Hi Farzi,
Thanks for all of your fine work on this. Very much appreciated.
I guess I was responding more to the proposed NCSG comment than to the
proposed criteria itself. I'm not sure that saying "This policy requires
the registry to make sure that the registrant has taken measures " is
accurate if all that is required is a representation by the registrant to
the registry. "Makes sure" in my view implies some sort of proactive
approach to the matter rather than the passive recipient approach of a
representation that the criterion actually calls for.
I'm still concerned at how the standard will be defined and enforced at
the registrant level. I very much like your line about misrepresentation
being construed narrowly.
Going forward could we consider changing the first line in to something
like: This policy requires that the registrant certify to the registry that
it has has taken measures to ensure against misrepresenting or falsely
implying that the registrant or its business is affiliated with the
government. And perhaps proactively adding something like this to the end
to the second line after "support": We stress, however, that nothing in
this stated criterion should be construed to require registries to
proactively act as content enforcement officers.
Thanks for considering,
Ed
----------------------------------------
From: "farzaneh badii" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2016 2:14 PM
To: "Edward Morris" <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: "NCSG List" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Public comments on country codes and second level top level
domains
Hi Ed,
the criterion says:
Registry Operator must include a provision in its publicly available
registration policy requiring a
representation that the registrant of a letter/letter two-character ASCII
label will take steps to ensure
against misrepresenting or falsely implying that the registrant or its
business is affiliated with a government
or country-code manager if such affiliation, sponsorship or endorsement
does not exist.
My interpretation was that the registry has to just insert a provision in
the policy which obligates the registrants to ensure against
misrepresenting and the criterion did not really ask for enforcement or
taking active measures. But If the criterion is asking for more, then we
should definitely make sure to insert that we support but not if it is
required from the registry to police the registrants. especially if "
requiring a representation" turns them to active content police.
Best
Farzaneh
On 13 August 2016 at 14:14, Edward Morris <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi Farzi,
Thanks so much for doing this. Clearly this is an issue directly related
to free speech on the domain name line and I certainly support the NCSG
submitting a public comment on this matter. I also agree with your approach
to the issue, except for one small part. You write:
---
REGISTRATION POLICY
This policy requires the registry to make sure that the registrant has
taken measures to ensure against misrepresenting or falsely implying that
the registrant or its business is affiliated with the government.
We find this acceptable, however misrepresentation should be interpreted
narrowly. But the obligation that the registrant not to falsely imply that
it is affiliated with the government is a sound approach which we support.
---
I don't want registry's to turn into content police or judges of the
intent of registrants. I recognise there is a big push in ICANN, from the
IPC, the GAC and others, to turn Registries into de facto enforcement
bodies. I think this is something we should resist at any and every
opportunity. What are the criteria to be used concerning government
affiliation? Is this something we really want Registries to decide?
With that small exception I fully endorse this comment. I look forward to
hearing what others have to say.
Thanks again, Frazi, for your hard work on this.
Kind Regards,
Ed Morris
----------------------------------------
From: "James Gannon" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 11:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Public comments on country codes and second level top level
domains
Excellent moment Farzi full support to get this submitted from me.
From: NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of farzaneh
badii <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday 12 August 2016 at 21:05
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Public comments on country codes and second level top level
domains
Hi everyone
I have drafted yet another late public comment. It is a rough draft
but I am sending it to get enough feedback. It is a complex matter and we
might not have enough time to submit to PC.
We only have 5 days (17 August is the deadline).
So what is the public comment about?
In a nutshell, at the moment if you want to register the domain name
[in.love] you have to first request the government of India for approval
because their country code is ".IN". This has resulted in a bunch of
"reserved" domain names.
In this public comment, we need to say whether we approve of the
criteria that ICANN has come up with to avoid confusion between generic
two letter domain names and corresponding country codes.
I think criterion number 1 is a disaster and it is drafted in a way
that entitles all the governments and cctld operators (which are sometimes
businesses) to two letter second level domain in new gtlds, for no good
reason. You might not agree with me or think that I have gotten something
wrong. please let me know.
If this draft is not too bad and we get enough comments on it, we can
submit it to NCSG PC. If not I will submit it myself and name whoever
endorses it.
Here is the doc.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ynHrEmG2l1_Zas6093VsPIKKEVqn_SMU-nkgQwcY
7wQ/edit?usp=sharing
Best
-- Farzaneh
-- Farzaneh
|
