RE: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
- To: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>, <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>, <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
- From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 12:27:48 -0400
- Cc: <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcSoN3j2yHuP5IdwT0mv83IvhYBZ1QAZPzhQ
- Thread-topic: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
I don't think we can get to consensus on striking that provision at this point.
I do think that giving people conspicuous notice will lead to more people
opting to use
the services... if they are "indeed" individuals who are registering domain
I note once again, however unpopular this opinion is that ISPs do provide the
for an individual to use a web page, yet have the ISP be the contact listed...
as we have seen with the Verizon example, do require court orders before
sharing subscriber information with law enforcement, or other "inquirers"...
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 12:22 AM
To: metalitz@xxxxxxxx; tom@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
>>> "Steven J. Metalitz IIPA" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx> 09/30/04 11:31 AM >>>
>220.127.116.11 The Registered Name Holder shall consent to the data processing
>referred to in Subsection 18.104.22.168.
>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, 22.214.171.124 should be
stricken from the contact because it is utterly meaningless. It does not
represent consent. It is simply an expression of regulatory power.