[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Further to WT5 discussion
Alexander Schubert
alexander at schubert.berlin
Sat Nov 17 21:00:23 UTC 2018
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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Zuck
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2018 9:21 PM
To: Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net>; Marita Moll
<mmoll at ca.inter.net>
Cc: CPWG <cpwg at 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 at ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll at 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 at innovatorsnetwork.org> <JZuck at 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
<gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Marita Moll
<mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net> <mmoll at 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 at ca.inter.net> <mmoll at ca.inter.net>
To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
GTLD-WG mailing list
GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:GTLD-WG at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20181117/f47d1a84/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CPWG
mailing list