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

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@xxxxxxx>]

I'm confused by this discussion. Consent is mentioned in the Sec. 3.7.7.5. Are 
we suggesting that the TF ignore the requirements? Sorry, I'm having trouble 
following what the purpose of this exchange is. 

-----Original Message-----
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
term is 
>used in Sec. 3.7.7.5 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 "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
        disclosures.