<div dir="ltr">Hi Ed,<div><br></div><div>the criterion says: <br></div><div><div>Registry Operator must include a provision in its publicly available registration policy requiring a</div><div>representation that the registrant of a letter/letter two-character ASCII label will take steps to ensure</div><div>against misrepresenting or falsely implying that the registrant or its business is affiliated with a government</div><div>or country-code manager if such affiliation, sponsorship or endorsement does not exist. </div></div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Best</div><div><br></div><div>Farzaneh </div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 13 August 2016 at 14:14, Edward Morris <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net" target="_blank">egmorris1@toast.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12px"><div>Hi Farzi,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>---</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div><em>REGISTRATION POLICY</em></div>
<div> </div>
<div><em>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.</em></div>
<div><em>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. </em></div>
<div> </div>
<div>---</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>With that small exception I fully endorse this comment. I look forward to hearing what others have to say.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks again, Frazi, for your hard work on this.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Kind Regards,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ed Morris </div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
<div><span style="font-family:tahoma,arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><b>From</b>: "James Gannon" <<a href="mailto:james@CYBERINVASION.NET" target="_blank">james@CYBERINVASION.NET</a>><br>
<b>Sent</b>: Friday, August 12, 2016 11:24 PM<br>
<b>To</b>: <a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" target="_blank">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
<b>Subject</b>: Re: Public comments on country codes and second level top level domains</span><div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Excellent moment Farzi full support to get this submitted from me.</div>
<div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<span> </span>
<div style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:12pt;text-align:left;color:black;border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;padding:3pt 0in 0in;border-top-color:rgb(181,196,223)"><span><span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>NCSG-Discuss <<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" target="_blank">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><wbr>> on behalf of farzaneh badii <<a href="mailto:farzaneh.badii@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank">farzaneh.badii@GMAIL.COM</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Reply-To: </span>farzaneh badii <<a href="mailto:farzaneh.badii@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank">farzaneh.badii@GMAIL.COM</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Friday 12 August 2016 at 21:05<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>"<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" target="_blank">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><wbr>" <<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" target="_blank">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><wbr>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Public comments on country codes and second level top level domains</span></div>
<span> </span>
<div> </div>
<span> </span>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr"><span>Hi everyone </span>
<div> </div>
<span> </span>
<div><span>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.</span></div>
<span> </span>
<div> </div>
<span> </span>
<div><span>We only have 5 days (17 August is the deadline). </span></div>
<span> </span>
<div> </div>
<span> </span>
<div><span>So what is the public comment about? </span></div>
<span> </span>
<div> </div>
<span> </span>
<div><span>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. </span></div>
<span> </span>
<div> </div>
<span> </span>
<div><span>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. </span></div>
<span> </span>
<div> </div>
<span> </span>
<div><span>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.</span></div>
<span> </span>
<div> </div>
<span> </span>
<div><span>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.</span></div>
<span> </span>
<div> </div>
<span> </span>
<div><span>Here is the doc. </span></div>
<span> </span>
<div> </div>
<span> </span>
<div><span><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ynHrEmG2l1_Zas6093VsPIKKEVqn_SMU-nkgQwcY7wQ/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/docume<wbr>nt/d/1ynHrEmG2l1_Zas6093VsPIKK<wbr>EVqn_SMU-nkgQwcY7wQ/edit?usp=<wbr>sharing</a></span></div>
<span> </span>
<div> </div>
<span> </span>
<div><span>Best </span>
<div> </div>
<span> -- </span>
<div data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><span>Farzaneh</span></div>
<span> </span></div>
<span> </span></div>
</div>
</div>
<span> </span></div></div></div></span>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Farzaneh</div>
</div></div>