[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

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]> 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.