Thank you, Wang Wei. It was a very nice meeting together with your hospitality! 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