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 >>> >>