[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at kathykleiman.com
Thu Feb 6 16:58:38 UTC 2014
Bob,
You know the response on this. We've talked about it many times. This is
a speech/free expression/communication issue. There is no legal
obligation in the marketplace of ideas to wave a flag and tell people
where you are located when you are sharing minority speech, dissenting
speech, unpopular speech or even speech critical of a product, service
or company. There is no license for speech and expression.
Further, an entire GNSO study set out to prove exactly what you have
submitted below/. /The National Physical Laboratory in its Study of
Whois Privacy and Proxy Service Abuse set out to test the thesis that:
/"A significant percentage of the domain names used to conduct illegal
or harmful Internet//
//activities are registered via privacy or proxy services to obscure the
perpetrator's identity"./
/They couldn't do it! /They found that a significant percentage of legal
activities and business, /including banks, /use proxy privacy services.
Further, the Carnegie Mellon Study - confusingly called The Study on
Whois Misuse - found us that a lot of legitimate domain name registrants
ARE in danger because there IS "a statistically significant occurrence
of WHOIS misuse affecting Registrants' email addresses, postal
addresses, and phone numbers, published in WHOIS when registering
domains in these gTLDs. Overall, we find that 44% of Registrants
experience one or more of these types of WHOIS misuse."
So let's not generalize anymore. We have findings. Further, we have a
proven market of proxy/privacy services that responded to a legitimate,
good faith need of organizations, individuals, and yes, businesses for
proxy/privacy registrations. The Whois Review Team found that all three
groups of registrants claimed legitimate use of them.
Overall, we're not the bad guys - we're just domain name registrants and
proxy/privacy customers.
Best,
Kathy
>
> Hi Volker,
>
> Agreed, but the distortion cannot be ignored. If we stopped doing
> things because of problems, we not drive cars, fly airplanes, or
> probably walk down a street. However, we have safety procedures in
> place for airplanes, we force people to learn how to drive cars and we
> have police departments to enforce public safety.
>
> Usually in these circumstances, the problems are in the minority,
> whereas in the privacy/protection space, it is inverted.
>
> -bob
>
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
>
>> And yet we should not let the bad apples dictate what services should
>> or shouldn't be available for
>> those who have a legitimate need. Legitimate need is just that:
>> legitimate...
>>
>> Volker
>>
>>
>> I am in agreement with you. Based on years of practical
>> experience, the bad actors far
>> outnumber those who have a legitimate need for anonimity.
>>
>> --bob
>>
>> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria wrote:
>>
>> How far apart we are in this! As a provider offering that
>> option (reveal or
>> abandon), it will attract political dissidents,
>> persecuted religious
>> minorities, whistleblowers... but it must be aware that
>> it is luring into the
>> service many wrongdoers, confidence tricksters, IPR
>> pirate sites, illegal
>> gambling sites, child abusers, malware distributors and
>> the like. I´m not so
>> sure it could claim it is not actively contributing to
>> unlawful activity.
>> But´s that another story.
>>
>> My point is that the mere possibility of offering that
>> option damps the
>> ability of public authorities to protect public interests
>> and could be
>> against the law. If, as most of you believe, the provider
>> should only process
>> requests coming from a LEA within their jurisdiction,
>> requests aimed at
>> dissidents, religious leaders ... would be stopped there.
>>
>> I´ve discovered only yesterday that IP providers and
>> hosting services are
>> acting sometimes as proxies for the real hosting service.
>> So, the business
>> thrives and diversifies to the despair of LEAs.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Gema
>>
>>
>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> De: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy at seltzer.com]
>> Enviado el: miércoles, 05 de febrero de 2014 16:19
>> Para: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Volker Greimann;
>> Campillos Gonzalez, Gema
>> Maria; Tim Ruiz; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
>>
>> On 02/05/2014 09:40 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
>> Volker
>>
>> Yeah - that's something I was very conscious of
>> when we discussed
>> this
>> in the EWG Simply pulling the service might not be
>> enough to
>> protect you as a provider .. and forcing all
>> providers into that
>> kind of situation seemed unreasonable . .
>>
>>
>> That's not universally true in the law. I'd argue that
>> under US law, there's
>> no liability on a provider of domain registry services
>> who does not encourage
>> or knowingly contribute to unlawful activity. [long
>> discussion of secondary
>> liability elsewhere, including in past discussions of the
>> legal absurdity of
>> 3.7.7.3 ]
>>
>> So providers should be permitted to take that view.
>>
>> --Wendy
>>
>> M
>> --
>> Mr Michele Neylon
>> Blacknight Solutions
>> Hosting & Colocation, Domains
>> http://www.blacknight.co/
>> http://blog.blacknight.com/
>> http://www.technology.ie
>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
>> Locall: 1850 929 929
>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>> Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
>> -------------------------------
>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit
>> 12A,Barrowside Business
>> Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland
>> Company No.:
>> 370845
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On
>> Behalf Of Volker
>> Greimann
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:49 PM
>> To: Wendy Seltzer; Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria;
>> Tim Ruiz;
>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI Work Plan
>>
>> While I understand this concern from a privacy
>> standpoint, as a
>> service provider this is problematic as one needs
>> to be able to
>> point to the responsible party in case of legal
>> violations in
>> order to avoid culpability and liability.
>>
>> Volker
>>
>> Dear Wendy, Tim, Volker and Group,
>>
>> As regards the last paragraph on Wendy´s
>> message...
>>
>> I've proposed that registrants be offered
>> the choice between potential reveal and
>> potential termination of registration
>> (that choice could be offered up-front at
>> the time of registration, or at the time
>> of the identification request). For some
>> registrants, such as legitimate
>> whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear
>> of retaliation is more important than the
>> persistence of their domain identifier,
>> this choice may be important. I hope
>> we're at least leaving the opportunity
>> for a compliant service to offer an
>> "unidentified de-registration" option,
>> even though we don't need to mandate it
>> for all.
>>
>> I have deep concerns with offering such a
>> service. If the P&P service receives a
>> request to reveal the identity and
>> contact data of the registrant, I doubt
>> it can refuse to relay them on account of
>> the de-registration of the domain name
>> (which should be done through the
>> registrar). If the request comes from an
>> individual or organization holding a
>> legitimate interest, there may be
>> situations in which they would still be
>> entitled to get those data (I´m thinking
>> of a prospective file suit or
>> extrajudicial request for redress). But,
>> let us discuss thoroughly at the
>> appropriate time in the Work Plan.
>>
>> I believe it should be legitimate to offer a
>> service
>> that has no
>> possibility of identifying the registrant.
>> Instead,
>> it has other
>> accountability, namely that the domain name
>> stops
>> resolving upon
>> receipt of a legitimate complaint. That's the
>> tradeoff I propose,
>> that there be some situations in which it is by
>> design impossible to
>> get the identification of the registrant, but
>> it's
>> also impossible to
>> keep the name in the face of a complaint.
>>
>> --Wendy
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Gema
>>
>>
>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org]
>> En nombre de Tim Ruiz
>> Enviado el: martes, 04 de febrero de 2014
>> 16:58
>> Para: Wendy Seltzer; Volker Greimann;
>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI
>> Work Plan
>>
>> Wendy, I believe Kathy made sure that was
>> captured in our call today.
>> ________________________________________
>> From:
>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces
>> @
>> icann.org>
>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounce
>> s @icann.org>> on behalf of Wendy Seltzer
>> <wendy at seltzer.com<mailto:wendy at seltzer.com>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:47 AM
>> To: Volker Greimann;
>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI
>> Work Plan
>>
>> On 01/30/2014 09:13 AM, Volker Greimann
>> wrote:
>> Hi Gema,
>>
>> One note to Main issue 3 as
>> it is proposed: This assumes
>> that the
>> provider has that kind of
>> access or ability. In many
>> cases, the
>> privacy service just allows
>> for the provision of its data
>> and acts
>> as a forwarding service. In
>> the case of the provider
>> affiliated
>> with us, the provider has one
>> ability only: Request the
>> removal of
>> its data from the whois.
>> Other privacy services may
>> have even less
>> influence over the
>> registration-
>>
>> So requiring a takedown or
>> disabling/terminating the
>> registrants'
>> access may not be something
>> that a privacy or proxy
>> service
>> provider is set up to do,
>> depending on how he is
>> integrated with
>> the
>> registrar/reseller/registrant.
>> In the past we have always
>> talked about relay and
>> reveal. These are
>> the main opptions every
>> provider should have in my
>> opinion.
>> Anything beyond that may not
>> be feasible and may not even
>> be in the remit of the
>> provider.
>>
>> If we're considering what should be
>> required of services under a new proposed
>> accreditation regime, then we should be
>> prepared to think of what the system
>> should have, not just what it can
>> currently accommodate.
>>
>> I've proposed that registrants be offered
>> the choice between potential reveal and
>> potential termination of registration
>> (that choice could be offered up-front at
>> the time of registration, or at the time
>> of the identification request). For some
>> registrants, such as legitimate
>> whistleblowers whose anonymity for fear
>> of retaliation is more important than the
>> persistence of their domain identifier,
>> this choice may be important. I hope
>> we're at least leaving the opportunity
>> for a compliant service to offer an
>> "unidentified de-registration" option,
>> even though we don't need to mandate it
>> for all.
>>
>> --Wendy
>>
>> Volker
>>
>> Am 30.01.2014 13:09, schrieb
>> Campillos Gonzalez, Gema
>> Maria:
>> Dear Group,
>>
>> I have worked on
>> the PPSAI Charter
>> Questions
>> Grouping and here
>> you
>> have the result.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Gema Campillos
>>
>> Deputy Director
>> of Information
>> Society Services
>>
>> Secretary of
>> State for
>> Telecommunications
>> and Information
>> Society
>>
>> SPAIN
>>
>> *De:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org]
>> *En nombre de
>> *Mary
>> Wong *Enviado
>> el:* miércoles,
>> 29 de enero de
>> 2014 16:57
>> *Para:*
>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> *Asunto:* Re:
>> [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg]
>> PPSAI Work Plan
>>
>> Dear Don, Jim and
>> everyone,
>>
>> One of the
>> various items for
>> consideration in
>> developing the
>> WG's
>> Work Plan will
>> involve the
>> planned timing of
>> deliverables
>> relating
>> to each category
>> of questions
>> (however many
>> there ultimately
>> are
>> or whether each
>> category is
>> tackled by a
>> different
>> sub-team). The
>> WG may wish to
>> consider, for
>> example, whether
>> certain
>> questions/categories
>> need to be
>> addressed before
>> others.
>>
>> Hopefully our
>> next iteration of
>> the Mind Map and
>> proposed
>> timeline/work
>> plan will assist
>> the WG in
>> discussing Jim's
>> suggestions,
>> which reflects
>> the methodology
>> used in a couple
>> of
>> other WGs (and it
>> is good to know
>> that your team
>> felt the IGO-INGO
>> WG experience was
>> productive and
>> helpful, Jim!).
>> The work plan is
>> likely change
>> over time
>> depending on the
>> nature and
>> outcome of the
>> WG (or
>> sub-team)
>> discussions, and
>> as Jim notes
>> certain
>> categories (e.g.
>> Main
>> Issues) may be
>> more organic than
>> others.
>>
>> Should the WG
>> decide to proceed
>> via sub-teams,
>> another thing to
>> consider would be
>> ensuring that the
>> work is spread
>> evenly across
>> the WG rather
>> than have a small
>> group of people
>> spread across
>> various sub-teams
>> (especially if
>> the deliverables
>> from those are
>> due in short
>> order!).
>>
>> I hope these
>> thoughts are
>> useful. To assist
>> with your review
>> of
>> Jim's
>> suggestions, I
>> attach an updated
>> version of Jim's
>> document
>> which adds the
>> threshold
>> question for
>> Section III
>> discussed on the
>> call yesterday
>> (using Steve's
>> suggested
>> wording) and with
>> a couple
>> of comments
>> inserted to help
>> provide context
>> to one or two
>> sub-questions
>> that Kathy had
>> asked about.
>>
>> Thanks and cheers
>>
>> Mary
>>
>> Mary Wong
>>
>> Senior Policy
>> Director
>>
>> Internet
>> Corporation for
>> Assigned Names &
>> Numbers (ICANN)
>>
>> Telephone: +1 603
>> 574 4892
>>
>> Email:
>> mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
>> <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
>>
>> * One World. One
>> Internet. *
>>
>> *From: *Don
>> Blumenthal
>> <dblumenthal at pir.org
>> <mailto:dblumenthal at pir.org>>
>> *Date:
>> *Wednesday,
>> January 29, 2014
>> 9:45 AM
>> *To: *Jim Bikoff
>> <jbikoff at sgbdc.com
>> <mailto:jbikoff at sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff at sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbiko
>> f f at sgbdc.com>>>,
>> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org><mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@
>>
>> icann.org>>"
>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.
>> org%20<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>>
>> *Subject: *Re:
>> [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg]
>> PPSAI Work Plan
>>
>> Jim,
>>
>> Thanks very
>> much for all the
>> work you put in
>> on this. I am
>> very
>> anxious to
>> see the group's
>> thoughts on it. I
>> will reserve mine
>> for
>> now except
>> to note that
>> reviewing seven
>> reports each week
>> is
>> inducing
>> cold sweats
>> already. :)
>>
>> I will note
>> up front though
>> that apart from
>> process
>>
>> considerations,
>> staff support
>> availability will
>> have to be part
>> of
>> our work
>> plan decisions.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Don
>>
>> *From: *Jim
>> Bikoff
>> <jbikoff at sgbdc.com
>> <mailto:jbikoff at sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff at sgbdc.com%20<mailto:jbikoff at sgbdc.com>>>
>> *Date:
>> *Tuesday, January
>> 28, 2014 at 6:04
>> PM
>> *To: *Don
>> Blumenthal
>> <dblumenthal at pir.org
>>
>> <mailto:dblumenthal at pir.org>>,
>> PPSAI
>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>
>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
>> *Subject:
>> *PPSAI Work Plan
>>
>> Dear Don,
>>
>> As you
>> indicated, a Work
>> Plan should help
>> guide our Group's
>> efforts over
>> the upcoming
>> weeks. We have
>> some suggestions,
>> based
>> on our
>> positive
>> experience in the
>> IGO/INGO PDP
>> Working Group.
>>
>> Please give
>> us the benefit of
>> your thoughts on
>> the following
>> suggested
>> Work Plan:
>>
>> 1. Summarize
>> and compile
>> Working Group
>> survey
>> responses
>> --possibly in an
>> Excel file,
>> circulated among
>> Group
>> members.
>> This should be a
>> task for ICANN
>> Staff.
>>
>> 2.Based on
>> Working Group
>> survey responses,
>> clarify the
>> terminology
>> and issues
>> in each Group of
>> the Charter
>> questions.
>> Identify
>> consensus or
>> near-consensus
>> responses and
>> hold Consensus
>> Call on
>> these
>> issues.
>>
>> 3.Create
>> Working Group
>> sub-teams to work
>> on issues by
>> group: (a)
>>
>> Registration; (b)
>> Maintenance; (c)
>> Contact; (d)
>> Relay; (e)
>> Reveal;
>> (f)
>> Publication; (g)
>> Termination.
>> Note that the
>> current groupings
>> of questions
>> do not include
>> "Publication" or
>> "Termination"
>> categories.
>> We propose adding
>> these categories,
>> which would
>> include
>> questions taken
>> out of other
>> current
>> categories, as
>> identified
>> in the attached
>> redline draft.
>> Note also that
>> the
>> remaining
>> questions in the
>> Main Issues
>> group, an
>> overarching
>> category,
>> would be
>> addressed
>> organically as a
>> result of this
>> proposed
>> process.
>>
>> a) Each
>> sub-team produces
>> a report, which
>> is delivered to
>> Don by
>> each Friday
>> or Saturday at
>> the latest, so it
>> can be combined
>> by
>> staff with
>> the other
>> sub-team reports
>> and discussed at
>> the
>> upcoming
>> Tuesday Working
>> Group
>> teleconference.
>>
>> b) When the
>> responses to the
>> survey come in
>> from the other
>>
>> constituencies,
>> ICANN staff
>> summarizes the
>> responses for the
>> Working
>> Group. Each
>> sub-team then
>> analyzes the
>> constituencies'
>> and
>> Working
>> Group's responses
>> (including
>> majority and
>> minority
>> views) in
>> its area, and
>> delivers the
>> result to Don by
>> Friday or
>> Saturday, so
>> ICANN staff can
>> combine it all in
>> one document,
>> such
>> as an Excel
>> file, for full
>> Working Group
>> review.
>>
>> 4. Working
>> Group holds
>> Consensus Call
>> and revises final
>> Excel file
>> of responses
>> to survey
>> accordingly.
>>
>> 5.Draft
>> report presenting
>> (1) Consensus
>> Proposals (if
>> any); (2)
>>
>> Non-Consensus
>> Proposals w/
>> Levels of
>> Support; (3)
>> Minority Views
>> w/Levels of
>> Support.
>>
>> 6. Present
>> Report for Public
>> Comment.
>>
>> This process
>> will provide a
>> means to circle
>> back to the
>> remaining
>> Main Issues
>> questions.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> James L.
>> Bikoff
>>
>> Silverberg,
>> Goldman & Bikoff,
>> LLP
>>
>> 1101 30th
>> Street, NW
>>
>> Suite 120
>>
>> Washington,
>> DC 20007
>>
>> Tel:
>> 202-944-3303
>>
>> Fax:
>> 202-944-3306
>>
>>
>> jbikoff at sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff at sgbdc.com>
>> <mailto:jbikoff at sgbdc.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>> mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing
>> list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>
>>
>> --
>> Wendy Seltzer --
>> wendy at seltzer.org<mailto:wendy at seltzer.org>
>> +1
>> 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide
>> Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow,
>> Berkman Center for Internet & Society at
>> Harvard University Visiting
>> Fellow, Yale Law School Information
>> Society Project
>> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
>> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
>> https://www.torproject.org/
>> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
>> Verfügung.
>>
>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>>
>> Volker A. Greimann
>> - Rechtsabteilung -
>>
>> Key-Systems GmbH
>> Im Oberen Werk 1
>> 66386 St. Ingbert
>> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
>> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
>> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
>>
>> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
>> www.domaindiscount24.com /
>> www.BrandShelter.com
>>
>> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser
>> Fan bei
>> Facebook:
>> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
>> www.twitter.com/key_systems
>>
>> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
>> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
>> Umsatzsteuer ID.:
>> DE211006534
>>
>> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>> www.keydrive.lu
>>
>> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur
>> für den
>> angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der
>> Kenntnisgabe,
>> Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch
>> den Empfänger
>> ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für
>> Sie bestimmt
>> sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail
>> oder telefonisch
>> in Verbindung zu setzen.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------
>>
>> Should you have any further questions, please do
>> not hesitate to
>> contact us.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Volker A. Greimann
>> - legal department -
>>
>> Key-Systems GmbH
>> Im Oberen Werk 1
>> 66386 St. Ingbert
>> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
>> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
>> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
>>
>> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
>> www.domaindiscount24.com /
>> www.BrandShelter.com
>>
>> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on
>> Facebook and
>> stay updated:
>> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
>> www.twitter.com/key_systems
>>
>> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
>> Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T.
>> ID.:
>> DE211006534
>>
>> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>> www.keydrive.lu
>>
>> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only
>> for the person
>> to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not
>> permitted to
>> publish any content of this email. You must not
>> use, disclose,
>> copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an
>> addressing or
>> transmission error has misdirected this e-mail,
>> kindly notify the
>> author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us
>> by telephone.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy
>> Counsel, World Wide
>> Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet
>> & Society at Harvard
>> University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information
>> Society Project
>> http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/
>> https://www.torproject.org/
>> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140206/20402416/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list