Hello Enrique I think you meant this (below) for the list :)

As  far as my comment on which namespace to naturally be for geographic 
names, that is: in the SLD of the country's ccTLD (with my example being 
patagonia.ar), i think the point is still valid. Any countries that 
share a region (e.g. Chile and Argentinia for Patagonia) may (or may 
not) indeed have a use to register the string as a SLD under their ccTLD 
(but whether they have a use or a need for it is secondary to the fact 
that they *can* do it and in fact should do it *there* [as a SLD to 
their ccTLD] if they're going to do it at all).

This possibility should almost serve as a flat refusal basis for any 
further discussions on any "rights" for geographic names.

Cheers

Nicolas

#####################

Your (very good) comments that missed the list below:


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] GAC proposal to ban top level domains 
that use a geographic word unless permission granted from govt (next 
rounds of gtlds)
Date: 	Mon, 6 Oct 2014 16:48:06 -0300
From: 	Enrique Chaparro <[log in to unmask]>
To: 	Nicolas Adam <[log in to unmask]>



In general terms,l I agree with Milton. The UN have been deploying
an effort towards some kind of normalization of geographic names
through the United Nations Group of Experts in Geographic Names.
Even if that effort shows some interesting results (e.g., in terms of
standardization of gazetteers), they have not dared to even touch
the ultrasensitive “this name is mine and mine alone” issue.
The only field with a more or less stable and undisputed nomenclature
is the extraterrestrial space, thanks to the International Astronomical
Union (IAU) Working Group for Planetary System Nomenclature
(WGPSN).

Furthermore, I agree with Sam in the thorny side of the issue. A way
to avoid getting into adversarial positions with governments would
be to defer the issue to the consultive opinion of the UNGEGN,
which would guarantee (with almost 100 % probability) that the
discussion will take decades (but not on ICANN's fault)  :)

On other minor aspects:

On 06/10/2014 10:59 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

> I won't see a reason why lagos govt should not have right over .lagos for instance.

I do. Lagos govt. won't have “better” rights than, e.g. Región de los
Lagos[1] in Chile, one of the 1st level administrative subdivisions of
that country. Or the Lagos family (which of those?), or the Lagos
jewelry company, or the Portuguese wine[2], or any of the six Spanish
inhabited places named Lagos, or the French commune in Pyrénées-
Atlantiques, or the Portuguese city (which has been there since
Roman times), or the state of Lagos in South Sudan, or the
Mexican city now called Lagos de Moreno but traditionally known
as Lagos, or ...

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote:
> Same goes for patagonia.ar

Unfortunately, not. Patagonia is a region shared by Argentina and
Chile. The Amazon basin is a region shared by Brazil, Peru,
Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname and
the French Guiana.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Lagos_Region
[2] T. Stevenson (2005) "The Sotheby's Wine Encyclopedia"
p. 332.  Dorling Kindersley.  ISBN 0-7566-1324-8