<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Gould, James <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:JGould@verisign.com" target="_blank">JGould@verisign.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"> I prefer option 2 for the “Allocation of the reserved names” problem. I prefer option 4 first, followed by option 3, for the “Handling the claims service for reserved names that have marks in the TMCH” problem. </div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Running eternal claims services is clearly not a view shared by all registries. The middle ground -- asking registrars and registries to reactivate all the claims machinery for a subset of names -- presents a significant challenge.</div>
<div><br></div><div>As such, I concur with option 4 or 3 for handling claims for reserved names with marks in TMCH.</div><div><br></div><div>.wil</div></div></div></div>