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

[Francisco Arias]

Hello Sarmad,

Do you think the proposed definition for blocked and reserved is ambiguous?

Sorry for not answering before.

__
Francisco





On 8/14/11 2:36 PM, "Sarmad Hussain" <sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk> wrote:

>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.)
>	
>	
>	
>	
>	
>
>