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
--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