANN's "governance documents"). ICANN contends, to the contrary, that at all times the NGPC acted consistently with ICANN's governance documents. >> El Demandante Amazon EU S. a. R L ("Amazon") busca una revisión independiente de la decisión >> de la Junta Directiva de la Corporación de Internet para la Asignación de Nombres y Números ("ICANN"), actuando a través del Comité del Programa de Nuevos gTLD de la ICANN ("NGPC"), negando sus solicitudes para nombres de dominio de nivel superior de .amazon y sus equivalentes de IDN en sus caracteres chino y japoness. Amazon sostiene que al tomar la decisión de negar sus solicitudes, el NGPC actuó de una manera que era inconsistente con y violado disposiciones de los Estatutos de la ICANN, Reglamentos y / o Guía del Solicitante para nombres de dominio de gTLD (colectivamente, "documentos de gobierno" de ICANN). ICANN sostiene, al contrario, que en todo momento la NGPC actuó de manera consistente con los documentos de gobernanza. >> >> Conclusion >> Conclusión >> Based upon the foregoing, we declare that Amazon has established that ICANN's Board, acting through the NGPC, acted in a manner inconsistent with ICANN's Bylaws, as more fully described above. Further, the GAC, as a constituent body of ICANN, failed to allow the applicant to submit any information to the GAC and thus deprived the applicant of the minimal degree of procedural fairness before issuance of its advice, as required by the Bylaws. The failure by the GAC to accord procedural fairness diminishes the presumption that would otherwise attach to its consensus advice. >> Con base en lo anterior, declaramos que Amazon ha establecido que la Junta Directiva de ICANN, actuando a través de la NGPC, actuó de manera inconsistente con los Estatutos, como se describió con mayor detalle anteriormente. Además, el GAC, como órgano ICANN, no permitió que el solicitante presentara ninguna información al GAC y privó al solicitante del mínimo grado de equidad procesal antes de la emisión de su consejo, como lo requieren los Estatutos. La incapacidad del GAC de otorgar equidad procesal disminuye la presunción que de otro modo se uniría a su asesoramiento consensuado. >> The Panel recommends that the Board of ICANN promptly re-evaluate Amazon's applications in light of the Panel's declarations above. In its re-evaluation of the applications, the Board should make an objective and independent judgment regarding whether there are, in fact, well-founded, merits-based public policy reasons for denying Amazon's applications. Further, if the Board determines that the applications should not proceed, the Board should explain its reasons supporting that decision. The GAC consensus advice, standing alone, cannot supplant the Board's independent and objective decision with a reasoned analysis. If the Board determines that the applications should proceed, we understand that ICANN's Bylaws, in effect, require the Board to "meet and confer" with the GAC. (See Bylaws, Article XI, § 2.1(j).) In light of our declaration, we recommend that ICANN do so within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this Final Declaration. As the Board is required to state reaso ns why it is not following the GAC consensus advice, we recommend the Board cite this Final Declaration and the reasons set forth herein. >> El Panel recomienda que la Junta Directiva de ICANN reevalúe prontamente las solicitudes de Amazon a la luz de las declaraciones del Panel hechas anteriormente. En su reevaluación de las solicitudes, la Junta debe emitir un juicio objetivo e independiente sobre si existen razones de política pública bien fundadas y basadas en méritos para negar las solicitudes de Amazon. Además, si la Junta determina que las solicitudes no son procedentes, la Junta debe explicar las razones que apoyen esa decisión. El asesoramiento consensuado del GAC, por sí solo, no puede suplantar la decisión independiente y objetiva de la Junta Directiva con un análisis razonado. Si la Junta Directiva determina que las solicitudes deben continuar, entendemos que los Estatutos de la ICANN, en efecto, requieren que la Junta Directiva "se reúna y confiera" con el GAC. (Ver Reglamentos, Artículo XI, § 2.1 (j)). A la luz de nuestra declaración, recomendamos que ICANN lo haga dentro de los sese nta (60) días de la emisión de esta Declaración Final. Como se requiere que la Junta Directiva explique por qué no sigue el consejo de consenso del GAC, recomendamos a la Junta Directiva que cite esta Declaración Final y las razones aquí expuestas. >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lac-discuss-es mailing list >> lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es> >> >> http://www.lacralo.org <http://www.lacralo.org/> >> >> >> -- >> Aida Noblia >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lac-discuss-es mailing list >> lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es> >> >> http://www.lacralo.org <http://www.lacralo.org/> [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/851e5e9baf.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] =? Utf-8? Q? Statement = B3n_Final_Amazon_vs = 2E_IC? = =? Utf-8? Q? ANN? =
by carlosraul＠gutierrez.se July 19, 2017

July 19, 2017

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: =? Utf-8? Q? Statement = B3n_Final_Amazon_vs = 2E_IC? = =? Utf-8? Q? ANN? = Desde: carlosraul(a)gutierrez.se Dear Vanda, With all due respect, I believe that the expansion of the gTLD space has left the Use / defense of the Marks as (only) a possibility of the use of the Domain names nothing more, not the only or principal. I firmly believe that the expansion of the DNS space has opened the doors That other communities (geographic, cultural and social) can Develop online models. As ALAC I think the question that We must do is if the ICANN Model of $ 185'000 per application and $ 25,000 per year for a gTLD for a small community is sustainable or not. I think it is not. And cfeo that it is ALAC's subject to talk about this. We are not the specialists in brands and property intellectual. Or at least it is not the object of our community. In this way, I want to plan our community a serious discussion and Deep, how we can live in a future where we can share The DNS space, between 1. Trademarks and intellectual property, which invest a lot of money in The DNS, but use it little in terms of records at the second level. They can afford to sustain the high costs of their gardens Caged 2. the true new generics, so that they open the field to the Innovation of all types avoiding the concentration of the market in few Operators 3. geographical, cultural, linguistic (IDN) communities, etc. may Use the extensive new resources available, without having to pay amounts ICANN to make their ideals unsustainable. In part this theme is Focuses only on GeoNames today, but affects other communities as well. Congratulations to the decision of the IRP, in order to replanterarnos the object of ALAC and LACRALO in particular. Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez ================ Mobile +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Apartado 1571-1000, COSTA RICA On 19-07-2017 09:34, Vanda Scartezini wrote: > Yo tengo una opinion particular que ya he compartido con ALAC y en ingles con otros colegas : no creo que la explicaciÃ³n dada por GAC - porque inexistente, tiene relevancia. Pro ejemplo, se Brasil pensaba que era un nombre que podrÃa traer conflicto para los habitantes de la region entonces porque fue concedida la marca a la empresa AMAZON? El uso que AMAZOn va hacer del .amazon no es diverso del uso que hace de su Marca. Es un brand TLD. > No veo razÃ³n real para toda esta discusiÃ³n al rededor de esto tema. QuizÃ¡ solo una negociaciÃ³n entre las partes involucradas y no base para una polÃtica general. > > _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: "lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Aida Noblia <aidanoblia(a)gmail.com> > Date: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 21:19 > To: Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com> > Cc: "lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-es] DeclaraciÃ³n Final Amazon vs. ICANN > > Muchas Gracias Humberto y tambiÃ©n a Carlos GutiÃ©rrez. Tema importante sÃ. > > Saludos > AÃda > > El 18 de julio de 2017, 12:12, Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com> escribiÃ³: > > Estimados todos, > > Quiero agradecer a Carlos RaÃºl Gutierrez por hacerme llegar la DeclaraciÃ³n Final en el caso "Amazon versus ICANN. (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-amazon-final-declaration-11… [1]) > > He preparado un resumen de la opiniÃ³n mayoritaria porque es un tema de absoluta relevancia para le regiÃ³n. La traducciÃ³n al espaÃ±ol la hice yo, asÃ que perdonen los errores. > > Saludos > > English > > Spanish > > Claimant Amazon EU S. a. r. l. ("Amazon") seeks independent review of the decision of the Board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN"), acting through ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee ("NGPC"), denying its applications for top-level domain names of .amazon and its IDN equivalents in Chinese and Japanese characters. Amazon contends that in making the decision to deny its > > applications, the NGPC acted in a manner that was inconsistent with and violated provisions of ICANN's Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws and/or Applicant Guidebook for gTLD domain names (collectively, ICANN's "governance documents"). ICANN contends, to the contrary, that at all times the NGPC acted consistently with ICANN's governance documents. > > El Demandante Amazon EU S. a. R L ("Amazon") busca una revisiÃ³n independiente de la decisiÃ³n > > de la Junta Directiva de la CorporaciÃ³n de Internet para la AsignaciÃ³n de Nombres y NÃºmeros ("ICANN"), actuando a travÃ©s del ComitÃ© del Programa de Nuevos gTLD de la ICANN ("NGPC"), negando sus solicitudes para nombres de dominio de nivel superior de .amazon y sus equivalentes de IDN en sus caracteres chino y japoness. Amazon sostiene que al tomar la decisiÃ³n de negar sus solicitudes, el NGPC actuÃ³ de una manera que era inconsistente con y violado disposiciones de los Estatutos de la ICANN, Reglamentos y / o GuÃa del Solicitante para nombres de dominio de gTLD (colectivamente, "documentos de gobierno" de ICANN). ICANN sostiene, al contrario, que en todo momento la NGPC actuÃ³ de manera consistente con los documentos de gobernanza. > > Conclusion > > ConclusiÃ³n > > Based upon the foregoing, we declare that Amazon has established that ICANN's Board, acting through the NGPC, acted in a manner inconsistent with ICANN's Bylaws, as more fully described above. Further, the GAC, as a constituent body of ICANN, failed to allow the applicant to submit any information to the GAC and thus deprived the applicant of the minimal degree of procedural fairness before issuance of its advice, as required by the Bylaws. The failure by the GAC to accord procedural fairness diminishes the presumption that would otherwise attach to its consensus advice. > > Con base en lo anterior, declaramos que Amazon ha establecido que la Junta Directiva de ICANN, actuando a travÃ©s de la NGPC, actuÃ³ de manera inconsistente con los Estatutos, como se describiÃ³ con mayor detalle anteriormente. AdemÃ¡s, el GAC, como Ã³rgano ICANN, no permitiÃ³ que el solicitante presentara ninguna informaciÃ³n al GAC y privÃ³ al solicitante del mÃnimo grado de equidad procesal antes de la emisiÃ³n de su consejo, como lo requieren los Estatutos. La incapacidad del GAC de otorgar equidad procesal disminuye la presunciÃ³n que de otro modo se unirÃa a su asesoramiento consensuado. > > The Panel recommends that the Board of ICANN promptly re-evaluate Amazon's applications in light of the Panel's declarations above. In its re-evaluation of the applications, the Board should make an objective and independent judgment regarding whether there are, in fact, well-founded, merits-based _PUBLIC POLICY REASONS_ for denying Amazon's applications. Further, if the Board determines that the applications should not proceed, the Board should explain its reasons supporting that decision. The GAC consensus advice, standing alone, cannot supplant the Board's independent and objective decision with a reasoned analysis. If the Board determines that the applications should proceed, we understand that ICANN's Bylaws, in effect, require the Board to "meet and confer" with the GAC. (See Bylaws, Article XI, Â§ 2.1(j).) In light of our declaration, we recommend that ICANN do so within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this Final Declaration. As the Board is required to state reas It is not following the GAC consensus advice, we recommend the Board cite this Final Declaration and the reasons set forth herein. > > El Panel recomienda que la Junta Directiva de ICANN reevalÃºe prontamente las solicitudes de Amazon a la luz de las declaraciones del Panel hechas anteriormente. En su reevaluaciÃ³n de las solicitudes, la Junta debe emitir un juicio objetivo e independiente sobre si existen _RAZONES DE POLÃTICA PÃBLICA_ bien fundadas y basadas en mÃ©ritos para negar las solicitudes de Amazon. AdemÃ¡s, si la Junta determina que las solicitudes no son procedentes, la Junta debe explicar las razones que apoyen esa decisiÃ³n. El asesoramiento consensuado del GAC, por sÃ solo, no puede suplantar la decisiÃ³n independiente y objetiva de la Junta Directiva con un anÃ¡lisis razonado. Si la Junta Directiva determina que las solicitudes deben continuar, entendemos que los Estatutos de la ICANN, en efecto, requieren que la Junta Directiva "se reÃºna y confiera" con el GAC. (Ver Reglamentos, ArtÃculo XI, Â§ 2.1 (j)). A la luz de nuestra declaraciÃ³n, recomendamos que ICANN lo haga dentro de los ses (60) days of the issuance of this Final Declaration. As the Board of Directors is required to explain why it does not follow the consensus advice of the GAC, we recommend that the Board of Directors cite this Final Statement and the reasons set forth herein. > > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-es mailing list > lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es [2] > > http://www.lacralo.org > > -- > Aida Noblia [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/2ccfd25039.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] =? Utf-8? Q? Statement = B3n_Final_Amazon_vs = 2E_IC? = =? Utf-8? Q? ANN? =
by vanda＠scartezini.org July 19, 2017

July 19, 2017

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: =? Utf-8? Q? Statement = B3n_Final_Amazon_vs = 2E_IC? = =? Utf-8? Q? ANN? = Desde: vanda(a)scartezini.org I have a particular opinion that I have already shared with ALAC and in English with other colleagues: I do not think that the explanation given by GAC - because nonexistent, has relevance. For example, did Brazil think that it was a name that could bring conflict for the inhabitants of the region then because the brand was granted to the company AMAZON? AMAZOn's use of .amazon is not different from its use of its Brand. It's a TLD brand. I see no real reason for all this discussion on this subject. Perhaps only a negotiation between the parties involved and no basis for a general policy. Vanda Scartezini Contact Us 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: "lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> " <lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > On behalf of Aida Noblia <aidanoblia(a)gmail.com<mailto:aidanoblia@gmail.com> > Date: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 21:19 To: Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com<mailto:hcarrascob@gmail.com> > Cc: "lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> " <lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Final Statement Amazon vs. I CAN Thank you very much Humberto and also Carlos Gutierrez. Important topic yes. regards Aída On July 18, 2017, 12:12, Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com<mailto:hcarrascob@gmail.com> > Wrote: Dear All, I want to thank Carlos Raúl Gutierrez for bringing me the Final Declaration in the case "Amazon versus ICANN. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-amazon-final-declaration-11…) I have prepared a summary of the majority opinion because it is a matter of absolute relevance for the region. The translation into Spanish I did, so forgive the mistakes. regards English Spanish Claimant Amazon EU S. arl ("Amazon") seeks independent review of the Board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN"), acting through ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee ("NGPC"), denying its Applications for top-level domain names of .amazon and its IDN equivalents in Chinese and Japanese characters. Amazon contends that in making the decision to deny its Applications, the NGPC acted in a manner that was inconsistent with and violated provisions of ICANN's Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws and / or Applicant Guidebook for gTLD domain names (collectively, ICANN's "governance documents"). ICANN contends, to the contrary, that at all times the NGPC acted consistently with ICANN's governance documents. The Applicant Amazon US S. a.RL ("Amazon") seeks an independent review of the decision Of the Board of Directors of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN"), acting through the ICANN New gTLD Program Committee ("NGPC"), denying their requests for level domain names Top of .amazon and its IDN equivalents in their Chinese and Japanese characters. Amazon submits that in making the decision to deny its requests, the NGPC acted in a manner that was inconsistent with and violated provisions of the ICANN Bylaws, Regulations and / or Applicant Guide for gTLD Domain Names (collectively, "Documents Of governance "of ICANN). ICANN maintains, on the contrary, that at all times the NGPC acted consistently with the governance documents. Conclusion conclusion Based upon the foregoing, we declare that Amazon has established that ICANN's Board, acting through the NGPC, acted in a manner inconsistent with ICANN's Bylaws, as more fully described above.Further, the GAC, as a constituent body of ICANN, failed to allow the applicant to submit any information to the GAC and thus deprived the applicant of the minimal degree of procedural fairness before issuance of its advice, as required by the Bylaws. The failure by the GAC to accord procedural fairness diminishes the presumption that would otherwise attach to its consensual advice. Based on the foregoing, we declare that Amazon has established that the ICANN Board acting through the NGPC acted inconsistently with the Bylaws, as described in more detail above. In addition, the GAC, as an ICANN body, did not allow the applicant to submit any information to the GAC and deprived the applicant of the minimum degree of procedural fairness prior to the issuance of its board as required by the Statutes. The inability of the GAC to grant procedural fairness diminishes the presumption that would otherwise be attached to its consensual advice. The Panel recommends that the Board of ICANN promptly re-evaluate Amazon's applications in light of the Panel's statements above.In its re-evaluation of the applications, the Board should make an objective and independent judgment as to whether there are, in fact, well-founded, merits-based public policy reasons for denying Amazon's applications. Further, if the Board should not proceed, the Board should explain its reasons supporting that decision. The GAC consensus advice, standing alone, can not supplant the Board's independent and objective decision with a reasoned analysis. If the Board of Directors of ICANN's Bylaws, in effect, requires the Board to meet and confer with the GAC. (See Bylaws, Article XI, § 2.1 (j).) In light of our declaration, we recommend that ICANN do so within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this Final Declaration. The Board is required to state the reasons why it is not the GAC consensus advice, we recommend the Board to quote this Final Declara tion and the reasons set forth herein. The Panel recommends that ICANN's Board of Directors re-evaluate Amazon's requests promptly in light of Panel's statements made earlier.In its reevaluation of requests, the Board must issue an objective and independent judgment as to whether there are well-founded and merit-based public policy reasons to deny Amazon's requests. In addition, if the Board determines that the requests are unfounded, the Board should explain the reasons supporting that decision. The consensus advice of the GAC, on its own, can not supplant the independent and objective decision of the Board with a reasoned analysis. If the Board determines that applications should continue, we understand that the ICANN Bylaws, in effect, require the Board to "meet and confer" with the GAC. (See Regulations, Article XI, § 2.1 (j)). In light of our statement, we recommend that ICANN do so within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this Final Statement. As the Board of Directors is required to explain why it does not follow the consensus advice of the GAC, we recommend that the Board of Directors cite this Final Statement and the reasons set forth herein. _______________________________________________ Lac-discuss-es mailing list Lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es Http://www.lacralo.org - Aida Noblia [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/150ce81deb.html --]]

1 0

IO recommends .amazon reconsideration
by Carlton Samuels July 19, 2017

July 19, 2017

Adds to the kerfuffle surrounding geographic names in the DNS. http://domainnamewire.com/2017/07/18/amazon-com-gets-big-win-domain-battle-… -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

5 5

Re: [lac-discuss-en] =? Utf-8? Q? Statement = B3n_Final_Amazon_vs = 2E_IC? = =? Utf-8? Q? ANN? =
by aidanoblia＠gmail.com July 18, 2017

July 18, 2017

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: =? Utf-8? Q? Statement = B3n_Final_Amazon_vs = 2E_IC? = =? Utf-8? Q? ANN? = Desde: aidanoblia(a)gmail.com Thank you very much Humberto and also Carlos Gutierrez. Important topic yes. regards Aída On July 18, 2017, 12:12, Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Estimados todos, > > Quiero agradecer a Carlos RaÃºl Gutierrez por hacerme llegar la DeclaraciÃ³n > Final en el caso "Amazon versus ICANN. (https://www.icann.org/en/ > system/files/files/irp-amazon-final-declaration-11jul17-en.pdf) > > > He preparado un resumen de la opiniÃ³n mayoritaria porque es un tema de > absoluta relevancia para le regiÃ³n. La traducciÃ³n al espaÃ±ol la hice yo, > asÃ que perdonen los errores. > > Saludos > > > English > > Spanish > > Claimant Amazon EU S. a. r. l. (âAmazonâ) seeks independent review of the > decision of the Board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and > Numbers (âICANNâ), acting through ICANNâs New gTLD Program Committee > (âNGPCâ), denying its applications for top-level domain names of .amazon > and its IDN equivalents in Chinese and Japanese characters. Amazon contends > that in making the decision to deny its > > applications, the NGPC acted in a manner that was inconsistent with and > violated provisions of ICANNâs Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws and/or > Applicant Guidebook for gTLD domain names (collectively, ICANNâs > âgovernance documentsâ). ICANN contends, to the contrary, that at all times > the NGPC acted consistently with ICANNâs governance documents. > > El Demandante Amazon EU S. a. R L ("Amazon") busca una revisiÃ³n > independiente de la decisiÃ³n > > de la Junta Directiva de la CorporaciÃ³n de Internet para la AsignaciÃ³n de > Nombres y NÃºmeros ("ICANN"), actuando a travÃ©s del ComitÃ© del Programa de > Nuevos gTLD de la ICANN ("NGPC"), negando sus solicitudes para nombres de > dominio de nivel superior de .amazon y sus equivalentes de IDN en sus > caracteres chino y japoness. Amazon sostiene que al tomar la decisiÃ³n de > negar sus solicitudes, el NGPC actuÃ³ de una manera que era inconsistente > con y violado disposiciones de los Estatutos de la ICANN, Reglamentos y / o > GuÃa del Solicitante para nombres de dominio de gTLD (colectivamente, > "documentos de gobierno" de ICANN). ICANN sostiene, al contrario, que en > todo momento la NGPC actuÃ³ de manera consistente con los documentos de > gobernanza. > > > > Conclusion > > ConclusiÃ³n > > Based upon the foregoing, we declare that Amazon has established that > ICANNâs Board, acting through the NGPC, acted in a manner inconsistent with > ICANNâs Bylaws, as more fully described above. Further, the GAC, as a > constituent body of ICANN, failed to allow the applicant to submit any > information to the GAC and thus deprived the applicant of the minimal > degree of procedural fairness before issuance of its advice, as required by > the Bylaws. The failure by the GAC to accord procedural fairness diminishes > the presumption that would otherwise attach to its consensus advice. > > Con base en lo anterior, declaramos que Amazon ha establecido que la Junta > Directiva de ICANN, actuando a travÃ©s de la NGPC, actuÃ³ de manera > inconsistente con los Estatutos, como se describiÃ³ con mayor detalle > anteriormente. AdemÃ¡s, el GAC, como Ã³rgano ICANN, no permitiÃ³ que el > solicitante presentara ninguna informaciÃ³n al GAC y privÃ³ al solicitante > del mÃnimo grado de equidad procesal antes de la emisiÃ³n de su consejo, > como lo requieren los Estatutos. La incapacidad del GAC de otorgar equidad > procesal disminuye la presunciÃ³n que de otro modo se unirÃa a su > asesoramiento consensuado. > > The Panel recommends that the Board of ICANN promptly re-evaluate Amazonâs > applications in light of the Panelâs declarations above. In its > re-evaluation of the applications, the Board should make an objective and > independent judgment regarding whether there are, in fact, well-founded, > merits-based *public policy reasons* for denying Amazonâs applications. > Further, if the Board determines that the applications should not proceed, > the Board should explain its reasons supporting that decision. The GAC > consensus advice, standing alone, cannot supplant the Boardâs independent > and objective decision with a reasoned analysis. If the Board determines > that the applications should proceed, we understand that ICANNâs Bylaws, in > effect, require the Board to âmeet and conferâ with the GAC. (See Bylaws, > Article XI, Â§ 2.1(j).) In light of our declaration, we recommend that ICANN > do so within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this Final Declaration. As > the Board is required to state reasons why it is not following the GAC > consensus advice, we recommend the Board cite this Final Declaration and > the reasons set forth herein. > > El Panel recomienda que la Junta Directiva de ICANN reevalÃºe prontamente > las solicitudes de Amazon a la luz de las declaraciones del Panel hechas > anteriormente. En su reevaluaciÃ³n de las solicitudes, la Junta debe emitir > un juicio objetivo e independiente sobre si existen *razones de polÃtica > pÃºblica* bien fundadas y basadas en mÃ©ritos para negar las solicitudes de > Amazon. AdemÃ¡s, si la Junta determina que las solicitudes no son > procedentes, la Junta debe explicar las razones que apoyen esa decisiÃ³n. El > asesoramiento consensuado del GAC, por sÃ solo, no puede suplantar la > decisiÃ³n independiente y objetiva de la Junta Directiva con un anÃ¡lisis > razonado. Si la Junta Directiva determina que las solicitudes deben > continuar, entendemos que los Estatutos de la ICANN, en efecto, requieren > que la Junta Directiva "se reÃºna y confiera" con el GAC. (Ver Reglamentos, > ArtÃculo XI, Â§ 2.1 (j)). A la luz de nuestra declaraciÃ³n, recomendamos que > ICANN lo haga dentro de los sesenta (60) dÃas de la emisiÃ³n de esta > DeclaraciÃ³n Final. Como se requiere que la Junta Directiva explique por quÃ© > no sigue el consejo de consenso del GAC, recomendamos a la Junta Directiva > que cite esta DeclaraciÃ³n Final y las razones aquÃ expuestas. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-es mailing list > lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es > > http://www.lacralo.org > Aida Noblia [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/4b79c7283a.html --]]

1 0

Final declaration Amazon vs. ICANN
by Humberto Carrasco July 18, 2017

July 18, 2017

Dear All, I want to thank Carlos Raúl Gutierrez for bringing me the Final Declaration in the case "Amazon versus ICANN." ( https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-amazon-final-declaration-11… .pdf) I have prepared a summary of the majority opinion because it is a matter of absolute relevance for the region. I did the translation into Spanish, so forgive the mistakes if you find any. Regards English Spanish Claimant Amazon EU S. a. r. l. (“Amazon”) seeks independent review of the decision of the Board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”), acting through ICANN’s New gTLD Program Committee (“NGPC”), denying its applications for top-level domain names of .amazon and its IDN equivalents in Chinese and Japanese characters. Amazon contends that in making the decision to deny its applications, the NGPC acted in a manner that was inconsistent with and violated provisions of ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws and/or Applicant Guidebook for gTLD domain names (collectively, ICANN’s “governance documents”). ICANN contends, to the contrary, that at all times the NGPC acted consistently with ICANN’s governance documents. El Demandante Amazon EU S. a. R L ("Amazon") busca una revisión independiente de la decisión de la Junta Directiva de la Corporación de Internet para la Asignación de Nombres y Números ("ICANN"), actuando a través del Comité del Programa de Nuevos gTLD de la ICANN ("NGPC"), negando sus solicitudes para nombres de dominio de nivel superior de .amazon y sus equivalentes de IDN en sus caracteres chino y japoness. Amazon sostiene que al tomar la decisión de negar sus solicitudes, el NGPC actuó de una manera que era inconsistente con y violado disposiciones de los Estatutos de la ICANN, Reglamentos y / o Guía del Solicitante para nombres de dominio de gTLD (colectivamente, "documentos de gobierno" de ICANN). ICANN sostiene, al contrario, que en todo momento la NGPC actuó de manera consistente con los documentos de gobernanza. Conclusion Conclusión Based upon the foregoing, we declare that Amazon has established that ICANN’s Board, acting through the NGPC, acted in a manner inconsistent with ICANN’s Bylaws, as more fully described above. Further, the GAC, as a constituent body of ICANN, failed to allow the applicant to submit any information to the GAC and thus deprived the applicant of the minimal degree of procedural fairness before issuance of its advice, as required by the Bylaws. The failure by the GAC to accord procedural fairness diminishes the presumption that would otherwise attach to its consensus advice. Con base en lo anterior, declaramos que Amazon ha establecido que la Junta Directiva de ICANN, actuando a través de la NGPC, actuó de manera inconsistente con los Estatutos, como se describió con mayor detalle anteriormente. Además, el GAC, como órgano ICANN, no permitió que el solicitante presentara ninguna información al GAC y privó al solicitante del mínimo grado de equidad procesal antes de la emisión de su consejo, como lo requieren los Estatutos. La incapacidad del GAC de otorgar equidad procesal disminuye la presunción que de otro modo se uniría a su asesoramiento consensuado. The Panel recommends that the Board of ICANN promptly re-evaluate Amazon’s applications in light of the Panel’s declarations above. In its re-evaluation of the applications, the Board should make an objective and independent judgment regarding whether there are, in fact, well-founded, merits-based *public policy reasons* for denying Amazon’s applications. Further, if the Board determines that the applications should not proceed, the Board should explain its reasons supporting that decision. The GAC consensus advice, standing alone, cannot supplant the Board’s independent and objective decision with a reasoned analysis. If the Board determines that the applications should proceed, we understand that ICANN’s Bylaws, in effect, require the Board to “meet and confer” with the GAC. (See Bylaws, Article XI, § 2.1(j).) In light of our declaration, we recommend that ICANN do so within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this Final Declaration. As the Board is required to state reasons why it is not following the GAC consensus advice, we recommend the Board cite this Final Declaration and the reasons set forth herein. El Panel recomienda que la Junta Directiva de ICANN reevalúe prontamente las solicitudes de Amazon a la luz de las declaraciones del Panel hechas anteriormente. En su reevaluación de las solicitudes, la Junta debe emitir un juicio objetivo e independiente sobre si existen *razones de política pública* bien fundadas y basadas en méritos para negar las solicitudes de Amazon. Además, si la Junta determina que las solicitudes no son procedentes, la Junta debe explicar las razones que apoyen esa decisión. El asesoramiento consensuado del GAC, por sí solo, no puede suplantar la decisión independiente y objetiva de la Junta Directiva con un análisis razonado. Si la Junta Directiva determina que las solicitudes deben continuar, entendemos que los Estatutos de la ICANN, en efecto, requieren que la Junta Directiva "se reúna y confiera" con el GAC. (Ver Reglamentos, Artículo XI, § 2.1 (j)). A la luz de nuestra declaración, recomendamos que ICANN lo haga dentro de los sesenta (60) días de la emisión de esta Declaración Final. Como se requiere que la Junta Directiva explique por qué no sigue el consejo de consenso del GAC, recomendamos a la Junta Directiva que cite esta Declaración Final y las razones aquí expuestas.

1 0