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

[Milton L Mueller]

No, Mark, none of the objections are based on empirical evidence of user behavior, nor has any case been made that users would be harmed or confused. Indeed, users do not enter into the discussion at all; Argentina’s govt just thinks that because some place called “Patagonia” in English and Spanish is in their territory that they own the word.

From: Mark Leiser [mailto:markleiser at gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 10:30 AM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
Subject: Re: Independent Objector Weighs In on "closed/private" tlds

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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20130317/98c56960/attachment-0001.html>