RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Some definitions & concepts to inform our work

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi folks.  

After re-reading Chris' original message, it occurred to me that he may
have meant the -client- had no contract with the REGISTRAR or RESELLER. 
Apologies if I misunderstood.

That said, I believe the point(s) of my message still stand: if, in all
cases,  the SERVICE PROVIDER is acting in a previously-defined role
(e.g. REGISTRANT), then adding another definition is unnecessary.  

The "contractual chain" of obligations can extend indefinitely, but we
have to establish a point where following it no longer applies to the
transfer process.  In my opinion, the most appropriate point of
termination is where ICANN policy no longer governs:  the REGISTRANT.

Thoughts?

Thanks--

J.


   -------- Original Message --------
 Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Some definitions & concepts to inform
 our work
 From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
 Date: Sun, September 13, 2009 11:42 pm
 To: "Chris Chaplow" <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 Cc: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
 
 
 Chris and Team:
 
 These are interesting concepts as well, but I think they may raise
 additional complications and / or create confusion.
 
 For example, while a RESELLER may be relevant in some situations, the
 REGISTRAR is still ultimately responsible for managing the name and
 handling the transfer.
 
 And any discussion of the SERVICE PROVIDER must be strictly limited to
 those scenarios in which they can (or should) play a role in the
 transfer operation. In fact, your statement that they "offer(s) domain
 name registration ... (without contracts with registrars or resellers)"

 How, specifically, is this achieved? 
 
 And finally, if the SERVICE PROVIDER is occupying another (previously
 defined) role, such as REGISTRANT, then we should focus on actions
 conducted in that capacity, unless / until we can identify something
 unique that this type of entity does with respect to transfers.
 
 Thanks--
 
 J.
 
 
 -------- Original Message --------
 Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Some definitions & concepts to inform
 our work
 From: "Chris Chaplow" <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 Date: Sun, September 13, 2009 11:23 am
 To: <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx>
 
 Thanks Michael, I like "account holder" is best description for this
 individual or entity. 
 
 
 I would also like to extend on two more players:
 
 RESELLER and SERVICE PROVIDER. They complicate the situation and are
 mentioned in the SSAC reports. 
 
 One of the possible matrix of hijack situations is when a service
 provider (eg. amateur web designer) becomes the account holder and the
 registrant of the domain. The business does not realize that it does
not
 own the domain it paid for until it has a dispute with the service
 provider. 
 
 
 RESELLER is an organization that offers domain name registration
 services to a REGISTRANT under a reseller agreement with a REGISTRAR. 
 
 SERVICE PROVIDER is an organization that offers domain name
 registration amongst other internet services to a client (without
 contracts with registrars or resellers). The SERVICE PROVIDER may be
the
 ACCOUNT HOLDER, but acting on behalf of a client may be authorized by
 their ‘service provider terms and conditions’ to accept the
 Registration Agreement on the client’s behalf and become the
 registered NAME HOLDER. 
 I appreciate this now introduces a ‘client’. Anybody help develop
 this further?
 I think the proxy name service becomes a service provider. 
 
 When there is no written ‘service provider terms and conditions’ it
 becomes more difficult to establish the NAME HOLDER and hence a domain
 hijack allegation.
 
 Chris Chaplow
 Managing Director
 Andalucía.com S.L.
 Avenida del Carmen 9
 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo
 1ª Planta, Oficina 30
 Estepona, 29680
 Malaga, Spain
 Tel: + (34) 952 897 865
 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874
 E-mail: chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Web: www.andalucia.com
 Information about Andalucia, Spain.
 
 Please think of the Environment before you print this email