[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Further to WT5 discussion

Sat Nov 17 23:05:32 UTC 2018

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 at 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 at ca.inter.net> <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 <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 listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> _______________________________________________
> GTLD-WG mailing list
> 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/dc2e4dee/attachment.html>