RE: Is is mandatory for an object to belong to a registrar?

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

> I suspect that the question is stupid but I nevertheless would like to
> clarify things in my mind.
> 
> A colleague of me objected to EPP that EPP "mandates all objects to
> belong to a registrar (the creator)". Of course, this should be a
> local policy: most registries do not bill for contact creation, only
> for domain creation, so there is no "hard" reason to make contacts a
> property of registrars. But the issue is: is it allowed with EPP?
> 
> I believe that yes. A registry can always set a
> clientTransferProhibited for all objects and/or can always reply with
> 2306 to every <transfer> of a contact. (Wether the current EPP
> implementations allow it is another matter...)
> 
> But I wanted to be sure: a registry where contacts are *not* owned by
> registrars (and therefore not transferrable) can use EPP and the
> current mappings, yes or no?

I deliberately tried to stay away from the concept of ownership when
describing the client-object relationship -- there are too many legal
meanings and personal perceptions attached to "ownership".  "Sponsor",
"manage", etc. seemed like more neutral terms.  I don't think you'll find a
single use of the word "own" to describe the client-object relationship in
the specs -- if you do, I'd like to know about it so it can be changed.

The answer to your question is "yes".  The current protocol specifications
allow implementation of a model where contacts can not be transferred.

-Scott-