With apologies for coming late to this thread -
Any proposal for a new gTLD must satisfy a number of "string
criteria" that will be specified explicitly in the RFP, including the
requirements that the U-label must not:
(a) be identical to an existing TLD;
(b) be identical to a Reserved Name;
(c) consist of a single character;
(d) consist of two characters, unless (a) it consists of a single
Letter and a single Digit (in either order), or (b) it is an IDN
string and the two characters are registered as permitted for two-
character labels in the relevant script/language;
(e) consist entirely of Digits;
(f) be a hexadecimal number consisting of the Digit “0” followed by
the uppercase or lowercase Letter “x||X” followed by a sequence of
one or more characters all of which belong to the set of uppercase or
lowercase Letters “a||A” through “f||F” and the Digits “0” through “9”;
(g) be an octal number consisting of the uppercase or lowercase
Letter “o||O” followed by a sequence of one or more characters all of
which belong to the set of Digits “0” through “7”;
(h) contain any Unicode code point that is classified as DISALLOWED
or UNASSIGNED by RFC nnnn (currently “The Unicode Codepoints and
IDNA,” draft-faltstrom-idnabis-tables-05.txt);
(i.1) [if IDN Language Reference Tables have been defined] contain
any Unicode code point that is not present in the IDN Language
Reference Table to which the Application refers;
(i.2) [if IDN Language Reference Tables have not been defined]
contain any Unicode code point that is classified as CONTEXTUAL RULE
REQUIRED by RFC nnnn (currently “The Unicode Codepoints and IDNA,”
draft-faltstrom-idnabis-tables-05.txt);
(j) begin or end with a Hyphen; or
(k) contain Hyphens in both the third and the fourth position.
In addition, the A-label obtained by applying the IDNA algorithm
specified in RFC 3492 to the proposed string must:
(l) be identical to the A-label specified in the Application; and
(m) consist of no more than 63 characters.
(Note: the capitalized terms will be formally defined in a
Definitions section of the RFP.)
Having read most, but not all, of the postings to this thread, I
believe that these rules cover many (but probably not all) of the
cases that have been discussed. Things will get both simpler and more
complicated when the IDNAbis WG completes its work, but within ICANN
there is a clear intention to track that work as closely as possible
given the timing constraints of the new gTLD program. Many of the
devils that concern the IETF, of course, are in the details of the
Reserved Names list. If there are problematic cases other than those
that would have to involve the Reserved Names list, I would very much
like to hear about them.
- Lyman
On Jul 1, 2008, at 6:36 PM, John Levine wrote:
This does not mean that ICANN won't listen to the IETF; it means
that there will be voices more familiar to ICANN saying things
different than we are.
One of the few ICANN committees that actually works is the SSAC, the
Security and Stability Advisory Committee. It includes a lot of
people we know, starting with Steve Crocker, the chair. I cannot ever
recall a time when ICANN acted contrary to the advice of the SSAC.
So although I agree that there's a lot not to like about ICANN, the
chances that they will do technically dangerous things are low.
http://www.icann.org/committees/security/
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf