Thanks Stefania. For sure you can make changes directly on the Google doc. Best Farzaneh On 13 Aug 2016 5:49 p.m., "Milan, Stefania" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Dear Farzi > thanks much for taking the time to draft this public comment. I find Ed's > suggestions to the point--thanks for including them. > May I suggest some change in the wording of the first paragraph, in the > google doc? > As a member of the NCSG PC, I hope this gets to out table :-) > Thanks again! > Best, Stefania > > ________________________________________ > Da: NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]> per conto di farzaneh > badii <[log in to unmask]> > Inviato: sabato 13 agosto 2016 17.27.55 > A: [log in to unmask] > Oggetto: Re: Public comments on country codes and second level top level > domains > > Hi > > Added the changes recommended by Ed. Thank you very much. > > Farzaneh > > On 13 Aug 2016 4:59 p.m., "farzaneh badii" <[log in to unmask]< > mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > Yes I agree and will implement Eds Suggestion soon . > > On 13 Aug 2016 4:54 p.m., "Sam Lanfranco" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:lanfr > [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 > > > > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged > material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, > forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this > information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is > prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received > this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the > material from any computer. >