Good evening: We need the report on the proceedings of the 2012 GNP, TLD by TLD, including their arguments and rationales. For future reference, we need GNPs which are knowledgable and responsive to specific situations. The members of an GNP should be nominative; we would need a GNP per Region. CW
El 17 de noviembre de 2018 a las 22:00 Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> escribió:
Hi,
It’s a hen and egg problem:
· Applicants want to AVOID letters of non-objection!
· The city constituents will ONLY be “looped in” (btw even AFTER delegation of the gTLD) if the applicant declared geo-use!
That’s a HUGE problem for those cities that will be the target of “investors”: cities with a big enough population that the gTLD will fetch enough registrations to be profitable! It’s OK if “investors” are targeting cities – but please loop the city in!
Hence my proposal a while ago:
· If somebody applies for a string that is identical to a “city” (of non-negligible size; e.g. larger than 10k inhabitants) then:
o Let the GEO-Panel determine how the Internet user likely will use the gTLD! (Instead that the APPLICANT makes such determination)
o Example:
§ somebody applies for “.shanghai”, and either doesn’t declare what they will use it for at all
§ In such case it’s pretty clear that most use will be made by people from Shanghai!
The language that I have proposed is in the “DRAFT_Work Track 5 Initial Report_14 November 2018_v2” of WT5:
Currently the AGB says regarding non-capital cities and letters of non-objection:
“An application for a city name, where the applicant declares that it intends to use the gTLD for purposes associated with the city name.” The requirement applies if:
(a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name; and
(b) The applied-for string is a city name as listed on official city documents.”
My suggestion for the red text is:
“(a) The Geographic Names Panel determines that the foreseeable use of 2nd level domains by registrants will be to a significant degree for purposes associated with the city name.”
Voila! If somebody applies for “.shanghai” – it’s pretty clear that people would register for “purposes associated with the city name”! The GEO PANEL should determine that. NOT the applicant himself!
Thanks,
Alexander
From: GTLD-WG [mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Zuck Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2018 9:21 PM To: Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net>; Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Further to WT5 discussion
I would never suggest the right to take it back in the future but have no problem saying a city can't be charged other than base price. If it's worth more, sell it to someone else. Putting city on notice just puts their hand out and can lead to all sorts of jurisdictional issues. For .Paris do I need Paris France or Paris Texas?
Jonathan Zuck
Executive Director
Innovators Network Foundationhttp://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
---------------------------------------------
From: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2018 12:20:14 PM To: Bastiaan Goslings; Jonathan Zuck Cc: CPWG Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Further to WT5 discussion
Thanks Bastiaan. Currently, as I am understanding it, an applicant who does not want to use the string for geo purposes does NOT have to explicitly commit to anything. They simply don't go there, they don't acknowledge the geo possibilities at all. .Shanghai can be a clothing line and there is no need for a perspective buyer to discuss the city issue at all. That, to me, is where the "loophole" is. It is entirely possible, even probable in many parts of the world, that the city in question does not have ICANN or gTLDs on its radar. You can't say that the city had no interest if they were not watching, never knew about it.
It would interesting to float the idea that domainers should be prohibited, in the contract, from ever making a profit from a geo-name. I have a feeling that this would be furiously opposed at many levels. You are also suggesting also that cities get the "first right of refusal" to take over that name -- with no added costs beyond what the name cost in the first place -- this could be 10 years later. Again, I don't it would fly at all. The business constituency would go crazy.
IMHO, the best way to address the issue is to make sure all applications for non-capital city names get a letter of support or non-objection from the city in the first place. If the city does not object -- and it might even be offered nice gifts to not object -- that's their decision -- then the application goes ahead. If the goal is to prevent scalping or whatever you want to call it, this is a lot cleaner than trying to tie up profits indefinitely or putting any other kind of language in the contract that constrains the rights of the successful applicant. We are always looking for predictability. I don't see a better solution.
This doesn't mean all problems are solved. There would still be problems around which of the various cities in the world with the same name would have priority, etc. etc. -- all of which would have to be addressed. But I believe there can be mechanisms put in place to address these things.
Marita
On 11/17/2018 4:23 AM, Bastiaan Goslings wrote:
> >
Hi Marita, all
Without being an expert here -it’s probably time for me to have a closer look at the AGB- I’m not sure whether I would call this a ‘loophole’ as the rule seems to be there intentionally there. I also would not speculate about unknown ’intentions’ or an agenda that an applicant most likely will not be transparant about.
The way I understand the below is that, as the policy currently stands, an applicant does not need a letter of support or non-objection from the relevant authority as long as it explicitly commits to not use the string to represent the city. A ‘city’ being the example here. Once the applicant receives confirmation that they can operate the gTLD this of course excludes others from doing so, including the city itself. This implies to me that the city had no interest (to gain the right) to operate the gTLD.
If the applicant does not use the gTLD, and it seems they are waiting for others to buy from them the right to do so at an inflated price, and the city decides it does want to have the right to use the gTLD to represent its municipality, then Jonathan’s suggestion to ‘have a rule that city can only be sold it's name is for the base price’ makes sense to me. However I then think the city should have a clear privilege to buy the right, as the original applicant would otherwise sell to the highest bidder.
(I am not sure how to cover the scenario, and I do not know if the .shanghai example fits into this, where the applicant (‘legal entity’) at a profit sells all its shares, in chunks smaller than 15%, to others who intend to operate the gTLD, but for purposes _not_ related to the city)
regards
Bastiaan
> > >
On 17 Nov 2018, at 02:46, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org wrote:
Oh we all knew it fell within the current rules but believed there might be a better way to deal with it. For example, we could have a rule that city can only be sold it's name is for the base price.
Jonathan Zuck
Executive Director
Innovators Network Foundationhttp://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 6:59:58 PM
To: CPWG
Subject: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Further to WT5 discussion
Colleagues: My presentation at our last meeting suggested that we support revising the AGB wording re: applications for non-capital city names by closing the loop-hole that allows applicants who apply for city names to avoid seeking a letter of support or non-objection from the relevant authority as long as there is no intention to use the string to represent the city. I argued that the reason this wording should be changed is to prevent the owner from then selling the name for a substantial profit to the public authority (city) involved.
There was a suggestion at the time that it was an unnecessary measure as there was probably language prohibiting this kind of property "flipping" in the contract. I have posed this question to WT5 and, so far, it seems pretty clear (see thread below) that staking a claim to a geo-name with the intention of reselling it at an inflated price is entirely inside the current rules.
Do we think this kind of activity is in the interests of end-users or should we support the change?
Marita
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] applicant contractual obligations
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 15:54:48 -0500
From: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net
To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
Thanks Alexander and anyone else who weights in. Sorry for my misuse of terms -- language is an issue, even for English speakers (sigh).
But you realized what I was getting at and answered my question. And so, the suggestion that there might be contract language in place which would prevent the "flipping" (as it is known in the real estate business) of names is incorrect. Indeed, the current situation almost seems to encourage such activity.
Marita
On 11/16/2018 2:12 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
> > > >
Hi Marita,
Please clarify your question. "Domain name holder" - what is that supposed
to be? Sounds like a "registrant" of a 2nd level domain? But as we are only
discussing gTLDs on top level you probably mean the "registry operator"?
After the 2012 round I am very sure that EVERY SINGLE APPLICATION will be
applied for by using a separate, unique legal entity: "Legal entities" can
be minted by the dozen in no time in most jurisdictions.
So in other words: You can bet that an applicant entity (and subsequently
registry operator) has a unique legal entity as owner of the gTLD (a legal
entity that is not involved in ANY other business operation but that gTLD).
So there is no real need to "sell the name" (I suppose you mean "the gTLD")
- you can simply sell the LEGAL ENTITY; or its shares! If cleverly done that
doesn't even need to be reported to ICANN: Only if shares of larger than 15%
are being sold, ICANN would look into it (not even sure if that is true
AFTER delegation - please if somebody knows: let us know). So you COULD in
theory at ANY point of time after the submission of your application "sell
the gTLD" (application, applicant, registry operator, whatever stage it is
in) to others, if it's being done in 15% share packages to 7 entities e.g. 6
times 15% and one time 10% each to different "owners"). Please correct me if
I am wrong!
So if you plan to apply for ".shanghai": Just don't designate it as geo-TLD,
DO NOT MENTION the word "city" or "China" at all. Then you do NOT need to
provide a "letter of non-objection". Once you are sure you are the "winner"
(e.g. you where the only applicant, or you won a private auction) you can
now approach the biggest real estate magnate in Shanghai, or the biggest
media conglomerate: and sell the application by transferring ownership of 7
share packages! It's really THAT simple. I am warning of this since MONTH.
Again: if I am mixing facts here: point it out to me.
Thanks,
Alexander
-----Original Message-----
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [
mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org
] On
Behalf Of Marita Moll
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 6:35 PM
To:
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] applicant contractual obligations
Hello. I am wondering whether there is anything in the contract of a domain
name holder that prevents that holder from selling the name to a higher
bidder. I am asking this as it came up in a recent conversation in our
community and, given our lengthy discussions here about domain name
parking/scalping of city or other geo-names, I have assumed that there were
no such restrictions. But, being fairly new here, I was unable to confirm or
deny this idea.
Thanks for any clarification
Marita
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
> > >
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org mailto:CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> >
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org mailto:CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
GTLD-WG mailing list
GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org mailto:GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
>
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs