[NCSG-Discuss] Closed Generics are Against the Rules

[Robin Gross]

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  
>> <nickolas.adam at gmail.com> 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: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130225/9dbc8d77/attachment-0001.html>