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

["Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck:

Are you looking at the interaction between the single letter recommendations 
and the current practice of not allocating at the second level names of other 
TLDs?

I don't think that anything in our reccs that would bar .b from being allocated 
because b.com had previously been allocated.  If it appears so, that is on on 
drafting flaw that needs to be identified and fixed.


--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Device


----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Alistair DIXON <Alistair.Dixon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Patrick Jones 
<patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx>; gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Mon May 07 08:33:54 2007
Subject: RE: [gnso-sl-wg] RE: Redline draft of 1 & 2 Character SG Report

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 âdomain nameâ in RFC 1035 (âmust 
start with a letterâ)."  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, Iâll 
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