Re: [wg-c] Compromise proposal

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

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