On 16/03/2013, at 10:23 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> 
>> Actually Argentina is far from the Amazon region, but they participated
>> in the campaign regarding .amazon as we supported the one against
>> .patagonia.
> 
> And both objections are silly and parochial, imho. Argentina's fight against .patagonia in particular is a petulant claim to a property right over a word, worse than the trademark maximalists. It's worse because at least with TM claims there is a law that defines (and limits) the rights and an economic rationale for some kind of exclusivity (consumer confusion). What law supports and what limits apply to a national government's claim to own a word? 

	IF we accept that national governments have a right to block/control the use of the names of geographical areas that fall within their borders, THEN it seems reasonable to me that if an area extends between the territory of two or more governments, and all are agreed that they want it blocked, the same rule applies.
	In other words, I think the .patagonia decision is a reasonable one as far as consistency with existing rules - and while I think the existing rules are flawed, I think that has been and gone. 

> Please tell me, all you information commons supporters, why you have a soft spot for exclusivity when nationalist sentiment is involved? 

	I don't. But I don't have any enthusiasm for fighting a battle over a minor edge case, when we've already lost the main issue. 

	Cheers
		David