Re: [lac-discuss-en] FW: CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace

My views are on the wiki.

The second concern is moot. What we have is an attempt to shut the gate
after the horse has bolted. Too many 2-character second level domains exist
to outlaw them now in favour of a future development; new countries and
territories assigned a 2-character code that has no real meaning for them.
 At least I see .jm it has something of Jamaica there!  Think the
principality of Sealand or one of them 'stans' or khanates in Central Asia.

So it is the first one that remains.  I don't think a statement is
necessary.

-Carlton


==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> Dear Alberto,
>
> My attempt at a statement (https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg)  is to
> say
> two points:
>
> - Absent any DNS related security or stability issues, and given the use of
> 2 character strings by several gTLDs and ccTLDs, the desirability of
> shorter domains to possible registrants and that two characters are used
> for other meanings, there should not be any restriction of two character
> ASCII labels at the 2nd level within the TLD as per the registry agreements
> (Specification 5 blocks all two character labels at the 2nd level by
> default)
>
> - The 2nd concern is regarding the logic being used for the many RSEP
> requests for an exception to the registry specification 5 which asks to
> release 2 letter strings not in the current ISO list. I consider it flawed
> because the ISO list is not static and is updated periodically to reflect
> changes in countries and territories. This gives rise to a potential
> disparity in the future where some countries and territories are protected
> by Specification 5 but future ones are not. This (in my mind), shouldn't be
> and all countries and territories should be treated equally.
>
> However, this second point has received several comments that if there is
> consensus for no restriction, why single out the RSEPs requests, especially
> since two character labels at the 2nd level are already happening for
> several gTLDs and ccTLDs? And if the 2nd concern is removed, do we really
> need to say the first concern?
>
> Dev Anand
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 1:20 PM, <asoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> > [[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]
> >
> >  Subject: FW: CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Introduction of
> > Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace
> >  From: asoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >  Hi Dev, please can make a summary of a few lines on this
> >  subject to our Regin?
> >
> >
> >  Thank you very much!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  Alberto
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  From: alac-announce-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >  [Mailto: alac-announce-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On behalf of
> > ICANN
> >  At-Large Staff
> >  Posted on: Friday, August 8, 2014 11:07 a.m.
> >  To: ALAC-Announce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >  Subject: [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the
> >  Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  Dear All,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  Olivier Crpin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, you Asked That a call for
> >  be made comments on the draft ALAC Statement on the Introduction of
> >  Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace
> >  &lt;  https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg>
> >  ALAC ratification process.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  The current draft, as well as additional information on the Public
> > Comment,
> >  can be found on the At-Large Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names
> in
> >  the New gTLD Namespace Workspace &lt;
> > https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  Please submit any comments on the workspace by using the comments
> function
> >  11 August 2014 20:00 GMT.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  Regards,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie
> >  Peregrine and Terri Agnew
> >
> >
> >  ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC
> >
> >
> >  E-mail: staff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> <applewebdata://68497759-1B04-4F9B-84B7-B9445B8F305F/Regards,%20Heidi%20Ullr
> >  ich,% 20Vivanco 20Silvia%%% 20Ashtiani 20Matt% 20Liang 20Ariel%%% 20Gru
> > 20Gisella
> >  ber, 20Nathalie%%% 20and% 20Peregrine 20Julia 20ICANN%%% 20Charvolen
> > 20Policy% 20Sta
> >  ff% 20in% 20support% 20of% 20ALACmailto: staff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [[--Original text (es)
> > http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/9723dd01cd.html
> > --]]
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > lac-discuss-en mailing list
> > lac-discuss-en@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
> >
> _______________________________________________
> lac-discuss-en mailing list
> lac-discuss-en@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
>
_______________________________________________