[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: =? Windows-1252? Q? = = "? Windows-1252?" = 2E_ICANN? = = Desde: carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com I share the position of bestbits in a 100% https://bestbits.net/amazon/ Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. -------- Original message -------- From: Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty@gmail.com> Date: 7/21/17 1:44 PM (GMT-03: 00) To: "Gutierrez, Carlos Raul" <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Cc: LACRALO <lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Final Statement Amazon vs. I CAN Carlos, I did not come to the same conclusion. I emphasize that from a very fr ow point of view, .tv and the like are operated as gTLDs without the contractual requirements that ICANN requires of registries. In our region we also present some ccTLDs that use the semantic similarity of their two-letter designations with other symbolisms for an operation that for all practical purposes is in the market of the gentiles. To some observers, that is an abuse and adversely affects end users. Alejandro Pisanty 2017-07-20 9:42 GMT-05: 00 Gutierrez, Carlos Raul <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> >: Thank you dear Aeljandro, Following this line of thought of yours, one prodia deduce that according to your number 3, then only the development of .tv and .nu are reliable because despite their small populations their representation in the root has been very very successful financially .... ..this is not what I suggest when I ask that from the point of view of cultural communities ligusiticas and geografica think to give them a space in the DNS that is not necessarily a ccTLD FOR PROFIT ......... a hug Carlos Ra l Guti rrez ================ Mobile +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Apartado 1571-1000, COSTA RICA On 19-07-2017 19:01, Alejandro Pisanty wrote: Vanda, I agree very much with your points of view. In order to have more coordinates in this discussion: 1. The case presented by the governments of the Amazon region is profoundly weakened by the fact that Amazonas, Amazonia, etc. Are used as trade marks and other commercial identifiers in the same countries (as they are already known); 2. The high cost of new gTLD proposals is indeed an impediment to very small community-based organizations, but in many other ways it is desirable from the point of view of registrants and users in general, since it is a form of To filter out bidders who are going to operate their gTLDs on a lasting basis. Recall that what is at stake is not only an object of trade, with the volatility they should have, but a global DNS element.If that element is unstable, it has the potential to affect stability, robustness, resiliency, and also the reliability of the DNS in general. 3. The promises that a community gTLD will operate for the benefit of the community are very unreliable. The most recent sample was given by the .asia (dot-asia) domain in the last 24 hours, which has relaxed the locality restrictions of the registrants of new names almost to the point of risibility. It has passed from "bona fide" and demonstrable residents in Asia to "interested in relating to Asia", which should be about 6 billion people. I draw your attention to the fact that the subject of the .amazon domain is most likely to be proposed for discussion at events close to the next LACIGF in Panama as of August 1 or 2. Best regards Alejandro Pisanty 2017-07-19 16:44 GMT-05: 00 Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org> >: I do not question prices and if small communities can use 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 of them are right to see me. But for example AMAZON, if a local community in the Amazon region that speaks Latin languages \u200b\u200bwill not breed, for example a TLD called Amazon that is not their language. The breeding as Amazon or Amazonica that still has similarity can be differentiated. To reach an agreement can make things more viable for both sides. What I question is the simple prohibition of the names of geographic points after the same regions allow the use in their territory of the same name. There is a right here that must also be retained. 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@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> > Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 12:54 To: Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org> > Cc: Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com<mailto:aidanoblia@gmail.com> >, Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob@gmail.com<mailto:hcarrascob@gmail.com> >, "Lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> " <lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@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, but not the only one. 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 have to ask ourselves 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 it 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 rich genres, so that they open the field to innovation of all kinds avoiding the concentration of the market in few operators 3. geographic, 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 is focused only on GeoNames today, but affects other communities as well. Congratulations to the decision of the IRP, in order to be able to replanter the object of ALAC and LACRALO in particular. Carlos Ra l Guti rrez ================ 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 around this subject.It is only a negotiation between the parties involved and not a 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@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> " <lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > On behalf of Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com<mailto:aidanoblia@gmail.com> > Date: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 21:19 To: Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob@gmail.com<mailto:hcarrascob@gmail.com> > Cc: "lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> " <lac-discuss-es@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 Guti rrez. Important topic s. regards A da da On July 18, 2017, 12:12, Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob@gmail.com<mailto:hcarrascob@gmail.com> > Wrote: Dear All, I want to thank Carlos Ra I 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-11j...) I have prepared a summary of the majority opinion because it is an issue of absolute relevance to the region. I translated it into Spanish, so forgive 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 requests for names Domain names of .amazon and their IDN equivalents in their Chinese and Japanese characters. Amazon submits that in making the decision to deny its requests, the NGPC acts in a manner that is inconsistent with and violated provisions of the ICANN Bylaws, Applicant Guidelines and / or Guidelines for gTLD Domain Names (collectively, "Governance documents"). ICANN argues, on the contrary, that the NGPC is consistently acting consistently with 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, acts inconsistently with the Bylaws, as described in more detail above. In addition, the GAC, as ICANN, did not allow the applicant to submit any information to the GAC and priv to the applicant of the minimum degree of procedural fairness before the issuance of his board, as required by the Statutes. The inability of the GAC to grant procedural fairness reduces the presumption that otherwise joins 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 Declarat ion and the reasons set forth herein. The Panel recommends that ICANN's Board of Directors reassess and promptly respond to Amazon's requests in light of Panel statements made previously.In its reevaluation of applications, 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. Consensus advice from the GAC, alone, 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 Statutes do require the Board to "meet and confer" with the GAC. (See Regulations, Art. XI, 2.1 (j)). In the light of our statement, we recommend that ICANN do so within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this Final Statement. As the Board 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. _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/dbb50ddfaa.html --]]