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

[Edmon Chung]

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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> З повагою,
> Ю. Каргаполов                         mailto:yvk at uanic.net