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

["Patrick Jones" <patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,

 

With regard to the language on IDNs, I do not think your suggestion is what
we had in mind, and it was not what Cary, Tina and I discussed. 

 

I assume from your previous email that your concerns about the sentence on
single letters at the second level within potential single letter TLDs have
been addressed.

 

I sent the updated redline last night before I had completed the edits, so
the (footnote) in Any Combination of Two Letters, Digits will be updated. 

 

We added the minority positions within the table because that is what we
thought you were looking for. If not, I'm happy to leave them where they
were, within the body of the document.

 

Mike's minority recommendation on two letters at the top level was not
shared by any other member of the WG before Lisbon. That would be a pretty
substantial shift for the WG to adopt that now, and would be a conflict with
the GAC Principles.

 

I'll add brief information about all of the experts consulted. That should
have been included in last night's draft.

 

Patrick

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 7:34 AM
To: Patrick Jones; gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Liz Williams
Subject: [gnso-sl-wg] RE: Latest redline for Single and two characters
Importance: High

 

Patrick,

 

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

 

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