[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
Chris Pelling
chris at netearthone.com
Sat May 2 18:16:03 UTC 2015
Good evening Kiran,
Why would you think it is upsetting. I didn't see anyone mention that - I find it confusing though as may others that we have company names being used (nice and obvious) and then 3 lawyers all from the same Law practice wishing to be named rather than the company they represent. For example, we had 2 individuals if memory serves on this WG from Legitscript - why not mention the 2 names rather than the company.
I for one do not find it upsetting, amusing maybe, not upsetting.
Kind regards,
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com>
To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
Sent: Saturday, 2 May, 2015 6:55:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
If it's upsetting to have a number of signatories on the statement, I would be happy to return to the original language that was too vague for Kathy, Michele and Frank.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil
Internet Policy Counselor
MarkMonitor
415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
> On May 2, 2015, at 10:48 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com> wrote:
>
> It does help clarify, but does not address the inconsistency.
>
> Why would we not list the clients’ names, rather than their
> representatives? Or one listing for the entire firm?
>
> J.
>
>
> On 5/2/15, 12:30 , "Kiran Malancharuvil"
> <Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com> wrote:
>
>> James/Mary/Staff,
>>
>> Perhaps the complexities of representation and membership in the various
>> constituencies of the CSG isn't clear.
>>
>> There are some members who are individuals, and are categorized as such
>> (e.g: outside counsel who represent their client interests through
>> individual participation in the group - firm name provided as guidance)
>> and others who are businesses or organizations that appoint a
>> representative (e.g.: firms who are represented as an entity with a
>> single representative, corporations who are members as a business,
>> membership organizations such as AIPLA, etc.).
>>
>> Where support is given to this statement as a company, company names are
>> stated. Where support is given as individual representatives, individual
>> names are the more appropriate and accurate way to list.
>>
>> Hope this helps clear things up. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
>>
>> Kiran Malancharuvil
>> Internet Policy Counselor
>> MarkMonitor
>> 415-419-9138 (m)
>>
>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>>
>> On May 2, 2015, at 10:17 AM, James M. Bladel
>> <jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Mary/Staff -
>>
>> These message are inconsistent. Please confirm: Are we listing the names
>> of individuals, or companies?
>>
>> J.
>>
>>
>> From: Kiran Malancharuvil
>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonito
>> r.com>>
>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 20:25
>> To: Susan Kawaguchi <susank at fb.com<mailto:susank at fb.com>>, "Prosser,
>> Susan" <susan at domaintools.com<mailto:susan at domaintools.com>>, Frank
>> Michlick <frank at domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank at domaincocoon.com>>,
>> "mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>"
>> <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
>> Cc: PPSAI WG
>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
>>
>> Mary,
>>
>> Can you also add Jim Bikoff, David Heasley and Val Sherman from Smith,
>> Gambrell and Russell to the statement? Please retain “on behalf of the
>> proponents of the transactional distinction.”
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Kiran
>>
>> From: Kiran Malancharuvil
>> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:34 AM
>> To: 'Susan Kawaguchi'; Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick;
>> mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
>> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
>>
>> Fantastic. Mary, please add the signatories mentioned (LegitScript,
>> DomainTools, Facebook) as well as MarkMonitor (company name, not
>> individual) “on behalf of the proponents of the transactional
>> distinction.”
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Kiran
>>
>> From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@
>> icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>> Susan Kawaguchi
>> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:27 AM
>> To: Prosser, Susan; Frank Michlick
>> Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
>>
>> Facebook can also be added to the supplemental statement
>> Susan Kawaguchi
>> Domain Name Manager
>> Facebook Legal Dept.
>>
>> Phone - 650 485-6064
>>
>> From: <Prosser>, Susan
>> <susan at domaintools.com<mailto:susan at domaintools.com>>
>> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:12 AM
>> To: Frank Michlick <frank at domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank at domaincocoon.com>>
>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>"
>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
>>
>> DomainTools can be added as a reference to Kiran's supplemental statement
>> as well.
>>
>> -Susan
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Frank Michlick
>> <frank at domaincocoon.com<mailto:frank at domaincocoon.com>> wrote:
>> Kiran,
>>
>> I appreciate that you were able to put this together under the time
>> restrictions in place. Thank you also to John Horton who added his
>> company name to the list.
>>
>> If you cannot name companies though due to the need to get approval,
>> maybe you could name the individuals (or they could speak up here) that
>> support/worded the statement.
>>
>> So far we've got:
>>
>> * Kiran Malancharuvil, Internet Policy Counselor, MarkMonitor
>> * Legitscript
>>
>> I do think that any statement included with this report should be
>> attributable to the supporters/authors so the reader can take the
>> background into account when reviewing the statements. Comments that are
>> not clearly attributable, could potentially weigh less in the eye of
>> the reader.
>>
>> @Staff: Is there a way for you to include the authors/proponents in a
>> statement after its submission?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> /Frank
>> --
>> Registrar Consultant - DomainCocoon Inc.
>>
>>> On 2015-05-01 9:34 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote:
>>> They are referenced as we had time to reference them in the submission.
>>>
>>> Keep in mind that we are, for the most part not individuals, but
>>> companies and constituencies. Using company names is not feasible when
>>> we are given two days to seek approval for a consolidated statement.
>>>
>>> If you want to know who was a proponent of this distinction, you can go
>>> back to transcripts and the list to parse out that information.
>>>
>>> K
>>>
>>> Kiran Malancharuvil
>>> Internet Policy Counselor
>>> MarkMonitor
>>> 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
>>>
>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>>>
>>>> On May 1, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight
>>>> <michele at blacknight.com<mailto:michele at blacknight.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Kiran
>>>>
>>>> So who are the proponents of this position and how should they be
>>>> referenced?
>>>>
>>>> In the case of Kathy & Co they are named clearly in the submission
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Michele
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mr Michele Neylon
>>>> Blacknight Solutions
>>>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
>>>> http://www.blacknight.host/
>>>> http://blog.blacknight.com/
>>>> http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage
>>>> http://www.technology.ie
>>>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072>
>>>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090>
>>>> Social: http://mneylon.social
>>>> Random Stuff: http://michele.irish
>>>> -------------------------------
>>>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
>>>> Park,Sleaty
>>>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 01/05/2015 04:47, "Kiran Malancharuvil"
>>>>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmon
>>>>> itor.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Incidentally, I would note that the characterization of the statement
>>>>> as "Kirans statement" is incorrect. As stated before in several messes
>>>>> and as made clear in the text, the statement is from the proponents of
>>>>> the transactional distinction.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil
>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor
>>>>> MarkMonitor
>>>>> 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Mary Wong
>>>>>> <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We will reflect this change in the final text, thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>> Mary
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mary Wong
>>>>>> Senior Policy Director
>>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892<tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204892>
>>>>>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Kiran Malancharuvil
>>>>>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmo
>>>>>> nitor.com>>
>>>>>> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 22:30
>>>>>> To: Kathy Kleiman
>>>>>> <kathy at kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
>>>>>> Cc:
>>>>>> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>"
>>>>>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Our Statement/Kiran's Statement
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We changed that to "these members of the PPSAI working group."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil
>>>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor
>>>>>>> MarkMonitor
>>>>>>> 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <kathy at kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy at k
>>>>>>> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>>> Thanks, but I think the "and" is correct and I would leave "as is."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I do object to though, is the conclusion of Kiran's statement
>>>>>>> which,
>>>>>>> although a Minority Statement, represents itself [as soliciting
>>>>>>> input on
>>>>>>> behalf of the entire PPSAI WG.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Steve, Graeme and Mary,
>>>>>>> I strongly request a change of "The PPSAI Working Group therefore
>>>>>>> desires
>>>>>>> public comment" to "The drafters of this supplemental statement
>>>>>>> desire
>>>>>>> public comment..."
>>>>>>> (current text) "The PPSAI Working Group therefore desires public
>>>>>>> comment on the issue of encouraging transparent, non-anonymous
>>>>>>> WHOIS data
>>>>>>> for persons and entities engaged in active transactional commercial
>>>>>>> activity and provides the above-referenced white
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> paper<https://www.legitscript.com/download/White_Paper_-_Commercial_U
>>>>>>> se_-_
>>>>>>> Jurisdictional_Analysis-May_11_2014.pdf> as background for
>>>>>>> consideration."
>>>>>>> We (as a whole WG) desire public comment on the issue as framed in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> main report.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please confirm that this will change because Kiran's statement
>>>>>>> speaks
>>>>>>> only for its group.
>>>>>>> Tx,
>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> Hi Kathy,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for this. No objection here. One clarification: Is "mothers
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> seniors" accurate, or should it be "mothers or seniors"? I think
>>>>>>> the way
>>>>>>> it is currently written, someone could interpret you to be talking
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>> mothers who are also senior citizens, which can certainly be true
>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>> literal sense, but I believe that your intent is to be broader and
>>>>>>> note
>>>>>>> that while some home-based business are (impliedly) merely run by
>>>>>>> men or
>>>>>>> young folk, that some home-based businesses are run by mothers,
>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>> others are run by seniors, irrespective of their gender. I just
>>>>>>> wonder if
>>>>>>> the disjunctive might be better than the conjunctive in this
>>>>>>> particular
>>>>>>> case?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John Horton
>>>>>>> President and CEO, LegitScript
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Follow LegitScript:
>>>>>>> LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com> |
>>>>>>> Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript> |
>>>>>>> Twitter<https://twitter.com/legitscript> |
>>>>>>> YouTube<https://www.youtube.com/user/LegitScript> |
>>>>>>> Blog<http://blog.legitscript.com> |
>>>>>>> Google+<https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Kathy Kleiman
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <kathy at kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy at k
>>>>>>> athykleiman.com<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear Graeme, Steve, Mary and All,
>>>>>>> Attached please find our supplemental statement for inclusion in the
>>>>>>> Interim Report. Mary, could you please use the attached Word
>>>>>>> version as
>>>>>>> it has the formatting and highlights we seek to show in the
>>>>>>> published
>>>>>>> version.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I include a pasted version below for easy reading.
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>> -------
>>>>>>> Statement of Kathy Kleiman, James Gannon and Stephanie Perrin,
>>>>>>> Members of
>>>>>>> the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We respectfully submit that Section 1.3.3, 1.3.3, Specific Topics on
>>>>>>> which there is currently no consensus within the WG, of this PPSAI
>>>>>>> Executive Summary and Interim Report is incomplete. There are a
>>>>>>> number
>>>>>>> of topics on which there is currently no consensus within the WG and
>>>>>>> which need considerable work. These are issues well known and deeply
>>>>>>> discussed.
>>>>>>> For the purposes of clarity and to lend depth to the comments and
>>>>>>> discussion to come, we submit this statement of how we would like
>>>>>>> to see
>>>>>>> Section 1.3.3 written.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> 1.3.3, Specific Topics on which there is currently no consensus
>>>>>>> within
>>>>>>> the WG
>>>>>>> 1.3.3.1 REVEAL
>>>>>>> The WG¹s has not yet reached final preliminary conclusions on key
>>>>>>> details
>>>>>>> of its ³Reveal² recommendations (See Annex E of the Interim Report).
>>>>>>> There are many details still under discussion and for which the WG
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>> not reached consensus. These include:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - What remedies should a Customer be allowed in the event
>>>>>>> that a
>>>>>>> Reveal Request was falsely made or the data was improperly used
>>>>>>> (current
>>>>>>> recommendations provide mechanism only for Provider action)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Should Requestors be allowed to escalate each and every
>>>>>>> rejection of a Reveal Request to a 3rd party forum, or should the
>>>>>>> WG seek
>>>>>>> to adopt reasonable standards and thresholds for such appeals to
>>>>>>> avoid
>>>>>>> unnecessary and time-consuming appeals? (Note: a Request for
>>>>>>> Reconsideration is already a part of the recommended process the WG
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>> agreed to by consensus.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - What rights and protections should a Customer be allowed
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> encouraged to forth in her/his/its own defense to provide a
>>>>>>> reasonable
>>>>>>> defense for maintaining her/his/its privacy, even in the face of a
>>>>>>> copyright or trademark infringement allegation?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - How can Customers be protected from extraterritorial
>>>>>>> requests
>>>>>>> from Law Enforcement from outside their country, when the use of
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> domain name is for legal purposes in their own country, but perhaps
>>>>>>> purposes deemed illegal in other countries [Note: even Interpol
>>>>>>> refuses
>>>>>>> to act across national lines in matters of political, military,
>>>>>>> religious
>>>>>>> and racial issues because of the enormous differences of law.
>>>>>>> Article 3,
>>>>>>> Interpol Constitution]
>>>>>>> Input and comments would be helpful on these issues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1.3.3.2 THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTRUDING INTO NATIONAL LAW
>>>>>>> Although the WG agreed that the mere fact that a domain name is
>>>>>>> registered by a commercial entity or by anyone conducting commercial
>>>>>>> activity should not preclude the use of P/P services[1][1], there
>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>> disagreement over whether domain names that are actively used for
>>>>>>> commercial transactions (e.g. the sale or exchange of goods or
>>>>>>> services)
>>>>>>> should be prohibited from using P/P services.
>>>>>>> While most WG members did not believe such a prohibition is
>>>>>>> necessary or
>>>>>>> practical, some members believed that registrants of such domain
>>>>>>> names
>>>>>>> should not be able to use or continue using proxy or privacy
>>>>>>> services. [1]
>>>>>>> Other members of the WG noted that fundraising and membership
>>>>>>> drives are
>>>>>>> often performed by the very groups and organizations seeking
>>>>>>> privacy/proxy registration for protection, including minority
>>>>>>> political
>>>>>>> groups, minority religious organizations, ethnic groups,
>>>>>>> organizations
>>>>>>> committed to change of racial policies, gender orientation groups,
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> publications engaged in freedom of expression. These groups and
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> representatives note that, in the laws of their countries, the mere
>>>>>>> collection of a donation or membership fee does not change their
>>>>>>> status
>>>>>>> from ³non-commercial² to commercial. Others noted that ³non-profit²
>>>>>>> status is limited to only a few countries.
>>>>>>> Further, many of organizations, small businesses, home-based
>>>>>>> businesses
>>>>>>> (including those run by mothers and seniors) conduct their financial
>>>>>>> transactions through 3rd party e-commerce companies, such as
>>>>>>> PayPal, and
>>>>>>> thus are not processing the financial transactions directly.
>>>>>>> Accordingly,
>>>>>>> many members in the WG submit there is no reason to breach the
>>>>>>> proxy/privacy of organizations and businesses purely and solely for
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> reason.
>>>>>>> Many members many in the WG submit that content regulation is far
>>>>>>> beyond
>>>>>>> the scope of ICANN and properly the scope of national laws some of
>>>>>>> which has taken initiatives in this area which are clearly defined
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> properly limited in scope and application (e.g., Germany).
>>>>>>> For those that argued that it is necessary and practical to limit
>>>>>>> access
>>>>>>> to P/P services to exclude commercial entities, the following text
>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>> proposed to clarify and define their position: ³domains used for
>>>>>>> online
>>>>>>> financial transactions for commercial purpose should be ineligible
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> privacy and proxy registrations.²
>>>>>>> This suggestion has been debated strongly by the members of the WG
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> has not reached consensus as others submitted that:
>>>>>>> "Attempting to distinguish the end purposes of a domain
>>>>>>> registration is
>>>>>>> not practicable for the purposes of determining eligibility for
>>>>>>> privacy/proxy services, and will unfairly discriminate against
>>>>>>> vulnerable
>>>>>>> groups, entrepreneurs, small businesses and organizations who wish
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> exercise their rights of freedom of expression rights on the
>>>>>>> Internet.
>>>>>>> Input requested on the full issues, including questions below:
>>>>>>> € Should registrants of domain names associated with
>>>>>>> commercial
>>>>>>> activities and which are used for online financial transactions be
>>>>>>> prohibited from using, or continuing to use, privacy and proxy
>>>>>>> services?
>>>>>>> € Is this type of content regulation outside of ICANN's
>>>>>>> scope and
>>>>>>> mandate and the proper province of national law?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] The WG notes that the WHOIS RT had specifically acknowledged
>>>>>>> that P/P
>>>>>>> services can be and are used to address legitimate interests, both
>>>>>>> commercial and non-commercial.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org><mailt
>>>>>>> o: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><mailt
>>>>>>> o: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
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list