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
>>>
>>