RE: Charter last call summary

["Peter Mott" <peter@2day.com>]

> > I think it all boils down to symantics.
>
> Not only. There are legal aspects:
>
> A registry will have a labour contract with registrants
> when the registry has agents and some kind of a broker
> contract with the agent. The broker will on the other
> hand  have a broker contract with registrants. The
> important contract is registry - registrant.

Legal definition will probably determine that the entity exerting control
over the register is the party the registrant has a contract with.  In most
ccTLD cases this entity acts as both registry and registrar.

So even in a ccTLD where both registry and registrar services are performed
by the same entity, the registrant contract is still with the registrar :-)

> The problem I see when we only speak of registrars, that
> nobody ever will understand the other system, but
> - unfortunately - it is used by most ccTLD's (also
> ours).

If we can agree that your ccTLD has the same entity performing registry and
registrar services, then I think gTLD thinkers will understand :-)

> So I wanted to make sure that right from the beginning (the
> charter) nobody will be able to nail the RRP to the
> registry - registrar model only.

If you can see that you are in fact the (monopoly) registrar (and
coincidently the registry operator) for your ccTLD, then you should see no
problem with this.

Regards

Peter Mott
Chief Enthusiast
2day.com
-/-