Re: [gnso-dow123] Note to council on Notice recommendation

[Bret Fausett <bfausett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Ross. We need to get this issue back. If notice is 
tantamount to waiver, then, speaking for the ALAC, we'd rather have no 
notice. I'm sure we can address the objection, but we need to address it 
directly before some creative lawyer down the road makes a waiver argument.

> I'm sure with some new discussions that we can easily meet the
> objectives of the user community regarding clear notice without
> requiring them to give up additional rights.
>
> On 09/08/2005 6:29 PM Jordyn A. Buchanan noted that;
>  
>
> > As we discussed on today's call, a concern has been raised that the 
> > recommendation on Notice to registrants, currently before the  Council,
> > may be viewed as some kind of waiver of registrant's privacy  rights. 
> > This was not the intent of the recommendation, and not  something that
> > we had originally considered within the task force.   As a result, we
> > agreed on today's call that I would send a note to  Bruce and the
> > Council requesting further consideration of this issue.
> >
> > Here's the request I propose to send.  Please let me know (quickly)  if
> > anyone believes this doesn't correctly reflect our agreement from  the
> > call today:
> >
> > Dear Bruce:
> >
> > In discussions of the Whois TF this week, a concern was raised that  the
> > current proposal relating to improving notice to registrants  regarding
> > the use of their contact details in the Whois system may be  viewed as a
> > waiver of registrants privacy rights.  It was not the  intent of the
> > task force that the recommendation act as any sort of  waiver, but this
> > was not an issue that we considered during the work  of the task force. 
> > We do believe that this is an important issue,  however, and believe
> > that it would be premature for the Council to  adopt the policy
> > recommendations without considering it.  As a  result, I am writing to
> > request that the Council either:
> >
> > a) Refer the recommendation back to the Task Force for further 
> > consideration of this specific issue; alternatively, the Council may 
> > want to consider this specific issue itself, or
> >
> > b) Delay adoption of this recommendation until such time as the full 
> > range of issues currently being considered by the task force have 
> > resulted in a broader set of recommendations that may render this  issue
> > moot.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jordyn A. Buchanan
> > Chair, Whois TF
> >    
>
>
> - --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                      -rwr
>
>
>
> Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross
> Skydasher: A great way to start your day
> My weblog: http://www.byte.org
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP)
>
> iD8DBQFC+TCb6sL06XjirooRAvxzAJ0ZnavnhWUA9pFufrMPwFyLxTymDgCeOZfI
> WhHfjNTv4jKNd83uaOE/PnA=
> =Z0mL
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
>
>

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature