[registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Two-chars TLDs

Justine Chew justine.chew at gmail.com
Sun Sep 23 02:05:00 UTC 2018


Hello Roberto,

Yes, there are many "things" buried in the 300+ page Initial Report which
as Greg suggests, is a culmination of separate Work Track discussions.  We
needed more folks to help scrutinize the Initial Report and provide
comments to the same, but we have what we have by way of volunteers.

While PR 2.7.1.c.2 is marked as a preliminary recommendation, the following
question is also posed in the same section:

*Q 2.7.1.e.2*

*If there are no technical obstacles to the use of 2-character strings at
the top level consisting of one letter and one digit (or digits more
generally), should the reservation of those strings be removed? Why or why
not? Do you believe that any additional analysis is needed to ensure that
these types of strings will not pose harm or risk to security and
stability? Please explain.*


Would you like to suggest a draft response? I believe the CPWG call for
comments only closes 25 September 2018 at 23:59 UTC.

Else, I guess At-Large just needs to do better moving forward, but thank
you for bringing this up.

Cheers,

Justine
-----


On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 at 09:26, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Greg,
> Maybe there is some misunderstanding here.
> First of all, I was only raising this point to the attention of the group,
> I was not going to ask for any action - the deadline for comments is in a
> couple of days anyway. If it was not for my participation to the APTLD74 I
> would not even have noticed this detail buried into a 300 pages document,
> so I was assuming, probably wrongly, that a few other people in this WG had
> not either.
> But to the point, the issue is not what we think as being expansionist or
> not, but what ISO 3166-MA thinks. If ICANN asks for a formal statement from
> the Agency that they have no intention to use alphanumeric strings for the
> ISO 3166-1 Alpha-2 - and therefore potentially new ccTLDs - I am happy.
> Failing this, I am worried. After all, who knows what geopolitics will
> surprise us with in the next decades in terms of creation and dissolution
> of countries.
> You might be right about the fact that reserving 2-char alphanumeric seems
> expansionist from the gTLD Registries point of view, but if you look at
> things from ISO’s point of view they might think that what is expansionist
> is the claim to 2-chars alphanumeric when there are all other combinations
> fon n-chars alphanumeric (with n>2) available.
> Cheers,
> Roberto
>
>
> On 22.09.2018, at 00:50, Greg Shatan <greg at isoc-ny.org> wrote:
>
> There are 676 possible letter-letter combinations. I think that provides
> more than ample room for expansion of the cc universe, without asserting
> that letter-number, number-letter, and number-number combinations need to
> be reserved as well, “just in case.” That feels a bit expansionist to me.
>
> Shouldn’t the potential ASCII gTLD space be viewed as the universe of all
> possible combinations of up to 63 characters, minus any strings we allocate
> or reserve for other purposes?
>
> That said, the “recommendations” in this report are not recommendations of
> the Working Group. They are at best recommendations of an individual Work
> Track, or even just a possibility that some in the Work Track would like
> considered. Think of this more as spaghetti thrown against the wall than a
> true list of well-considered policy recommendations. I’m sure many of these
> “recommendations” will survive to become actual Policy Recommendations of
> the Working Group. But many others will just slide down the wall, leaving a
> fat,ugly red streak behind it (in my imagination, the spaghetti has tomato
> sauce on it...).
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 2:59 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Roberto,
>>
>> thanks for pointing this out. It's interesting to see that there's a
>> wall of protest against 3 Character ccTLDs whilst there are proposals to
>> erode the ccTLD space further. It seems anything is good enough to be a
>> gTLD.
>> Kindest regards,
>>
>> Olivier
>>
>> On 21/09/2018 18:26, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>> > Hi all.
>> > At the APTLD-74 meeting the issue about two-character new TLD came up.
>> > Looking at the summary of the recommendations at
>> >
>> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/subsequent-procedures-initial-annex-c-02jul18-en.pdf
>>  we
>> > can find the proposal to remove the limitation about two character
>> > strings. The text reads:
>> >
>> >     /2.7.1.c.3: The Work Track is also considering a proposal to
>> >     remove the reservation of two-character strings at the top level
>> >     that consist of one ASCII letter and one number (e.g., .O2 or
>> >     .3M), but acknowledges that technical considerations may need to
>> >     be taken into account on whether to lift the reservation
>> >     requirements for those strings. In addition, some have expressed
>> >     concern over two characters consisting of a number and an ASCII
>> >     letter where the number closely resembles a letter (e.g., a “zero”
>> >     looking like the letter “O” or the letter “L” in lowercase looking
>> >     like the number “one”). /
>> >
>> > Personally, I believe that besides the issue about confusing
>> > similarity there is a more fundamental problem. Two characters string
>> > are used for ccTLDs following inclusion in the ISO 3166-1 Alpha-2 list.
>> > While the list is clearly identified as “Alpha-2” I am not sure that,
>> > in case of a future shortage of combinations, ISO could not instruct
>> > ISO 3166-MA to use also two-characters alphanumeric strings. We have
>> > seen that already with IATA and the airline codes, initially limited
>> > to two characters alphabetic strings, but later extended to two
>> > characters alphanumeric.
>> > I am always suspicious when something that is not necessary and
>> > potentially dangerous is proposed.
>> > Cheers,
>> > Roberto
>> >
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPWG mailing list
>> CPWG at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>> _______________________________________________
>> GTLD-WG mailing list
>> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>>
>> Working Group direct URL:
>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registration-issues-wg/attachments/20180923/b7f3109c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg


More information about the registration-issues-wg mailing list