[lac-discuss-en] =? Utf-8? Q? Statement = B3n_Final_Amazon_vs = 2E_IC? = =? Utf-8? Q? ANN? =
vanda at scartezini.org
vanda at scartezini.org
Wed Jul 19 15:35:01 UTC 2017
[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]
Subject: Re: =? Utf-8? Q? Statement = B3n_Final_Amazon_vs = 2E_IC? = =? Utf-8? Q? ANN? =
Desde: vanda at scartezini.org
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 on this subject. Perhaps only a negotiation between the parties involved and no 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> " <lac-discuss-es-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-es-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> > On behalf of Aida Noblia <aidanoblia at gmail.com<mailto:aidanoblia at gmail.com> >
Date: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 21:19
To: Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob at gmail.com<mailto:hcarrascob at gmail.com> >
Cc: "lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org> " <lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org> >
Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Final Statement Amazon vs. I CAN
Thank you very much Humberto and also Carlos Gutierrez. Important topic yes.
regards
Aída
On July 18, 2017, 12:12, Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob at gmail.com<mailto:hcarrascob at gmail.com> > Wrote:
Dear All,
I want to thank Carlos Raúl 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-11jul17-en.pdf)
I have prepared a summary of the majority opinion because it is a matter of absolute relevance for the region. The translation into Spanish I did, so forgive the 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 their requests for level domain names Top of .amazon and its IDN equivalents in their Chinese and Japanese characters. Amazon submits that in making the decision to deny its requests, the NGPC acted in a manner that was inconsistent with and violated provisions of the ICANN Bylaws, Regulations and / or Applicant Guide for gTLD Domain Names (collectively, "Documents Of governance "of ICANN). ICANN maintains, on the contrary, that at all times the NGPC acted consistently with the 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 acted inconsistently with the Bylaws, as described in more detail above. In addition, the GAC, as an ICANN body, did not allow the applicant to submit any information to the GAC and deprived the applicant of the minimum degree of procedural fairness prior to the issuance of its board as required by the Statutes. The inability of the GAC to grant procedural fairness diminishes the presumption that would otherwise be attached to 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 Declara
tion and the reasons set forth herein.
The Panel recommends that ICANN's Board of Directors re-evaluate Amazon's requests promptly in light of Panel's statements made earlier.In its reevaluation of requests, 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. The consensus advice of the GAC, on its own, 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 Bylaws, in effect, require the Board to "meet and confer" with the GAC. (See Regulations, Article XI, § 2.1 (j)). In light of our statement, we recommend that ICANN do so within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this Final Statement. 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
Http://www.lacralo.org
-
Aida Noblia
[[--Original text (es)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/150ce81deb.html
--]]
More information about the lac-discuss-en
mailing list