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_Zas6093VsPIKK
> EVqn_SMU-nkgQwcY7wQ/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Best
>
> --
> Farzaneh
>



-- 
Farzaneh