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

Sun Nov 18 14:35:52 UTC 2018

Jonathan,

Nobody is asking "to hold on"! You can apply for literally ANYTHING you
want, for example a city name; but if people will register domains in
connotation with the city: then loop in that city. And it shouldn't be the
APPLICANT who can call the shots here; the geo panel should look into it! If
you apply for .shanghai in the same way as Donuts applied for .bike (without
mentioning "bike" or "bicycles" at all) then yes: you have NOT expressed
that the gTLD will be used for the city. But that is irrelevant altogether.
Relevant is what the prospective registrants will do. And guess what will
happen once a gTLD ".shanghai" hits the registrar shelves?

VC funded portfolio applicants will ONLY go for sizeable cities (only when
enough potential registrants are living there the application makes
commercial sense). If somebody wants to run such a gTLD - then the city
community should have a "say"; and as they are represented by their city
government: it should be looped in. 

Thanks,

Alexander

From: GTLD-WG [mailto:gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Zuck
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2018 1:12 AM
To: mmoll at ca.inter.net; Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
Cc: CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Further to WT5 discussion

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
<mailto:gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> > on behalf of Carlton
Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com <mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com> >
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2018 6:05:32 PM
To: mmoll at ca.inter.net <mailto: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  <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
_______________________________________________
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/20181118/88e3915f/attachment-0001.html>