[ChineseGP] [Koreangp] CJK Joint meeting record and homework

[HiroHOTTA]

Dear Prof. Kim,
Thank you for your response.
Hiro

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 10:10:05 +0900
KIM Kyongsok <gimgs0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Mr. Hotta:
> 
> Thanks for your efforts.
> 
> 
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 11:39 PM, HiroHOTTA <hotta at 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:chinesegp-bounces at icann.org] 代
> >> 表 HiroHOTTA
> >> ?送??: 2016年3月21日 8:53
> >> 收件人: ChineseGP at icann.org; JapaneseGP at icann.org; KoreanGP at 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 at icann.org
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/chinesegp
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Koreangp mailing list
> > Koreangp at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/koreangp
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ? ??      KIM, Kyongsok
>