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

[Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim,

thanks for doing Pauls and my job. I therefore happily second your
motion :-).

Just one remark:

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.

should be changed to:

Prescribing the form and scope of a *registrars* legal agreements with *its*
registrants is inappropriate and without precedent under current agreements. 
This entire clause should be removed from the recommendations.

Best,

tom



Am 19.01.2005 schrieb Tim Ruiz:
> 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>
> 
> 
> 
> 

Gruss,

tom

(__)        
(OO)_____  
(oo)    /|\	A cow is not entirely full of
  | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
  w w w  w