Beijing

Protocol [GeoTLDs] Meeting Beijing
10.04.2013 from 14:00 to 17:00 in room 11, Beijing International Hotel

Agenda

  1. The new TMCH specification proposal
    – The new ICANN model “Sunrise / Limited Registration Phases”
    – Raised tech requirements for Limited Registration Phases
    – How to handle reserved domain names (all concerned, especiall public interest names)
    – When to bring domain names online
    – Do we need to make a Change Request?
    – Contractual obligations
    – Actions towards ICANN
    – How this document emerged (there had been opinions that the IBM/Deloitte fear to loose registrations by pre/parallel/special Sunrise phases or that the Trademark lobby wants to make sure to have the first shot)?
    – What is the rationale behind the document?
    – Which paragraphs are “non negotiable” and which are?
    – What are the three most important concerns the GeoTLDs have with the TMCH proposal?
    – What solution do we offer to ICANN for these concerns?
  1. Contractual topics
    –   RA with ICANN
    –   RRA with Registrars
  1. GeoTLDs as accredited Constituency/Interest Group (Rob Hoggarth)
    – …
  1. Update from Working Groups
    – …
  1. GeoTLD approval timeline
    – …
  1. Next meetings in London / Moscow
  1. Other topics
    – Objections
    – CPE
    – CQs
    – results from Berlin meeting
    – Meeting with CENTR?

In our GeoTLDs session later at 14:00 in room Function 11 I hope that we can clarify the following points regarding the TMCH propsal:

  • How this document emerged (there had been opinions that the IBM/Deloitte fear to loose registrations by pre/parallel/special Sunrise phases or that the Trademark lobby wants to make sure to have the first shot)?
  • What is the rationale behind the document?
  • Which paragraphs are “non negotiable” and which are?
  • What are the three most important concerns the GeoTLDs have with the TMCH proposal?
  • What solution do we offer to ICANN for these concerns?

Following the list discussion it is obvious that there are diverging opinions on the several points and that every GeoTLD seem to have its own issues with the proposal. Therefore a “one fits all” response may not be the optimal solution, but I hope we come up with a broad consense at the end of the meeting.