ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?

  • To: "David W. Maher" <dmaher@xxxxxxx>, "Steven J. Metalitz IIPA" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>, "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
  • From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:24:09 -0400
  • Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcSmQhwBnbuJJckfRDCshLoEANstVwABvTgA
  • Thread-topic: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?

I'll look at this more closely this afternoon to see if I concur with your 
suggestion of "rough consensus"... David. :0)

Marilyn S. Cade
AT&T Law & Government Affairs
1120 20th Street, NW, Suite 1000N
Washington, DC 20036

281-664-9731 e-fax
202-360-1196 c

-----Original Message-----
From: David W. Maher [mailto:dmaher@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 12:32 PM
To: Steven J. Metalitz IIPA; Thomas Roessler; dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?

I support Thomas' approach as well, as amended by Steve.
In order to move things forward, plz see below a revised version of Thomas' 
I suggest that we declare "rough consensus", adopt this proposal, and put 
it all behind us.
At 08:46 AM 9/28/2004, Steven J. Metalitz IIPA wrote:
>  I support Thomas' approach here.  It includes some specific, concrete
>recommendations which sound reasonably implementable.
>However, I question his proposed "success metric."  It's not clear who
>would be carrying out a survey of a sample of registrants, but such a
>survey could be expensive and perhaps difficult to design, administer,
>and interpret.  I think the best we can hope for is to measure the
>compliance by registrars with the three specific recommendations that
>Thomas suggests.  That can be measured fairly easily, either by
>self-reporting by registrars, or by ICANN staff (or outside contractor)
>going through the registration process at all or a representative sample
>of registrars.
>I also think the third recommendation should include the word "consent"
>since, after all, that is what the Registrar Accreditation Agreement
>requires that registrars obtain from registrants.

FOLLOWING IS DWM revision, incorporating Steve's suggestions:

Objective: Increase registrant awareness of WHOIS.

         Success Metric: Significant increase of registrant awareness of 
WHOIS, as measured by an appropriate process to be adopted by ICANN, 
e.g.,either self-reporting by registrars, or data reviewed by ICANN staff 
(or outside contractor) through the registration process or a 
representative sample
of registrars.


         1. Registrars must ensure that disclosures regarding
         availability and third-party access to personal data
         associated with domain names actually be presented to
         registrants during the registration process.  Linking to an
         external web page is not sufficient.

         2. Registrars must ensure that these disclosures are set
         aside from other provisions of the registration agreement if
         they are presented to registrants together with that
         agreement.  Alternatively, registrars may present data
         access disclosures separate from the registration agreement.

         3. Registrars must obtain a separate acknowledgement from
         registrants that they have read, understood and consented to these

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