[NCSG-Discuss] Independent Objector Weighs In on "closed/private" tlds

[Mark Leiser]

Isn't the argument simply a utilitarian one? My understanding is that in
the past the singer Sting lost the challenge he raised to take back the
domain name with his name in it because of the huge number of people that
would have typed in "sting" into a browser would hardly all be looking for
the ex front man for the Police. Isn't the objection simply precautionary?
That snakebite.amazon is something that people would consider typing into a
browser and expect to get answers rather than taken to the latest hardback
sale?

Sincerely,


Mark Leiser

Mark R. Leiser, Phd Student
School of Law, Humanities & Social Sciences Faculty
PGR Room, Lord Hope Building
University of Strathclyde
141 St James Road,
Glasgow G4 0LT
Scotland

Mobile: +447748689142
Email: markleiser at gmail.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/mleiser
LinkedIN: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=189149411&trk=tab_pro
Google+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/105289982691060086995/posts



On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > Actually Argentina is far from the Amazon region, but they participated
> > in the campaign regarding .amazon as we supported the one against
> > .patagonia.
>
> And both objections are silly and parochial, imho. Argentina's fight
> against .patagonia in particular is a petulant claim to a property right
> over a word, worse than the trademark maximalists. It's worse because at
> least with TM claims there is a law that defines (and limits) the rights
> and an economic rationale for some kind of exclusivity (consumer
> confusion). What law supports and what limits apply to a national
> government's claim to own a word?
>
> Please tell me, all you information commons supporters, why you have a
> soft spot for exclusivity when nationalist sentiment is involved?
>
> Please tell me, what exactly is the harm that will be done to anyone by a
> sports equipment mfr having .patagonia as a domain, or by a famous company
> having .amazon as a domain? I would really like to know. Concrete harms,
> please, not symbolic. It's not like anyone else had big plans for those
> domains.
>
> And also let me ask: do you think the companies should have been denied
> the right to use the words "Amazon" and "Patagonia" as their brands to
> begin with?
>
> Let's go further: When Terry Gilliam named his 1980s film "Brazil" should
> he have been subject to an "independent objector"? If I want to name my pet
> snake "Amazon" do I need the permission of the governments? Or the
> aboriginal tribes (who don't even call it that?) Or the permission of ICANN?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130316/c2baf9ae/attachment-0001.html>