Hi, we’re looking for clarity around the design and rationale of the Affiliation model and the state of the Company Password.
Could you please comment how these 4 workflows have changed between the current BC Online/COLIN and the Modernization model?
Firms currently perform filings on behalf of their clients (BC Companies) in our product or through BC online interchangeably and do not require the Vendor to intervene to perform a BC Online filing.
BC Companies change representing Firms as desired, sometimes with the new Firm using a different Vendor, and filings can continue without intervention from either Vendor using the Company Password.
Firms expect to exclusively maintain and store their records and information (including KYC) about their Clients (BC Companies) pursuant to their solicitor-client relationship.
Firms require Vendors to segregate data as a best practice. Currently the vendor can track relationships around transactions as they define (including Firm or Office identifiers) but don’t perform the transaction itself (screen scraping method) so there’s no collating of all client data.
a. Is the invoicing data and filing data returned by the registry coalesced for all Firms under a single Vendor API account if they all use the same Vendor?
There appears to be a disconnect between how Vendors and other stakeholders view the API.
In an effort to better articulate the distinctions from a Vendor perspective, we’ve included a simplified schematic diagram in a post comparing the BC Online system to the modernization model.
Post: Vendor Impact Comparison - BC Registry Modernization
This was created to respond to Firms asking for details of all the changes that may impact them from the interface, their accounts, payments, and data. A copy of the diagram is included below.
Schematic Diagram - Comparison of BC Online/COLIN & BC Registry Modernization API models
Explanations of the elements and swimlanes are available in the post above.
Thank you