Re: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
- To: Milton Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
- From: Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 13:14:17 +0200
- Cc: dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dmaher@xxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Organization: Schlund + Partner AG
- References: <email@example.com>
- Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mutt/184.108.40.206i
I'm in agreement with Milton on this point. If I counted correctly
we do have 3 Constituencies in favour of this wording. Seems like
we are making some progress.
Am 17.10.2004 schrieb Milton Mueller:
> >>> "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. 220.127.116.11 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
> >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
(oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of
| |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger!
w w w w