] On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 04:26:29 +1100, you wrote:
] 
] >The code will be enforceable by auDA, and failure to abide by the code can
] >result in loss of registrar licence.  However ultimately any company can
] >sell domain names without any licence.  The licence purely gives them direct
] >access to communicate with the registry.  A comany can still act on behalf
] >of the registrant and purchase their domain names from any registrar or
] >reseller.

Malcolm Miles wrote: 
] So the owners of a "shonky" registrar company can set up a second
] company for the sole purpose of purchasing domains through their
] registrar company thus avoiding any chance of the registrar company
] losing its licence.

Note: I am not a lawyer.

There are also clauses in the Registrar Agreement like 15.3, 15.4,
and 15.5.  If the second company wasn't a reseller, then 14.2.4 
might be relevant.  And in any case 11.3 would limit data transfer.

If these sorts of things aren't considered enough, then the people
in charge of the Code of Practice could include something saying
that related entities must also abide by the Code of Practice to
the extent that they engage in DNS business.  (In other words if
A subscribes to the Code, and B is a related entity of A, and
B violates the Code, then A has also violated the Code.)

One of the advantages of having things like Published Policies
and a Code of Practice is that auDA would have the potential to
react to new shonky practices which become evident in future,
without having re-negotiate contracts.  The Registrar contract
just says they have to comply with the Published Policies and CoP.

Naturally there would need to be checks and balances to ensure
auDA couldn't change these sort of Policies and Codes arbitrarily
at auDA's whim.

__________________________________________________________________________
 David Keegel <djk&#167;cyber.com.au>  URL: http://www.cyber.com.au/users/djk/
Cybersource P/L: Unix Systems Administration and TCP/IP network management