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.
>