June 13, 2012
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) manages the internet’s domain name system. Before 1998 the following generic top level domains (“gTLDs”) were in existence: .com, .edu, .gov, .int, .mil, .net, .org, and .arpa. In 2000, seven additional gTLDs were added: .aero, .biz, .coop, .info, .museum, .name, and .pro. Then in 2004, eight additional gTLDs were added. They were: .asia, .cat, .jobs, .mobi, .post, .tel, .xxx, and .travel. In 2008, ICANN began a move to open up the recognized gTLDs to a much wider scope by allowing applicants to apply for any gTLD they wanted. However, the process was expensive and complicated, which curbed participation.
The first round of applications was announced today. ICANN received 1,930 applications from 60 countries and territories. Of the applications received, 911 are from North America, 675 are from Europe, 303 are from Asia-Pacific, 24 are from Latin American and the Caribbean, and 17 are from Africa. There are a few applications relevant to the alcoholic beverage business (.beer, .vodka, .wine, and .restaurant). Only one entity applied for .beer and .vodka, while three separate entities applied for .wine and four entities applied for .restaurant. There are also a few applications relevant to any business, such as .sucks and .best. The applications are subject to a 60-day comment period during which anyone in the world can submit comments or file formal objections to the applied for registrations. Additionally, ICANN will review all applications to determine whether or not they should be registered. The full list of applied for gTLDs is available here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/application-results/strings-1200utc-13jun12-en. If you have questions about your brand and the new gTLDs feel free to contact any of the attorneys at Strike & Techel.
Imbiblog is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Copyright © 2012 · All Rights Reserved ·
November 16, 2011
The California ABC released an Advisory earlier this month that outlines a compliant path for California alcoholic beverage licensees to engage unlicensed service providers. In our practice, this issue comes up often in reference to websites that look like wine shops, but hold no alcoholic beverage licenses of their own. The Advisory is available here.
We were active on the working group that made suggestions on this issue to the ABC, and were pleased that the ABC was willing to listen to industry feedback before deciding on a course of action. We’ve been getting lots of questions on the provision regarding control of funds, which (is long!) and states:
“The control of funds from a transaction involving the sale of alcoholic beverages constitutes a significant degree of control over a licensed business. As such, while a Third Party provider may act as an agent for the collection of funds (such as receiving credit card information and securing payment authorization), the full amount collected must be handled in a manner that gives the licensee control over the ultimate distribution of funds. This means that the Third Party Provider cannot independently collect the funds, retain its fee, and pass the balance on to the licensee. The Third Party Provider should pass all funds collected from the consumer to the licensee conducting the sale, and that licensee should thereafter pay the Third Party Provider for services rendered. Alternatively, the parties may utilize an escrow account, or similar instrument, that disburses the funds upon the instructions of the licensee. So, for example, a Third Party Provider may accept consumer credit card information, debit the card, deposit the funds in an account under the licensee’s ultimate control, and, upon the licensee’s acceptance of the order and direction to the account holder, receive a fee from the account. Given the nature of Internet transactions, the Department recognizes that such collection, acceptance, and disbursement of funds will often times be accomplished solely through computer-generated means.”
We’re looking forward to seeing how the industry adapts to this provision, which seems to require that all funds for an alcoholic beverage sale settle to the account of a licensee before they are disbursed. Will new “alcohol escrow” businesses pop-up to service the need? Will each unlicensed website create its own special accounting to comply? Will fee collection be adversely affected for the unlicensed websites, such that the business model becomes less viable? We’re watching this issue unfold with great anticipation.
Browse posts by category: