[gtld-tech] draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec and QLP addendum

Maxim Alzoba m.alzoba at gmail.com
Tue Feb 10 01:44:26 UTC 2015

Dear Rik, 

Please be aware that GEO applicants can register domains even not being in SURL
for benefit of the Public Authority.

I do not personally understand how to technically formalize it ... list of public authorities is not limited to 10th ... it is up to 1000-2000 departments / wholly owned companies belonging to the city 
in a case of a capital ... also names of parks and monuments in translation / transliteration ... e.t.c.

it is Art 2.2 of the http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/rpm-requirements-qlp-addendum-10apr14-en.pdf

Trademark Clearinghouse Rights Protection Mechanism Requirements
Qualified Launch Program Addendum

2.2 To a registrant who is an international, national, regional, local or municipal governmental authority (a “Public Authority”) and such QLP Name is either identical to, or translation or a transliteration of, (i) the name or acronym of such Public Authority, (ii) the name of a building, park, monument, airport or other public place operated by such Public Authority, (iii) the name of a region, city, street, district or other geographic area under the  governance of such Public Authority, or (iv) the name of a recognized public service provided by such Public Authority. Except as permitted by this Section 2.2, if a QLP Name matches a label contained in the Sunrise List, such QLP Name MUST NOT as part of the Qualified Launch Program be Allocated or registered to a registrant who is not a SunriseEligible Rights Holder with a valid SMD file for a label that matches the QLP Name.

P.s: example: police.GEOtld_city  should not go to eyewearmaker ... it should go to Police department of the city. 

Sincerely Yours,

Maxim Alzoba
Special projects manager,
International Relations Department,

m. +7 916 6761580
skype oldfrogger

Current UTC offset: +3

On Feb 9, 2015, at 23:19 , Rik Ribbers <rik.ribbers at sidn.nl> wrote:

> Hello,
> I’ve got a question concerning the QLP addendum in relation to the IETF TMCH functional specification draft (http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec-09.txt )
> In section “5.4.1.  Domain Registration” of the IEFT draft a decision table is provided the services a registry must provide for the QLP allocation scenarios. This table suggests that a QLP registration during sunrise must be validated against the DNL list and the SURL list.
> However in the QLP addendum it is only mentioned that a QLP registration during sunrise must be validated against the SURL list.
> I assume that the addendum is correct, but is that a correct assumption?
> Kind regards,
> Rik Ribbers

More information about the gtld-tech mailing list