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

[Sarmad Hussain]

Dear Manal,

I am suggesting new nomenclature as the current "reserved" and "blocked" are
ambiguous because they can be interpreted as either registry-level or
registrant-level decisions.  Will let Francisco respond to his
categorization.

Regards,
Sarmad


-----Original Message-----
From: Manal Ismail [mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg] 
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 1:08 AM
To: Dr.Sarmad Hussain
Cc: Francisco Arias; arabic-vip at icann.org
Subject: RE: [arabic-vip] High level status for domain names (was Re:
docstructure for dicusssion)

Yes, I got the problem but I understood from the 4 below definitions that
they suggest using:
- 'blocked' for process one referred to below (strings not allowed or not
available for registering) ..
- 'reserved' for process two (strings belonging to a specific registrant,
in-active at the time being, but can be activated (i.e. delegated) only to
that registrant if he/she requests) ..
Have I misunderstood this ?
 
--Manal
 
________________________________

From: sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk on behalf of Dr.Sarmad Hussain
Sent: Sun 14/08/2011 09:23 AM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: Francisco Arias; arabic-vip at icann.org
Subject: Re: [arabic-vip] High level status for domain names (was Re:
docstructure for dicusssion)


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.)