ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>, <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
  • From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:14:31 -0400
  • Cc: <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I agree with Thomas's point here. 
The purpose of the policy is notification, in order to
increase the registrant's awareness and choices. The 
purpose is not to aquire their consent, especially since
they have no choice but to "consent" to the policy.

On the question of measuring success, I think you
do need to poll registrants and that it is unacceptable
to avoid this issue. If registrars were willing to 
cooperate, a survey could be done at minimal expense.


>>> Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx> 9/30/2004 7:44:56 AM >>>
Am 28.09.2004 schrieb Steven J. Metalitz IIPA:
> I also think the third recommendation should include the word
> since, after all, that is what the Registrar Accreditation Agreement
> requires that registrars obtain from registrants.  
> Steve

I would like to disagree on that point. As we already talked about on 
our last call regarding this subject a requirement for consent to the
whois policy will bring up a whole bunch of questions we might not
be able to solve easily. My preference would be that the potential
registrant should state that he has noticed/read the whois policy
than being forced to state that he gives his consent to the policy.




Thomas Keller

Domain Services
Schlund + Partner AG
Brauerstrasse 48                        Tel. +49-721-91374-534
76135 Karlsruhe, Germany                Fax  +49-721-91374-215
http://www.schlund.de                   tom@xxxxxxxxxx      

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