[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: =? Utf-8? Q? Statement = B3n_Final_Amazon_vs = 2E_IC? = =? Utf-8? Q? ANN? = Desde: carlosraul@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 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@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 21:19 To: Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob@gmail.com> Cc: "lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <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@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-11j... [1])

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 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 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 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@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 --]]