[ChineseGP] 答复: CJK Joint meeting record and homework

[王伟]

Thank you, Hotta San.

Please send out the new action item list.

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: hotta at jprs.co.jp [mailto:hotta at jprs.co.jp] 
发送时间: 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
主题: 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