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