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

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, Joanna. It's been a long time. Don't be a stranger to the list. Your
input is valuable.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "General Assembly of the DNSO" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "EURid" <info@xxxxxxxx>; <president@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
<jolane1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 5:03 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Investigation of Possible Contract Breach in .eu Landrush


> 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
> >
> >
>