ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?

  • To: Milton Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
  • From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 09:00:52 -0700
  • Cc: roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, metalitz@xxxxxxxx, tom@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Reply-to: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<div>Not that I'm not somewhat sympathetic to your argument, but it
doesn't really hold water. Becoming the actual registrant of a domain
name does has certain *caveats* attached, if you will. However, it is
not the only way to have a domain name, make use of it, or have a web
site. You have choices. If you choose to register the name as your own,
you are choosing the responsibilities and caveats that come along with
blue 2px solid"><BR>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE:
[dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?<BR>From: "Milton
Mueller" &lt;mueller@xxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Fri, October 01, 2004 11:21
pm<BR>To: metalitz@xxxxxxxx, tom@xxxxxxxxxx<BR>Cc:
dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR><BR>&gt;&gt;&gt; "Steven J. Metalitz IIPA"
&lt;metalitz@xxxxxxxx&gt; 09/30/04 11:31 AM &gt;&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;
The Registered Name Holder shall consent to the data
processing<BR>&gt;referred to in Subsection<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Are
Tom and Milton suggesting that the contract be changed so
that<BR>&gt;consent is no longer required?<BR><BR>Doesn't matter either
way. <BR><BR>What you've shown us is a contractual provision that
*requires* people<BR>to consent. "Thou shalt consent, because we won't
allow you to register<BR>a domain unless<BR>you sign a contract of
adhesion that says you consent." Voila! we have<BR>"consent," and
therefore we have fulfilled the fair information<BR>principles.
<BR><BR>ICANN's monopoly on the DNS root allows it to give people a
contract<BR>that is uniform and CANNOT vary across any registrar, so
that people<BR>have no choice at all. Do you call signing this contact
"consent?" &nbsp;<BR><BR>Let me point out that a torturer can get his
victim to say he "consents"<BR>to the torture if he wants to.
<BR><BR>If that is what you mean by "consent," then yes, should
be<BR>stricken from the contact because it is utterly meaningless. It
does not<BR>represent consent. It is simply an expression of regulatory
power. <BR><BR>--MM </BLOCKQUOTE>

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>