RE: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
- To: "Steven J. Metalitz IIPA" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
- From: Marc Schneiders <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:38:37 +0200 (CEST)
- Cc: Milton Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>, Tom Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <AEC255FE63E15242B7C16532227D7C8E3D8281@smmail.local.iipa.com>
- Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I see your point, but you will also see Milton's: There is no choice.
So to put the emphasis away from that, seems a good idea to me.
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, at 11:31 [=GMT-0400], Steven J. Metalitz IIPA wrote:
> Actually, the purpose of the policy (at least as embodied in the
> Registrar Accreditation Agreement) is both notification and consent:
> 220.127.116.11 Registrar shall provide notice to each new or renewed Registered
> Name Holder stating:
> 18.104.22.168.1 The purposes for which any Personal Data collected from the
> applicant are intended;
> 22.214.171.124.2 The intended recipients or categories of recipients of the
> data (including the Registry Operator and others who will receive the
> data from Registry Operator);
> 126.96.36.199.3 Which data are obligatory and which data, if any, are
> voluntary; and
> 188.8.131.52.4 How the Registered Name Holder or data subject can access and,
> if necessary, rectify the data held about them.
> 184.108.40.206 The Registered Name Holder shall consent to the data processing
> referred to in Subsection 220.127.116.11.
> Are Tom and Milton suggesting that the contract be changed so that
> consent is no longer required?
> Steve Metalitz
> -----Original Message-----
> 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.
> > 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 rather
> 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