Hi Robin, 

The SOI are for those only on the GNSO.

Somehow I've not been issued one, nor is there instructions how to receive one.

As you can not complete the form without a SOI, please advise.

Warmly,

Kristina Macaulay 

On 26 Feb 2013, at 03:05, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

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]