Ah. My apologies Brian - I did miss your problem with 'Strict Name
Checking' on the Registrant type (as it is known at CIRA).
There were several small quirks after which CIRA has corrected in most
cases. The thing here is that you as a non-registrar can't ask CIRA to fix
this. You need to get your registrar to ask CIRA. However my understanding
is if your registrar points out there is a regex problem that it will be
looked into and fixed if possible. If you try (or have tried) this and
don't get this result please let me know so I can dig into the issue.
Regarding the Partnership / Proprietorship issue I know that I am not a
lawyer in Business law and that our lawyer told us we couldn't because it
did vary from province to province and that it would cause issues and
potential risk. At the time it was a risk the registry wasn't willing to
take. The general practice taken at CIRA was that it was better to be safe
now and sorry later. If we can relax the restriction and open the door to
let more people have CA domains while still keeping the spirit of CPR I
think it is a great idea. However lawyers are evil people and there has
just been bigger fish to fry up to this point.
Again you need to really push your registrar to speak on your behalf.
Registrar comments have constantly been incorporated into CIRA policy.
(Charles Please Don't Kill Me!).
Cheerio,
Paul
On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, Doctor PC - Brian O'Donnell wrote:
> In one respect, neither a registered partnership nor a registered
> proprietorship is a legal entity, but in other ways both are. I don't
> believe it varies that much from province to province. But that doesn't
> alter the fact that neither is listed on CIRA's "Legal Types for
> Registrants". Basically, if you are a registered partnership, the domain
> must be registered in the name of ONE (and only one) of the partners, and if
> you are a proprietorship, the name must be registered in the name of the
> (sole) proprietor.
>
> But I believe that you missed the point I was making. And that is the
> ridiculous and arcane ways that CIRA tries to figure out if a registrant
> complies. My name does not pass their regular expression test, I believe
> because of the apostrophe &/or the upper-case "D"; therefore I must use a
> name which is neither my legal registered name (from birth), nor my
> registered (sole-proprietorship) company name.
>
> I think that CIRA should offer "registered partnership or proprietorship" as
> one of the "legal entities". It would make things a whole lot easier for all
> involved. I mean... if I can order a telephone, rent a building, and lease a
> vehicle under my company name, you would think I could register a domain
> name under it.
>
> Oh, and just for clarification, my registered proprietorship status allowed
> me to get an IRS tax number for conducting business in the USA, which in
> turn allowed me to register doctorpc.us with no legal hassles or
> hoop-jumping.
>
> Brian
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Andersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Doctor PC - Brian O'Donnell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "admin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "disscuss"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 6:54 PM
> Subject: Re: .ca registration failure
>
>
> >
> > You are correct if you mean Registered Partnerships which don't qualify
> > because they are not their own legal entity. Only a corporation is.
> >
> > This is actually not so much a CIRA problem as a Canadian Law problem
> > which varies wildly from province to province when it comes to RP's. The
> > problem is that most provinces don't let bind the entity to a contract.
> >
> > I understand that this can be a PITA but you should whine to your local
> > province ;)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Paul
> >
>
---
Paul Andersen (InterNIC:PA137) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
E-Gate Communications Inc. T: +1 (416) 447-7700x23
"The Trouble with doing anything right the first time is that nobody
appreciates how difficult it was." - NANOG
