[ChineseGP] 答?: CJK Joint meeting record and homework

[HiroHOTTA]

Thanks.
Yuri will send it out today.
Hiro

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 11:15:38 +0800
王 <wangwei at cnic.cn> wrote:
> 
> Thank you, Hotta San.
> 
> Please send out the new action item list.
> 
> -----?件原件-----
> ?件人: hotta at jprs.co.jp [mailto:hotta at jprs.co.jp] 
> ?送??: 2016年4月23日 22:40
> 收件人: 王? <wangwei at cnic.cn>
> 抄送: ChineseGP at icann.org; JapaneseGP at icann.org; KoreanGP at icann.org
> 主?: Re: CJK Joint meeting record and homework
> 
> 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.
> Any concerns?
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>