RE: [registrars] RE: Call for Constituency statements on Whois tf 1/2 recommendations

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Tim,

Some suggested changes in CAPS below.

Regards,
Bruce

 


> 
> 
> <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 OTHER THAN THE
DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION AGREEMENT (OR TERMS AND CONDITIONS) 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>
> 
>