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

Justine Chew justine.chew at gmail.com
Tue Sep 25 06:05:41 UTC 2018


That works well too. Roberto. Thank you.

Regards,

Justine Chew
-----


On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 at 13:32, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Justine.
> Thanks for pointing out that there is also a question.
> I personally doubt that we could reach consensus in the few hours left on
> this topic, so I have submitted a comment on my name.
> Please find the text below for reference.
> Cheers,
> Roberto
>
>
> Hi all.
> I would like to comment on 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 personally believe that, considering that we have billions of
> possibilities with alphanumeric character strings of length >2 we are
> unnecessarily taking collision risks for little benefit. May I also remind
> that ICANN has already in the previous round ignored collision warnings and
> had to take emergency action afterwards. I hope that we have learned from
> the experience.
> Should ICANN decide do disregard the warning and proceed anyway, it should
> at least protect itself asking ISO for a commitment not to use mixed
> alphanumeric 2-character strings in the future as part of the ISO-3166 code
> system.
> This comment applies also as answer to the related question quoted below:
>
> *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.*
>
> Best regards,
> Roberto
>
>
> On 23.09.2018, at 07:05, Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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/20180925/76973c3c/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