Re: [wg-b] Protections for Noncommercial gTLDs.

[Mikki Barry <ooblick@netpolicy.com>]

At 11:27 AM -0400 4/16/00, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>A>1)      The noncommercial gTLD is proposed by a registry should be accepted
>  >as a    noncommercial gTLD provided it does not seem outrageous on its face
>  >[.BIZ seems     commercial on its face and could be questioned.  .UNION, if
>  >proposed as     noncommercial, appears to be noncommercial and has no basis
>  >for being questioned.]
>  >
>
>
>If when asked to provide legal support for their position, advocates of
>.union would actually do so, then this list would actually move forward,
>not in circles.  Unions advertise and seek support for dues-paying members-
>that is commercial activity.  For a company which contracts with multiple
>unions, and for which there is comeptition to be a "recognized" union, then
>ownership of or appearance on a website called generalmotors.union suggests
>some type of conenction, endorsement or sponsorship by General Motors (all
>other things being equal).
>
>Please cite the caselaw that sets out the law of how a union may utilize
>the name of an employer and explain how .union will abide by that law.

Oh please.  Here we go again.  YOU cite the caselaw which states that 
unions CANNOT use the names of the employers.  Intellectual property 
law is an EXCEPTION to free speech.  Thus, it is to be construed 
NARROWLY.

This ridiculous expansion has gotten to the point of laughability. 
We would all be laughing but for the stupidity of the people who have 
allowed SOME trademark lawyers to extort control over the technical 
management of the INternet.