[arabic-vip] High level status for domain names (was Re: doc structure for dicusssion)

[Sarmad Hussain]

The issue is that the word "reserved" is ambiguous and may also refer to the
reserved names in a registry (which no one can register).  

So either we use "reserved label" and "reserved variant"  or introduce some
other terminology.

Regards,
Sarmad



-----Original Message-----
From: arabic-vip-bounces at icann.org [mailto:arabic-vip-bounces at icann.org] On
Behalf Of Francisco Arias
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 10:28 AM
To: arabic-vip at icann.org
Subject: [arabic-vip] High level status for domain names (was Re: doc
structure for dicusssion)

I remember a discussion in another team about the high level status of
domain names. In that we considered four possible options:

1. Blocked: the name is unavailable to be registered by anyone. For
example, for culturally sensitive labels.

2. Reserved: the names may be available for registration only to an
specific registrant, provided certain conditions are met. For example, a
variant label that could be made available to the registrant of the
fundamental label, provided they pay certain fee.

3. Allocated: the name has been registered by a registrant but no DNS
information is provided/allowed, therefore the name does not resolve in
the DNS.

4. Delegated: the names is registered by a registrant and DNS information
is provided/allowed so the name resolves in the DNS.

Thoughts?

__
Francisco





On 8/11/11 2:01 PM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

>On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 08:15:57PM -0700, Sarmad Hussain wrote:
>>-          I can only see 'Reserved Names' in the outline, is this
>>because 'Blocked & Delegated Names' will be included in the
>>'Registration Process' section?
>>  
>>I meant the names which are reserved from registration before sunrise.
>>This is different from the reserved variant.  But the wording is
>>confusing!!!  So we need to find out a more clear wording in case we
>>need to include this.  I have included the other point more explicitly.
>
>Perhaps it would help to make a distinction about truly reserved names
>(i.e. that have no party to whom the name is attached at all), which
>are reserved; and those names that are allocated but not delegated.
>In the latter category, it seems to me, are "reserved variants".  The
>latter are "reserved" just in the sense that they are associated with
>some name that is itself delegated or that could be if the name
>sponsor wanted it to be; but these "reserved variants" are themselves
>not permitted to be delegated.  (We could call these "allocated but
>not delegatable" to be quite clear.)