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

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

Whether or not the technical advice is sufficient or not, we do not have
any more time to get additional advice now.  If the New gTLD Committee
or Council decide that more is needed, it could still be solicited.  One
fairly easy way to do that after the RN-WG is completed would be to send
the recommendations to some additional experts for their review and
comment, but I think that that should be done only if there is
reasonable evidence that more consultation is needed.

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." 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liz Williams [mailto:liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 2:04 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Shatan, Gregory S.; 
> Alistair.Dixon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
> patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-sl-wg] RE: Redline draft of 1 & 2 
> Character SG Report
> 
> Hi everyone
> 
> On the last paragraph -- is everyone satisfied that all the 
> technical advice necessary has been sought.  A superficial 
> reading of this says no -- but I'm not an engineer.  Having 
> said that, I would be much happier if we had current 
> unequivocal advice.
> 
> Let me know if I can facilitate that in any way.
> 
> Liz
> .....................................................
> 
> Liz Williams
> Senior Policy Counselor
> ICANN - Brussels
> +32 2 234 7874 tel
> +32 2 234 7848 fax
> +32 497 07 4243 mob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 07 May 2007, at 19:36, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > Here is what I was envisioning Greg.
> >
> > 1. Single letter names are released on the 2nd level before the top 
> > level.
> >
> > 2. b.TLD is registered.
> >
> > 3. Single letter names are released at the top level after 
> the above.
> >
> > 4. The single letters and digits recommendation at the 2nd level in 
> > the most recent draft report sent out by Patrick adds the following
> > sentence: "If single letter TLDs are unreserved, reserve single 
> > letters at the second level in these domains."  That means 
> that b.TLD 
> > would have been reserved if it wasn't already registered, 
> but because 
> > it is already registered, you could feasibly end up with a 
> > registration b.b.  Wasn't the subgroup trying to avoid 
> that, or did I 
> > misunderstand something?  If you are trying to avoid registrations 
> > like b.b, then it seems like "b"
> > would have to be reserved at the top level because it was already 
> > registered as a name at the 2nd level.
> >
> > Note the following in statement in the Rationale section of Section
> > 1.4:
> > "However, there may be technical concerns regarding the use 
> of single 
> > letter and digit domains at the second level in a single letter TLD 
> > (e.g., 1.a or a.a).  Allocation of single letters at both the top 
> > level and second level in combination may [will??] cause 
> certain older 
> > DNS software applications to incorrectly resolve."  Also 
> note the last 
> > sentence in the into to Section 1.5: "If single letter TLDs are 
> > unreserved, single letters at the second level would need to be 
> > reserved in these domains."  And finally note the last paragraph in 
> > Section
> > 1.5:
> > "In relation to the special case of single letters in single letter 
> > TLDs, consultation with technical experts identified that 
> the problem 
> > that RFC 1535 discusses is likely to be experienced with 
> combinations 
> > of single letters at the top and second level.  (RFC1535 discusses 
> > security problems posed by some resolvers that attempt to resolve a 
> > partial name by processing a search list of partial domains to be 
> > added to portions of the specified host name until a DNS record is 
> > found.)  Single letters at the second level would need to 
> be reserved 
> > in single letter TLDs until this problem has been eliminated."
> >
> > Does this make sense?
> >
> > 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."
> >
> >
> >> -----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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> 
>