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

Sat Nov 17 23:38:13 UTC 2018

That's the thing. The value is not realized if it is not delegated.  But on
the road to delegating, I opt for a process that gives all of these places
a fair shake - build into the higher threshold for delegating - at
accessing some of the [improved] value of that real estate. Mixed metaphors
are intentional.

-Carlton

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

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

On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 6:12 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
wrote:

> 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
>
> ------------------------------
> *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> 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/20181117/3008d121/attachment-0001.html>