-----Original Message-----
From: Shatan, Gregory S. [mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 11:19 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Alistair.Dixon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-sl-wg] RE: Redline draft of 1 & 2
Character SG Report
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?
y
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
'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