[At-Large] A brexit problem that I heard about

Danko Jevtović danko at jevtovic.rs
Mon Aug 20 11:53:06 UTC 2018

I understand that it is not up to EURID, but to EC (European Commission), that hold the contract with EURID to manage to TLDs.


The problem seems to be that possible solution (grandfathering clause) cannot be discussed outside of the whole package of Brexit negotiations, effectively blocking any reasonable progress.




From: At-Large <at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> On Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 1:09 PM
To: bzs at theworld.com
Cc: At Large <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [At-Large] A brexit problem that I heard about


Hi Barry.
You might have a point in principle.
However the reality is that each TLD can decide its own rules, and therefore whether to be strict in terms of requirements - like for instance .bank - or loose - like for instance .com.
.eu has chosen the first approach, and has all right to do so. Whether EURID is willing to make an exception for Brexit - based also on the consideration that, as far as I know, they do not make continuous checking about whether the resistant still complies with the requirements - or not, I don’t know. Apparently not.

On 17.08.2018, at 19:31, bzs at theworld.com <mailto:bzs at theworld.com>  wrote:

Ok I'll say it...

How many of these affected *.EU domains were actually entities with
some sort of EU charter or relationship as the TLD was approved for in

I realize it's naive to point out that .NET was for networking
organizations and .ORG for not-for-profits etc. in a world where we
have .XYZ and .FAIL (must they really be FAILures?)

Ok that ship has sailed because no one wanted to enforce it as it
would interfere with maximazing domain sales in those TLDs.

But are we really supposed to get lathered up about those who now got
burned flouting all that?

What promise do those affected actually expect to be upheld? Chapter
and verse not "well, we assumed..."?

And, no, marching out one or two bona-fide examples doesn't quite rise
to a counter argument.

If there were only one or two or ten I'll guess they could be handled
since they would have always had a legitimae reason to represent
themselves with a .EU domain which one would hope would allow them
some explicit accommodation.

      -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs at TheWorld.com <mailto:bzs at TheWorld.com>              | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD       | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
At-Large mailing list
At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org> 

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20180820/62301b3d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5558 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20180820/62301b3d/smime-0001.p7s>

More information about the At-Large mailing list