RE: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
- To: <mcade@xxxxxxx>, <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
- From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:42:36 -0400
- Cc: <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <dmaher@xxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> "Steven J. Metalitz IIPA" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx> 10/19/2004 9:06:42 AM
>What seems to be beyond question (and not really a matter of belief)
>that a registrar that does not obtain the consent of the registrant
>the "current practices" is in violation of its contractual duties to
>ICANN and is subject to losing its accreditation.
I think Thomas R. had the correct approach to this.
The only way forward here is to decouple the issue of
conspicuous notice from the issue of "consent." They are in
fact quite distinct issues. Since "consent" as you define it Steven
is already part of the contract, I see no need for you to be inflexible
on this point.