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

[Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

Best,

tom

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. 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.
> 
>  
> 
> 

Gruss,

tom

(__)        
(OO)_____  
(oo)    /|\     A cow is not entirely full of
  | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
  w w w  w