Actually upon registration of a domain name, a contract comes into force
between the registrar and the registrant, that's the way that agreements
have been set up.

It makes sense in that the reseller acts as an agent only for the initiation
of the licence, but the registrar has to provide ongoing services.

In other words (solely for domain name matters) a reseller's obligation is
transient, usually only for the act of registration / renewal.  The
registry's obligation to the registrant is for the entire duration of that
licence.

Ron Stark


-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Todd [mailto:auda§todd.inoz.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 10 July 2002 1:20 AM
To: dns§lists.auda.org.au
Subject: Re: [DNS] MelbIT and INP love loss?



> > A more fundamental question is:
> >
> > Should a non contracted party contact a party about their contract with
> > another party?
> >
> >
> > Hmmm.
>
>What confuses me is:
>
>Is the contract between the Registrant and the Reseller, the Registrant and
>the Registrar, the Registrant and the Registry, the Registrant and auDA or
>all of the above.
>
>Also at what point is the contract made and at what point does the 'first
>come, first served' allocation policy come into effect.

Actually you know you just raised a really good situation!

You see, the contract and transaction is between the Registrant and the 
RESELLER, it has NOTHING to do with auDA or the Registry.

In fact, if auDA can prove they have a right to contract with the 
Registrant, I'd be very interested.

I have THREE judgements saying that a company which provided domain name 
services via an agent has NO legal recourse or right to claim costs, change 
contracts, transfer contracts, or cease providing a functional service to 
the consumer.

In short, it doesn't matter what contracts are between the Supplier and the 
Agent/Reseller, it only matters what is between the consumer and reseller.

If auDA refuse, fail, or cease to provide a domain name to a consumer who 
paid an agent/reseller for that domain name, auDA might end up with domain 
names out of pocket!

Bottom line is - the contract is between the consumer and registrar, not 
auDA and the consumer, ditto with MIT, who have no legal right to the 
consumer, unless the agent/reseller created that right with the consumer.

Hmm, interesting paradox.

Having just read a judgement in the Federal Court involving auDA I feel 
more cases will arise.  The judgement just read I have mixed feelings about 
with regard to the applicant and respondent.  Hindsight might be a cause 
for auDA concern.




---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the 
author, further information at the above URL.  (332 subscribers.)