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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Alistair.  I will let those of you in the subgroup deal with this
as you see best.  I don't have strong opinions on how to handle this but
just wanted to raise the issue for consideration.
 
Under the recommendations currently being considered by the subgroup, am
I correct that the following would happen: if a.com was registered, then
if and when single letters at the top level were allowed, a.a would be
reserved?  What if the registrant of a.com wanted .a?
 
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: Alistair DIXON
[mailto:Alistair.Dixon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 7:43 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; Patrick Jones; gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Cc: Liz Williams
        Subject: RE: [gnso-sl-wg] RE: Redline draft of 1 & 2 Character
SG Report
        
        
        Chuck,
         
        I have a question about your comment on the recommendation for
single letters or digits at the second level.  You suggest that
registrations of letters at the second level prior to release of single
letters at the top level might somehow restrict what letters can be
released at the top level.  However, what is not clear to me is why
release of a.com, for example, would prevent the release of .a (leaving
the question of trademark protection etc aside for the moment). Further,
it is not clear to me why release of a.com would mean that a.a cannot be
reserved in the event that .a is released.  In effect, that is what has
been done, as I understand it, with the newer TLDs such as .jobs and
.travel, where I suspect names at the second and third levels have been
reserved that are in use in other TLDs such as .com.
         
        Alistair

        -----Original Message-----
        From: owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: Monday, 7 May 2007 02:36
        To: Patrick Jones; gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Cc: Liz Williams
        Subject: [gnso-sl-wg] RE: Redline draft of 1 & 2 Character SG
Report
        
        

                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 table.

                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

                        patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx