ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-sl-wg] RE: Redline draft of 1 & 2 Character SG Report

  • To: "Patrick Jones" <patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-sl-wg] RE: Redline draft of 1 & 2 Character SG Report
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 10:35:30 -0400

This report is very impressive.  I have just a few comments and
questions for the subgroup's consideration.
Recommendation for single letter or digit at the second level

        When this recommendation is considered with the recommendation
for single letter at the top level, it seems to me that timing of
implementation has significant impact.  If a test is required before
single letter gTLDs are allowed and single letter second level names are
released right away, then it seems to me that there are high chances
that the single letter names at the second level may be registered
before any such names at the top level.  When this possibility is
considered in light of "If single letter TLDs are unreserved, reserve
single letters at the second level in these domains.", couldn't this
then result in situations where certain letters at the top level are
eliminated because of corresponding single letters were previously
registered at the second level?  Have you taken this into consideration
and, if so, are you okay with these possible results?  Note that this
also affects seciton 1.5 of your report.

3rd level recommendations

        I notice that you do not have any recommendations for the third
level.  Understanding that any such recommendations would only apply to
new gTLDs that register names at the 3rd level, would your
recommendations for the second level apply at the third level as well?
If so, it should be fairly easy to modify your recommendations to
accommodate this.  However you handle this, you should include
recommendations for the third level to cover any new gTLDs proposed that
will register names at the 3rd level.  Edits would also need to be made
elsewhere in the report (e.g., the beginning of the background section
but not limited to that section) where you only talk about top and
second-level recommendations.

 IDNA recommendations

        Have you had the wording of your IDNA recommendations validated
by some IDN experts.  If not, you probably should do that.  In my Tagged
names report, I found that very helpful in making sure that the
recommendation was properly worded.

Minority statements

        I am sure you are on top of this, but let me remind you anyway
to make sure that the minority statements you refer to are included
after the table in your final report.  I note that minority statements
are included in the Supporting Information section of the report; that
is fine, but they should also be included right after the recommendation

Section 1.5, Consultation with Experts

        Paragraph  says, "Further work may be required before any
recommendations can be drafted on potential release of single digits at
the second level, due to the definition of 'domain name' in RFC 1035
("must start with a letter")."  At the same time, you did not recommend
further work on this before releasing these.  What is your thinking in
that regard?  Would it be better to recommend release of letters only at
this time and release of digits after additional work is done?

Section 1.7

        The 1st paragraph starts off with "Applications may be
considered for two character names . ."  For clarity, I suggest that you
say "Applications for new ASCII gTLDs may be considered for names
combining one letter and one digit . . "

Technical Experts

        Make sure that you identify the positions and qualifications of
technical experts so that readers know why they are considered experts.
You need not do that everytime you refer to them, but probably should do
it the first time they are referenced or at least point to where their
qualifications can be found in the report.

Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 


        From: Patrick Jones [mailto:patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 8:19 AM
        To: gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Cc: 'Liz Williams'; Gomes, Chuck
        Subject: Redline draft of 1 & 2 Character SG Report

        Attached is a redline draft of the 1 & 2 Character Subgroup
report. This incorporates edits from Alistair (in the recommendation
table for single letters and digits at the second level and within the
Recommendation 4 section), Mike Rodenbaugh (in the recommendation table
for digits at the top level and sections for digits at the top level and
single letter, single digit combinations at the top level) and from Greg
Shatan on single letters at the top level.


        I updated the date in the redline to 6 May 2007. Please let me
know if there are additional edits or suggestions. If there are
additional edits, I'll incorporate them late this evening, and circulate
another version tomorrow morning with a clean draft. 


        Patrick L. Jones

        Registry Liaison Manager

        Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

        4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330

        Marina del Rey, CA 90292

        Tel: +1 310 301 3861

        Fax: +1 310 823 8649



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy