Bob Parsons posts more on EU fiasco

[matt_bodis]

EURid Responds to .EU Abuse:

http://www.bobparsons.com/EURidResponds.html


I also submitted this response to him, which hasn't been verified yet, but I think this Bob Parkson's CEO is not so smart. Read the article first, then read my response:

Well we got you here. Bob Parson, saying all three registrars are part of the same group is like saying all 400 phantom registrars are part of 1 person.

You are the gamer in this scam yourself Bob. Look, you said that you pooled all 3 registrars together to get a better success rate. Therefore, if somebody ordered a domain on GoDaddy.com, you'd use GoDaddy.com WildWestDomains.com and BlueRazor.com to grab that single domain that was ordered on GoDaddy.com. That's illegitemate.

The point I am trying to make, is that you can use 3 registrars since you legally the owner of all 3. But you cannot use all 3 registrars to catch a domain that was ordered only via 1.

You are exactly the same thing as the 400 phantom registrars except on a smaller scale. Case closed. This is why a CEO shouldn't make a blog.

 

[fonzie_007]

You're not quite comparing apples to apples. Parsons' case is distinguishable. The phantom registrars did not actually have webpages set up and were not actually operating as legit registrars. Conversely, Parsons' registrars were. While it can be debated if what Parsons' was doing was right, his dealings are different than the phantom registrars.

 

[gazzip]

Ref: "You are exactly the same thing as the 400 phantom registrars except on a smaller scale. Case closed. This is why a CEO shouldn't make a blog."

I don't see it that way at all for the following reasons :

GoDaddy has had 3 seperate websites that have been active for a while, even though they are all part of the same company.

Endusers, comsumers and the general public could register .eu domains for themselves at either one of the 3 registrars owned by GoDaddy for a long time prior to April 7th.

On the other hand it appears that many of these "phantom" companies have :

Sprung up from the woodwork at the last minute

Created multiple companies in order to register the names for themselves and not for the general public - This would have been impossible to do in many of the cases as they do not have websites from where you could register from.

They have registered or "wharehoused" the domains for their own use which is apparently against the terms of agreement regarding being accredited by eurid. (as far as I have heard)

They are very different in how they have acted IMO

.

 

[Damion]

EURid Responds to .EU Abuse:

http://www.bobparsons.com/EURidResponds.html


I also submitted this response to him, which hasn't been verified yet, but I think this Bob Parkson's CEO is not so smart. Read the article first, then read my response:

You're so wrong here. There is a big difference in using multiple registrars to grab domains for the public that applies to them and they applied for and the phantom registrars that didn't registered or collected any .EU pre-registrations for the public and merely collecting themself, the owner of the registrar that is.

I just can't understand your reasoning my friend.

 

[matt_bodis]

It doesn't matter if you collect for the public or not. A registrar is a registrar. You can setup your own registrar whenever you wish to and use it for private/personal purposes.

Also, doesn't matter if registrars sprung into it last minute. They had all the way until April 7. They could've done it early or late.

And no registrars needs to have a website. Ever hear of private design firms? Sometimes these design firms have no websites. Same case here, you can apply for a registrar license without having to have a website. You guys have to think "legal" here. Nothing there that says you have to have a site.

Now obviously, 400 phantom registrars were registered under 400 different LLCs that belonged to a single owner. Nothing legally that you can dispute here. Bob Parson also has 3 registrars under the same person, which is himself, and they also were used to catch domains only ordered on a single registrar.

 

[Damion]

It doesn't matter if you collect for the public or not. A registrar is a registrar. You can setup your own registrar whenever you wish to and use it for private/personal purposes.

Also, doesn't matter if registrars sprung into it last minute. They had all the way until April 7. They could've done it early or late.

And no registrars needs to have a website. Ever hear of private design firms? Sometimes these design firms have no websites. Same case here, you can apply for a registrar license without having to have a website. You guys have to think "legal" here. Nothing there that says you have to have a site.

Now obviously, 400 phantom registrars were registered under 400 different LLCs that belonged to a single owner. Nothing legally that you can dispute here. Bob Parson also has 3 registrars under the same person, which is himself, and they also were used to catch domains only ordered on a single registrar.

Yes it does matter of course since the whole discussion and dispute is about private companies gobbling up a large percentage of .eu domains for own private speculation.
If registrars are setting up extra registrars to provide their customers a better success rate then that's a different ballgame and i see nothing wrong with that.

If registrars, well not even real registrars merely by law start to swallow up names then it's not an individual with the help of an savvy registrar improving their luck and success rate but a investing firm(s) making abuse of the system.

Yes, i know they didn't do anything illegal but this isn't really the point is it? The point is that the legal system was so easely manipulated to gain advantage over the regular applicants.
Not to mention all the fake trade marking going on (the & and & this type of &trademark).

This should have been anticipated! and it was already so obvious this could happen.


Of course you still wouldn't see the point i am making here because you still think Bob Parson did the same exact thing and is just as wrong in your opinion but the difference is Bob Parson did this to give his customers a better success rate and not to gobble up the domains for himself!

 

[fonzie_007]

Arguably these phantom registrars may have done something illegal that opens up the owners to liability. If you set up limited liability companies to perpetual a fraud (which in this case may have occured--although I don't know all of the facts about what exactly went one), the limited liability of the company can be stripped--leaving the directors/owners open to personal liability. This is called "piercing the corporate veil."

 

[gazzip]

It doesn't matter if you collect for the public or not. A registrar is a registrar. You can setup your own registrar whenever you wish to and use it for private/personal purposes.
.

Article 4. REGISTRATION AGREEMENT

During the Registration process, the Registrar will always submit (including but not limited to any submission in the WHOIS database) the data of the End User who made the initial request for the Registration of the Domain Name(s) concerned and not its own data.

The e-mail address submitted in the contact information will be that of the End User alone and not that of the Registrar unless the End User expressly requests that the Registrar's e-mail address be submitted. After the Registration process, the Registrar must ensure that at any time the data in the WHOIS database is the data from the End User, and not its own data.

The Registrar may register Domain Names for its own use. However, it will refrain from 'warehousing practices', that is, registering large numbers of Domain Names without being specifically instructed to do so by End Users.


Most of these so called "phantom Registrars" don't even have a website for an end user to register on !!

LOL - Phantom Registers - Like they can't be found :hehe:

.