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

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

Please see my responses below.  I continue to be very impressed and
appreciative of the great work you guys have done.  Patrick - your
contributions continue to be exemplary.
 
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 11:30 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck
        Cc: 'Liz Williams'; gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-sl-wg] RE: Latest redline for Single and two
characters
        
        

        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. 
        [Gomes, Chuck] So you are consciously recommending that any
proposed single or two-character IDN strings be proposed be analyzed on
a case by case basis?  Is that correct?  If so, then the New gTLD
Committee will need to figure out how that can be done.

         

        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.
        [Gomes, Chuck] Correct.  I am fine on this. 

         

        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[Gomes,
Chuck]   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.
        [Gomes, Chuck] They should go right after the recommendation
table, just not in table format.

         

        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.
        [Gomes, Chuck] I wasn't at all suggesting that the WG adopt the
minority position, just trying to be fair in recognizing that that is a
possibility. 

         

        I'll add brief information about all of the experts consulted.
That should have been included in last night's draft.
        [Gomes, Chuck] Thanks. 

         

        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