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

Wed Aug 24 18:42:32 UTC 2011

Dear Francisco and all,

Yes, after having this discussion, I am now not sure what reserved and
blocked actually mean :-)

The reasons of confusion is because there are actually two contexts in which
these terms are being used:

1. for registry taking a decision to not make certain strings available to
registrants (whether they have variants or not).  I have heard myself and
others refer to these labels as reserved or blocked (this is not a variant
issue, but the terminology now seems to be overlapping)

2. for registrant having to make a choice between a set of variants of a
label, choosing (i) to make  a certain subset available (allocated and then
delegated), (ii) definitely not wanting some to be available for resolution
(blocked; manal referred to these as preventive registration, if I remember
correctly) and (iii) not making a decision for a few more (reserved)

We need to find non-overlapping terminology for the registry-motivated and
registrant-motivated label decisions.

Also, for 2. though "blocked" seemed to be a permanent status, our dispute
resolution discussions also indicate that this may not be the case.

If this is not the right interpretation, please feel free to jump in and
correct it.

regards,
Sarmad

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Francisco Arias <francisco.arias at icann.org
> wrote:

> 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.)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/arabic-vip/attachments/20110824/b5ae55c9/attachment-0001.html 