RE: Single-letter names (was: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes?)

JFC Morfin <> Sat, 05 July 2008 00:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A9D23A69A4; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 17:44:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5079A3A6B87 for <>; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 17:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S57+u88oS6Dm for <>; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 17:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D3DF3A68AE for <>; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 17:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]:3605 by with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <>) id 1KEvsy-0004nX-E1; Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:44:20 -0700
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 02:44:34 +0200
To: "Edmon Chung" <>,"'Vint Cerf'" <>, "'John C Klensin'" <>
From: JFC Morfin <>
Subject: RE: Single-letter names (was: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes?)
In-Reply-To: <1e1101c8de2e$4fe74e80$efb5eb80$@asia>
References: <> <> <14AE948B18197467AE4D96A4@p3.JCK.COM> <> <> <> <> <392E87F9BBF8DC79E2167BA0@p3.JCK.COM> <> <1e1101c8de2e$4fe74e80$efb5eb80$@asia>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Pass-two: yes
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
Message-Id: <>
Cc: 'James Seng' <>,,, 'Lyman Chapin' <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"

I feel that Edmon's report of the ICANN/GNSO point of view and the 
positions of James Seng are shared by most of the groups we relate 
with (Internet @large, open roots, ISO lobbies, Multilinc, MINC, 
Eurolinc, ISOC France, ccTLDs, etc.). If this WG does not think they 
are technically adequate there would certainly be a real urgency to 
document why, to have it confirmed by the IAB, and disseminated. This 
is due to the constraints a change would introduce outside of the 
Internet community and the général awareness of this debate after the 
Paris meeting. This WG needs to speak up now, or status quo will be 
considered as definitly settled.

I expect one single sign (logo) gcTLDs [geocultural] to be documented 
this year for multilingual information machines (airports, 
transports, health, kids, disabled). BTW this is also why I would 
recommend to refer to the semiotic rather than to the semantic aspects.

At 01:33 05/07/2008, Edmon Chung wrote:
>Regarding single Unicode code-point labels at the TLD level, there was quite
>some discussion on this topic at the GNSO Reserved Names working group and
>then at the new gTLD discussion.  The final recommendation from the GNSO
>"Single and two-character U-labels on the top level and second level of a
>domain name should not be restricted in general. At the top level, requested
>strings should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis in the new gTLD process
>depending on the script and language used in order to determine whether the
>string should be granted for allocation in the DNS. Single and two character
>labels at the second level and the third level if applicable should be
>available for registration, provided they are consistent with the IDN
>As for ASCII, the recommendation was:
>"We recommend reservation of single letters at the top level based on
>technical questions raised. If sufficient research at a later date
>demonstrates that the technical issues and concerns are addressed, the topic
>of releasing reservation status can be reconsidered."

Ietf mailing list