[CPWG] Two-chars TLDs

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Fri Sep 21 18:59:43 UTC 2018


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
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180921/5f7862b4/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the CPWG mailing list