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

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2004-10-17 23:24:31 -0400, Marilyn Cade wrote:

> 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. 

Please don't conflate the policy discussion this task force is
having with a discussion of RAA 3.7.7.5.

The topic in this particular discussion is conspicuous notice, the
stated goal of the proposed policy is increasing registrant
awareness.  The topic is *not* striking anything from the current
RAA's section 3.7.7.

*Re-iterating* the consent requirement from 3.7.7.5 in the new,
additional, policy that we are discussing does, in the first place,
not serve the policy's stated purpose.  Nor has any participant in
this discussion brought forward an actual policy objective that
would be served by adding "consent" to the new policy we are
discussing.  That alone should be reason enough to stick with the
original wording that was focused on notice, and did not contain the
consent element.

Further, I believe that it would be unwise for this group to move
forward with a policy that could be read as a cheap attempt to avoid
actually dealing with privacy issues by re-emphasizing registrant
"consent" to practices that are actually privacy violations.

For this reason, I would suggest to stick with David's wording on
conspicuous notice, without the words "and consented" in the last
paragraph, and move on to further working on tiered access.
-- 
Thomas Roessler · Personal soap box at <http://log.does-not-exist.org/>.