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

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

Melbourne IT endorses it.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Thursday, 20 January 2005 11:13 AM
> To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: Call for Constituency 
> statements on Whois tf 1/2 recommendations
> 
> The motion has been amended to include Bruce's clarification 
> in the second paragraph following the first quoted 
> recommendation. A couple of typos were also cleaned up.
> 
> NOTE: We still need one more 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 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 
> disclosure 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 agreements 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>
> 
> 
>