Hi Ricardo,

[...]
It might work, with great effort from the civil society, (since there are great cultural differences among all our countries), but then, the actual political situation of the countries is the worst in the last... (I really don't know when all this nine countries have a good relationship since Columbus discovery!). Will all of them agree to create a entity (preferable a multistakeholder one) to handle this .amazonas?

I hope that I understand and appreciate this concern, and that it is far from simple to resolve.

However....

Don't these same issues arise with .amazon too?

If the bookstore shouldn't have .amazon, who should?

Your comments suggest (and I have no reason to disagree) that any local effort to allocate .amazon would encounter the same challenge of collaboration between nine countries (and even more states/regions) with a claim and often conflicting objectives. If there is likely to be no agreement over how South Americans would manage .amazon, what is the damage done by giving it to the bookstore so that at least someone can make use of it?

If the applicant for .amazon was (for example) a Peruvian tour company instead of a USA bookstore, would the opposition to ICANN allocation still exist because of all the other countries with claims (or opposition to a for-profit having it)?

Or is the real intent of the governmental opposition that .amazon simply remain unused by anyone? Is such path beneficial to the public?

This is not a troll or attempt at insult. I genuinely don't understand.

- Evan

PS: If any of this is being discussed on LAC-Discuss, I can't see that part of the discussion. So I missed Alejandro's contribution.