[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Two-chars TLDs

[Greg Shatan]

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180921/d143e190/attachment.html>