My thought on this is that the current format for SLDs should be preserved
intact. It has seemed to work fine so far, and you are only eliminating
27 (A-Z, "-") or 37 (if you add 0-9) domains from the pool (on the
short-side. If anything I think the discussion should be towards the
maximum length of domain names, since a domain name exists to make it
easier for people to identify/remember an address (as opposed to an IP
address) I think 24 character SLDs is a bit silly.
ronaldmacdonaldsfries.inc is just a bit more than needed (IMHO).
On the technical-side of the minimum length of SLDs I do not know of any
technical reason not to use one character (or if there is I'm sure it
could be overcome) -- but on the "legal"-side I have a question, can a
single letter be trademarked? (I don't know, but I'd assume that at least
A and I can't be (as they are "common" words)?
And of course a whole other issue that is still out there is the naming of
the TLDs, but that is definately for another thread.
Ron
On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> Dear PAB,
>
> There is a discussion, started in CORE, now moved into POC, about how long
> second-level domains should be. This is precisely the kind of issue that
> the PAB should be debating -- a policy issue concerning the new domains.
> Thanks to Javier for alerting me.
>
> The question is:
>
> Should single-character domains be allowed under the new gTLDs? The hot
> question is really concerning single-character SLDs. Is there any
> technical reason they should be disallowed?
>
> How about two-character SLDs? Where and why should we draw limits.
>
> Thanks for your participation.
>
> Antony
>
---------------- Ronald J. Fitzherbert, President ---------------
Flying Penguin Productions Limited
Arlington, Virginia & Austin, Texas (USA)
-------------------- http://www.penguin.net/ --------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:14 PST