[registration-issues-wg] Fwd: [At-Large] For Sale - Entire names spaces.

Carlton Samuels carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Wed Oct 31 14:41:44 UTC 2018


FYI, from one of a few on the domain investor business side who impress me
as a sober, evidence-persuaded  commentator,  my friend Antony gave me
permission to share this private note.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Antony Van Couvering <avc at avc.vc>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018, 7:41 pm
Subject: Re: [At-Large] For Sale - Entire names spaces.
To: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>


Hi Carlton,

So many expectations about new gTLDs have been proven wrong -- those of
both proponents and opponents -- that some of the commitments made at
launch are out of date or uneconomical or both.  Effectively you have a
bunch of TLDs that no-one wants because the applicants were so eager to
appease trademark holders, or GAC, or ICANN, or local governments, that
they agreed to all kinds of things they shouldn't have from an economic
perspective. This is particularly true of those who sought to evade
competition by filing as a community, or those who wouldn't / couldn't
argue with restrictions imposed by city governments.

You can argue whether that's good or bad, but there's certainly an economic
cost to the gTLD registries who did that, both in terms of registration
volume but also in resale value.  Sponsoring organizations and governments
who are getting a revenue share might also regret having imposed
conditions, but I'm not sure there's a way out for "community"
applications, because they won based on those very restrictions.

If ICANN's guidebook for the next round is as opaque as the first one, and
if the various outside committees/consultants examining the applications
are as arbitrary and weird in their results, the same effect will occur
again: applicants won't know if they're going to pass or not, so they will
restrict themselves needlessly in order to get half a loaf instead of
nothing at all.

Antony

On 10/24/2018 5:23 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:

Hi Anthony:
I share your view on this. My line was really a teaser to hopefully bring
out contrary opinions I've heard.

A few of our brethren have argued that if the original conditionals were
elements for the reduced valuation then maybe the full value could not be
realized without shedding them.

Cheers,
-Carlton

==============================
*Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment &
Turnaround*
=============================


On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 1:12 PM Antony Van Couvering <avc at avc.vc> wrote:

> Hi Carlton,
>
> I'm pretty certain that the buyer would have to embrace all of the
> commitments. Otherwise, It would be pretty easy to evade restrictions,
> particularly those of "community" TLDs that restrict the sale or use of
> second-level names.  If that were allowed, you could simply sell it to
> another party (that you happened to control) to escape the original
> commitments. In my experience ICANN  is very punctilious when it comes to
> registry commitments
>
> One proof of this is that TLDs are valued at a lower (or higher) price
> depending on what their commitments are, because prospective buyers don't
> want a TLD that has restrictions that don't fit their business model or
> vision.
>
> Antony
>
> On 10/24/2018 10:48 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
>
> What would be interesting is if conveyancing embraces every and all of the
> original commitments.
>
> https://domainnamewire.com/2018/10/24/we-buy-tlds/
>
> CAS
>
> ==============================
> *Carlton A Samuels*
>
> *Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment &
> Turnaround*
> =============================
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing listAt-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registration-issues-wg/attachments/20181031/612d7b7a/attachment.html>


More information about the registration-issues-wg mailing list