-
Communiqués
More
-
Correspondence
More
-
Itemized Advice
More
-
Principles & Guidelines
More
2019-06-27 - .AMAZON applications (follow up from previous GAC consensus advice)
GAC Advice
2019-06-27 - .AMAZON applications (follow up from previous GAC consensus advice)
ICANN65 Marrakech Communique
Consensus met
2019-06-27 - .AMAZON applications (follow up from previous GAC consensus advice)
The GAC asks the Board to explain in writing whether and why it considers that its decision to proceed with the .AMAZON applications, based on a proposal that the eight Amazon countries considered did not address their concerns, complies with GAC Advice.
Rationale
During the meeting with the ICANN Board, several GAC members expressed their concerns about the recent Board decision to find the Amazon corporation proposal of 17 April 2019 acceptable and directing the ICANN org to continue processing of the .AMAZON applications according to the policies and procedures of the New gTLD Program.
Concerns were also expressed with the possibility of the outcome in the .AMAZON case becoming a precedent for similar cases for 2 delegation of sensitive strings that the GAC has stressed as raising public policy concerns in future. Several members referenced the ICANN60 Abu Dhabi Communiqué, where:
a) in section “V. Follow-up on Previous Advice”, with regard to the “Application for .amazon and related strings”, “[t]he GAC expressed the need to find a mutually acceptable solution in the case of the .Amazon gTLD applications for the countries affected and for the Amazon corporation”; and
b) in section “VII. GAC Consensus Advice to the Board”, with regard to “Applications for .amazon and related strings”, “[t]he GAC recognizes the need to find a mutually acceptable solution for the countries affected and the Amazon corporation to allow for the use of .amazon as a top level domain name”.
Several members also referenced the letter the GAC sent to the Board on 15 March 2018 in response to the Board’s request for “new or additional information to provide to the Board regarding the GAC’s advice that the Amazon applications should not proceed”, where it was stated that “the GAC does not have any additional information to provide to the Board on this matter, beyond referring to the GAC Abu Dhabi Communique.”
Some members did not necessarily agree with the basis of these concerns as articulated above nor with the interpretation of GAC advice on this subject.
On another note, some GAC members during the discussion with the ICANN Board, urged all parties to exhaust all means consistent with applicable procedures to facilitate a mutually acceptable solution.
This request for a written response from the Board should be considered a follow-up to the GAC-Board discussion during ICANN65 and should not be construed as new GAC Advice on this matter.