Not even close. I've seen way, way worse.
Almost all company's allow notification while not on duty. It's pretty common. However (and I don't see anything different with the language you posted) a pilot is never required to check or acknowledge those notifications until their duty starts.
As far as the point that says "An EC does not required confirmation", what does that mean? I see "verify" and "verification" used as terms to describe a pilot acknowledging an assignment received via an EC, but I don't see the term "confirmation" used anywhere else, so I'm not sure what exactly that means in this specific case. That is why I asked if the interpretation came from the NC or from people talking on message boards.
Look, it is entirely possible that is terrible language that will let the company do whatever they want and totally screw over the pilots. It's also entirely possible that this is nothing other than a way of getting crew schedulers out of a pilot's lives. In general, pilots suck at understanding contract language. That's why so many guys complain about language complexity and how it creates gray areas and how plain language contracts would be so much better. They wouldn't be, but it's the lack of ability to fully comprehend what is often very complex and nuanced language that drives that. Again, I don't know if that's the case here, but until you get some kind of confirmation way way or anther from people that actually fully understand both the language and the shared intent of the language, I'd keep your powder dry.
EDIT: I'd be way more concerned about d) allowing the company to use ACARS or a gate agent as a way of assigning a pilot something.