Evan, sure, it is mind blocking when there are not all participants included, and also I'm aware, you are bringing in this solution as an out of the box one, as Alejandro says. In the other hand, 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? Really don't know how to solve the .amazon issue, and I understand out of the box solutions, will surely fit. best Ricardo Holmquist 2017-07-21 19:16 GMT-05:00 Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com>:
I think we're getting caught up on the details, not the general concept. I apologize for not being sufficiently inclusive, but do not wish that error to obscure the broader point.
If the original email had said nine countries instead of five, how would your response have changed? What are the substantive objections?
(And please note that I'm not advancing this as a perfect answer... just suggesting it as a middle ground that both sides find somewhat sub-optimal, but less painful than ongoing expensive battles.)
-Evan On Jul 21, 2017, at 17:19, Ricardo Holmquist <rihogris@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, I do not share the solution given, but further than that, it contains geographical mistakes, my country is not being included in the list of the five countries, because this person is supposing it only has to do with the river, and for us is also the forest, where we have about 25% of our territory. The State where the Amazon jungle is located is called Amazonas, and is not being included in the 3 countries with territories called Amazonas.
Best
Ricardo Holmquist ISOC Venezuela
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...> Libre de virus. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...> <#m_6266614077816008559_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
2017-07-21 15:28 GMT-05:00 Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>:
I read on a Facebook group, from Barry Shein, an imaginative and IMO effective resolution to the .amazon issue. I offer it here with some personal suggestions added regarding to 'what comes next':
Amazon pays for the creation of the ".amazonas" TLD, and entrusts it to a nonprofit whose stakeholders are exclusively from the five countries (Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia) through which the river runs. Such stakeholders could be government, NGO or private. In return, the GAC rescinds its objection to .amazon.
(Alternatively, dot-amazonas could be entrusted to the three regional governments -- in Peru, Colombia and Brazil -- that are named "Amazonas".)
After all, "Amazonas" is the local name for the river in both Spanish and Portuguese. Since elsewhere governments are turning to local names rather than anglicized ones -- think Beijing, Iqaluit or Bengaluru -- wouldn't this be a Good Thing and a reasonable answer to both the governments and the bookstore?
Such an offer would dull most of the logical objection to the bookstore's desire for the name, while calling on the affected countries to actually indicate what they would do with an appropriate TLD, or at least to reserve it for future use.
Would such a compromise be workable? Or would it cause a problem by putting the current objectors on the spot regarding what they would do with the TLD themselves?
(Perhaps this re-opens a wider problem with geoTLD names, wondering if every possible linguistic name for countries and regions are deserving of protection. I mean, do we need to protect "Schweiz", "Suisse", "Svizzera", "Svizra", "Helvetia" AND "Switzerland"?)
- Evan
______________________________ _________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en