Dear Mr. Hotta: Thanks for your efforts. On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 11:39 PM, HiroHOTTA <hotta@jprs.co.jp> wrote:
Dear Wang Wei, Prof. Kim, Kenny, and all CJK colleagues,
In Beijing, we decided to renumber our action items by inserting previous action items into Beijing action item list. If you don't have any concerns, JGP can take the role of this renumbering task and sending you the new action item list in a couple of days.
All right.
Any concerns?
No. Thanks. KIM, K.
Regards, Hiro
On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 18:18:27 +0800 王? <wangwei@cnic.cn> wrote:
Dear All
Please find the attached documents of meeting agenda & record, and the action item (homework)
Thanks everyone who join the meeting in the two days. We will keep working on it.
Regards WANG Wei
-----?件原件----- ?件人: chinesegp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:chinesegp-bounces@icann.org] 代 表 HiroHOTTA ?送??: 2016年3月21日 8:53 收件人: ChineseGP@icann.org; JapaneseGP@icann.org; KoreanGP@icann.org 主?: [ChineseGP] how 'blocked' can help us
(During 4 hours struggle with the letters without significant output ...)
A question has come to my mind and won't disappear...
What are the future of "allocatable labels"?
Let's assume the case where registrant-X applied for label-A, and label-B is marked as 'allocatable' by LGR, then, label-A is delegated to registrant-X.
As far as I understand, the above means "only registrant-X has the right to apply for label-B in the future." If registrant-X wants label-B to be delegated, he/she needs to make a separate application to ICANN. And ICANN will evaluate the label-B by a human panel (maybe supported by some automatic mechanism).
Then, what's the difference between (1) all variants are allocatable (2) some variants are allocatable and the others are blocked (or invalid)
I understand (2) can make the applicant know that the application for some strings (that are blocked/invalid) will definitely be rejected in any case. However, this does not reduce the number of TLD delegations significantly because the applicant does want only a few variant TLDs in reality, for money-wise reason or usage-wise reason.
then,,,,, why is (1) so evil?
Hiro
_______________________________________________ ChineseGP mailing list ChineseGP@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/chinesegp
_______________________________________________ Koreangp mailing list Koreangp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/koreangp
-- 김 경석 KIM, Kyongsok