<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Thanks for your responses to the straw
poll on .amazon. If you haven't responded yet, this battle is far
from over. So, don't hesitate to send in your input. I have joined
a
working group which will develop policy on geographic top level
domain names and I will use your input where ever I can.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Meanwhile, today, at the ICANN
meeting,
a team from Amazon (the company) addressed a meeting of the ICANN
Government Advisory Committee (GAC). It is within the GAC that
Amazon's application is being blocked. It was one of the hottest
topics on the agenda and it was standing room only.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">The Amazon presentation suggested the
following compromise as a solution. They offered several public
interest items which would be legally binding and enforceable by
ICANN with an online complaint form and a dispute resolution
procedure. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">1 They would block all culturally
sensitive names at the second level -- e.g. .rainforest.amazon</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">2. There would be an ongoing process
to
identify other culturally sensitive terms and regular consultation
with relevant governments on such terms.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">3 They would actively support
applications for .amazonas, .amazonia and .amazonica -- other
names
used for this region -- and would include technical and
application
preparation support for such applications.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Although Brazil, which had originally
led the charge against the .amazon application, indicated that it
was
prepared to take some time to consider this offer, Peru, one of
the
other 8 countries included in the Amazon basin was
furious. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal">I summarize some
of the
reactions as follows:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">BRAZIL: This is a case that proposes
two conflict views. But each view is legitimate from their
perspectives. Amazon, in its presentation, has been selective
about
advice that was gathered over the terms of this discussion
choosing
only that advice which supports their position. This boils down,
in
our view, to two opposing views which both have intrinsic logic.
We
will looking into your proposal very carefully. There is room for
us
to consider this proposal. We will have to come up with some kind
of
compromise. The precedent does concern us. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">PERU: You insist that you have the
right because you can pay for it. We own the Amazonian region, not
you. We would be giving you the permission to use a certain word.
Not
the other way around. We need to consult with the native
communities
and ask them why we should benefit the company Amazon and not some
other company. You, as a company have a product and you want to
sell
it. You only care about the bottom line. Our survival is at stake.
We
are supposed to believe that we have a place in this multi
stakeholder system. I don't represent your company. I represent my
people. <i>(much longer than this and very passionate. rare
applause
from the room)</i></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">IRAN: This should not be a precedent.
We are government and maintain and retain a right to discuss and
decide accordingly. This is a specific and rare occasion. You
cannot
say we do not have a right to our capital and our rivers etc. That
is
unacceptable.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">PORTUGAL: The company has already
realized that it has created a problem in a very sensitive area.
What
about the precedent -- other spellings, other languages, other
regions. Lawyers for Amazon have come up with the answers their
clients wanted. It is a pandora's box. If Amazon has the right to
own
that term, lots of other companies will do the same. Question to
Amazon: what is the benefit for you if you keep this name. What is
the advantage for you to buy this tLD. You are already strong. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">INDIA: There will be many cases that
will come forward. Do we want to have our children recognize the
mightiest river in the world or an e-commerce platform. In the
past
we have followed the practice that these words are not exclusive.
But
through .amazon this exclusiveness is being sought for. Can a
commercial entity use it without the the permission of the people
of
that world? They are the ones who should have the first rights to
this word.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">For more information, here is a
website
Amazon (the company) has put up documenting this saga:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://amazontld.moi/">http://amazontld.moi/</a></p>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://amazontld.moi/">
</a>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">This struggle, which started 2013, is
not over yet. The ICANN board has sent the matter back
to the Government Advisory Council (GAC) for more study.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Marita</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>