RE: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
- To: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>, <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <dmaher@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
- From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:24:31 -0400
- Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcS0mbM6O/UqTrVKQJe+4MsfJaO+pAAJ71gQ
- Thread-topic: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
I'm confused by this discussion. Consent is mentioned in the Sec. 220.127.116.11. Are
we suggesting that the TF ignore the requirements? Sorry, I'm having trouble
following what the purpose of this exchange is.
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 6:35 PM
To: dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dmaher@xxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
>>> "David W. Maher" <dmaher@xxxxxxx> 10/15/04 09:47PM >>>
>(I realize there has been discussion about the term "consent". The
>used in Sec. 18.104.22.168 of the RAA to take advantage of jurisdictions
>registrant can waive rights otherwise available by consenting to the
>the data in question. If we get into the question of the propriety of
>doing this, then we are well outside the question of "conspicuous")
Yes, David you are correct about that. Why don't we then remove
the term "and consented to" from #3? Otherwise we are not dealing with
conspicuous notice we are imposing a policy choices that have profound
implications for registrars in jurisdictions that have laws that might
conflict with current Whois requirements.
Let us leave the consent issue to the procedure for dealing with
national law conflicts.
New #3 would read:
3. Registrars must obtain a separate acknowledgement from
registrants that they have read and understood these