I'd like to second Michael's points. In my experience, it's almost impossible to write a rule that nobody can possibly work around. If one is determined to only make rules that are impossible to game, one basically ends up with no rules at all. As Michael noted, the same entity principle gives the actual registrant strong incentives to police the situation, rather than leaving ICANN to try to do so. That definitely seems preferable to me. Bill Jouris Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 8:35 AM, Michael Bauland via Gnso-latin-diacritics<gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org> wrote: Hi Tapani, thanks for your input. I understand your points and agree your suggested scenario is possible. I'll comment inline. Am 09.07.2025 um 17:11 schrieb Tapani Tarvainen via Gnso-latin-diacritics:
Just to clarify my point about same entity principle on registrants I made during the call:
Assume someone gets .muller and .müller and wants to give mark.muller and mark.müller to different people.
The rule proposed would require a single registrant, but it would be easy enough to work around: simply form a legal entity that acts as the registrant and lets Mark Muller and Mark Müller have their own domains without being official registrants.
Mark Müller and Mark Muller could do it by themselves if they agree, but more likely the registrar would simply offer it as a service, with a subsidiary that acts as the registrant. Or an independent company could do it.
If we'd insist on matching DNS records too it could still be worked around, then you'd just have to have common hosting at least as a redirector.
As a side note: With the same entity requirement, there is not requirement to use the same DNS records. Different records are fine.
Thus the same entity principle would not be really effective on registrants, it would just cause extra complications and cost for people it affects.
But now to your main argument: In your case, both mark.muller and mark.müller behave well. Then of course there's no problem. Neither one is pretending to be the other. As you said, one could register both and hand one to the other person, or some intermediary could register both and hand them out to two people. Everything is fine. It's also not violating our same entity rule. Because what that same entity does with their bundled domains, is up to them. However, imagine mark.muller is a bad person and tries to impersonate mark.müller. Then it gets interesting. With the same entity requirement, the domains mark.müller and mark.mueller belong to the same registrant ... company, whatever. They are then responsible to solve and issues with abuse and they easily can, because they own both domains and have a direct customer relationship with both Marks. The company selling those domains further on, would want to make sure, there is no abuse, because legally, they are still responsible for both domains, they have a contract with the registrar. They have a high interest, neither of the two Marks is doing anything bad with their domains. However, without the same entity principle, mark.müller could get his domain and somebody totally different, using a different registrar, can get mark.muller and pretend to be mark.müller. That evil person could be living in some country, where the law is different and they don't care about abuse. Now Mark Müller would need to use international lawyers or whatever to get the evil domain taken down. It could cost him money, would take time, during which the evil person could to much harm (e.g., if there is a shop on the domain). With the same entity principle, we want to avoid such situations as much as possible. Of course there is always some way around and there is never 100% safety, but this is much safer for Mark Müller than if the same entity principle is not required. Hope that explains a bit of the background reasoning, why it's important (for the variant case, and I think also for our case). Cheers, Michael -- ____________________________________________________________________ | | | knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH ------- Technologiepark Martin-Schmeißer-Weg 9 44227 Dortmund Deutschland Dipl.-Informatiker Tel: +49 231 9703-0 Fax: +49 231 9703-200 Dr. Michael Bauland SIP: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de Software-Entwicklung E-Mail: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de Registereintrag: Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728 Geschäftsführer: Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp Zertifiziert nach DIN ISO/IEC 27001:2017 _______________________________________________ Gnso-latin-diacritics mailing list -- gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-latin-diacritics-leave@icann.org