[UA-discuss] Fw: Re: IDN Implementation Guidelines [RE: Re : And now about phishing...]

[Yuriy Kargapolov]

Not sure about ccTLDs as well as latin (classic :) ) and IDN
At  first,  there  are  any  "country  code"  TLDs should  follow  the
provisions of national legislation 
Second,  if  we  talk  about  IDN - does it mean that IDN in any latin
ccTLD  should  follow  by  ICANN IDN Implementation Guidelines? I mean
that  some ccTLD in latin allows registration IDN in second and higher
levels, please see https://hostmaster.ua/UAstat/?idn

Yuri

Monday, April 24, 2017, 10:52:38 AM, you wrote:

> Actually, the ICANN IDN Implementation Guidelines apply to gTLDs as well as
> IDN ccTLDs for 2nd level (or 3rd level for which registrations are accepted
> by the registry).  All IDN ccTLDs to date (as far as I understsand) are
> required to confirm that they will abide by the ICANN IDN Implementation
> Guidelines through the application for delegation process.  ASCII ccTLDs are
> of course not required to do so.

> Edmon




>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org]
> On
>> Behalf Of Yuriy Kargapolov
>> Sent: Monday, 24 April 2017 15:42 PM
>> To: Dusan Stojicevic <dusan at dukes.in.rs>; '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...]
>> 
>> 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. :)
>> 
>> > Dusan
>> 
>> 
>> > -----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?
>> 
>> >>         jaap
>>