Re: AW: [registrars] Registrar Meeting

[Jeff Shrewsbury Info Avenue <iamarketing@infoave.net>]

Mr. Boeker:

Simple: as a registrar, you are providing a service -- a service that
allows end users to purchase a subscription to a particular domain for a
specific amount of time.

Cheers.
Jeff Shrewbury
Not A Lawyer



At 12:29 PM 6/12/00 +0200, EPAG wrote:
>I'd like to say something about Nr. (2) of Michaels points:
>What is it that registrars do: I think this is one of the most problematic
points, not only from the legal point. We don't really "sell" a domain,
because the "domain owner" doesn't become "owner". He just gets the right
to deal with the domain for a certain period of time. It's more like a
service of a broker. I would like to hear what other registrars think about
it, since this is very important for the kind of contract you make with
your customer.
>
>
>Alexander Boeker
>Lawyer
>***************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
******************************
>EPAG Enter-Price Multimedia AG
>Talstrasse 22-24
>D-40217 Duesseldorf
>Germany
>
>Tel.: +49 - 211 - 27 09-0
>Fax: +49 - 211 - 27 09-208
>
>www.epag.de
>AB@epag.de
>***************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
******************************
>
>
>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>Von:	Michael D. Palage [SMTP:mpalage@infonetworks.com]
>Gesendet am:	Freitag, 9. Juni 2000 21:53
>An:	Registrars@Dnso.Org
>Betreff:	[registrars] Registrar Meeting
>
>I have spoken with several registrars over the past couple of days with
>regard to the growing number of issues that are confronting the
>constituency. Although we are scheduled to meet in Yokohama next month, it
>does not appear that there will be a large turnout. This factor coupled with
>the time differential makes participation via a telephone bridge even less
>attractive. Therefore, I propose having a meeting in DC June 21st.  The
>propose of this meeting will be to discuss the following:
>
>(1) Recent problems with regard to domain name hijacking and other issues
>involving transfer requests
>Note: Several registrars have discussed providing an invitation to law
>enforcement personal (FBI etc.) that have been currently investigating these
>hijacking issues.
>
>(2) What is it that Registrars do: sell a product or provide a service.
>There are several registrars that have a different viewpoint on this topic
>and it needs to be discussed. For those advocates of the product viewpoint
>please read the Umbro and the sex.com opinions.
>
>(3) Code of Conduct issues. I would like to thank Richard Lindsey for
>getting out a draft document based on the original work of Jeff Shrewsbury.
>I think we collectively need to speed the progress of this document.
>
>(4) Registrar funding and structure.  Funding is a growing problem. The $250
>that I have collected to date was for last year's NC bill (total $5,000).
>According to the budget adopted by the NC we will to pony up ($19,000).
>Structure is a problem when you consider that there is a growing distinction
>between large Registrars and smaller to mid-size Registrars. Will all
>registrars be required to pay the same fees, or will voting rights have to
>be impacted. These are fundamental issues that we as an organization must
>answer if we are to grow as an industry.
>
>(5) A Registrar Statement on Working Group B & C issues. The staff report is
>due out next week. I strongly believe that a joint Registrar Statement would
>be beneficial.
>
>
>I have several people looking into room availability and telephone
>conference facilities.  Several registrars have also expressed an interest
>in contributing financially to host the event.
>
>I look to take the progress achieved at this meeting to springboard our
>efforts in Yokohama.
>
>Please provide feedback ASAP as time is short.
>
>
>Mike
>
>
>
>
>