Doing (lots) of catch-up with large numbers of unread, but man Jorge, I've been buying your .02 for this whole discussion. Thanks for sharing. Nicolas On 2013-04-09 04:52, Jorge Amodio wrote: > > The claims about .PATAGONIA are borderline silly and with total lack > of arguments, and what is funny is that Patagonia is also a registered > trademark in Argentina. > > HA ! like the "us vs. them" excuse comment, I'm sick tired of that, in > particular the derogatory comments about "imperialist yankees" and > such, where some references to Patagonia, Inc. are made as "an > american company," what if the company was from Finland, or even > Argentina ! would the application be OK then ? > > And about the HR, is the same stupid line of argument being used by > the ITU where ironically the issue is being raised by countries that > do not give a squat for Human Rights ... > > In the Multistakeholder model, some "hold" more than others .... and > IGF, sigh, one more travelling circus to feed the trolls that keep > milking the Internet Governance theme ... quite interesting that now > we have schools about that too !! ... what a waste of time and > resources when we have so many more critical issues to take care of if > we really believe in Human Rights. > > -J > > > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > The identity of the nations and the cultural heritage (also the > natural heritage) is part of the human rights. You are agree with > that? > > *//* > > */[Milton L Mueller] No, I do not. Identity of nations is not a > human right that supersedes all other rights, and one could argue > that it is not a right at all, as such rights adhere to > individuals not arbitrarily constructed groups. /* > > *//* > > */On the contrary, appeals to the nation, national interest, and > national identity are often used to override human rights and are > probably responsible for more human rights violations than any > other force in modern human history. /* > > *//* > > */Even if you believe that collections of people have some kind of > “rights” relative to their identity, which is not reducible to > their individual rights to expression and association, I fail to > see how the registration a top level domain violates any right, > whereas putting the name on sports equipment does not. Can you > explain it to me? In other words, if you are asserting a strong, > exclusive property right over the string “Patagonia” why confine > your concern to the domain name registration? Shouldn’t you also > be on the march against the brand? Would you like to reclaim > Amazon.com? Should it be illegal for me to name a book Patagonia > if I wish to write one? /* > > *//* > > */Or is it simply that this Patagonia application provides a > convenient excuse for politicians to create an “us vs. them” > dynamic, which can be exploited, and which the current Argentine > government seems to specialize in as its economy deteriorates and > political support for it wanes./* > > *//* > > In that way of ideas, yes of course ICANN is a private > organization based in US with an agreement with the DoC, so for > what reason have the GAC? only to advice and comments?. > > *//* > > */[Milton L Mueller] Advice and comment are indeed GAC’s role > within ICANN. Are you now saying that GAC should run the show?/* > > Maybe the declaration of Montevideo is only the point to change > the view of what is exactly the role of the GAC (including if they > need to be in that place or accept be in that place). > > pd. Peru (represent by Ambassador Palomino) will be the president > of the team to review the "enhanced cooperation" in IGF, he was > one of the more clear (and with a strong position) in have the > Montevideo Declaration position. > > */[Milton L Mueller] wonderful. Lots of people jumping off the > Multistakeholder ship now. /* > >