Boy, am I being misunderstood! :-) Let me try to add clarity to what I was trying to convey, versus what language is used.
What I am trying to support is that we should just get guidance on how to accomplish the goal of "a clear notice, that is easy to find, and that includes at a minimum the following information from the RAA and that the collected data is displayed in WHOIS. I agree that lawyers are inclined to give different interpretations of "words", and that words MIGHT have different legal meaning.
However, there is no intent on my part to stick with using "conspicious"
When I used "clear and conspicious" I didn't mean that we should try to put those words into the policy, but that we needed to capture an intent of having a notice that is easy to find, easy to understand, and noticeable, and references the WHOIS. :-)
does that help to explain what I was trying to accomplish?.
I think from the Council's discussion that there was a strong support to the intent to inform the registrant -- and acknowledgement that there is a concern that right now, that isn't always the case. BUT that where possible, we would not duplicate existing requirements, only appropriately augment them.
I unfortunately will not be on the call. I have an emergency medical situation that can't be rescheduled, or that my international travel refuses to allow me to reschedule. I'll talk to David Fares and Sarah Deutsch before the call regarding the BC perspectives.