RE: [registrars] RE: Call for Constituency statements on Whois tf 1/2 recommendations
- To: "'Jordyn A. Buchanan'" <jbuchanan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: Call for Constituency statements on Whois tf 1/2 recommendations
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:56:17 -0600
- Cc: <registrars@xxxxxxxx>, "'Robert F. Connelly'" <BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Importance: Normal
- In-reply-to: <377B057C-6BC6-11D9-BA50-000393D1327C@register.com>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I agree with *most* of your comments. But we're past the point of being able
to make changes directly or accept friendly amendments to the motion, at
least if we want to get a ballot going next week.
Could you put your comments/concerns in the form of an amendment and, if
endorsed, it can be included in the ballot. If accepted, we can then
incorporate it into the statement or change it accordingly at that point.
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jordyn A. Buchanan
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 10:05 AM
To: Tim Ruiz
Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx; Robert F. Connelly
Subject: Re: [registrars] RE: Call for Constituency statements on Whois tf
I'm going to make a quick comment on the statement purely in my
capacity as the co-chair of the Task Force, albiet with some sympathy
for some concerns raised by Tim as a member of the constituency:
First, on this portion of the statement:
> 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
> present data access disclosures separate from the registration
> The wording of the notice provided by registrars should, to the extent
> feasible, be uniform.
> Prescribing the form and scope of registrars legal agreements with its
> registrants is
> inappropriate and without precedent under current agreements. This
> clause should be removed from the recommendations.
The statement only seems responsive to the final sentence of the
recommendation, and it's a little unclear if the intent is to strike
that sentence, or the entire second point.
Also, it seems that the current section 3.7.7 of the RAA is all about
specifying the "form and scope" of the registrars legal agreements with
registrants. Maybe this should be changed to something about
prescribing the manner in which legal agreements are presented to
registrants is without precedent?
(However, I'm still not sure that "without precedent" seems like a
wonderful argument in any case--a lot of new policy is without
precedent. Shouldn't there be some substantive reason why the change
is harmful in and of itself other than the mere fact that it's not been
> 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
This is the very point that led the Task Force to make these
recommendations. Affirming it only provides further ammunition to
those who argue that changes in the way that registrars are notified of
(and consent to the use of) the use of their contact information in the
The driving force behind these recommendations is that registrants
DON'T read shrink wrap agreements and hence will not know that their
contact information is being made publicly available through WHOIS.
Hence, they should be explicitly made aware of this fact separate from
the agreement that they're not going to read.
Perhaps the discussion of the difficulty of implementing this should be
expanded (with some further explanation as to why it's difficult). It
might also be reasonable to argue that there are other, equally or more
important, elements of the registration agreement that are not
specifically highlighted for the registrant and that it would become
trying for registrars to separate each of these provisions from the
Overall, it seems that the statement as it currently stand reiterates
the problem (that registrants don't read the current agreement so
aren't aware of the use of their data) but seems to say "but we're not
willing to do anything to fix it". I'm not sure that this is a view
that is likely to carry a lot of weight within the task force, and it
may be difficult to find the support of any of the other
> 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
> data will be included in the Whois and make this a condition of
> in a fashion similar to the other terms a Registrant must agree to
> undertaking a registration.
> Since this is already required in the current RAA in sub-sections
> 220.127.116.11, and 18.104.22.168, this recommendation should be removed from the
> Force recommendations.