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

["'Stephane Bortzmeyer'" <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>]

On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 08:44:06AM -0500,
 Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck@verisign.com> wrote 
 a message of 29 lines which said:

> I deliberately tried to stay away from the concept of ownership 

OK, but replace "owner" and "owns" in my message by "sponsor" and
"sponsors" and I have the same concern. If I want to implement a
registry where contacts are not owned/sponsored/managed by registrars,
is it possible with EPP?

> "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 

Right, but not the point.

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

I was more specific: a model where contacts are not tied to a
registrar. For instance, <info> should not mandate:

  - A <contact:clID> element that contains the identifier of the
  sponsoring client.

(There is a <contact:crID> element if you want historical information
about who created a contact.)