On 25/02/2013 12:44 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> hi,
>
> In which case, if I really wanted honey for some reason I would apply for .miele or .דבש or .asali
You might apply, having the necesary funds for these domains in other 
languages and other scripts  - but many others will not, for economic 
reasons.

I think that the expectation that the final version of the Applicants 
Manual does provide an open field for fair play UNDER a new domain USING 
A GENERIC WORD, is based on the expectation that ICANN regulations shall 
not give control over a generic word in a closed way.

Norbert
>
> or register  honey.shop or honey.coop  or honey.ri.us or honey.eat or honey.farm or honey.food or .....
>
> I do  not see the point of arguing about what content someone allows in their gTLD.  And to me this largely comes down to a content issue.  We are saying that everyone has a right to put content under the TLD .honey.  And I just don't see it.
>
> I also see it as an association issue.  Why does ICANN have authority to tell a gTLD owner who they must associate with, i.e who they must allow to use the gTLD they have been allocated.
>
> As I said, I think the gulf between the two positions is quite wide.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 24 Feb 2013, at 18:12, Alex Gakuru wrote:
>
>> But Avri,
>>
>> Let's take honey, for example. Someone registers the word to the exclusion of everyone else in the domain name space. Surely honey is harvested at many places around the world, therefore *all* somewhere.honey equally deserve registration with whomever rushed to grab the word. Else would mean advocating for English to be now considered as a proprietary language.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Alex