RE: [jig] Single character labels question framing

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 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
and why?
> E.g. extended ASCII u-labels or Cyrillic u-labels that resemble LDH-labels
are
> problematic from the point of view of confusion and should probably be
prohibited.
> But otherwise what reason could there be for limiting single character idn
u-labels?

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
well.

> 
> Question 3: for those u-labels not prohibited what policy conditions
pertain?
> 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
discussions, is
> which u-labels are 'words'.  Somehow, it seems that stating that if a
single u-label
> represents a real-world word it is somehow more acceptable then just a
single
> character u-label that does not represent a real-world word. I am not sure
I
> understand why this would be the case, though the financial considerations
may be
> 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.

Good observation.

> 
> Finally, reading the IDN WG report with these issues in mind is somewhat
confusing
> to me in that they do not seem to have made such distinctions.  I would be
curious
> 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
recommendations.

Edmon