[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: =? Utf-8? Q? Statement = B3n_Final_Amazon_vs = 2E_IC? = =? Utf-8? Q? ANN? = Desde: hcarrascob@gmail.com Dear All, I want to thank Carlos Raúl Gutierrez for giving me the Declaration Final 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 a topic of Absolute relevance for the region. The translation into Spanish I did, So forgive the mistakes. regards English Spanish Claimant Amazon US S. arl("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 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 consistently with ICANN's governance documents. The Applicant Amazon US S. a. RL ("Amazon") seeks a review Independent of decision Of the Board of Directors of the Internet Corporation for Assignment of Names and Numbers ("ICANN"), acting through the New ICANN gTLDs ("NGPC"), denying their requests for names of Top-level domain of .amazon and its IDN equivalents in their Chinese and Japanese characters. Amazon argues that in making the decision to Deny their requests, the NGPC acted in a way that was inconsistent With and violated provisions of the ICANN Bylaws, Regulations and / or Applicant's Guide to gTLD Domain Names (collectively, "Governance documents"). ICANN argues, on the contrary, that The NGPC acted consistently with the Governance. 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 decreases The presumption that would otherwise attach to its consensus advice. Based on the foregoing, we declare that Amazon has established that the Board The ICANN Board, acting through the NGPC, acted in a manner Inconsistent with the Statutes, as described in more detail previously. In addition, the GAC, as an ICANN body, did not Applicant to submit any information to the GAC and deprived the applicant Of the minimum degree of procedural fairness before the issuance of its board, As required by the Statutes. The GAC's inability to provide equity Procedural law diminishes the presumption that otherwise would Consensual advice. 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 Independent judgment concerning 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 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 Of so within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this Final Declaration. Ace 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. The Panel recommends that the ICANN Board reassess promptly Amazon's requests in the light of Panel statements made previously.In its reevaluation of applications, the Board should issue An objective and independent judgment on whether there are * policy reasons Well-founded and merit-based procedures to deny applications for Amazon. In addition, if the Board determines that applications are not The Board should explain the reasons for that decision. He Consensus advice from the GAC, alone, can not supplant the Independent and objective decision of the Board of Directors with a Reasoned If the Board determines that applications must be Continue, we understand that the ICANN Statutes do indeed require That the Board of Directors "meet and confer" with the GAC. (See Regulations, Article XI, § 2.1 (j)). In the light of our statement, we recommend that ICANN does so within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this Final statement. How is the Board required to explain why Does not follow the consensus advice of the GAC, we recommend to the Board of Directors Cite this Final Declaration and the reasons set forth herein. [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/f411a29455.html --]]