John,
To add to your point, one should also consider the question of
embedded semantics in a single-character label.
Alphabetic scripts such as Latin mostly represent sounds used to make
up words. While one can certainly find some legitimate
single-character words (such as the article a or the
john,
my reaction was specific to IDN single character TLDs. In some
languages these are complete words.
vint
On Jul 4, 2008, at 1:50 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
Vint,
In the ASCII space, there have been three explanations offered
historically for the one-character prohibition on top and
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
was:
Single and two-character U-labels on the top level and second level
Vint,
In the ASCII space, there have been three explanations offered
historically for the one-character prohibition on top and
second-level domains. I've written variations on this note
several times, so will just try to summarize here. Of the
three, the first of these is at best of only
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
