It is great to see robust debate on this list on a pending policy matter. And I'd like to encourage those members who have an opinion in this debate to consider working on a public comment to file to ICANN on the matter. A reminder however, that those NCSG members wishing to submit pubic comments or otherwise advocate positions in the arena should fill-out ICANN's standard "Statement of Interest" Form and disclose any commercial interest one may have on the commented issue. These "SOI's" are also required to be filled-out by anyone participating in an ICANN Working Group or other policy debate as part of ICANN's commitment to transparency. Thanks! Robin On Feb 25, 2013, at 6:15 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote: > > They should try co.caine > > or the obvious .blow > > or .patente (than it'd be the flour mills that would panic) > > or cocaine.com, cocaine.co, cocaine.pe, cocaine.snifs, > cocaine.whiffs, cocaine.goodforyou, .... . > > I am quite against colonizing/enclosing generic words and languages > within closed legal system, and I frequently oppose IP's settling > attempt into languages here in the dns, but I also *trust* > languages/signs to evolve and be diverse and strong. > > That is, of course, if we let it be strong and not say, say, that > co.caine is too similar to .cocaine .... > > So my humble suggestion, let a thousand [saussurian] signifier bloom. > > > Nicolas > > > > On 2/25/2013 4:56 PM, Alex Gakuru wrote: >> 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 >> > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]