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

[Dr.Sarmad Hussain]

Dear Manal,

There are two kinds of processes here.

One process taken up by the registry (through its policy), which does not
allow certain labels (at now its variants) to be available to registrants
(e.g. geographic names, etc.).  So in a way these are "reserved" or
"blocked" (latter term used by you, but equally meaningful).

Second process is on the will of the registrant, who may get a bundle of
labels and may choose to delegate a subset and "reserve" and "block" other
subsets of the bundle.


Thus the terminology is confusing as same terms are referring to two
different level of processes.


regards,
Sarmad


On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> Dear Sarmad ..
>
> If I understand right what Francisco shared below, the terms 'blocked' &
> 'reserved' respectively map to 'labels reserved from registration' (as you
> described them below) and 'reserved variants', right?
>
> Dear Francisco, please excuse my ignorance, I just have a question on
> category 2 & 3 below .. When would a registrant request a label to be
> 'reserved' vs. requesting it to be 'allocated' ?
>
> --Manal
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: arabic-vip-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Sarmad Hussain
> Sent: Sat 13/08/2011 09:08 PM
> To: 'Francisco Arias'; arabic-vip at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [arabic-vip] High level status for domain names (was Re:
> docstructure for dicusssion)
>
>
>
> 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.)
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/arabic-vip/attachments/20110814/3d51b44d/attachment.html