<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] RE: Call for Constituency statements on Whois tf 1/2 recommendations
- To: "'Tim Ruiz'" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: Call for Constituency statements on Whois tf 1/2 recommendations
- From: "Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:00:58 +0530
- Cc: <registrars@xxxxxxxx>, <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <20050119141555.16855.qmail@webmail03.mesa1.secureserver.net>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcT+Mjq19ImNdnVFTWmXIvwnwTjihgAASe7w
It has my endorsement
Best Regards
Bhavin Turakhia
Founder, CEO and Chairman
DirectI
--------------------------------------
http://www.directi.com
Direct Line: +91 (22) 5679 7600
Direct Fax: +91 (22) 5679 7510
Board Line (USA): +1 (415) 240 4172 ext 7600
Board Line (India): +91 (22) 5679 7500 ext 7600
--------------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 7:46 PM
> To: Bruce Tonkin
> Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx; ross@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: Call for Constituency
> statements on Whois tf 1/2 recommendations
>
> Bruce,
>
> I take your comments as a friendly amendment. The motion so
> amended follows below.
>
> MEMBERS PLEASE NOTE: There are two endorsements to this
> motion, it needs three more endorsements for a total of five.
> Bruce, with your friendly amendment now included, does it
> have your endorsement?
>
> Tim
>
>
> <MOTION>
> The Registrar Constituency position is that these
> recommendations are over-reaching, unrealistic and inappropriate.
>
> Specifically...
>
> RE: 1. Registrars must ensure that disclosures regarding
> availability and third-party access to personal data
> associated with domain names actually be presented to
> registrants during the registration process.
> Linking to an external web page is not sufficient.
>
> It is inappropriate to view the registration exercise as a
> policy education process. It is a registration process and
> should be as simple, straightforward and unburdened as
> possible for registrants to conclude. The current trend to
> "cram" all sorts of notices, and prescribe the method of
> notification, into the registration process interferes with
> the potential simplicity of this process.
>
> Furthermore, presenting anything to the registrant during the
> registration process is an entirely new obligation that would
> require many registrars to completely re-establish their
> method of registration.
> For wholesale registrars, this represents a highly onerous burden.
>
> Lastly, this recommendation is highly unclear. What is a
> disclossure regarding availability? Availability of what?
> This should be defined.
>
> This recommendation would be acceptable in the following form
> (with the potential to include a reference to "availability"
> if agreeable clarification is forthcoming);
>
> 1. Registrars must ensure that disclosures regarding
> availability and third-party access to personal data
> associated with domain names actually be AVAILABLE to
> registrants during the registration process.
>
> RE: 2. Registrars must ensure that these disclosures are set
> aside from other provisions of the registration agreement if
> they are presented to registrants together with that
> agreement. Alternatively, registrars may present data access
> disclosures separate from the registration agreement. The
> wording of the notice provided by registrars should, to the
> extent feasible, be uniform.
>
> Prescribing the form and scope of my legal agreeements with
> my registrants is inappropriate and without precedent under
> current agreements. This entire clause should be removed from
> the recommendations.
>
> RE: 3. Registrars must obtain a separate acknowledgement from
> registrars that they have read and understand these
> disclosures. This provision does not affect registrars'
> existing obligations to obtain registrant consent to the use
> of their contact information in the WHOIS system.
>
> Presumably, this was intended to read "acknowledgement from
> Registrants that...", nonetheless requiring separate
> acknowledgement is an unworkable condition that cannot be
> practically implemented in the current environment. Today, a
> Registrar is required to bind a Registrant to a series of
> obligations. It is a well known fact that customers do not
> read point-of-sale agreements. This is especially true of
> click-wrap agreements. Ascertaining whether or not a
> Registrant has read and understands those obligations is
> beyond the scope of existing registration processes.
>
> It is really only appropriate to obtain a Registrants
> agreement that their data will be included in the Whois and
> make this a condition of registration in a fashion similar to
> the other terms a Registrant must agree to prior to
> undertaking a registration.
>
> Since this is already required in the current RAA in
> sub-sections 3.7.7.4, 3.7.7.5, and 3.7.7.6, this
> recommendation should be removed from the Task Force recommendations.
> </MOTION>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: Call for Constituency
> statements on Whois tf 1/2 recommendations
> From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sun, January 09, 2005 8:58 pm
> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, ross@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
>
> Hello All,
>
> The original titles of WHOIS TF1/2 were:
>
> "Restricting access to WHOIS data for marketing purposes"
>
> And
>
> "Review of data collected and displayed"
>
> The recommendation relating to the display of a term of
> service doesn't actually address either of the two problems.
>
> Under the current arrangements, it is a term of service for
> obtaining a domain name for the data to be collected and
> displayed. It is one of many terms of service.
>
> I thought obtaining a registrant's consent may be helpful for
> some registrars to meet their local laws with respect to
> privacy, but I have been recently informed that where the
> consent is compulsory to acquire the service - it is not
> really consent.
>
> Many registrars seek explicit consent from registrants to
> receive other marketing information. This is optional and is
> not a term of service.
> It makes sense to offer this choice explicitly.
>
> It doesn't make sense that linking to an external web page
> should not be sufficient for the WHOIS requirements, when it
> is sufficient for all other terms of service.
>
> It is standard industry practice to present privacy policies
> in a separate webpage.
>
> I would prefer the recommendation to be reworded as:
>
> "Registrars must ensure that disclosures regarding
> availability and third-party access to personal data
> associated with domain names actually be AVAILABLE to
> registrants during the registration process."
>
> In summary I see no point in seeking explicit consent to a
> term of the registration agreement, until consent is actually
> an option. Hopefully with tiered access, a user could
> consent to be in the public data, with the default being that
> the data is protected via some sort of access control.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|