On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 7:01 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:>> 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;>> Is "сом" identical to "com"? (the first of these is U+0441> U+043E U+043C) The current principle is that it should be be a "confusing string",which is vague enough to cover the case above (but perhaps not able tocover .co) >> (b) be identical to a Reserved Name;>>> (c) consist of a single character;>> I've heard it argued repeatedly that this is an unreasonable> rule for ideographic characters. I don't have an opinion, but> hope that ICANN has considered that case in full details. This is where we dive into a discussion what is a "character". Inideographic based language, there isnt a concept of a "word". For example, Chinese, Japanese and Korean are actually "phoneticslanguage", and that ideograph characters are used to express thephonetics. A "word" or more accurately "morphemes" can be express in asingle or more ideographs. A single latin character is unlikely to beuseful by itself (except of a and i) but thats not the case in CJK. If the condition is that "no single ASCII character", I may be neutralabout it (since a single ideograph would never translate to a singleASCII character in the zonefile, due to the xn-- prefix) but if the"character" is defined more broadly to cover "U-label" character, thenI would have strong objections. Incidentally, I remember it is a standing "tradition" that labels maynot be a single ascii character. But is there any technical reason weshould forbid it? (e.g. 6.cn have not kill any kittens yet) -James Seng_______________________________________________Ietf mailing listIetf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf