Re: [ga] Investigation of Possible Contract Breach in .eu Landrush

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Joanna,

I always respect your comments and I understand what you are saying: that if 
the "parent" company took the order and issued the "terms and conditions" 
then what does it matter if the names were registered through 3 other 
registrars who you'd never heard of.

My point is that your applications will have preceded the accreditation of 
these "shell" registrars, and were simply delegated to these 3 registrars 
later on to give the "parent" company an advantage over its rivals.

This was in breach of the EURID and EC rules.

If your domain applications were made in the last few days it is technically 
possible that they post-dated accreditation, but thousands of people have 
been applying through these "parent" companies for months. Applications were 
only eligible if made by the registrant *after* the registrar was 
accredited.

Your case demonstrates the reality that these "shell" registrars were not 
the interface for the applications. There was one interface and that was the 
"parent" company - however the .eu regulations state that each registrar may 
only apply for one accreditation. What actually happened was that a single 
registrar simply 'pretended' to be 100's of other registrars.

I warned EURID that this would happen back in July 2005 and also warned that 
names would then be auctioned off.

They replied: "The accredited register must forward to EURid only those 
applications he received after accreditation, and he must do so on a 
first-come-first-served basis. Auctioning the domain name is definitely not 
allowed. Not complying with the regulation ...is a breach of contract."

Turning to the auction situation. How can these auctions conform with the 
.eu regulations? EURID requires the specific registrant to be named in the 
application, and that is not possible if the auction has not happened prior 
to registration. Furthermore, where a registrar receives more than one 
applicant for the same name, .eu rules stipulate that the registrar must 
submit the first application it received.

Although you have received good results - and hence, good custoner service - 
I doubt if companies like GoDaddy which abided by the rules would see things 
in the same light or feel that EURID has met its obligation to the European 
Commission to ensure "fair" processes.

It seems to me that they are not even implementing their own rules.

I hope you are well, Joanna, and nice to hear from you.

Richard
www.atlarge.org

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joanna Lane" <jolane1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "General Assembly 
of the DNSO" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "EURid" <info@xxxxxxxx>; 
<president@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 8:58 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] Investigation of Possible Contract Breach in .eu Landrush


> Hi Richard,
>
> Thank you for your thoughtful report. I can't comment on the auction 
> issue,
> but I do have a comment on another aspect. I am Admin contact for four
> variants of a dot-eu domain name registered in a single click through one 
> of
> the better known Registrars during Landrush. These are now sitting in the
> admin account at that Registrar's website, yet the WHOIS database shows
> three different Registrars were used for those four names. The two
> Registrars that are unfamiliar to me do have a website with a registration
> interface, but neither was used on this occasion. What does this mean? It
> all depends on why and how it happened, and I would like to know more 
> before
> jumping to conclusions.
>
> For example, if the parent Registrar delegated the task to register these
> four domains amongst its various subsidiaries as the orders arrived, so 
> that
> the one Registrar would not become backlogged whilst other parts of the 
> same
> company stood idle, then it was done simply to speed things up for the
> customer. That's called good customer service and I don't have a problem
> with any company that manages its resources in this way, neither with any
> company which expands its resources for this reason. Taking unfair 
> advantage
> would have to be a parent company duplicating the application across each 
> of
> its subsidiaries, but I don't think you're saying that happened. 
> Certainly
> it wouldn't seem to make much business sense to duplicate work numerous
> times just the chance of one registration fee.
>
> So far as a non-existent Registrant Agreement, the one signed at the 
> parent
> company would be assignable.  The situation is no different than if a
> Registrar had been sold to another entity, to which the Registrant does 
> not
> have to consent by the way. If you want to nitpick, then I guess the admin
> account for these four domains ought to be split across the three 
> Registrars
> to which they are now assigned, rather than remaining in the one parent
> company account, but what an Admin nightmare. No thanks. That's not in the
> anyone's best interests.
>
> The customers go to the Registrar that they feel provides the best service
> and if they all go to the same one, then that Registrar is going to use
> whatever resources are available to them to best advantage to keep those
> customers coming back.  You've obviously put a lot of time into this
> document, and the auction aspect is another issue altogether, but 
> otherwise,
> I honestly don't see what you're getting at. In a free market economy, we
> don't have a duty to make sure the little guy can compete with the big guy
> do we?
>
> For those who don't know me, I am not affiliated with any Registrars other
> than as a paying customer.
>
> Best Regards,
> Joanna
>
> Joanna Lane
> www.propertyangels.com