NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 13 Aug 2016 16:59:08 +0200
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (2133 bytes) , text/html (3783 bytes)
Yes I agree and will implement Eds Suggestion soon .

On 13 Aug 2016 4:54 p.m., "Sam Lanfranco" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I would like to second Ed's concern here. I went to the full list of gTLDs
> and spend some time playing around with placing two letter country codes in
> front of gTLDs and could hardly find anything that would look suspiciously
> like a government site. Misrepresentation would flow not from the
> two-letter/gTLD URL itself, but from the use of the domain name. Leave
> registries and registrar's out of enforcement there, and leave it where it
> belongs, with initiative taken by offended parties (including governments),
> or by those abused by misrepresentation.
>
> Sam L.
>
> *On 8/13/2016 8:14 AM, Edward Morris 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
>
>
>
>
>


ATOM RSS1 RSS2