RE: [gnso-dow123] Proposed consensus recommendation onimproving notification to Registered Name Hold

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Agree with David. That is why NCUC suggested, in the first round, that
ICANN standardize the notification, both in terms of wording and in
terms of size requirements. In effect, ICANN would get registrars off
the hook with regard to whether the notice was "clear and conspicuous"
because ICANN would have decided for them what kind of notifications
conformed with their contractual obligations to be clear & conspicuous.


>>> "David W. Maher" <dmaher@xxxxxxx> 06/27/05 11:45 AM >>>
I suggest that it is a waste of time to get advice on legal 
interpretations of "clear and conspicuous". Collecting information 
from lawyers about what this phrase means in China, or Uzbekistan,or 
........., could bring this process to a halt for years.
David Maher

At 08:54 PM 6/26/2005, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>Thanks Marilyn. I'm not saying that is the wrong phrasing, I just
don't
>know. I do know that it has been opened to wide intrepretation in US
>courts and from State to State. So maybe something to get advice on.