ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

[gnso-sl-wg] RE: Latest redline for Single and two characters

  • To: "Patrick Jones" <patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-sl-wg] RE: Latest redline for Single and two characters
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 10:34:03 -0400

Please remove the recommendation numbers in the recommendation column of
the table.  These will be cut and pasted into the full WG report with
other subgroup recommendations so the number probably will not work.  I
know this makes it more complicated for referencing recommendations
elsewhere in the report but we need to keep in mind that the
recommendations will be part of a bigger report where the numbers would
not make sense anyway.
The recommendation for single and 2-character IDNs at the top level and
the second sentence of the first paragraph of Section 2 says, "At the
top level, requested strings should be analyzed on a case by case basis
in the new gTLD process depending on the script and language used in
order to determine whether the string should be granted for allocation
in the DNS. "  I don't think the wording is consistent with the new gTLD
process.  As I understand the proposed process (and someone correct me
if I am wrong), in the cases like this where the string is not reserved,
there would not be a proactive analysis of strings but rather the
ability for a string to be challenged.  If I am correct, I think it
would be better to say something like this: "We recommend at the top
level that the new gTLD challenge processes include the option for one
or two character IDN strings to be challenged on a case by case basis
depending on the script and language used."
The added sentence (For example, if the .a TLD were allocated, the
single letter names at the second level (a.a, b.a, c.a, etc.) in that
TLD should be reserved.) for the single letter, top level recommendation
doesn't seem to fit; shouldn't it go in the next box down for single
letters and digits at the second level?
In the 'Any combination of Two  Letters, Digits' recommendation, what is
'(footnote)' for?  Is a footnote going to be added?
I don't think that minority positions should be included in table format
but I have cc'd Liz in case she thinks differently.  In my opinion, once
the full WG report approves the recommendations, the recommendations in
the subgroup recommendations table will be copied directly into the new
full WG report.  This does not mean that a minority recommendation could
not become a WG recommendation, but until that happens I think it is
better to list minority recommendations in text form below the
recommendation table.  They can be identified with underlined headings
like the following with text below: "Minority Statement re. Single and
Two-Character IDNs".  Another reason for doing this is that we don't
want the rationale in the recommendation column and we do want the
rationale in the minority statement.  If a minority recommendation is
moved to the main table by the full WG, we would only cut and past the
recommendation, not the rationale and the rationale would be moved to
the appropriate rationale section later in the report.
Regarding Mike Rodenbaugh's minority statement for Two Letters at the
Top Level, I would note that the RSTEP process is intended for use by
existing registries for proposed new registry services or changes to
operational requirements.  The question I have for Mike is this:  Are
you recommending that the RSTEP process be adapted for this new use?  If
so, that should be stated, especially if the minority recommendation
became a WG recommendation.
As far as I can tell, the report still does not address what happens if
a single letter or digit name is registered at the second level before
single letters are allowed at the top level.  Should the corresponding
letter be reserved at the top level until such time as the same letter
at the second level is no longer in use?  This would apply not only to
new registrations or new gTLDs going forward but also to the six single
letter second level names already registered.
Unless I missed it, I still think it would be helpful to provide some
brief information about Steve Bellovin and Mark McFadden to validate
their role as experts.
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: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 1:11 AM
        To: gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Cc: Gomes, Chuck
        Subject: Latest redline for Single and two characters

        Attached is the latest redline. I think that I have captured
most of the suggested changes discussed on the call today. I think there
are a few more minor edits to make, and I will include those tomorrow,
with the previously mentioned clean version.




        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