GNSO Email Archives: [council]

ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>> <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] RE: [gnso-dow123] Proposed consensus recommendationonimproving notification to Registered Name Hold

To: Mueller@xxxxxxx, tim@xxxxxxxxxxx, dmaher@xxxxxxx
Subject: [council] RE: [gnso-dow123] Proposed consensus recommendationonimproving notification to Registered Name Hold
From: "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 15:35:09 -0400
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <s2c00404.016@gwia201.syr.edu>
Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE>
<P>Boy, am I&nbsp; being misunderstood! :-) Let me try to add clarity to what I was 
trying to convey, versus what language is used. </P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>What I am trying to support is that we should just get guidance on how to accomplish the goal of 
"a clear notice, that is easy to find, and that includes at a minimum the following information from the 
RAA and that the collected data is displayed in WHOIS. I agree that&nbsp;lawyers are inclined to give 
different interpretations of "words", and that words MIGHT have different legal meaning. </P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>However, there is no intent on my part to stick with using "conspicious"&nbsp; 
</P>
<P>When I used "clear and conspicious" I didn't mean that we should try to put those 
words into the policy, but that we needed to capture an intent of having a notice that is easy to 
find, easy to understand, and noticeable, and references the WHOIS. :-) </P>
<P>does that help to explain what I was trying to accomplish?.</P>
<P>I think from the Council's discussion that there was a strong support to the intent to 
inform the&nbsp; registrant -- and acknowledgement that there is a concern that&nbsp;right 
now, that isn't always the case. BUT that where possible, we would not duplicate existing 
requirements, only appropriately augment them.</P>

I unfortunately will not be on the call. I have an emergency medical situation that can't be rescheduled, or that my international travel refuses to allow me to reschedule. I'll talk to David Fares and Sarah Deutsch before the call regarding the BC perspectives. >From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@xxxxxxx> >To: <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <dmaher@xxxxxxx> >CC: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,        <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Proposed consensus recommendationonimproving notification to Registered Name Hold >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 13:49:21 -0400 > >Agree with David. That is why NCUC suggested, in the first round, that >ICANN standardize the notification, both interms of wording and in >terms of size requirements. In effect, ICANN would get registrars off >the hook with regard to whether the notice was "clear and conspicuous" >because ICANN would have decided for them what kind of notifications >conformed with their contractual obligations to be clear & conspicuous. > > > >>> "David W. Maher" <dmaher@xxxxxxx> 06/27/05 11:45 AM >>> >I suggest that it is a waste of time to get advice on legal >interpretations of "clear and conspicuous". Collecting information >from lawyers about what this phrase means in China, or Uzbekistan,or >........., could bring this process to a halt for years. >David Maher > >At 08:54 PM 6/26/2005, Tim Ruiz wrote: > >Thanks Marilyn. I'm not saying that is the wrong phrasing, I just >don't >>know. I do know that it has been opened to wide intrepretation in US > >courts and from State to State. So maybe something to get advice on. > > > </DIV></div></html>

<<< Chronological Index >>> <<< Thread Index >>>