Re: [DNS] Provisionally Accredited Registrars and Interim Code of Practice

Re: [DNS] Provisionally Accredited Registrars and Interim Code of Practice

From: Patrick Corliss <patrick§>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 01:03:46 +1100
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 09:50:13 +0000, Jon Lawrence wrote:

> >Which means every reseller of domains must advertise Melbourne
> > IT on each of their web pages.
> ...given that every registrant of a domain name is entering into
> a contract with the administrator (at this point Melbourne IT) surely they
> have a legal right to know who they are contracting with.

Hi Jon

I don't see why a registrant using a reseller is entering into a contract with
the registrar.  I have registered a number of domain names with an OpenSRS
reseller operating in Australia.  He, in turn, registers with OpenSRS.  I see
my dealings are with the reseller rather than the registrar.  That's who I pay
my money to !!

What about the situation where a professional accountant or solicitor, for
example, who was not a reseller, registered domain names on behalf of a
client.  Clearly they are providing a service and any breach of the terms of
the contract is between the professional and their client.  That's known as
"privity of contract".

I agree with Peter Dean here and wonder why a reseller should be compelled to
advise their client the details of the registrar particularly in a case where
a reseller may well be associated with more than one registrar (as is

Of course, pricing may well be a factor.  Insurance companies, for example,
charge the same premium whether you buy direct or through a broker.  Airlines,
however, are now cutting out travel agents by giving discounts to direct

If registrars want to sign up resellers (what used to be called "channel
partners") they are likely to give a cut price discount for bulk purchases or
payments in advance.  That makes the registrar into more of a wholesaler.

And nobody needs to know the identity of the wholesaler.

What is important, however, is that the registrant has got access to an
appropriate procedure for making complaints.  One way is to complain directly
to the registrar (for which the registrant needs to know who that was) but
another way is for auDA to handle complaints against resellers.  This could be
done by auDA forwarding the complaint on to the relevant registrar in the
first instance.

The problem really hinges on whether auDA wants to get stuck in the middle of
a complaint procedure against resellers.  My view is that auDA would rather
stay out of that process.  If so, the reseller will need to disclose the
identity of the registrar.

Thus registrars can handle complaints against resellers and auDA will be
confined to handling complaints against registrars.  That's sensible, imo.

I don't think it (disclosing the details of the registrar) will matter very
much provided there is no incentive for the registrant to bypass the reseller
and deal directly with the registrar.

In other words, I'd ask Peter whether he thinks there is any likelihood that
people (ie registrants) will buy direct from the registrar if they know who it

Patrick Corliss
I'm on the Board of auDA (the .au country code) as well as TLDA (the Top
Level Domain Association).   Please note that anything I write is my own
personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect the views of any body
with which I am associated.  Please also note IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer).
Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:05 UTC