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: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 00:21:42 -0400
- Cc: <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> "Steven J. Metalitz IIPA" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx> 09/30/04 11:31 AM >>>
>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?
Doesn't matter either way.
What you've shown us is a contractual provision that *requires* people
to consent. "Thou shalt consent, because we won't allow you to register
a domain unless
you sign a contract of adhesion that says you consent." Voila! we have
"consent," and therefore we have fulfilled the fair information
ICANN's monopoly on the DNS root allows it to give people a contract
that is uniform and CANNOT vary across any registrar, so that people
have no choice at all. Do you call signing this contact "consent?"
Let me point out that a torturer can get his victim to say he "consents"
to the torture if he wants to.
If that is what you mean by "consent," then yes, 126.96.36.199 should be
stricken from the contact because it is utterly meaningless. It does not
represent consent. It is simply an expression of regulatory power.