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... 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
Totally agree with you, Roberto Thanks SeB Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 21 sept. 2018 à 18:26, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> a écrit :
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... 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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@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
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... 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
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@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... 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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@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
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@isoc-ny.org<mailto:greg@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@gih.com<mailto:ocl@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... 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@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:GTLD-WG@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
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@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@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@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... 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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
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@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@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@hotmail.com<mailto:roberto_gaetano@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@isoc-ny.org<mailto:greg@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@gih.com<mailto:ocl@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... 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@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:GTLD-WG@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@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
That works well too. Roberto. Thank you. Regards, Justine Chew ----- On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 at 13:32, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@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@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@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@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@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... 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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Fri, 21 Sep 2018, 22:26 Roberto Gaetano, <roberto_gaetano@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@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@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... 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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
participants (6)
-
Greg Shatan -
Justine Chew -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -
Roberto Gaetano -
Sebastien Bachollet -
Seun Ojedeji