John C Klensin wrote: > rules like this are ultimately useless unless ICANN agrees to > them, presumably via the gNSO, one at a time, and via a PDP > process. As long as PDP translates into "individual Last Call comments" for a future draft-ietf-idnabis-952bis that's fine. Nothing rush like <http://idn.icann.org/Special:Recentchanges> > it seems to argue that we should be conservation about what > names we reserve and thereby promote. Sure, there also rules about not creating confusingly similar TLDs, proposed TLDs exmaple or examlpe won't pass that check. > Perhaps we should ask ICANN to reserve all single-letter TLDs > (in any script) for IETF use. s/ICANN/IANA/, and that is an odd idea. We don't need 2**20 example TLDs. But a few would be nice, for examples in EAI and IDNAbis drafts, or similar. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf