RE: [jig] Single character labels question framing
- To: "'Avri Doria'" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "'jig'" <jig@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [jig] Single character labels question framing
- From: "Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 22:41:46 +0800
> I hope it is ok, for an observer to the group to ask framing questions
this early in the
> process. If the questions are premature (or stupid), please ignore it.
I think it is of course ok, happy to have your participation :-)
> Question 1: do single character a-labels remain prohibited?
> Is that even an issue for this group? I think probably not
I think you are right, the group is focused on IDN TLDs and no IDN TLD label
could have an "a-label" that is a single LDH character (if that is even an
appropriate to describe "a-labels")
> Question 2: which, if any, single character u-labels should be prohibited
> E.g. extended ASCII u-labels or Cyrillic u-labels that resemble LDH-labels
> problematic from the point of view of confusion and should probably be
> But otherwise what reason could there be for limiting single character idn
Your suggestion seems to be a possible approach. Whether we need to utilize
some sort of language/script as a categorization or whether simply relying
on "confusion" as a basic criteria is perhaps a point we can discuss as
> Question 3: for those u-labels not prohibited what policy conditions
> This might be the bulk of the discussion.
Possible, but it could also be that it would simply follow regular new gTLD
process and/or IDN ccTLD processes.
> Another differentiation people could make, and seem to make in
> which u-labels are 'words'. Somehow, it seems that stating that if a
> represents a real-world word it is somehow more acceptable then just a
> character u-label that does not represent a real-world word. I am not sure
> understand why this would be the case, though the financial considerations
> different there is no reason that any TLD needs to represent a word - as
the set of
> existing TLDs shows there are very few words among them.
> Finally, reading the IDN WG report with these issues in mind is somewhat
> to me in that they do not seem to have made such distinctions. I would be
> to know whether this sort of analysis was considered.
Which follows Chris' and my suggestion to get a briefing from Tina on what
has been considered and what the group envisions to be considered for policy