RE: [tf2-sg2] DAT 2 --- the consent piece

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Steve,

I'm confused. How is "express consent" being defined? In one paragraph you
state that Go Daddy does not get it, the next paragraph states that we do
get consent in the registration agreement. Evidently there is a difference
between express consent and consent? If so, it isn't coming through very
clearly.

Go Daddy, Blue Razor, and Wild West customers cannot complete a purchase
unless they accept the Registration Agreement, which includes the following
(taken from Go Daddy's RA):

"You agree that for each domain name registered by You the following
information will be made publicly available in the Whois directory as
determined by ICANN Policy and may be sold in bulk as set forth in the ICANN
agreement: 


The domain name 
Your name and postal address 
The email address, postal address, voice and fax numbers for technical and
administrative contacts 
The Internet protocol numbers for the primary and secondary name servers 
The corresponding names of the name servers 
The original date of registration and expiration date 

You agree that, to the extent permitted by ICANN, Go Daddy may make use of
the publicly available information You provided during the registration
process."

I see that as giving consent of some kind. I have seen numerous other
Registrars' RAs with similar clauses and processes that require acceptance
of it to register names.

Tim



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-tf2-sg2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-tf2-sg2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Steve Metalitz
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 8:51 AM
To: 'Jordyn A. Buchanan'; Steve Metalitz
Cc: Thomas Roessler; GNSO Secretariat; tf2-sg2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [tf2-sg2] DAT 2 --- the consent piece

Per our discussion last Friday, please see attached.

Steve Metalitz

  

-----Original Message-----
From: Jordyn A. Buchanan [mailto:jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 10:00 AM
To: Steve Metalitz
Cc: Thomas Roessler; GNSO Secretariat; tf2-sg2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [tf2-sg2] How to proceed?


Okay, let's try to talk at 10 AM tomorrow.  Glen:  can you set that up?

Jordyn

On Mar 18, 2004, at 9:55 AM, Steve Metalitz wrote:

> I would be available for a short call at 10 am EST tomorrow (Friday).
>
> I did not receive any earlier message from Thomas either.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 9:44 AM
> To: Jordyn A.Buchanan
> Cc: GNSO SECRETARIAT; tf2-sg2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [tf2-sg2] How to proceed?
>
>
> I could probably join a call at 10am Eastern tomorrow.
>
> On 2004-03-18 09:25:24 -0500, Jordyn A.Buchanan wrote:
>> From: "Jordyn A.Buchanan" <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: GNSO SECRETARIAT <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> 	tf2-sg2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 09:25:24 -0500
>> Subject: Re: [tf2-sg2] How to proceed?
>> X-Spam-Level:
>>
>> Hi Thomas:
>>
>> For some reason, I didn't receive your earlier message.  I'm in the
>> midst of a bit of an e-mail migration, though, so it may have arrived
>> in the midst of that.
>>
>> I agree that we should have a call and need to put together some of 
>> the
>> data that we've seen thus far.  Does anyone have availability 
>> tomorrow?
>>  Unfortunately, I have a pretty narrow window of opportunity, from
>> about 8 AM until 11 AM Eastern Time.
>>
>> Jordyn
>>
>> On Mar 18, 2004, at 4:58 AM, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, that's what I was looking for.
>>>
>>> I note, though, that there was no feed-back to my earlier suggestion
>>> to set up a conference call for this sub-group.  If members are
>>> currently unable to make the necessary time commitments, I'd suggest
>>> that we get back to the entire task force with these news and try to
>>> draft some more support.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> -- 
>>> Thomas Roessler  <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2004-03-17 09:36:20 +0100, GNSO Secretariat wrote:
>>>> From: GNSO SECRETARIAT <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> To: tf2-sg2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 09:36:20 +0100
>>>> Subject: RE: [tf2-sg2] How to proceed?
>>>> Reply-To: gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> X-Spam-Level:
>>>>
>>>> Could it be this:
>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow2tf/msg00076.html
>>>> see also
>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/raa-whois-16dec03.shtml
>>>>
>>>> GNSO Secretariat
>>>>
>>>> mardi 16 mars 2004 11:28 Thomas Roessler a ecrit
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> we should probably spend some time on figuring out what we report
>>>> back to the task force and the ICANN community at large on current
>>>> practice with respect to WHOIS.  I'd suggest we schedule a
>>>> conference call for some day later this week.
>>>>
>>>> We will have to look at the material that we received pre Rome, and
>>>> the staff's report on registrars' current practice in implementing
>>>> policies related to notification of and consent by registrants.
>>>> (Glen, Barbara: Where's that report, again? I have the feeling that
>>>> I've received a copy some time ago, but have lost it.) Also, there's
>>>> a response from .pl directly to Task Force 3, and the CENTR survey
>>>> at <http://www.centr.org/meetings/ga-21/WHOIS-paper-v1.0.pdf>; see
>>>> also
>>>> <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow3tf/msg00112.html>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Thomas Roessler  <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/
>