Doing (lots) of catch-up with large numbers of unread, but man Jorge,
I've been buying your .02 for this whole discussion.
Thanks for sharing.
Nicolas
On 2013-04-09 04:52, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>
> The claims about .PATAGONIA are borderline silly and with total lack
> of arguments, and what is funny is that Patagonia is also a registered
> trademark in Argentina.
>
> HA ! like the "us vs. them" excuse comment, I'm sick tired of that, in
> particular the derogatory comments about "imperialist yankees" and
> such, where some references to Patagonia, Inc. are made as "an
> american company," what if the company was from Finland, or even
> Argentina ! would the application be OK then ?
>
> And about the HR, is the same stupid line of argument being used by
> the ITU where ironically the issue is being raised by countries that
> do not give a squat for Human Rights ...
>
> In the Multistakeholder model, some "hold" more than others .... and
> IGF, sigh, one more travelling circus to feed the trolls that keep
> milking the Internet Governance theme ... quite interesting that now
> we have schools about that too !! ... what a waste of time and
> resources when we have so many more critical issues to take care of if
> we really believe in Human Rights.
>
> -J
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> The identity of the nations and the cultural heritage (also the
> natural heritage) is part of the human rights. You are agree with
> that?
>
> *//*
>
> */[Milton L Mueller] No, I do not. Identity of nations is not a
> human right that supersedes all other rights, and one could argue
> that it is not a right at all, as such rights adhere to
> individuals not arbitrarily constructed groups. /*
>
> *//*
>
> */On the contrary, appeals to the nation, national interest, and
> national identity are often used to override human rights and are
> probably responsible for more human rights violations than any
> other force in modern human history. /*
>
> *//*
>
> */Even if you believe that collections of people have some kind of
> “rights” relative to their identity, which is not reducible to
> their individual rights to expression and association, I fail to
> see how the registration a top level domain violates any right,
> whereas putting the name on sports equipment does not. Can you
> explain it to me? In other words, if you are asserting a strong,
> exclusive property right over the string “Patagonia” why confine
> your concern to the domain name registration? Shouldn’t you also
> be on the march against the brand? Would you like to reclaim
> Amazon.com? Should it be illegal for me to name a book Patagonia
> if I wish to write one? /*
>
> *//*
>
> */Or is it simply that this Patagonia application provides a
> convenient excuse for politicians to create an “us vs. them”
> dynamic, which can be exploited, and which the current Argentine
> government seems to specialize in as its economy deteriorates and
> political support for it wanes./*
>
> *//*
>
> In that way of ideas, yes of course ICANN is a private
> organization based in US with an agreement with the DoC, so for
> what reason have the GAC? only to advice and comments?.
>
> *//*
>
> */[Milton L Mueller] Advice and comment are indeed GAC’s role
> within ICANN. Are you now saying that GAC should run the show?/*
>
> Maybe the declaration of Montevideo is only the point to change
> the view of what is exactly the role of the GAC (including if they
> need to be in that place or accept be in that place).
>
> pd. Peru (represent by Ambassador Palomino) will be the president
> of the team to review the "enhanced cooperation" in IGF, he was
> one of the more clear (and with a strong position) in have the
> Montevideo Declaration position.
>
> */[Milton L Mueller] wonderful. Lots of people jumping off the
> Multistakeholder ship now. /*
>
>
|