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

Sat Nov 17 23:12:25 UTC 2018

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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2018 6:05:32 PM
To: mmoll at 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 at ca.inter.net<mailto: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><mailto: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
_______________________________________________
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/20181117/03ccfe0f/attachment-0001.html>