They should try co.caine

or the obvious .blow

or .patente (than it'd be the flour mills that would panic)

or cocaine.com, cocaine.co, cocaine.pe, cocaine.snifs, cocaine.whiffs, 
cocaine.goodforyou, .... .

I am quite against colonizing/enclosing generic words and languages 
within closed legal system, and I frequently oppose IP's settling 
attempt into languages here in the dns, but I also *trust* 
languages/signs to evolve and be diverse and strong.

That is, of course, if we let it be strong and not say, say, that 
co.caine is too similar to .cocaine ....

So my humble suggestion, let a thousand [saussurian] signifier bloom.


Nicolas



On 2/25/2013 4:56 PM, Alex Gakuru wrote:
> And wonder if the US southerly neighbours successfully registered 
> .cocaine (if they had a chance in hell) whether big pharma would be 
> told, "where were you late when it was registered? Just go on and 
> register .benzoylmethylecgonine ?" rules/arguments would be "adjusted"?
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Nicolas Adam <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>     On 2/24/2013 12:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>         hi,
>
>         In which case, if I really wanted honey for some reason I
>         would apply for .miele or .דבש or .asali
>
>         or register  honey.shop or honey.coop <http://honey.coop>  or
>         honey.ri.us <http://honey.ri.us> or honey.eat or honey.farm or
>         honey.food or .....
>
>
>     Yes, yes, and yes. Otherwise, it's just one big free public trust
>     of strings, whose use needs to be planned and centralized,
>     entailing endless (and random) specific adjudication.
>
>     As for generic word capture: language(s) is (are) big. Many ways
>     to talk about miel.
>
>
>
>         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
>
>