RE: [wg-c] Compromise proposal

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Reaching agreement on what is "non-commercial" and why any category should
have different procedures will take some thought and some time. For
instance, many non profit organizations are non-commercial,but hold
themselves out as public resources and engage in high profile lobbying
activities, some for social causes, some for political, etc. Are those "non
commercial, and therefore in a protected category? If so, why? 

I'm more interested in identifying whether the topic of why and what
non-commercial is, if it is useful to discuss it to determine if such a
category is needed. 

Is .int a non-commercial example? 
.edu?



-----Original Message-----
From: Kent Crispin [mailto:kent@songbird.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 1999 12:04 AM
To: wg-c@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-c] Compromise proposal


On Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 10:54:27PM -0400, Mikki Barry wrote:
> At 9:11 AM -0700 9/3/99, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >On Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 10:26:18AM -0400, Mikki Barry wrote:
> >[...]
> > >
> > > Further, non-commercial gTLDs should NOT be covered under any type of
> > > dispute policy that is keyed to commercial users.  If the use is non
> >
> >How do we enforce "non-commercial" for a gTLD?
> >
> 
> Enforcement is not necessary.  As always, if someone uses the tld for 
> commercial purposes, the trademark holder can go after infringement 
> or dilution as necessary.

I'm sorry, you aren't making sense to me: you referenced
"non-commercial gTLDs" as if they were some special category that
"should NOT be covered under any type of dispute policy that is keyed
to commercial users", but they you turn around and say that
commercial users are allowed.  What makes it a "non-commercial 
gTLD"?   Are you contrasting these with "commercial gTLDs"?   How 
are you proposing to define one or the other?

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain