<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
They should try co.caine <br>
<br>
or the obvious .blow<br>
<br>
or .patente (than it'd be the flour mills that would panic)<br>
<br>
or cocaine.com, cocaine.co, cocaine.pe, cocaine.snifs,
cocaine.whiffs, cocaine.goodforyou, .... .<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
That is, of course, if we let it be strong and not say, say, that
co.caine is too similar to .cocaine ....<br>
<br>
So my humble suggestion, let a thousand [saussurian] signifier
bloom.<br>
<br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/25/2013 4:56 PM, Alex Gakuru
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAL67KoC8KhVpAHO92gHE8K22iMZCG5Q2nim2qB5e0q3d8SO4HA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">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 .<span class="st">benzoylmethylecgonine</span>
?" rules/arguments would be "adjusted"?<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Nicolas
Adam <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nickolas.adam@gmail.com" target="_blank">nickolas.adam@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On 2/24/2013 12:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
hi,<br>
<br>
In which case, if I really wanted honey for some reason I
would apply for .miele or .דבש or .asali<br>
<br>
or register honey.shop or <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://honey.coop" target="_blank">honey.coop</a>
or <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://honey.ri.us"
target="_blank">honey.ri.us</a> or honey.eat or
honey.farm or honey.food or .....<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
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.<br>
<br>
As for generic word capture: language(s) is (are) big. Many
ways to talk about miel.
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
As I said, I think the gulf between the two positions is
quite wide.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
On 24 Feb 2013, at 18:12, Alex Gakuru wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
But Avri,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Alex<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>