Fwd: For Sale - Entire names spaces.
FYI, from one of a few on the domain investor business side who impress me as a sober, evidence-persuaded commentator, my friend Antony gave me permission to share this private note. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Antony Van Couvering <avc@avc.vc> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018, 7:41 pm Subject: Re: [At-Large] For Sale - Entire names spaces. To: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> Hi Carlton, So many expectations about new gTLDs have been proven wrong -- those of both proponents and opponents -- that some of the commitments made at launch are out of date or uneconomical or both. Effectively you have a bunch of TLDs that no-one wants because the applicants were so eager to appease trademark holders, or GAC, or ICANN, or local governments, that they agreed to all kinds of things they shouldn't have from an economic perspective. This is particularly true of those who sought to evade competition by filing as a community, or those who wouldn't / couldn't argue with restrictions imposed by city governments. You can argue whether that's good or bad, but there's certainly an economic cost to the gTLD registries who did that, both in terms of registration volume but also in resale value. Sponsoring organizations and governments who are getting a revenue share might also regret having imposed conditions, but I'm not sure there's a way out for "community" applications, because they won based on those very restrictions. If ICANN's guidebook for the next round is as opaque as the first one, and if the various outside committees/consultants examining the applications are as arbitrary and weird in their results, the same effect will occur again: applicants won't know if they're going to pass or not, so they will restrict themselves needlessly in order to get half a loaf instead of nothing at all. Antony On 10/24/2018 5:23 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: Hi Anthony: I share your view on this. My line was really a teaser to hopefully bring out contrary opinions I've heard. A few of our brethren have argued that if the original conditionals were elements for the reduced valuation then maybe the full value could not be realized without shedding them. Cheers, -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 1:12 PM Antony Van Couvering <avc@avc.vc> wrote:
Hi Carlton,
I'm pretty certain that the buyer would have to embrace all of the commitments. Otherwise, It would be pretty easy to evade restrictions, particularly those of "community" TLDs that restrict the sale or use of second-level names. If that were allowed, you could simply sell it to another party (that you happened to control) to escape the original commitments. In my experience ICANN is very punctilious when it comes to registry commitments
One proof of this is that TLDs are valued at a lower (or higher) price depending on what their commitments are, because prospective buyers don't want a TLD that has restrictions that don't fit their business model or vision.
Antony
On 10/24/2018 10:48 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
What would be interesting is if conveyancing embraces every and all of the original commitments.
https://domainnamewire.com/2018/10/24/we-buy-tlds/
CAS
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing listAt-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Thanks Carlton! I can subscribe to most comments from your friend, but would like to add 2 additional points: 1. We should pay very close attention to the list of PICs ICANN want to add to .amazon, and really discuss fi they are clear and implementable, or just as obscure as the previous ones. 2. There are uses for TLDs in the future, that do not depend from domain name registrations. As discussed in the ISP constituency day, may domain names in the future will be used in private networks, like G5-IoT just for purely naming purposes and they may no even have to resolve in the DNS. So there is a good case for large cloud platforms to keep a large number of easy to use domain names on exclusive TLDs, even at very low registrations costs. In other words, there is more to domain names than the cash flow from registration fees...... --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-10-31 15:41, Carlton Samuels escribió:
FYI, from one of a few on the domain investor business side who impress me as a sober, evidence-persuaded commentator, my friend Antony gave me permission to share this private note.
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: ANTONY VAN COUVERING <avc@avc.vc> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018, 7:41 pm Subject: Re: [At-Large] For Sale - Entire names spaces. To: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>
Hi Carlton,
So many expectations about new gTLDs have been proven wrong -- those of both proponents and opponents -- that some of the commitments made at launch are out of date or uneconomical or both. Effectively you have a bunch of TLDs that no-one wants because the applicants were so eager to appease trademark holders, or GAC, or ICANN, or local governments, that they agreed to all kinds of things they shouldn't have from an economic perspective. This is particularly true of those who sought to evade competition by filing as a community, or those who wouldn't / couldn't argue with restrictions imposed by city governments.
You can argue whether that's good or bad, but there's certainly an economic cost to the gTLD registries who did that, both in terms of registration volume but also in resale value. Sponsoring organizations and governments who are getting a revenue share might also regret having imposed conditions, but I'm not sure there's a way out for "community" applications, because they won based on those very restrictions.
If ICANN's guidebook for the next round is as opaque as the first one, and if the various outside committees/consultants examining the applications are as arbitrary and weird in their results, the same effect will occur again: applicants won't know if they're going to pass or not, so they will restrict themselves needlessly in order to get half a loaf instead of nothing at all.
Antony
On 10/24/2018 5:23 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
Hi Anthony: I share your view on this. My line was really a teaser to hopefully bring out contrary opinions I've heard.
A few of our brethren have argued that if the original conditionals were elements for the reduced valuation then maybe the full value could not be realized without shedding them.
Cheers, -Carlton
============================== _Carlton A Samuels_ Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 1:12 PM Antony Van Couvering <avc@avc.vc> wrote: Hi Carlton,
I'm pretty certain that the buyer would have to embrace all of the commitments. Otherwise, It would be pretty easy to evade restrictions, particularly those of "community" TLDs that restrict the sale or use of second-level names. If that were allowed, you could simply sell it to another party (that you happened to control) to escape the original commitments. In my experience ICANN is very punctilious when it comes to registry commitments
One proof of this is that TLDs are valued at a lower (or higher) price depending on what their commitments are, because prospective buyers don't want a TLD that has restrictions that don't fit their business model or vision.
Antony
On 10/24/2018 10:48 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
What would be interesting is if conveyancing embraces every and all of the original commitments.
https://domainnamewire.com/2018/10/24/we-buy-tlds/
CAS
============================== _Carlton A Samuels_ Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Carlos,
2. There are uses for TLDs in the future, that do not depend from domain name registrations. As discussed in the ISP constituency day, may domain names in the future will be used in private networks, like G5-IoT just for purely naming purposes and they may no even have to resolve in the DNS. So there is a good case for large cloud platforms to keep a large number of easy to use domain names on exclusive TLDs, even at very low registrations costs.
Not sure I understand, if they are internal and never hit the global DNS, why would you need more than one TLD? I could just put all my internal system under .julf, without even having to register the domain (as long as I am reasonably certain nobody else will register it). See .home... Julf
Just one simple to remember domain name (julf.garage) for your garage door connection to your cloud Network of privatr IoT stuff, instead of remembering the IPv6 of the damn door... On October 31, 2018 9:20:09 AM CST, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
Carlos,
2. There are uses for TLDs in the future, that do not depend from domain name registrations. As discussed in the ISP constituency day, may domain names in the future will be used in private networks, like G5-IoT just for purely naming purposes and they may no even have to resolve in the DNS. So there is a good case for large cloud platforms to keep a large number of easy to use domain names on exclusive TLDs, even at very low registrations costs.
Not sure I understand, if they are internal and never hit the global DNS, why would you need more than one TLD? I could just put all my internal system under .julf, without even having to register the domain (as long as I am reasonably certain nobody else will register it). See .home...
Julf
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On 31-10-18 16:36, Carlos Raul Gutierrez wrote:
Just one simple to remember domain name (julf.garage) for your garage door connection to your cloud Network of privatr IoT stuff, instead of remembering the IPv6 of the damn door...
Sure, but as long as I have .garage (or .julf, for garage.julf) only in my own internal name server, I don't need to own or register the domain in any way. Julf
Your IoT network provider will give it away for free in your monthly Alexa bill..... On October 31, 2018 9:48:52 AM CST, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
On 31-10-18 16:36, Carlos Raul Gutierrez wrote:
Just one simple to remember domain name (julf.garage) for your garage door connection to your cloud Network of privatr IoT stuff, instead of remembering the IPv6 of the damn door...
Sure, but as long as I have .garage (or .julf, for garage.julf) only in my own internal name server, I don't need to own or register the domain in any way.
Julf
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
My home router has had its own domain on the internal network for years, so no need for a public one. Sure, if you want to access it from *any* network you'd need to use a resolvable hostname OR a public IP, but for a lot of IoT devices you connect to a cloud service that is in communication with the devices on your home network -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 On 31/10/2018, 15:49, "At-Large on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of julf@julf.com> wrote: On 31-10-18 16:36, Carlos Raul Gutierrez wrote: > Just one simple to remember domain name (julf.garage) for your garage > door connection to your cloud Network of privatr IoT stuff, instead of > remembering the IPv6 of the damn door... Sure, but as long as I have .garage (or .julf, for garage.julf) only in my own internal name server, I don't need to own or register the domain in any way. Julf _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
participants (4)
-
Carlos Raul Gutierrez -
Carlton Samuels -
Johan Helsingius -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight