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

[Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim, all,

just to give you all a little more clearity on the timeframes we have to
work under.

The Whois TF 1/2 and the Registrar Reps agreed, that due to the bylaws
of the RC which make it virutally unimpossible to deliver a voted upon 
statement on the due date a preliminary version which is at least a
rough outline of the direction we are heading at, should be enough at
the due date and that a final version could be delivered later.

Since I believe that Jordyns points are all very valuable I just want
to point out that we still have enough time to incorporate them into
our statement. Balloting can happen afterwards

Best,

tom

Am 21.01.2005 schrieb Tim Ruiz:
> Jordyn,
> 
> 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.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tim
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [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
> 1/2 recommendations
> 
> 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 
> > 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 registrars legal agreements with its
> > registrants is
> > inappropriate and without precedent under current agreements. This
> > entire
> > 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 
> done before?)
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 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 
> WHOIS system.
> 
> 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 
> main agreement.
> 
> 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 
> constituencies.
> 
> Jordyn
> 
> 
> 
> > 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