[UA-discuss] Fw: Re: IDN Implementation Guidelines [RE: Re : And now about phishing...]
yvk at uanic.net
Mon Apr 24 07:42:25 UTC 2017
yes, perhaps I should clarify - I mean only ccTLD within two
conditions of "unified rules on the root zone" and "absolutely ICANN
cannot set policies for the zones below"
but to my mind condition on split-off the roles of Administrator and
Technical Operator should be implemented at least in the form of best
practices for both - ccTLD and gTLD
Monday, April 24, 2017, 1:41:28 AM, you wrote:
> Well not entirely true either. There are ccTLDs, to which ICANN can make
> just recommendations.
> But, our world have gTLDs, where ICANN can set the rules for the zones
> bellow. :)
> It's not just black or white. :)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org] On
> Behalf Of Yuriy Kargapolov
> Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2017 11:33 PM
> To: Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap at NLnetLabs.nl>; ua-discuss at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] Fw: Re: IDN Implementation Guidelines [RE: Re :
> And now about phishing...]
> Monday, April 24, 2017, 12:16:54 AM, you wrote:
>> Andrew Sullivan writes:
>>> And that, of course, is where they will stop. ICANN is capable of >>
> making rules about the root zone, but it cannot set policies for the >>
> zones below -- that's up to the operators of those zones.
> not simply - ICANN is capable of making rules about the root zone - ICANN
> is capable of making at last the unified rules on the root zone and in
> absolutely ICANN cannot set policies for the zones below -- that's up to the
> Administrators of Registries of those zones.
> In paradigm split-off the roles of Administrator (setting and establishment
> of policies) and Technical Operator (technical support and maintenance) of
> the Registry
>> And maybe the contractual arrangments they have with these operators?
> Jaap, soory, what kinds of operators?
Ю. Каргаполов mailto:yvk at uanic.net
More information about the UA-discuss