[lac-discuss-en] =? Utf-8? Q? Statement = B3n_Final_Amazon_vs = 2E_IC? = =? Utf-8? Q? ANN? =

[hcarrascob at gmail.com]

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]

 Subject: =? Utf-8? Q? Statement = B3n_Final_Amazon_vs = 2E_IC? = =? Utf-8? Q? ANN? = 
 Desde: hcarrascob at 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-11jul17-en.pdf 
 ) 




 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
--]]