On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Nicolas Adam <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> On 06/10/2014 10:59 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > I won't see a reason why
> lagos govt should not have right over .lagos for instance.
>


> I do. Lagos govt. won't have “better” rights than, e.g. Región de los
> Lagos[1] in Chile, one of the 1st level administrative subdivisions of that
> country. Or the Lagos family (which of those?), or the Lagos jewelry
> company, or the Portuguese wine[2], or any of the six Spanish inhabited
> places named Lagos, or the French commune in Pyrénées- Atlantiques, or the
> Portuguese city (which has been there since Roman times), or the state of
> Lagos in South Sudan, or the Mexican city now called Lagos de Moreno but
> traditionally known as Lagos, or ... On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 4:29 PM,
> Nicolas Adam wrote: > Same goes for patagonia.ar Unfortunately, not.
> Patagonia is a region shared by Argentina and Chile. The Amazon basin is a
> region shared by Brazil, Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela,
> Guyana, Suriname and the French Guiana. [1]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Lagos_Region [2] T. Stevenson (2005)
> "The Sotheby's Wine Encyclopedia" p. 332. Dorling Kindersley. ISBN
> 0-7566-1324-8
>
>
>  Good point @Enrique and i definitely agree with the reasoning above.
However i doubt the solution to fixing this is to allow such strings to be
available to global tld...well maybe its the least complicated approach.

Perhaps bidding between legitimate regions may be the closest compromise. ;)

Cheers!
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>[log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !