ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [registrars] Single letter domain names

  • To: "'Margie Milam'" <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Registrars Constituency'" <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [registrars] Single letter domain names
  • From: "John Berryhill" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 14:50:16 -0400
  • In-reply-to: <3A1DC1292D5F214DA33F797FE976A77C116D02@exchange1.mm-ads.com>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcWjEAaE2KVvVLCsS62zAKOSYBpnngAMXlxAAAYGDzA=


There is no technical issue.

At one point, Jon Postel was concerned that the zone file for a TLD would
become "too large", and he believed that it would become preferable to go
from allocating <name>.com to allocating <name>.a.com, <name2>.b.com etc.

With some 38 million names in .com working just fine, the concern was
apparently misplaced.  However, since about zero people within ICANN
understand what was the original issue, they insist on the same condition in
every new TLD without the foggiest notion of why Dr. Postel had reserved
most, but not all, single letters in December 1993.  The same ignorami have
extended the restriction to TLD's, despite the fact that a single letter TLD
makes a lot more sense for mobile devices with limited keypad entry
convenience than the four letter .mobi TLD.

However, if one wants a single-letter domain name badly enough, and can
afford to be an "interested party" with the ear of the right person, then
one can get it on the agenda.

There were several names registered prior to December 1993, which are now
owed by:

Domain 	Current Owner
i.net 	INet Corporation
q.com 	Qwest Communications
q.net 	"Q Networks"
x.com 	PayPal
x.org 	The Open Group
z.com 	Nissan

Obviously, the assignment of 24 names in .com is a pressing issue.
Naturally, the unidentified party behind this time-waster believes that they
will get one if these 24 names are made available to the 6 billion
inhabitants of the planet.  Of course, the letter "O" is a trademark owned
by several parties, as are many other single letters for various goods and
services, so the idea that anyone is going to pay more than 20 bucks for
some sort of "single letter sunrise" is nonsense.

This is about getting one trademark owner something that they want - nothing


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 11:43 AM
To: Bruce Tonkin; registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] Single letter domain names

We have had a number of clients inquire about single letter domain names as
they have expressed an interest in obtaining them.      They always ask for
an explanation for the ICANN policy prohibiting them.  Is there a technical
issue related to single letter domains? 



-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 3:43 AM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [registrars] Single letter domain names

Hello All,

A member of the GNSO Council, Marilyn Cade, has placed the topic of
single letter domain names on the agenda for the GNSO Council call this

I would like to hear the views of the registrars constituency on this.

Presently it is not possible to register names like:
A.com. O.com. Y.com. M.com etc

I assume that there would be businesses interested in such names.  It
would appear to require a change in IETF standards/ICANN policy to allow

If it was allowed, there would need to be a suitable method of
allocating the names.  I don't think first-come, first-served will
really work.

Bruce Tonkin

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.10/73 - Release Date: 8/15/2005

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.10/73 - Release Date: 8/15/2005

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>