At 06:52 10/07/02 +1000, you wrote:
>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.

Nope, not under the Trade Laws.  You can't pass title of a contract via a 
third party.  That's the problem.  That's been tried and tested already.

Evidence I gave to the court was that the name space being sold was not 
owned by the reseller who made the contract with the consumer.  Even though 
the consumer knew who the owner of the name space was.

When the agent took the money and ran, the consumer was entitled to the 
goods, and the supplier was not entitled to payment.

Sorry if anyone, including auDA disagree, but I have a 48 page judgement 
here I'm happy to fax to anyone who wants to read it.  It's very detailed 
and extremely dangerous to the auDA/Registry/Registrar contractual structure.

>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.

It doesn't matter.  The consumer transacts with the AGENT, unless the 
Registrar is a party directly the to transaction.

If the Agent goes bust and doesn't register the name, and the consumer 
wants his $295 back, is auDA going to pay that the consumer??

The answer is YES.  That's what the law says.

>In other words (solely for domain name matters) a reseller's obligation is
>transient, usually only for the act of registration / renewal.

That's NOT how the courts have seen it.  I'd be happy for a revised 
judgement, my wife is short $2 million.

>The registry's obligation to the registrant is for the entire duration of 
>that licence.

But it isn't!  That's the problem!

As I said, I'd love to have the rulings reversed, please let me know 
when.  I could do with the cash!  I'll back the auDA structure all the way 
for $2 million cash!  (Pre GST too!)