Talk:Single-letter second-level domain

Letter to ICANN
I read the letter and "intimidating" is definitely the wrong word. Besides, Yahoo i.e. wrote a letter in a similar fashion to ICANN as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubenarslan (talk • contribs) 12:43, July 6, 2007


 * The article doesn't go on to say if U Magazine was successful or not in 'jumping the queue'. Does anyone know? -- &oelig; &trade; 22:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently not, because the ICANN has not auctioned off the single-letter domains yet. 98.232.147.24 (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Overloaded?
In the second paragraph, "This was done in case the registries for these domains became overloaded." Can someone replace that with a clearer explanation? I have no idea what it means for domains to become overloaded, or why having single-letter second-level names would make them so. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * IIRC, the theory was that if they became overloaded, they could replace each server with 26 new ones -- one for each letter of the alphabet. So you could have, say google.a.com or answers.j.com. --Wulf (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What about x.se?
www.x.se - domain redirect service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.37.186 (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If we included ccTLDs, we would have a much, much longer list, as many ccTLDs don't restrict one- or two-letter domains at all - so in theory, any combination would be possible! j.mp is another "short URL"-style service with a one-letter domain.  That's why I'm removing g.cn - it really doesn't make sense to attempt to compile all the possible one-letter ccTLDs, and it was added without discussing it here first. 98.232.147.24 (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

How about g.co and t.co?
Google and Twitter company shorteners.

They probably made deals with the Colombian government.

Important and interesting without requiring a list of all ccTLDs 65.183.193.14 (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

x.com
seems to be a paypal venture now. since June. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.85.59 (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This has now been added. --Cyberjacob (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Paypal and Elon Musk appear to have individually sublet it in 1997-9 or thereabouts, with him picking it up again in 2023. Unless I misunderstand the grandfathering issue, the original 1993 registration remains intact. Jetpower (talk) 05:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

vw.de
What is “vw.de”? --88.78.12.203 (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "VW" is the name of the (largest?) German car manufacturer (of Beetle, Golf, etc) - the full name is Volkswagen, but the short from VW is what is really used. vw.de redirects to www.volkswagen.de Volker Siegel (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

g.cn
g.cn redirects the google.cn, the Chinese Google homepage. Inductiveload (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources/References
This is a problem, the article has just one reference. I googled around, looking for an official announcement from 1993 but found none. I did find a mention of it being released on official ftp server at the ICCAN wiki, but no success in accessing it myself.

Anyone care to help? Lulzmango (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Project 94
Added the Project94 section and tried to clean the page up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdeleted (talk • contribs) 05:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Is w.org a newly awarded domain?
It seems to me by looking at the whois entry and the corresponding archived page that w.org shouldn't be in the "Active single-letter domains" section, but instead in the "New single-letter .org domains being awarded" section, next to c.org and v.org. --188.102.26.197 (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

An idea for the two-letter domains
What about a table like one of these: List of two-letter combinations but the letter combinations represent domains? It would be very navigatable but not as accessible. Essentially it would look like one of these:

GSGSGS GS GS GSGSGS GS GS

I prefer. Wumbolo (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Two-letter domains
Given that the article is about single-letter second-level domains, why are two-letter domains even included? Trivialist (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good question. I raised the issue when I nominated the article for deletion, but it was kept. w umbolo   ^^^  17:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe add v.ht?
v.ht was a URL shortener I found. If it would be relevant it might make sense to add it. 152.157.76.145 (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Updates
I just updated the "Active single-letter domains" table to more acurately reflect the current ownership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.51.244.233 (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

0.pizza
0.pizza is used by Jack Dorsey for personal email. This is a number and not a letter though, should we list? VioletWTF (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Notably a question of which table to include in if so. It notably does not fit in either "Active single-letter domains" by strictest definition (kinda active, not letter), nor "Non-ASCII single-character domains" (yes single-character, not non-ASCII). VioletWTF (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

ဪ.com / ㆲ.com
I've been playing with .com Unicode domains for a few weeks and found many single character domains that are registerable and (as of 04 December 2022) unregistered. The most interesting, to me, are ဪ.com (U+102A / xn--ujd) and ㆲ.com (U+31B2 / xn--3jk). It would be highly inappropriate for me to add these to this page since I registered them (03 December 2022 / NameCheap, Inc. and 03 December 2022 / GoDaddy, LLC), but I think they are particularly notable since ဪ is an extremely wide character, ㆲ is a Latin letter look-alike, and both are rendered by web browsers, so I wanted to at least share them on this talk page. NorthAntara (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm going to add ㆲ.com in the non-ASCII table, since it fits the theme of Latin letter lookalikes. VioletWTF (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

IDN renderability
IDNs are treated with caution by most browsers and may get rendered in their Punycode forms in URL bars and/or hovers if they're considered "unsafe" (see e.g. Chrome, Firefox). The lists of unsafe IDNs typically include letter look-alikes ("confusables"), mixed-script, and Unicode blocks the TLD doesn't specifically allow. The vast majority of the domains in the Non-ASCII single-character domains table fail these rendering checks for various reasons (full disclosure: ㆲ.com, discussed above, is currently the sole exception of the currently listed Latin letter look-alikes that does not fail such checks). Is this of enough general relevance to be considered here? To get an idea of what I'm talking about, my Mastodon instance has a number of examples that can be compared to the ones here with various browsers. NorthAntara (talk) 06:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)