RE: [dow1-2tf] Definition of the "Conspicuous" in US Uniform Comm ercial Code
- To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Definition of the "Conspicuous" in US Uniform Comm ercial Code
- From: Marc Schneiders <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:10:17 +0200 (CEST)
- Cc: <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <7927C67249E4AD43BC05B539AF0D12980101F305@stntexch04.cis.neustar.com>
- Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Of research into the browser settings of internet users in general I
am not aware. I doubt there is any into how people who buy domains
behave online in this respect.
My point is not that it is done a lot (I think many people are more or
less unaware of these options) but that it can be done. And sometimes
one has to do it in order to read a webpage with bad colour
combinations, for example.
Additionally there is the problem that different browsers give
And if I understand anything of the conspicuous notice problem, it is
not so much a problem of the users/domain registrants but of the
registrars. If you work over http using html you have to accept the
limitations of that protocol.
Unless this TF decides that we may assume that all domain registrants
use Internet Explorer with standard settings... Please also specify
the version, since MicroSoft might decide to change the standard
settings at some time in the future.
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, at 08:44 [=GMT-0400], Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> This is not to be argumentative, but do you have any evidence that people
> who register domain names from registrars change their internet browser
> settings in the way you have suggested. If it happens at all, I believe it
> must be such a rare example.
> When setting policy, you cannot take into consideration all of the possible
> extremes, but rather you must try to use a reasonable standard and cater to
> as broad of an audience as possible. My personal belief (and not as the
> chair of the TF) is that we should work towards improving policy. We cannot
> solve 100% of the problems for 100% of the people, but we can (I hope) make
> things better.
> That being said, if you can provide us with some evidence of your
> assertions, that would be helpful to the group.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 4:58 AM
> To: Neuman, Jeff
> Cc: dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [dow1-2tf] Definition of the "Conspicuous" in US Uniform
> Commercial Code
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, at 08:45 [=GMT-0400], Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> > "A term of clause is conspicuous when it is so written that a reasonable
> > person against whom it is to operate ought to have noticed it. A printed
> > heading in capitals is conspicuous. Language in the body of a form is
> > "conspicuous" if it is in larger or other contrasting type or color.
> > a term or clause is "conspicuous" or not is for decision by the court.
> > Conspicuous terms include the following: (A) a heading in capitals equal
> > or greater in size than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type,
> > or color to the surrounding text of the same or lesser size; and (B)
> > language in the body of a record or display in larger type than the
> > surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the
> > text of the same size, or set off from surrounding text of the same size
> > symbols or other marks that call attention to the language."
> Well, on the web (http) this doesn't work out like on paper. Settings
> of users in their browsers overrule lay out settings (like fonts and
> colours) of websites. It's in the nature of HTML.
> So you put it in 48 point red Arial Bold, and I tell my browser, that
> I want everything in 12 point times roman, no colours. And I see
> nothing conspicious. Don't tell me it is my fault. This is how HTML
> works by definition (protocol). We may have lost this feeling through
> flash, stylesheets and the rest, but it is still there. And not only
> in theory.