RE: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
- To: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>, "Steven J. Metalitz IIPA" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>, "Tom Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
- From: "Steven J. Metalitz IIPA" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:31:02 -0400
- Cc: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcSm73kXHUhRdxDWSv+yncgMr/tLzAAEnS1g
- Thread-topic: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
Actually, the purpose of the policy (at least as embodied in the
Registrar Accreditation Agreement) is both notification and consent:
22.214.171.124 Registrar shall provide notice to each new or renewed Registered
Name Holder stating:
126.96.36.199.1 The purposes for which any Personal Data collected from the
applicant are intended;
188.8.131.52.2 The intended recipients or categories of recipients of the
data (including the Registry Operator and others who will receive the
data from Registry Operator);
184.108.40.206.3 Which data are obligatory and which data, if any, are
220.127.116.11.4 How the Registered Name Holder or data subject can access and,
if necessary, rectify the data held about them.
18.104.22.168 The Registered Name Holder shall consent to the data processing
referred to in Subsection 22.214.171.124.
Are Tom and Milton suggesting that the contract be changed so that
consent is no longer required?
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 9:15 AM
To: Steven J. Metalitz IIPA; Tom Keller
Cc: Thomas Roessler; dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
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
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
>>> 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.
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 rather
than being forced to state that he gives his consent to the policy.
Schlund + Partner AG
Brauerstrasse 48 Tel. +49-721-91374-534
76135 Karlsruhe, Germany Fax +49-721-91374-215