Re: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
the only thing I wanted to point out is that making the consent explicit
in such way might bring up privacy concerns which will not be addressed
easily. It was my feeling that due to this concerns we agreed on leaving
the privacy issue aside and focus on the matter of raising the awareness
the registrant has of the whois policy at the point of registration.
Am 30.09.2004 schrieb Steven J. Metalitz IIPA:
> Actually, the purpose of the policy (at least as embodied in the
> Registrar Accreditation Agreement) is both notification and consent:
> 188.8.131.52 Registrar shall provide notice to each new or renewed Registered
> Name Holder stating:
> 184.108.40.206.1 The purposes for which any Personal Data collected from the
> applicant are intended;
> 220.127.116.11.2 The intended recipients or categories of recipients of the
> data (including the Registry Operator and others who will receive the
> data from Registry Operator);
> 18.104.22.168.3 Which data are obligatory and which data, if any, are
> voluntary; and
> 22.214.171.124.4 How the Registered Name Holder or data subject can access and,
> if necessary, rectify the data held about them.
> 126.96.36.199 The Registered Name Holder shall consent to the data processing
> referred to in Subsection 188.8.131.52.
> 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
(oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of
| |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger!
w w w w