Comments from the public and the registrar community
The following comments on the .eu Code of Conduct have been submitted by the general public. You too can send us your comments on the Code and the Rules and Procedures by emailing them to conduct@eurid.eu. Comments will be accepted until 16 March.
From: ECTA (European Communities Trademark Association)
Sent: maandag 19 februari 2007
To: conduct@eurid.eu
Subject: Proposed introduction of the .eu registrar Code of Conduct.
Dear Sirs,
Request for Comments
Proposed introduction of the .eu registrar Code of Conduct.
This constitutes the response of the European Communities Trade Mark Association (ECTA) to the request for comments on the proposed introduction of the .eu registrar Code of Conduct.
ECTA supports the proposition that there should be a code of conduct governing the activities of all Registrars. ECTA is able to support the proposed Code of Conduct in principle, but encourages EURid to consider adopting a code based on these proposals to regulate all Registrars.
Yours sincerely,
Maria Curell (President)
Eric Ramage (Chairman Internet Committee)
From: Lieben Bart
Sent: maandag 19 februari 2007 11:03
To: conduct@eurid.eu
Subject: Draft Code of Conduct - some specific remarks
Dear,
Please note below some specific remarks / suggestions I had with respect to the draft code of conduct:
- the preamble should specify that the code of conduct only relates to the registrar's activities in the context of .eu domain name registrations (which may seem a matter of course, but this has not been put forward as such);
- it should - in my view - be specified whether registrants are entitled to derive rights from this Code of Conduct or not;
- Section 2(1): please note that a high number of registrars have registered domain names in the .eu TLD upon the express written request of their customers, for instance in the context of the .eu Sunrise. Although this has been carved out in the second sentence of Section 2(1), no specific provision has been included in the third sentence;
- Section 2(6): the use of the wording "transfer" and "trade" should be clarified or brought in line with the wording of the terms and conditions / registration policy;
- Section 2(6): is far-reaching. Does this mean that in case a registrar business is sold, and the registrar has registered its trade name as a domain name, the goodwill for the use of the domain name cannot be reflected in the purchase price for the registrar business? I do agree that registrars should not be allowed to warehouse domain names or speculate by registering multiple names just for the purpose of selling them at a higher price, but I think that this prohibition goes a bit too far, and may even be up for challenge (e.g. by tax authorities);
- Section 3(2): the activities of the registrar should be in line with any laws and regulations that apply (even if this would not be the law of the country wherein the registrar has been established); Section 3(2), like it is written now, would imply that a registrar incorporated in India should be obliged to follow the laws of India and Community Law, but not French law in case it is dealing with a French registrant ...?
- Section 3(3): please note that a number of jurisdictions put "selling with a negligible profit margin" on the same footing as "selling at a loss".
- Section 3(4): idem as my first remark under Section 2(6);
- Section 3(7): it may be advisable to also include here the telephone number / e-mail address where the registrar can be reached for service requests / complaints - see also Section 6(3);
- Section 5(2): use of the term "Holder" - should be specified;
- Section 6(3): may contradict Section 4, second § (3 working days / 5 working days); see also comment under Section 3(7).
Always willing to provide further assistance.
Best regards,
Bart Lieben
From: [removed]
Sent: vrijdag 16 februari 2007 13:17
To: conduct@eurid.eu
Subject: Observaciones
Muy Sres. nuestros:
Hemos revisado el texto que integra el "Codigo de Conducta" y conforme a sus indicaciones nos permitimos hacerles llegar nuestros comentarios al objeto que este documento sea lo más efectivo posible para el interés de todos.
Section 2. Registration policy principles
1.- Entendemos por su contenido que los datos que el titular nos ha de facilitar (billing contact adn technical contact) han de ser sólo del titular y no y del Registrador. El concepto que interpretamos de "billing contact" es el contacto que el Eurid ha de tener con el responsable del mantenimiento de este dominio que en este caso, el propio Registrador, es decir nosotros, por lo no se entiende correctamente que la dirección de e-mail deba ser la del titular.
Nuestra función como regitrador es la gestión de los dominios que nos encargan los titulares, de ahí que entendamos que el contacto de facturación y sus datos sean los del registrador y no los del titular de ese dominio.
En espera de sus noticias, reciba un cordial saludo.
Clarke, Modet & Co.
From: Stephane Riesen
Sent: donderdag 8 februari 2007 13:21
To: conduct@eurid.eu
Subject: Submission of an application to become member of the board
Dear,
After reading all information regarding the new code of conduct, i can't find complete information regarding what do we need to do if we would like to be memeber of the board. What do we need to do the be in the list of nominee from wich the interim board will elect the real board?
Thanks for your clarification,
regards,
Stéphane Riesen
__________________________________________________
Stéphane Riesen
Senior Product & Process Developer
Register.be | Register.eu | E-ZONE.fr
Rue de Verdunstraat 742, 1130 Brussels, Belgium
Tel: +32 2 247 37 00 - Fax: +32 2 247 37 01
__________________________________________________
From: [removed]
Sent: dinsdag 6 februari 2007 11:02
To: conduct@eurid.eu
Subject : [removed]
Liebes EURid-Team,
prinzipiell begruessen wir als EURid Mitglied diesen "Code of Conduct" und sehen dies als den richtigen Weg an. Einige Punkte sind aber ein grosses Handikaps für unser und auch Euer Business, da es die Verbreitung von .EU nur hemmt, bzw. teilweise zum Stillstand bringt.
Section 2, 1 and 3
Teilweise nicht haltbar die Registrant-Daten zu ueberpruefen. Abhaengig vom System, Kunden, Verstaendnis, etc..etc..
Es werden sich immer wieder falsche Daten einschleichen, absichtlich oder unabsichtlich.
Selbstverstaendlich sollten die Daten korrekt sein, dies liegt auch im Interesse der Registrare, aber eine 100% Genauigkeit gibt es nicht, dies kann KEIN Registrar garantieren. Bei Hinweisen auf falsche Daten sollten bestimmte Richtlinien greifen und kontrolliert werden. Dies wuerde den Bestellprozess nicht unnoetig aufblaehen und verlangsamen.
Hier ist nicht klar wie der Registrant seine Meinung aeussern soll. Muendlich kann alles widerrufen werden, hat nicht stattgefunden. Der Trade/Transfer ist von EURid mit den Bestaetigungsmails zu fast 100% gesichert und diese finden dann auch nur statt, bzw. werden vollzogen wenn die Ihhaber einverstanden sind.
Kein Registrar wird im Normalfall unnoetige Trades/Transfers starten.
Vielen Dank und wir hoffen, dass der Code noch etwas abgeaendert wird.
Gruesse,
[removed]
From: Matt Serlin
Sent: maandag 29 januari 2007 19:54
To: conduct@eurid.eu
Subject: Code of Conduct
Greetings EURid team,
I would like to commend you for creating and publishing this code of conduct for registrars as I believe it very clearly sets out what you would consider to be "best practices" for .eu registrars. Having such a code of conduct in place is going to benefit the entire .eu community, but I really believe it will benefit registrants as they will have the opportunity to chose to do business with a registrar who is following these business guidelines.
As MarkMonitor already holds itself to a very high standard and working only with companies (and not individuals), we are very much in support of your proposal and look forward to it being implemented.
If you would like any additional feedback, please let me know. I look forward to meeting with the EURid staff in attendance at the ICANN meeting in Lisbon.
Thank you,
Matt Serlin
Director, Domain Operations, MarkMonitor
From: [removed]
Sent: vrijdag 19 januari 2007 12:16
To: conduct@eurid.eu
Subject: Code of Conduct
Dear Sir,
As an accredited Registrar located in Monaco, we are interested in subscribing to the Eurid code of conduct, and we are volunteer to be representative of the Board of Conduct.
Please, thank you give me informations about how to proceed.
Best regards,
Michèle Bruniaux
Juriste / Lawyer
NAMEBAY
From: [removed]
Sent: Friday 22 december 2006 13:16
To: conduct@eurid.eu
Cc: General
Subject: Code of Conduct comments
[removed] thanks the Registry for the opportunity to comment on the draft Code of Conduct. You will note that our comments below largely arise because the draft does not recognise the position of those Registrars who are providing .eu registrations as part of a professional Internet Intellectual Property advisory service. The code seems to be dedicated to the type of Registrar who takes registrations from the general public through their website, rendering little or no professional advice to the client regarding the registration and entering into a contractual relationship with a registrant (and taking payment from them) on a registration by registration basis.
[removed] is committed to raising the status of the upper echelons of the domain name industry into a profession that can be recognised as a group of qualified persons rendering Internet Intellectual Property advice to their clients on an agency basis. Such advice is now sufficiently important to corporate clients that it should be placed on a par with legal advice and advice concerning patents and registered trade marks. This is in effect the way in which the profession of Trade Mark Attorney came into being.
It does the industry no credit at all to develop a Code of Conduct that is exclusively based upon the notion of a domain name registrar as a mere administrative or technical functionary who simply makes a registration on an individual basis with a registry, perhaps taking a credit card payment at the same time, and having no direct professional advisory relationship with the client or any obligation to 'know' the client as is expected, for example, of the legal profession. If registrars of the former type, who are able to comply with the Code as drafted, are able to obtain an enhanced status from EURID while those with the formal professional agency approach are not, this will lead not only to confusion in the market place but also to an inability on the part of the corporate domain name management providers to compete fairly with others.
If our comments cannot be reconciled with EURID's Code of Conduct then we recommend that EURID makes it very clear at all times that the new Code of Conduct is a *charter mark for consumers* to differentiate it from corporate or professional registrar services. It will be essential that EURID does not mislead either the public or any other entity or person by expressly or impliedly stating that a registrar who signs up to the Code of Conduct is in any way a 'better' or 'quality' registrar. Perhaps EURID might consider an alternative Code of Conduct for corporate services that could place this market sector properly on the map and would make EURID the first registry to work directly towards recognising the new profession with a degree of formality?
In our general comments below we hope to demonstrate where the draft Code fails to take account of the agency basis on which we and others operate:-
Section 2: Registration policy principles, para 1
The policy requires that the email address inserted into the WHOIS must not be the registrar's. However, the new proposed Registrar agreement has a specific allowance for the Registrar's email address to be used provided there is unequivocal consent of the Registrant. This is extremely important to Registrars who either provide privacy proxy services or who (like [removed],) are corporate Internet intellectual property managers - we insert our email address as it is akin to being named (on a professional agency basis) as the address details for service on a registered trade mark and this in itself is effectively part of our service. This should be amended to include the unequivocal consent requirement.
Section 2: Registration policy principles, para 6
What is the point of the provision stating that a registrar will not transfer domains registered for its own use for any consideration greater than the original registration fee? Clearly any registrars who do this (for example those who might seek to make a living from domain name speculation) will simply not sign up to the code of conduct.
Section 3: Service policy principles, para 7
Again, this does not recognise the position of corporate Internet intellectual property managers. We do not provide pricing on our website because we provide a professional advisory service that transcends the individual registration fee. Furthermore, our terms and conditions are found in a detailed contract which each client signs with us and which is individually negotiated to meet their needs - we do not post this on our website for reasons of commercial confidentiality. Expecting registrars of our market segment to publish such information is akin to expecting solicitors (lawyers) or trade mark attorneys to post their standard letter of engagement on their website; this is something that is never done in our experience as it is wholly inappropriate.
Section 4 Quality aspects, para 2
Offering secure payment services - again this does not take account of our situation as it implies that payment is or is capable of being made via an online process. We accept payment as any professional adviser does, and as such we render formal fee notes before payment is tendered by the client. The client is then free to tender payment in the conventional manner.
Section 6: Cooperation, para 2
Registrars are required to provide a link to the ADR service on their website. We do not provide such a link and have no intention of doing so; when our clients have a problem they refer to us for professional advice. We are capable of acting on their behalf in the submission of complaints under most ADR services including that provided by ADReu/the CAC. We seek to interpret the rules on a client's behalf, not merely point them in the direction of the ADR provider. In many cases an ADR will not actually be the appropriate course of action for a client, for example if the prospects of success are poor. The number of failed ADR cases, particularly with regard to Sunrise and brought against the Registry, indicates that a good number of Complainants professional advice prior to being directed to the Czech Arbitration Court and paying the appropriate (and relatively significant) fee for a decision that was extremely unlikely to succeed.
Section 6: Cooperation, para 5
This is an excellent provision requiring cooperation between registrars. A responsible profession will always have such ethics and we commend them to the Registry. However, we recommend that the special contact email address envisaged by the Code is NOT published on the Registry site as it will inevitably be misused by other parties and/or will be used by consumers.
Section 7: Logo of the code of conduct - List of logo'ed registrars
Again, we strongly wish to point out to the Registry that it must not suggest, to the press or otherwise, that the consumer-focused Code (as presently drafted) is in any form a badge of quality, in such a way that this might act to the detriment of corporate professional advisers who would not be able to adopt its terms without substantial amendment.
We hope that our comments are considered favourably by the Registry and are viewed in a spirit of helpful co-operation. The writer will be glad to discuss this email with the Registry when convenient and we trust that we will have the opportunity to make further representations in the event that the Registry decides to proceed with the Code as presently drafted.
Regards,
[removed]