At 6:05 PM -0700 9/5/00, William X. Walsh wrote:
>Hello Derek,
>
>Tuesday, September 05, 2000, 5:59:40 PM, you wrote:
>
>> At 3:49 PM -0700 9/5/00, William X. Walsh wrote:
>>>Sorry, Paul, but there is simply no reason for the owner not to be
>>>listed as the admin and every reason for them to be the admin contact.
>
>> Says you. Myself and others have different experience in this matter.
>
>>>The fact is, in reality and in common practice, for the admin contact
>>>to be considered the owner of the domain name.
>
>> Common practice... whose common practice would that be? To my
>> knowledge, the common practice is that the Organization listed in the
>> "owner" section of the whois record is the domain owner. For example,
>
>Derek, even you have to recognize that the admin contact is, in all
>intents, the owner of the domain name.
No, I don't have to recognize that, as I think my e-mail adequately
explained. The owner of the domain is, for all intents, the person in
the owner-record. The admin contact is the person to contact for
administrative issues.
> If you can't even admit that,
>in light of all the emphasis placed on the admin contact by nearly
>every registrar, then there is no point in even trying to discuss this
>intelligently.
So you claim that _I_ own yahoo.com? That I, on my own authority,
have the right to do whatever I see fit with it, simply by virtue of
being the admin contact? That I could sell it to a band of roving
gypsies for mondo-cash (and it would definitely go for Donald Trump
Lotto, let's face it), if such was my desire, because I am the
contact and I own it?
I think not. If I attempted to give it away, the OWNER -- the
organization listed in the owner field -- could easily say "Uhhhh,
no. We don't think so."
>One simple way of illustrating this is the approval process for
>registrar transfers. The "organization" contact is not contacted, the
>admin contact is. They are the ones being required to bind themselves
>to the registration contracts during the transfer process as well.
And if the person in the owner-contact overrides that, then the admin
contact's word is trumped. Were the admin contact really the owner,
then the admin contact's word would be irrefutable law. Such is not
the case.
>You may not like it, and you may want to try and make a semantics
>point over it, but in real life practice it is the case.
Sorry, my experience doesn't bear that out.
D
