RE: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
- To: "David Maher" <dmaher@xxxxxxx>, <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
- From: "Steven J. Metalitz IIPA" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:21:57 -0400
- Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcSzIssgUBIT7kRLRkWI8G+5iZg7CgBfTNkg
- Thread-topic: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
IPC can accept this although we would like to be on record that the
better success metric is the extent of registrar compliance with this
three points in the recommendation.
[mailto:owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David W. Maher
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 9:47 PM
Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
Another try at moving forward:
Objective: Increase registrant awareness of WHOIS.
Success Metric: Significant increase of registrant awareness of
1. Registrars must ensure that disclosures regarding
availability and third-party access to personal data
associated with domain names actually be presented to
registrants during the registration process. Linking to an
external web page is not sufficient.
2. Registrars must ensure that these disclosures are set
aside from other provisions of the registration agreement if
they are presented to registrants together with that
agreement. Alternatively, registrars may present data
access disclosures separate from the registration agreement.
3. Registrars must obtain a separate acknowledgement from
registrants that they have read, understood and consented to
(I realize there has been discussion about the term "consent". The term
is used in Sec. 22.214.171.124 of the RAA to take advantage of jurisdictions
where a registrant can waive rights otherwise available by consenting to
the use of the data in question. If we get into the question of the
propriety of ICANN doing this, then we are well outside the question of