RE: [registrars] Rules of Procedure Motion

["Christopher Kruk" <chrisk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul,

The regulation is incorrectly referenced, it should be 874/2004 not
784/2004.
Specifically Article 4 of this Regulation which simply states that "only
registrars accredited by the Registry shall be permitted to offer
registration
services for names under the .eu TLD". This same type of condition is
required
to offer domains through gTLD Registries. The article makes no mention of
resellers, or restrictions on a Registrar's business model.

I can't imagine how the Registry would go about enforcing this. I would
guess
the objective of this policy is to just ensure that a .eu Registrar's
resellers
are binding their customers to the accredited Registrar's enduser agreement.

In my opinion, if the reseller's customer is agreeing to be bound by the
terms
of the accredited Registrar's agreement, the registration services are then
being
offered to that customer by the Registrar.


 -Chris


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Paul Stahura
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 12:00 PM
To: Registrars Constituency
Subject: RE: [registrars] Rules of Procedure Motion


I think we need a clarification of the clarification that eurid released
today.  Does this "reseller" policy mean that both Yahoo and Microsoft,
for example, need to be accredited as ICANN and .eu registrars before
they can offer names to their customers?

After reading, Article 4 of the EC regulation, my interpretation of it
would not rule out Yahoo selling .eu names via a registrar such as
Melbourne IT (obviously the registrant would have a contract with the
accredited registrar regardless of how they registered the name), but it
now seems to me that eurid's "clarification" DOES rule out Yahoo selling
.eu names (unless Yahoo is ICANN and .eu accredited).

Will all ISPs, web-hosting companies, etc., worldwide, need to be
accredited, or would they need to list themselves as the registrant or
something?
Is a registrant not permitted to resell its name to another registrant?
Does the regulation only apply during the sunrise (I guess I can
understand if so)?

CORE? MIT? WildWest? Tucows? Pretty much all of us "resell" names in
some fashion.
Its baffling to me, any insight would be appreciated.  Maybe I'm just
interpreting it wrong somehow (hopefully)?





See:
http://www.eurid.eu/news/archive/reselingdomains

"Reselling" of .eu domain name services
22 Jul 2005
Important notice concerning the "reselling" of .eu domain name services

A consultation with the European Commission services has led towards a
clear position concerning the offering of so called "reseller" services
for .eu domain names.

Regulation 784/2004 of the European Commission laying down the public
policy rules concerning the .eu Top Level Domain states clearly that
only registrars accredited by the Registry (EURid) shall be permitted to
offer registration services for .eu domain names (see article 4 of the
regulation). This means that the offering of services as a "reseller"
(as a kind of subcontractor of an accredited registrar or as an
intermediary without having concluded an agreement with the Registry in
order to become an accredited registrar) is completely excluded.

EURid advises to check at all times if your service provider appears in
the list of accredited registrars. Only companies and undertakings which
appear in that list have the authorisation to offer .eu domain name
services.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 6:26 AM
To: Thomas Keller
Cc: Robert F Connelly; Registrars Constituency; Marcus Faure
Subject: RE: [registrars] Rules of Procedure Motion

Good catch Tom.  Thanks.  Attached are the correct versions.  We still
need one more endorsement.

Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Keller [mailto:tom@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 3:42 AM
To: Nevett, Jonathon
Cc: Robert F Connelly; Registrars Constituency; Marcus Faure
Subject: Re: [registrars] Rules of Procedure Motion

Jon,

I endorse the new Rules of Procedure. Please note that that the current
document still contains the 5 endorsements instead of the 3 as decided
in LUX. My endorsement is for the RoP amended to 3.

Best,

tom

Am 21.07.2005 schrieb Nevett, Jonathon:
> Thanks Marcus.  Jon
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> I endorse the Rules of Procedure motion. I also suggest to resend it
to
> the list with a more apropriate subject.
>
> Yours,
> Marcus
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 10:34 AM
> To: Robert F Connelly; Registrars Constituency
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion to Adopt: Whois Conflicts
>
> Bob:
>
> The schedule looks right to me.
>
> Also, attached is the current version of the proposed Rules of
> Procedure.  The changes since Luxembourg are that we reduced the
number
> of required endorsements from 5 to 3 and we changed the quorum
> provisions to reduce the minimum number of voters from 15 to 10 to
make
> it consistent with the Bylaws.
>
> Bob has filed the motion.  I have endorsed it, and I believe that Ross
> has as well.  If we could have at least three more voters endorse the
> motion today or tomorrow, we could have both motions on the same
ballot.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert F
Connelly
> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 7:38 AM
> To: Registrars Constituency
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Motion to Adopt: Whois Conflicts
>
> At 12:51 AM 7/21/05, Thomas Keller wrote:
> >Hello all,
> >
> >this motion has been endorsed by 5 members of the constituency
> >
> >Jordyn Buchanan
> >Marcus Faure
> >Bruce Tonkin
> >Paul Stahura
> >Tom Keller
> >
> >I therefore ask to move the motion to a vote at the earliest time
> >possible.
>
> Dear Thomas: I also endorsed it.
>
> Under the old Rules of Procedure, I believe we need 14 days after the
> draft
> has been confirmed, then another 4 days,
>
> I am traveling and have not confirmed that time schedule.  I recognize
> that
> time is of the essence in this motion.
>
> I would appreciate it if Jon would confirm the time schedule.  He can
> reach
> me at 1.702.372.2890.
>
> Regards, BobC
>
>
> >Best,
> >
> >tom
>




Gruss,

tom

(__)
(OO)_____
(oo)    /|\	A cow is not entirely full of
  | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
  w w w  w