Unfortunately, let's be alive to the fact of life that the Internet made English the *de facto* world language hence we all its preservation stakeholders. While appreciating disparate efforts to preserve endangered languages, such as UNESCO and Big G's --cite-- According to the Endangered Languages Project, only 50 percent of languages spoken today will still be around by 2100 and "The disappearance of a language means the loss of valuable scientific and cultural information, comparable to the loss of a species." CNET article Google confronts extinction of more than 3,000 languages <http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57458519-93/google-confronts-extinction-of-more-than-3000-languages/> --cite-- Respectfully, On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> 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 ..... > > 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 >