> -----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? 

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

Please tell me, what exactly is the harm that will be done to anyone by a sports equipment mfr having .patagonia as a domain, or by a famous company having .amazon as a domain? I would really like to know. Concrete harms, please, not symbolic. It's not like anyone else had big plans for those domains.  

And also let me ask: do you think the companies should have been denied the right to use the words "Amazon" and "Patagonia" as their brands to begin with? 

Let's go further: When Terry Gilliam named his 1980s film "Brazil" should he have been subject to an "independent objector"? If I want to name my pet snake "Amazon" do I need the permission of the governments? Or the aboriginal tribes (who don't even call it that?) Or the permission of ICANN?