[lac-discuss-es] Fwd: [IGP Announce] Amazon win sets good precedent
> De: Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob@xxxxxx>
> Fecha: 24 de julio de 2017, 05:05:15 CLT
> Para: lac-discuss-es@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> lac-discuss-en@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Asunto: Fwd: [IGP Announce] Amazon win sets good precedent
>
>
> JULY 23, 2017
> AMAZON WIN SETS GOOD PRECEDENT
> In a victory for fairness and rule-based Internet governance, an independent
> review panel (IRP) has decided that ICANN was wrong to deny retailing giant
> Amazon, Inc. the top level domain AMAZON. Key elements of the decision were
> unanimous, particularly the conclusion that the Board “cannot accept GAC
> consensus advice as conclusive.” ICANN’s board, in denying the application,
> failed to provide sufficient reasons for doing so, the panel ruled. The
> majority of the panel also concluded that the GAC was at fault for not
> treating Amazon fairly.
>
> We believe the IRP made the right decision, and we hope the ICANN board and
> the GAC will come to their senses and simply allow the TLD to be awarded to
> Amazon and be done with it. The main roadblock to this obvious solution is
> the perception, which we believe to be misguided, that objections from Latin
> American countries have some merit and therefore some “win-win” solution,
> most likely involving payoffs to someone, must be found. This will just muddy
> the waters and prolong the dispute.
>
> We prefer a cleaner solution with better long-term consequences for Internet
> governance – a solution that does not encourage governments or other
> objectors to make claims not based in any law or engage in hold up politics
> in the future. We need to recognize that certain countries were playing
> identity politics and making bad arguments, and turn our back on that.
>
> Here’s why the objections to the .AMAZON application are baseless:
>
> Good governance requires clear, pre-specified and objective rules – rule of
> law, not rule of men. Amazon followed ICANN’s application rules. None of the
> strings applied for by Amazon are listed as ‘geographic names’ in ICANN’s
> Applicant Guidebook, and thus were not subject to government pre-approval.
> The new gTLD process also anticipated applications for “brand” top level
> domains and there was nothing unexpected about it. The objectors to the
> application were trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.
> The parties objecting to the application had no application of their own, no
> alternative ideas about how to use the domain. Indeed, in an attempt to
> resolve the dispute, Amazon reputedly offered to cover the costs of applying
> for AMAZONAS or AMAZONIA, but there were no takers. (In the region itself, as
> well as in many other parts of the world, the region goes by those names)
> They just wanted to prevent Amazon from having it.
> Objectors never provided even a minimally plausible case that this
> appropriation harmed anyone or anything. The .AMAZON application was
> challenged using ICANN’s “community objection” criteria, but an expert report
> found that the TLD “would not pose a material detriment to the region or the
> people who inhabit the geographic region proximate to the Amazon River.”
> The horse is already out of the barn. If indeed .AMAZON constituted some kind
> of illegitimate cultural appropriation, then why doesn’t AMAZON.COM? Or all
> the Amazon trademarks? There is no rational distinction between any of these
> uses. Can anyone show how the people or environment of the Amazon region have
> been harmed by the use of these names?
> The .AMAZON case is a good example of how, during its new gTLD program, ICANN
> allowed its processes to be hijacked by politics, usually emanating from the
> Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). In numerous cases, pre-established
> rules and principles were abandoned and application guidelines modified on
> the fly simply because the GAC wanted to have discretionary power over top
> level domain applications.
>
> In the AMAZON case this led to a palpably absurd result. A regime that was
> established to mediate domain name – trademark conflicts denied an
> application by a company for its own name – a company that had a registered
> trademark for AMAZON in over 170 nations, and whose use of the name is so
> well-known globally that it has obtained secondary meaning (in English) that
> is largely unrelated to the South American region. And it denied the
> application not because someone else also wanted the name, and not because of
> any harm to a community, but simply because a few representatives of Latin
> American governments wanted to flex their muscles.
>
> Regardless of whether Amazon actually gets the TLD, this case has important
> precedent value. The ruling says that the ICANN board cannot simply defer to
> consensus GAC advice. If it upholds that advice, it must set forth reasons
> and explain why the reasons reflect “well-founded and credible public policy
> interests.” As one of the panelists noted, “For me, the key requirement is
> that there be a ‘well-founded’ basis for the [Board’s] conclusion.” Once
> Amazon had rebutted the presumption in favor of following GAC advice, he
> wrote, “the burden of making that showing became ICANN’s to bear. It failed
> to do so.”
>
>
>
>
> Inicio del mensaje reenviado:
>
>> De: "Internet Governance Project" <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Fecha: 24 de julio de 2017, 01:54:47 CLT
>> Para: hcarrascob <hcarrascob@xxxxxx>
>> Asunto: [IGP Announce] Amazon win sets good precedent
>> Responder a: "Internet Governance Project" <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> July 24, 2017
>>
>> Amazon win sets good precedent
>> More Recent Articles
>> Amazon win sets good precedent
>>
>> In a victory for fairness and rule-based Internet governance, an independent
>> review panel (IRP) has decided that ICANN was wrong to deny retailing giant
>> Amazon, Inc. the top level domain AMAZON. Key...
>>
>> Read the whole entry »
>>
>>
>> • Email to a friend •
>> More Recent Articles
>>
>>
>> ICANN Jurisdiction Working Group Reaches Critical Juncture
>> How ICANN is manipulating its GDPR discussions
>> The curious policies in NIST’s proposed RPKI study
>> Click here to safely unsubscribe from "IGP Blog."
>> Click here to view mailing archives, here to change your preferences, or
>> here to subscribe • Privacy
>> Email subscriptions powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 365 Boston Post Rd, Suite
>> 123, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA.
_______________________________________________