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

Tue Sep 25 06:49:12 UTC 2018

Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Fri, 21 Sep 2018, 22:26 Roberto Gaetano, <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Greg,
>
> 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.
>

SO: Absolute +1 to the above; the ALAC isn't just about end user in gTLDs,
we are more than that and to some extent I'd say a typical end user may
want to argue more for his/her ccTLD than gTLDs

Thanks!

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
> _______________________________________________
> registration-issues-wg mailing list
> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180925/2ae8a2a7/attachment-0001.html>