Re: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
- To: Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
- From: Marc Schneiders <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:25:24 +0200 (CEST)
- Cc: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@xxxxxxx>, Milton Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>, <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <dmaher@xxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <20041018130755.GH1907@raktajino.does-not-exist.org>
- Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thomas, I think you have a point. Scaring people off by making them
tick some other box on a web page, saying they agree with their
details being published in whois, doesn't solve any of the real
problems there are with whois. Because they don't have a choice.
Unless they settle for a domain in a TLD that has no public whois. I
don't know of any (gTLD or CCTLD) that is as such adequate. What I
mean: I am sure there is some island in the pacific or in the Engslish
Channal where you get a domain without your details being accesible.
But that is no excuse for us to deal with the problem. Unless we are
in favour of driving all registrants to Aruba or Barbados or the
Cayman Islands or the Dominican Republic.
The problem is obligatory publication. Tiered access MIGHT be a step
forward in this. But it still leaves the question which details should
be accesible by any outsider (be they certified or not).
I support your focus is on this now.
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, at 15:07 [=GMT+0200], Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 2004-10-17 23:24:31 -0400, Marilyn Cade wrote:
> > 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.
> Please don't conflate the policy discussion this task force is
> having with a discussion of RAA 18.104.22.168.
> 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 22.214.171.124 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/>.