RE: [council] request for ICANN action on single letter domain names (now reserved names)

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Bret. I would still suggest that the policy of allocating such codes
probably belongs in the new gTLD strategy, while perhaps the question of how
to "unreserve" can be examined. I have to think about it more, though and
will respond back to you. 

Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Bret Fausett
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 12:46 AM
To: Marilyn Cade
Cc: Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Gnso.
Secretariat'; 'John Jeffrey'; 'Kurt Pritz'; 'Olof Nordling'; 'Maria Farrell'
Subject: Re: [council] request for ICANN action on single letter domain
names (now reserved names)

In 2000, ICANN wrote: "Under current practice of the Internet Assigned 
Numbers Authority, one-letter codes are reserved from assignment to 
allow for future DNS extensibility." (see, FAQ #47 
http://www.icann.org/tlds/tld-faqs.htm).

This is the same reason ICANN provided for now allowing second-level 
single letters, which is why I suggested bundling the issues for GNSO 
policy purposes.

        Bret

Marilyn Cade wrote:

>Dear Bret, I think that the process would be different. I think the single
>letter gTLDs would be in the process of any new gTLDs. Does that make
sense?
>By the way, do you know of any technical issue related to single letter
>gTLDs? 
>  
>