It is great to see robust debate on this list on a pending policy
matter. And I'd like to encourage those members who have an opinion
in this debate to consider working on a public comment to file to
ICANN on the matter.
A reminder however, that those NCSG members wishing to submit pubic
comments or otherwise advocate positions in the arena should fill-out
ICANN's standard "Statement of Interest" Form and disclose any
commercial interest one may have on the commented issue. These
"SOI's" are also required to be filled-out by anyone participating in
an ICANN Working Group or other policy debate as part of ICANN's
commitment to transparency.
Thanks!
Robin
On Feb 25, 2013, at 6:15 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote:
>
> 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]> 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 or 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
>>
>
IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]
|
