<html>

  <head>

    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"

      http-equiv="Content-Type">

  </head>

  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">

    Hi John,<br>

    <br>

    <blockquote

cite="mid:CADW+euvsQU42Rt_O1pPbvAy=Zm4AO9UJOyR7vnvXLaKvEDqYBw@mail.gmail.com"

      type="cite">

      <div dir="ltr">

        <div class="gmail_default"><font color="#073763" face="arial,

            helvetica, sans-serif">Sure, happy to clarify, and also

            provide a few comments in response to yours. I think

            re-verification actually does serve a purpose.&nbsp;</font></div>

        <div class="gmail_default">

          <font color="#073763" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br>

          </font></div>

        <div class="gmail_default"><font color="#073763" face="arial,

            helvetica, sans-serif">One of the questions before the group

            is whether "ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers

            (should) be

            required to conduct periodic checks to ensure accuracy of

            customer contact

            information; and if so, how?"&nbsp;There has been some argument

            that criminals always falsify their Whois information, and

            therefore re-verification in general is pointless because

            criminals would lie anyway. My first point is that that

            isn't true: rather, it depends on the type of criminal

            activity in question. So, to the extent that's being used as

            an argument against re-verification (or, for that matter,

            against verification), it shouldn't be. <br>

          </font></div>

      </div>

    </blockquote>

    <font color="#073763"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">This

        may very well be the case but I do not follow how

        re-verification of already verified data will help anyone. The

        result will in all likelyhood be the same.</font></font><br>

    <blockquote

cite="mid:CADW+euvsQU42Rt_O1pPbvAy=Zm4AO9UJOyR7vnvXLaKvEDqYBw@mail.gmail.com"

      type="cite">

      <div dir="ltr">

        <div class="gmail_default"><font color="#073763" face="arial,

            helvetica, sans-serif"><br>

          </font></div>

        <div class="gmail_default"><font color="#073763" face="arial,

            helvetica, sans-serif">My second point is that there is

            value in re-verification or periodic checks. Let me offer

            some thoughts on the value of re-verification at some

            intervals.</font></div>

        <div class="gmail_default">

          <ul>

            <li><font color="#073763" face="arial, helvetica,

                sans-serif">First -- and certainly let me know if I'm

                wrong on this, since I think you helped negotiate the

                2013 RAA and surely are more familiar with it than I am!

                -- I think it's fair to say that the Registrar's

                verification requirement as specified in the <b><a

                    moz-do-not-send="true"

href="http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/approved-with-specs-27jun13-en.htm#whois-accuracy"

                    target="_blank">Whois Accuracy Program Specification</a></b>

                doesn't constitute comprehensive verification of all

                fields. That is, most of the verification requirements

                pertain to the format of the data, with additional

                verification that the email and telephone numbers are

                responsive correlated with the registrant. One of the

                questions before the group is whether P/P entities

                should engage in the same level of verification, or some

                different level. Reasonable minds can differ on this,

                but some members of this group have suggested an

                additional level of verification. <br>

              </font></li>

          </ul>

        </div>

      </div>

    </blockquote>

    <font color="#073763"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">First

        of all, it is: email _or_ telephone! This mistake is often made

        when quoting the obligation, so I feel I have to correct it to

        prevent this from spreading. ;-). <br>

        Second, there is no real difference between the underlying data

        of the registrant with a p/p service and the public data with a

        registrar. If anything the quality of the hidden data is usually

        better than the public data. I fail to see why it would need to

        be treated differently.<br>

        <br>

      </font></font>

    <blockquote

cite="mid:CADW+euvsQU42Rt_O1pPbvAy=Zm4AO9UJOyR7vnvXLaKvEDqYBw@mail.gmail.com"

      type="cite">

      <div dir="ltr">

        <div class="gmail_default">

          <ul>

            <li><font color="#073763" face="arial, helvetica,

                sans-serif">Second, addresses can change over time:

                people and businesses move, and they may forget to

                update their registration data. Re-verification serves

                to highlight cases where the contact information has

                changed and, even if not malicious, is no longer

                accurate. (So, although data can't become "more

                accurate" as you point out, it can certainly become

                "more inaccurate" over time.)</font></li>

          </ul>

        </div>

      </div>

    </blockquote>

    <font color="#073763"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Not

        updating outdated data is a violation of the registration

        agreement and can lead to the </font></font>suspension or

    deletion of the domain name. For this reason, registrars are

    required to inform registrants annually about the data they have on

    file and request the data is checked. And I would suggest that

    enforcement of such "outdated whois" violations usually hits

    legitimate registrants more than illegitimate ones. <br>

    <br>

    <blockquote

cite="mid:CADW+euvsQU42Rt_O1pPbvAy=Zm4AO9UJOyR7vnvXLaKvEDqYBw@mail.gmail.com"

      type="cite">

      <div dir="ltr">

        <div class="gmail_default">

          <ul>

            <li><font color="#073763" face="arial, helvetica,

                sans-serif">Third, I would also assume (as you do) that

                verification and re-verification will need to be heavily

                automated, and to the extent that external data sets

                (for example, here in the US, postal data) are used to

                help highlight -- for example -- non-existent addresses

                or inaccurate correlations, those external data sets are

                likely being improved or updated over time. So, if

                errors or inaccurate data aren't caught in the first

                round, re-verification may catch them simply due to the

                verification tools being improved, or the underlying

                data being updated, over time. <br>

              </font></li>

          </ul>

        </div>

      </div>

    </blockquote>

    <font color="#073763"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Currently,

        all that is required under the RAA is sanity checks of address

        data (is the format correct) and trigger-response verification </font></font>of

    either email or phone address. ICANN has not provided access to any

    international database that could be used for data checks. But even

    then, such checks would not ever be able to differentiate between

    stolen data and accurate data. <br>

    <br>

    <blockquote

cite="mid:CADW+euvsQU42Rt_O1pPbvAy=Zm4AO9UJOyR7vnvXLaKvEDqYBw@mail.gmail.com"

      type="cite">

      <div dir="ltr">

        <div class="gmail_default">

          <ul>

            <li><font color="#073763" face="arial, helvetica,

                sans-serif">Fourth, in an ideal world, the verification

                process used by Registrars would catch 100% of

                inaccuracies, but that probably won't be the real-world

                result. Additional and periodic re-verification by P/P

                providers provides another layer of assurance. <br>

              </font></li>

          </ul>

        </div>

      </div>

    </blockquote>

    <font color="#073763"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Actually,

        the checks that return false positives worry me more, because

        those cause real work, customer confusion, etc. Any "solution"

        resulting in a significant amount of false positives is simply

        unacceptable.</font></font><br>

    <blockquote

cite="mid:CADW+euvsQU42Rt_O1pPbvAy=Zm4AO9UJOyR7vnvXLaKvEDqYBw@mail.gmail.com"

      type="cite">

      <div dir="ltr">

        <div class="gmail_default">

          <ul>

            <li><font color="#073763" face="arial, helvetica,

                sans-serif">Fifth, as to the problem of inaccurate

                correlations with real data (what you correctly refer to

                as "the data is accurate, but stolen") I would concur

                that this might present more of a challenge, but I don't

                think I'd agree that the inaccurate correlation wouldn't

                ever be uncovered, depending upon the verification

                algorithm and approach. We actually do look for this in

                our ongoing monitoring and have seen instances of

                inaccurate correlations but with real data. <br>

              </font></li>

          </ul>

        </div>

      </div>

    </blockquote>

    <font color="#073763"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">The

        only way it can be uncovered it the good old "hey, what is my

        data doing there" complaint (and we get one of those from time

        to time). And that requires no verification whatsoever, that

        only requires someone googling his name and finding the whois

        record.</font></font><br>

    <blockquote

cite="mid:CADW+euvsQU42Rt_O1pPbvAy=Zm4AO9UJOyR7vnvXLaKvEDqYBw@mail.gmail.com"

      type="cite">

      <div dir="ltr">

        <div class="gmail_default">

          <ul>

          </ul>

        </div>

        <div class="gmail_default">I think that those are some arguments

          in favor of why re-verification by the P/P provider has merit

          at periodic intervals. I think there's a reasonable question

          of whether the Registrar's verification of the email and phone

          number should be sufficient for those portions of the P/P

          service provider's verification process within a limited time

          frame after the Registrar's verification occurs. (Perhaps that

          eliminates some redundancy.)</div>

      </div>

    </blockquote>

    I do not follow these arguments. Re-verification will just add

    costs, confusion and annoyance to an already cumbersome process and

    will bring no benefits. Please note that I am specifically excluding

    from the term re-verification those cases where the registrar is

    compelled to recheck because of notifications or positive knowledge

    of incorrect or outdated data.<br>

    <br>

    Volker<br>

    <br>

    <br>

    <blockquote

cite="mid:CADW+euvsQU42Rt_O1pPbvAy=Zm4AO9UJOyR7vnvXLaKvEDqYBw@mail.gmail.com"

      type="cite">

      <div dir="ltr">

        <div class="gmail_extra"><br>

          <div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:29 AM,

            Volker Greimann <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a

                moz-do-not-send="true"

                href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" target="_blank">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>&gt;</span>

            wrote:<br>

            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px

0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">

              <div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> Hi John, <br>

                <br>

                I am having a bit of a hard time understanding your

                point here.<br>

                <br>

                You are describing three different cases here, two of

                which will not benefit from verification in the least

                bit and one might, but only in some cases:<br>

                <br>

                a) The data is accurate, but stolen: Here verification

                would not uncover any issues with the data as it is

                essentially correct and will most likely&nbsp; be identified

                as accurate.<br>

                b) The data is false: Here, depending on the methods

                used, the inaccuracy may be uncovered and would lead to

                an automated request to provide updated data or

                deactivation after a set time. Remember, in order to

                keep providing services in a sensible manner, this needs

                to be automated in some form, i.e. no individual record

                would likely see any manual review.<br>

                c) The data is already accurate: If the data is already

                correct, what purpose does verification fulfill?&nbsp; The

                data cannot become more accurate. Verification in this

                case seems like an exercise in self-gratification.<br>

                <br>

                That said, even if there is a benefit to be derived from

                verification, such benefits are achieved once

                verification concludes. Re-verification of already

                verified data fulfills no purpose whatsoever. So if a

                set of data has already been verified by the registrar,

                there is no need for the p/p provider to again verify

                the same data. Only if no verification is or can be

                performed on the registrar level does verification by

                providers come into play.<br>

                <br>

                Volker<br>

                <br>

                <div>Am 28.02.2014 00:32, schrieb John Horton:<br>

                </div>

                <div>

                  <div>

                    <blockquote type="cite">

                      <div dir="ltr">

                        <div class="gmail_default"

                          style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(7,55,99)">

                          <div class="gmail_default"

                            style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial"><font

                              color="#073763" face="arial, helvetica,

                              sans-serif">Thanks, Marika. I also wanted

                              to provide a comment pertaining to

                              Question 2 in the attachments (relating to

                              periodic checks).</font></div>

                          <div class="gmail_default"

                            style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial"><font

                              color="#073763" face="arial, helvetica,

                              sans-serif"><br>

                            </font></div>

                          <div class="gmail_default"

                            style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial">

                            <span

                              style="color:rgb(7,55,99);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">In

                              a few of the recent discussions, there's

                              been some reference to criminals always or

                              nearly always being untruthful in their

                              Whois records (even if privacy-protected),

                              leading to the conclusion that there is

                              little purpose in having a registrar or

                              any third party have to verify or

                              re-verify the information (especially if

                              it is difficult to prove that the data is

                              falsified). I wanted to share our

                              experience and observations on that point,

                              in the hope that it's relevant to future

                              discussion regarding Question 2.</span><br>

                          </div>

                          <div class="gmail_default"

                            style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial"><font

                              color="#073763" face="arial, helvetica,

                              sans-serif"><br>

                            </font></div>

                          <div class="gmail_default"

                            style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial">

                            <font color="#073763" face="arial,

                              helvetica, sans-serif">Our consistent

                              observation has been that when it comes to

                              a particular sub-category of criminal

                              activity, spam, phishing, malware, and so

                              forth, it's probably safe to say that that

                              statement is true -- the registrant's

                              Whois information is nearly always

                              inaccurate. Even in cases, such as some

                              where we've worked with law enforcement,

                              when the Whois record for a domain name

                              involved in spam, phishing or malware is

                              privacy-protected and is subsequently

                              unmasked, the Whois record is still not

                              accurate behind the privacy curtain. There

                              are probably exceptions, but that's what

                              we've seen well over 95% of the time. On

                              occasion, it's a real address and phone

                              number, just not one genuinely connected

                              to the registrant.&nbsp;</font></div>

                          <div class="gmail_default"

                            style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial"><font

                              color="#073763" face="arial, helvetica,

                              sans-serif"><br>

                            </font></div>

                          <div class="gmail_default"

                            style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial">

                            <font color="#073763" face="arial,

                              helvetica, sans-serif">But there are other

                              types of criminal activity where the Whois

                              record is not so regularly obfuscated. For

                              example, we investigate a lot of websites

                              selling tainted dietary supplements that

                              end up containing some toxin or adulterant

                              that harms people. In those cases, we've

                              overwhelmingly seen that even if the Whois

                              record is privacy-protected, the trend is

                              that the underlying Whois record is

                              accurate. The same has been true for

                              illegal or counterfeit medical device

                              websites that we've researched. On illegal

                              Internet pharmacies not engaged in spam,

                              it's probably 50-50. (It might be a shell

                              corporation, but that's still valuable

                              information.)</font></div>

                          <div class="gmail_default"

                            style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial"><font

                              color="#073763" face="arial, helvetica,

                              sans-serif"><br>

                            </font></div>

                          <div class="gmail_default"

                            style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial">

                            <font color="#073763" face="arial,

                              helvetica, sans-serif">One important point

                              to consider is that the Whois registration

                              can be relevant information from a banking

                              perspective for commercial entities. That

                              is, some banks are going to look at an

                              online merchant's domain name registration

                              record and if it's either inaccurate or

                              protected, they may require disclosure, or

                              ask about any discrepancy, which can be an

                              incentive for criminals selling products

                              online who nevertheless want to get paid

                              via credit card to have an accurate Whois.

                              Hackers, malware providers and spammers

                              will find a way around that, but they

                              don't necessarily constitute "most"

                              criminal activity.</font></div>

                          <div class="gmail_default"

                            style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial"><font

                              color="#073763" face="arial, helvetica,

                              sans-serif"><br>

                            </font></div>

                          <div class="gmail_default"

                            style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial">

                            <font color="#073763" face="arial,

                              helvetica, sans-serif">The point here is,

                              I think verification can still be a useful

                              and necessary tool in either scenario,

                              even if it doesn't uncover useful

                              information a portion of the time. I

                              realize that only pertains to a portion of

                              the issues related to Question 2, but I

                              hope that our observations on that are

                              relevant.&nbsp;</font></div>

                          <div class="gmail_default"

                            style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial"><font

                              color="#073763" face="arial, helvetica,

                              sans-serif"><br>

                            </font></div>

                          <div class="gmail_default"

                            style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial">

                            <font color="#073763" face="arial,

                              helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks,&nbsp;</font></div>

                        </div>

                        <div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all">

                          <div>

                            <div dir="ltr"><font color="#073763"

                                face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">John

                                Horton<br>

                                President, LegitScript</font>

                              <div>&nbsp;<img moz-do-not-send="true"

src="https://static.legitscript.com/assets/logo-smaller-cdb8a6f307ce2c6172e72257dc6dfc34.png"

                                  width="96" height="21"><br>

                                <div>

                                  <div>

                                    <p

style="margin:0px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica"><br>

                                    </p>

                                    <p

style="margin:0px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica"><b><font

                                          color="#444444">Follow</font><font

                                          color="#0b5394"> </font><font

                                          color="#000000">Legit</font><font

                                          color="#0b5394">Script</font></b>:

                                      <a moz-do-not-send="true"

                                        href="http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com"

                                        style="font-weight:normal"

                                        target="_blank"><font

                                          color="#cc0000">LinkedIn</font></a>&nbsp;

                                      | &nbsp;<a moz-do-not-send="true"

                                        href="https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript"

                                        style="font-weight:normal"

                                        target="_blank"><font

                                          color="#6aa84f">Facebook</font></a>&nbsp;

                                      | &nbsp;<a moz-do-not-send="true"

                                        href="https://twitter.com/legitscript"

                                        style="font-weight:normal"

                                        target="_blank"><font

                                          color="#674ea7">Twitter</font></a>&nbsp;

                                      | &nbsp;<a moz-do-not-send="true"

                                        href="https://www.youtube.com/user/LegitScript"

                                        style="font-weight:normal"

                                        target="_blank"><font

                                          color="#bf9000">YouTube</font></a>&nbsp;

                                      | &nbsp;<font color="#ff9900"><u><a

                                            moz-do-not-send="true"

                                            href="http://blog.legitscript.com"

                                            target="_blank">Blog</a></u></font>

                                      &nbsp;|<font color="#ff9900"> &nbsp;<font

                                          style="font-weight:normal"><a

                                            moz-do-not-send="true"

                                            href="https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts"

                                            target="_blank">Google+</a></font></font></p>

                                  </div>

                                </div>

                              </div>

                            </div>

                          </div>

                          <br>

                          <br>

                          <div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 26, 2014

                            at 2:39 AM, Marika Konings <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a

                                moz-do-not-send="true"

                                href="mailto:marika.konings@icann.org"

                                target="_blank">marika.konings@icann.org</a>&gt;</span>

                            wrote:<br>

                            <blockquote class="gmail_quote"

                              style="margin:0px 0px 0px

0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">

                              <div

style="font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;word-wrap:break-word">

                                <div>Dear All,</div>

                                <div><br>

                                </div>

                                <div>Following our call yesterday,

                                  please find attached the updated

                                  templates for Category B &#8211; questions 1

                                  &amp; 2. Please review these templates

                                  to make sure the WG discussions have

                                  been accurately reflected and feel

                                  free to share any comments / edits you

                                  may have with the mailing list. We've

                                  created a page on the wiki where we'll

                                  post the templates that have been

                                  finalised for now (noting that for

                                  some of these the WG will need to come

                                  back to the template at a later date),

                                  see&nbsp;<a moz-do-not-send="true"

                                    href="https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg"

                                    target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg</a>.&nbsp;</div>

                                <div><br>

                                </div>

                                <div>The WG will continue its

                                  deliberations on Category B &#8211; Question

                                  2 next week. Some of the questions

                                  that came up during the conversation

                                  yesterday and which you are encouraged

                                  to share your views on (and/or add

                                  additional questions that need to be

                                  considered in this context) are:</div>

                                <ul>

                                  <li>What would be the arguments for

                                    not using the same standards /

                                    requirements for validation and

                                    verification as per the 2013 RAA?</li>

                                  <li>Should there be a requirement for

                                    re-verification, and if so, what

                                    instances would trigger such

                                    re-verification?</li>

                                  <li>In case of affliction between the

                                    P/P service and the registrar, if

                                    the registration information has

                                    already been verified by the

                                    registrar, should this exempt the

                                    P/P provider from doing so?</li>

                                  <li>Should the same requirements apply

                                    to privacy and proxy services or is

                                    there a reason to distinguish

                                    between the two?</li>

                                </ul>

                                <div>Best regards,</div>

                                <div><br>

                                </div>

                                <div>Marika</div>

                              </div>

                              <br>

_______________________________________________<br>

                              Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list<br>

                              <a moz-do-not-send="true"

                                href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org"

                                target="_blank">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>

                              <a moz-do-not-send="true"

                                href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg"

                                target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</a><br>

                            </blockquote>

                          </div>

                          <br>

                        </div>

                      </div>

                      <br>

                      <fieldset></fieldset>

                      <br>

                      <pre>_______________________________________________

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list

<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>

<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</a></pre>

                    </blockquote>

                    <br>

                  </div>

                </div>

                <pre cols="72">-- 

Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verf&uuml;gung.

Mit freundlichen Gr&uuml;&szlig;en,

Volker A. Greimann

- Rechtsabteilung -

Key-Systems GmbH

Im Oberen Werk 1

66386 St. Ingbert

Tel.: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901" value="+4968949396901" target="_blank">+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901</a>

Fax.: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851" value="+4968949396851" target="_blank">+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851</a>

Email: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" target="_blank">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>

Web: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.key-systems.net" target="_blank">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.RRPproxy.net" target="_blank">www.RRPproxy.net</a>

<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com" target="_blank">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.BrandShelter.com" target="_blank">www.BrandShelter.com</a>

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:

<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems" target="_blank">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a>

<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems" target="_blank">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a>

Gesch&auml;ftsf&uuml;hrer: Alexander Siffrin

Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken 

Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP

<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.keydrive.lu" target="_blank">www.keydrive.lu</a> 

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur f&uuml;r den angegebenen Empf&auml;nger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Ver&ouml;ffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empf&auml;nger ist unzul&auml;ssig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht f&uuml;r 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.: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901" value="+4968949396901" target="_blank">+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901</a>

Fax.: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851" value="+4968949396851" target="_blank">+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851</a>

Email: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" target="_blank">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>

Web: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.key-systems.net" target="_blank">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.RRPproxy.net" target="_blank">www.RRPproxy.net</a>

<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com" target="_blank">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.BrandShelter.com" target="_blank">www.BrandShelter.com</a>

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:

<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems" target="_blank">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a>

<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems" target="_blank">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a>

CEO: Alexander Siffrin

Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken 

V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP

<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.keydrive.lu" target="_blank">www.keydrive.lu</a> 

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.

</pre>

              </div>

              <br>

              _______________________________________________<br>

              Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list<br>

              <a moz-do-not-send="true"

                href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org"

                target="_blank">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>

              <a moz-do-not-send="true"

                href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg"

                target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</a><br>

            </blockquote>

          </div>

          <div class="gmail_default"

            style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(7,55,99)">

          </div>

          <br>

        </div>

      </div>

    </blockquote>

    <br>

    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 