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> To: 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 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
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 Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Marita Moll <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
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> 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 Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Marita Moll <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> To: 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
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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
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> 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 Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Marita Moll <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> To: 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
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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
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
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 Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: Marita Moll <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 Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://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
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 Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org <http://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 <mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> <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 Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org <http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> From: GTLD-WG <mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Marita Moll <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <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 <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <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
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
Hi there, Let’s look at the issue from a neutral perspective: City name based gTLDs will be insanely attractive in the COMING round. They weren’t attractive in the last round to the VC funded portfolio applicants as the “letter of non-objection” was too cumbersome, and ALL generic top premium keywords were available. So why bother with city names? In the coming round (2020/2021) this changed: City name based gTLDs proved to be solid! Almost all premium generic keywords are taken. So there will be many who want to “invest” in city name based gTLDs: * Portfolio applicants * “Speculators” * Or entities that just feel: “Hey, I can do that” (e.g. a media company in the city) The letter if non-objection has drawbacks: * Often cities want public tenders * Some cities want to introduce something I call “gTLD tax” – in other words: they want to participate in the profits! * Some of the applicants try to “bribe” the city (happened a LOT in the 2012 round btw): “Hey, you get 75% of all profits if you let us do what we want to do” (then of course the “profits” were artificially diluted, but the city doesn’t know). * In any case: almost always the acquisition of the letter of non-object requires TIME, ENERGY and MONEY! And usually creates a business disadvantage in the end! So many applicants will try to AVOID having to get that letter in 2020/2021! It saves money, time, energy and it creates a business advantage compared to those who abide by the rules! And actually you don’t have much to completely avoid the letter if non-objection! We are always talking about the “non-geo use provision”; which allows to apply and operate a city name based gTLD WITHOUT letter of non-objection, IF there is no geo-use intent! But in reality it’s NOT that you have to declare that “non-geo use”; it’s actually the OTHER way around: Only IF you mention the city and use for the city in the application, the geo names panel will ask for the letter of non-objection! Example: “.shanghai” (a worldwide known mega city with 24 Million people! If it were a country, then only 50 other countries were larger population wise and 180 countries were SMALLER!) If you want to apply for “.shanghai” then simply do like “DONUTS” in 2012! Go to ANY DONUTS application and look up the “mission” for the gTLD! Go to the “.bike” application, and try to find the word “bicycle”! NOT THERE! Or the word “bike”: NOT THERE! Instead it reads: “DONUTS’ INTENTION FOR THIS TLD As a senior government authority has recently said, “a successful applicant is entrusted with operating a critical piece of global Internet infrastructure.” Donuts’ plan and intent is for this TLD to serve the international community by bringing new users online through opportunities for economic growth, increased productivity, the exchange of ideas and information and greater self-expression.” Yap: you do not find the words bicycle or bike in the ENTIRE application (minus when the string is named of course: “.bike”). If Donuts had applied for “.shanghai” instead e.g. “.bike”: they would have gotten that gTLD – no questions asked! So back to Marita: The biggest problem isn’t that somebody might want to “resell” the application (or applicant entity). It’s a problem that those who will do it “right” will enter into SIGNIFICANT work and business disadvantages – while others simply avoid the letter altogether! Both then end up in auction (because the letter of non-objection doesn’t create a priority); and guess who will then be financially stronger? Thanks, Alexander From: GTLD-WG [mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marita Moll Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2018 2:00 AM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> 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 <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <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
I am caught between a rock and hard place with this issue. When we make it specific to 'capital' cities, you discriminate against the good burghers of [Little] London in Westmoreland parish, Jamaica. And I would be unanimous in opposition. There's Paris, Texas...and Illinois and Maine and Kentucky and Paris, France. Then, an Appleton in Wisconsin and Appleton in St. Elizabeth parish, Jamaica. And then there's Appleton, the brand of bespoke Jamaican rum, around since the 17th century. I know well the tendency to be ignorant of other places in this environment. But this name thing is a lot more complex than the metropolitans would have us believe. I hold no brief for the good folks of Paris, France, Paris, Texas or the fellas in Maine, Kentucky and Illinois. Ditto, Appleton, Wisconsin. But I'll be damned if I didn't speak up for my countrymen in Appleton and [Little] London. We would not wish to be dispossessed in yet another land grab. City names must always require a higher threshold for acceptance. -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 7:00 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
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> <mmoll@ca.inter.net> To: 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 <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 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 listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ 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
I, for one, would be perfectly happy if the rum company got it but why would they want it. I think I would also be happy if DONUTS got it because then the Appleton might get rum.appleton, and the cities might each get state.appletion. holding on to it until ONE of them decides to use it is silly. Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2018 6:05:32 PM To: mmoll@ca.inter.net Cc: CPWG Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Further to WT5 discussion I am caught between a rock and hard place with this issue. When we make it specific to 'capital' cities, you discriminate against the good burghers of [Little] London in Westmoreland parish, Jamaica. And I would be unanimous in opposition. There's Paris, Texas...and Illinois and Maine and Kentucky and Paris, France. Then, an Appleton in Wisconsin and Appleton in St. Elizabeth parish, Jamaica. And then there's Appleton, the brand of bespoke Jamaican rum, around since the 17th century. I know well the tendency to be ignorant of other places in this environment. But this name thing is a lot more complex than the metropolitans would have us believe. I hold no brief for the good folks of Paris, France, Paris, Texas or the fellas in Maine, Kentucky and Illinois. Ditto, Appleton, Wisconsin. But I'll be damned if I didn't speak up for my countrymen in Appleton and [Little] London. We would not wish to be dispossessed in yet another land grab. City names must always require a higher threshold for acceptance. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 7:00 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: 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 _______________________________________________ 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
That's the thing. The value is not realized if it is not delegated. But on the road to delegating, I opt for a process that gives all of these places a fair shake - build into the higher threshold for delegating - at accessing some of the [improved] value of that real estate. Mixed metaphors are intentional. -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 6:12 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
I, for one, would be perfectly happy if the rum company got it but why would they want it. I think I would also be happy if DONUTS got it because then the Appleton might get rum.appleton, and the cities might each get state.appletion. holding on to it until ONE of them decides to use it is silly.
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
------------------------------ *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> *Sent:* Saturday, November 17, 2018 6:05:32 PM *To:* mmoll@ca.inter.net *Cc:* CPWG *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Further to WT5 discussion
I am caught between a rock and hard place with this issue.
When we make it specific to 'capital' cities, you discriminate against the good burghers of [Little] London in Westmoreland parish, Jamaica. And I would be unanimous in opposition.
There's Paris, Texas...and Illinois and Maine and Kentucky and Paris, France. Then, an Appleton in Wisconsin and Appleton in St. Elizabeth parish, Jamaica.
And then there's Appleton, the brand of bespoke Jamaican rum, around since the 17th century.
I know well the tendency to be ignorant of other places in this environment. But this name thing is a lot more complex than the metropolitans would have us believe.
I hold no brief for the good folks of Paris, France, Paris, Texas or the fellas in Maine, Kentucky and Illinois. Ditto, Appleton, Wisconsin. But I'll be damned if I didn't speak up for my countrymen in Appleton and [Little] London. We would not wish to be dispossessed in yet another land grab. City names must always require a higher threshold for acceptance.
-Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 7:00 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
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> <mmoll@ca.inter.net> To: 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 <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 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 listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ 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
Jonathan, Nobody is asking "to hold on"! You can apply for literally ANYTHING you want, for example a city name; but if people will register domains in connotation with the city: then loop in that city. And it shouldn't be the APPLICANT who can call the shots here; the geo panel should look into it! If you apply for .shanghai in the same way as Donuts applied for .bike (without mentioning "bike" or "bicycles" at all) then yes: you have NOT expressed that the gTLD will be used for the city. But that is irrelevant altogether. Relevant is what the prospective registrants will do. And guess what will happen once a gTLD ".shanghai" hits the registrar shelves? VC funded portfolio applicants will ONLY go for sizeable cities (only when enough potential registrants are living there the application makes commercial sense). If somebody wants to run such a gTLD - then the city community should have a "say"; and as they are represented by their city government: it should be looped in. Thanks, Alexander From: GTLD-WG [mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Zuck Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2018 1:12 AM To: mmoll@ca.inter.net; Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Further to WT5 discussion I, for one, would be perfectly happy if the rum company got it but why would they want it. I think I would also be happy if DONUTS got it because then the Appleton might get rum.appleton, and the cities might each get state.appletion. holding on to it until ONE of them decides to use it is silly. Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org <http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> _____ From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com> > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2018 6:05:32 PM To: mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> Cc: CPWG Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Further to WT5 discussion I am caught between a rock and hard place with this issue. When we make it specific to 'capital' cities, you discriminate against the good burghers of [Little] London in Westmoreland parish, Jamaica. And I would be unanimous in opposition. There's Paris, Texas...and Illinois and Maine and Kentucky and Paris, France. Then, an Appleton in Wisconsin and Appleton in St. Elizabeth parish, Jamaica. And then there's Appleton, the brand of bespoke Jamaican rum, around since the 17th century. I know well the tendency to be ignorant of other places in this environment. But this name thing is a lot more complex than the metropolitans would have us believe. I hold no brief for the good folks of Paris, France, Paris, Texas or the fellas in Maine, Kentucky and Illinois. Ditto, Appleton, Wisconsin. But I'll be damned if I didn't speak up for my countrymen in Appleton and [Little] London. We would not wish to be dispossessed in yet another land grab. City names must always require a higher threshold for acceptance. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 7:00 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> > wrote: 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 <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <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 _______________________________________________ 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
Then it all feels like rent seeking, that’s all. From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Sunday, November 18, 2018 at 9:36 AM To: 'CPWG' <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Further to WT5 discussion Jonathan, Nobody is asking “to hold on”! You can apply for literally ANYTHING you want, for example a city name; but if people will register domains in connotation with the city: then loop in that city. And it shouldn’t be the APPLICANT who can call the shots here; the geo panel should look into it! If you apply for .shanghai in the same way as Donuts applied for .bike (without mentioning “bike” or “bicycles” at all) then yes: you have NOT expressed that the gTLD will be used for the city. But that is irrelevant altogether. Relevant is what the prospective registrants will do. And guess what will happen once a gTLD “.shanghai” hits the registrar shelves? VC funded portfolio applicants will ONLY go for sizeable cities (only when enough potential registrants are living there the application makes commercial sense). If somebody wants to run such a gTLD – then the city community should have a “say”; and as they are represented by their city government: it should be looped in. Thanks, Alexander From: GTLD-WG [mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Zuck Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2018 1:12 AM To: mmoll@ca.inter.net; Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Further to WT5 discussion I, for one, would be perfectly happy if the rum company got it but why would they want it. I think I would also be happy if DONUTS got it because then the Appleton might get rum.appleton, and the cities might each get state.appletion. holding on to it until ONE of them decides to use it is silly. Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2018 6:05:32 PM To: mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> Cc: CPWG Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Further to WT5 discussion I am caught between a rock and hard place with this issue. When we make it specific to 'capital' cities, you discriminate against the good burghers of [Little] London in Westmoreland parish, Jamaica. And I would be unanimous in opposition. There's Paris, Texas...and Illinois and Maine and Kentucky and Paris, France. Then, an Appleton in Wisconsin and Appleton in St. Elizabeth parish, Jamaica. And then there's Appleton, the brand of bespoke Jamaican rum, around since the 17th century. I know well the tendency to be ignorant of other places in this environment. But this name thing is a lot more complex than the metropolitans would have us believe. I hold no brief for the good folks of Paris, France, Paris, Texas or the fellas in Maine, Kentucky and Illinois. Ditto, Appleton, Wisconsin. But I'll be damned if I didn't speak up for my countrymen in Appleton and [Little] London. We would not wish to be dispossessed in yet another land grab. City names must always require a higher threshold for acceptance. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 7:00 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: 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 _______________________________________________ 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
On 19 Nov 2018, at 09:35, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> wrote:
On November 19, 2018 02:15:17 Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Then it all feels like rent seeking, that’s all.
That about sums it up.
+1
Yep, and fully inline I guess with the being 'happy if DONUTS got it because then the Appleton might get rum.appleton, and the cities might each get state.appleton. holding on to it until ONE of them decides to use it is silly.’ Donuts seems pretty proud of their Premium Domains offering. https://www.webhostingsun.com/hosting-domains/premium-donuts-domains/ 'Of course, not all domain names are created equal. Among these exciting Donuts domains are domain names that fit together so well with their TLD, that they become extremely sought after. Because they’re sought after, they also have more value. These are called premium Donuts domains and are treated separately from their other domain names regarding price and availability.'
Good afternoon: Once again I shall be doing the Charleroi airport run on Wednesday evening. Please note my apologies. I shall join the call later, should I get home in time. CW
That's why I was saying a city should have most favoured nation status when attempting to get its own name. Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 4:08:50 AM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: Bastiaan Goslings; Jonathan Zuck; alexander@schubert.berlin; CPWG Subject: Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Further to WT5 discussion
On 19 Nov 2018, at 09:35, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> wrote:
On November 19, 2018 02:15:17 Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Then it all feels like rent seeking, that’s all.
That about sums it up.
+1
Yep, and fully inline I guess with the being 'happy if DONUTS got it because then the Appleton might get rum.appleton, and the cities might each get state.appleton. holding on to it until ONE of them decides to use it is silly.’ Donuts seems pretty proud of their Premium Domains offering. https://www.webhostingsun.com/hosting-domains/premium-donuts-domains/ 'Of course, not all domain names are created equal. Among these exciting Donuts domains are domain names that fit together so well with their TLD, that they become extremely sought after. Because they’re sought after, they also have more value. These are called premium Donuts domains and are treated separately from their other domain names regarding price and availability.'
It seems to me that if there is a "loophole" here, it is a fairly narrow one. The “intended use” rule is not in itself, a loophole. First, it was intentional, as Bastiaan noted. Second, if the rule is used as expected and the gTLD is used as intended, the “rent seeking” described in the “Shanghai hypothetical” never happens. Third, because a loophole is typically a tricky way to use a rule, not the rule itself. The rule does have a “loophole.” It’s the one described by Marita/Alexander — a sneaky applicant purposefully submerges its true intent, gets the gTLD, and then causes their true intended use to re-emerge after the gTLD is safely in its hands. To me, this verges on fraud. (Of course, this is all hypothetical; nothing like this actually happened in the prior TLD rounds.) We need to get rid of the loophole, not the rule. You don’t drain the pool because the kids are splashing each other. So let’s discuss how we close the loophole in the rule that makes these “submarine geoTLDs” possible. It seems to me we need to clean up how the “non-geo intent” is expressed. We need to make sure that it is expressed, not merely evidenced by an absence of an expressed geo intent. There needs to be some way (a PIC?) that this enforceable. This should not be complicated, and it is lot more focused and reasonable, than the proposition that the “Shanghai Surprise” must be eliminated by eliminating the entire “intended use” rule. Best regards, Greg Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:50 AM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
That's why I was saying a city should have most favoured nation status when attempting to get its own name.
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
------------------------------ *From:* Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> *Sent:* Monday, November 19, 2018 4:08:50 AM *To:* Evan Leibovitch *Cc:* Bastiaan Goslings; Jonathan Zuck; alexander@schubert.berlin; CPWG *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Further to WT5 discussion
On 19 Nov 2018, at 09:35, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> wrote:
On November 19, 2018 02:15:17 Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Then it all feels like rent seeking, that’s all.
That about sums it up.
+1
Yep, and fully inline I guess with the being 'happy if DONUTS got it because then the Appleton might get rum.appleton, and the cities might each get state.appleton. holding on to it until ONE of them decides to use it is silly.’
Donuts seems pretty proud of their Premium Domains offering.
https://www.webhostingsun.com/hosting-domains/premium-donuts-domains/
'Of course, not all domain names are created equal. Among these exciting Donuts domains are domain names that fit together so well with their TLD, that they become extremely sought after. Because they’re sought after, they also have more value. These are called premium Donuts domains and are treated separately from their other domain names regarding price and availability.' _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Greg, I hear you: you want to “enforce” the “non-geo use”. The problem: Right now the applicant doesn’t have to “declare non-geo use”! It’s sadly the OTHER way around: Only when the geo-name panel finds that the applicant clearly declares the intention to use the gTLD for purposes associated with the city – only THEN they need the letter of non-objection! So if you take the average Donuts application (e.g. the one for .bike: https://gtldresult.icann.org/applicationstatus/applicationdetails:downloadap...) then you will see: Even when you actually don’t even MENTION the gTLD “keyword” (here: “bike”) it is seen as valid. Replace “bike” with “shanghai”: it would still be a valid application, and it would nowhere voice an intention to use the gTLD for purposes associated with the city. That’s the main crux: I think it doesn’t really MATTER what the “intentions” of the applicant are. The applicant doesn’t “sell” domains. It’s the registrars who do. Ultimately the geo-name panel should consider the “likely” (or “foreseeable”) “use” by the registrants to make a call on whether or not the gTLD will be used for purposes associated with the city. And the threshold shouldn’t be “primarily” – but “substantial”. Primarily is probably 85% or more. Whereas anything over (say) 25% is already “substantial”. If there was an application for “.shanghai” and it would be identical to the “.bike” application: It’s kind of crystal clear that a “substantial” amount of registrations would be executed with the intention “to use the gTLD for purposes associated with the city”. And that “test” should be executed by the GEO NAME PANEL, and not by the APPLICANT. Otherwise we make the goat the gardener. And even if we included a provision, whereby the applicant has to explicitly “declare” the “non-geo use” “intention”: How can the registry operator “enforce” that? Taking down domains that have city related content? That would create a nightmare. Opinions? Thanks, Alexander From: GTLD-WG [mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 3:52 AM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Further to WT5 discussion It seems to me that if there is a "loophole" here, it is a fairly narrow one. The “intended use” rule is not in itself, a loophole. First, it was intentional, as Bastiaan noted. Second, if the rule is used as expected and the gTLD is used as intended, the “rent seeking” described in the “Shanghai hypothetical” never happens. Third, because a loophole is typically a tricky way to use a rule, not the rule itself. The rule does have a “loophole.” It’s the one described by Marita/Alexander — a sneaky applicant purposefully submerges its true intent, gets the gTLD, and then causes their true intended use to re-emerge after the gTLD is safely in its hands. To me, this verges on fraud. (Of course, this is all hypothetical; nothing like this actually happened in the prior TLD rounds.) We need to get rid of the loophole, not the rule. You don’t drain the pool because the kids are splashing each other. So let’s discuss how we close the loophole in the rule that makes these “submarine geoTLDs” possible. It seems to me we need to clean up how the “non-geo intent” is expressed. We need to make sure that it is expressed, not merely evidenced by an absence of an expressed geo intent. There needs to be some way (a PIC?) that this enforceable. This should not be complicated, and it is lot more focused and reasonable, than the proposition that the “Shanghai Surprise” must be eliminated by eliminating the entire “intended use” rule. Best regards, Greg Greg Shatan <mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org> greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:50 AM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> > wrote: That's why I was saying a city should have most favoured nation status when attempting to get its own name. Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org <http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> _____ From: Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net <mailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 4:08:50 AM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: Bastiaan Goslings; Jonathan Zuck; alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> ; CPWG Subject: Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Further to WT5 discussion
On 19 Nov 2018, at 09:35, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com <mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com> > wrote:
On November 19, 2018 02:15:17 Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> > wrote:
Then it all feels like rent seeking, that’s all.
That about sums it up.
+1
Yep, and fully inline I guess with the being 'happy if DONUTS got it because then the Appleton might get rum.appleton, and the cities might each get state.appleton. holding on to it until ONE of them decides to use it is silly.’ Donuts seems pretty proud of their Premium Domains offering. https://www.webhostingsun.com/hosting-domains/premium-donuts-domains/ 'Of course, not all domain names are created equal. Among these exciting Donuts domains are domain names that fit together so well with their TLD, that they become extremely sought after. Because they’re sought after, they also have more value. These are called premium Donuts domains and are treated separately from their other domain names regarding price and availability.' _______________________________________________ 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
participants (9)
-
Alexander Schubert -
Bastiaan Goslings -
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch -
Greg Shatan -
Jonathan Zuck -
mail＠christopherwilkinson.eu CW -
Marita Moll -
wilkinson christopher