[CPWG] Further to WT5 discussion

[Marita Moll]

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 at ca.inter.net>
To: 	gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at 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 at icann.org] On
> Behalf Of Marita Moll
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 6:35 PM
> To:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at 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 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20181116/aabb35da/attachment.html>