[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] international law enforcement association resolution regarding domain registration data
tisrael at cippic.ca
tisrael at cippic.ca
Thu Apr 27 21:43:06 UTC 2017
Hi Allison,
I actually disagree that there have been many situations where criminal
investigations have been stifled due to an inability to meet the
criteria for a search in Canada. Where those situations *have* arisen
though, it is not a catch-22 situation, it's a situation where you just
don't have a good enough reason to identify the anonymous digital activity.
Regarding judges valuation of digital evidence, some will likely instill
more rigorous digital forensics requirements than others, or draw more
robust inferences from a certain dataset, but that cuts both ways
(sometimes in favour of allowing the search sometimes against).
Realistically speaking, very few ex parte search requests get denied
(including ones for digital identification) so if anything I suspect the
latter situation is more prevalent.
In any case, my point was simply that we should be keeping an eye on
what legal safeguards we would be bypassing by an expanded public WHOIS,
not simply what data protection regimes do or do not currently allow.
Best,
Tamir
On 2017-04-27 2:34 PM, allison nixon wrote:
> And in Canada, there are and have been catch-22 situations where the
> malicious activity cannot be identified, because satisfying the
> requirements to do this identification cannot be done without the
> results of the search being attempted, made worse by the fact that
> judges often underestimate the validity of digital evidence that is
> already collected. Making the situation more kafkaesque than it
> currently is will eventually result in undesirable backlash.
>
> Also regarding a previous email: "We had several EU Data Commissioners
> weigh in during ICANN 58 regarding the above, I am personally not
> going to argue with those guys."
>
> From what I understand, anti-abuse interests were hardly represented
> if at all at ICANN 58, so it's interesting to see a purpose being
> declared illegitimate when no one at the table was aware of the many
> legitimate uses. It is certainly worth arguing with those guys.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 2:17 PM, tisrael at cippic.ca
> <mailto:tisrael at cippic.ca> <tisrael at cippic.ca
> <mailto:tisrael at cippic.ca>> wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> Sorry to interject here.
>
> I think a governance exercise here must look beyond what the law
> strictly allows in terms of formulating WHOIS and to how a given
> WHOIS configuration will impact on recognized legal privacy
> protections.
>
> So, in Canada, our courts have built legal protections and
> safeguards into the civil discovery process that determine under
> what conditions anonymous online activity can be identified.
> Similarly, we have constitutional protections that prevent private
> entities from voluntarily identifying anonymous online actors to
> law enforcement if certain procedural steps aren't met.
>
> Making WHOIS public by default would effectively bypass all of
> these safeguards. Surely that, then, also has to be a
> consideration in a governance process of this sort?
>
> Best regards,
> Tamir
>
> On 2017-04-27 2:07 PM, Paul Keating wrote:
>> All good questions but I would like to start with the scope of
>> the. Urrent laws as it applies to current Whois data.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Paul Keating, Esq.
>>
>> On Apr 27, 2017, at 7:47 PM, allison nixon <elsakoo at gmail.com
>> <mailto:elsakoo at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm sure everyone's schedules are quite busy, and they will manage.
>>>
>>> We need a proper legal authority here because it's potentially
>>> falsely being presumed that the use of WHOIS data is illegal and
>>> noncompliant in the first place. We simply do not know if that
>>> is a factual premise. We also need to take into account laws
>>> other than the EU privacy laws, and laws outside the EU. A
>>> number of exemptions exist within these privacy laws and those
>>> people throwing around the legal arguments accusing this of
>>> being illegal don't seem to ever mention that fact. We need an
>>> unbiased legal expert.
>>>
>>> What if a country is trying to enforce a law that is deemed
>>> distasteful (violates human rights, etc), and their registrant
>>> is located within the country? does the gatekeeper have grounds
>>> to deny them the ability to enforce their own laws against their
>>> own people, and if so when?
>>>
>>> How does WHOIS play into other areas of compliance, such as
>>> know-your-customer, complying with sanctions, anti-money
>>> laundering, HIPPAA, PCI, etc? Is complying to one law more
>>> important than complying to another, if one had to choose?
>>>
>>> Will the gatekeeper comply with anti-trust laws?
>>>
>>> How does privacy law prohibit information collection on
>>> registrants yet collect detailed PII info on queriers and
>>> subject them to audit? What happens if the gatekeeper is hacked
>>> into for those audit logs? What happens if the gatekeeper
>>> receives a national security letter?
>>>
>>> All of these are legal questions that need to be answered
>>> without bias and with full understanding of the facts.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>
>>> And we need to have a lengthy discussion about precisely who
>>> that legal expert might be. It appears that many of our
>>> members are prepared to reject the views of the Data
>>> Protection Authorities themselves, who took the time out of
>>> their extraordinarily busy schedules to come and speak with
>>> us in Copenhagen.
>>>
>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2017-04-27 09:14, Gomes, Chuck via gnso-rds-pdp-wg wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We as a WG have not requested funds for a legal expert, but
>>>> I don’t know what staff has built into the Draft FY18 budget.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marika – Did the Policy Team build any funds into the Draft
>>>> FY18 budget for legal experts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note that this is a very time sensitive issue because the
>>>> comment period on the Draft FY18 Operating Plan and Budget
>>>> ends tomorrow.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lisa/Marika/Amr – Please prepare a draft comment on the
>>>> Budget that the Leadership Team or me as Chair could send
>>>> on Friday in this regard. If funds have not been proposed
>>>> for such expenses, I think we should at a minimum raise the
>>>> issue in the public comment forum even if there is not time
>>>> to propose specific details.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chuck
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>
>>>> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of
>>>> *Paul Keating
>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 27, 2017 7:55 AM
>>>> *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>; Volker Greimann
>>>> <vgreimann at key-systems.net> <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>>>> *Cc:* RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] international
>>>> law enforcement association resolution regarding domain
>>>> registration data
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Has the WG requested funds to retain a legal expert to
>>>> educate us on the actual laws at issue?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From: *<gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of
>>>> Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>>> *Date: *Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 12:38 AM
>>>> *To: *Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net
>>>> <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>>
>>>> *Cc: *RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
>>>> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] international law
>>>> enforcement association resolution regarding domain
>>>> registration data
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We also need to be very clear about the limits of the
>>>> legal requirements of applicable law, and the various
>>>> options available for dealing with the law. There's no
>>>> need to overcomply. Indeed it would be quite
>>>> unreasonable to do so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just as paying the lowest calculable income tax is
>>>> perfectly legitimate, so is complying with the law in
>>>> the least disruptive way possible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Greg Shatan
>>>> *C: 917-816-6428 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428>
>>>> S: gsshatan
>>>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <tel:%28646%29%20845-9428>
>>>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Volker Greimann
>>>> <vgreimann at key-systems.net
>>>> <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I wish it were so simple. "Doing harm" is not
>>>> necessary to be in violation with applicable law.
>>>> Just like jaywalking, speeding on an empty road or
>>>> crossing a red light carries a fine regardless of
>>>> whether harm was done, privacy law too does not
>>>> care about an actual harm.
>>>>
>>>> We need to be very clear about the legal
>>>> requirements when we define the limits of what can
>>>> be done with the data we collect, and by whom.
>>>>
>>>> Volker
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 26.04.2017 um 18:43 schrieb John Horton:
>>>>
>>>> Greg, well said. And Tim, well said. And I'll
>>>> strongly +1 Michael Hammer as well. I agree
>>>> with the "do no harm" philosophy -- I'm not
>>>> convinced that some of the proposed changes
>>>> (e.g., those outlined in the EWG report)
>>>> wouldn't cause more harm than the existing,
>>>> admittedly imperfect, system. As I've said
>>>> before, the importance of tools like Reverse
>>>> Whois isn't only direct -- it's derivative as
>>>> well. (If you enjoy the benefits of those of us
>>>> who fight payment fraud, online abuse and other
>>>> sorts of malfeasance, you have reverse Whois
>>>> among other tools to thank.) Privacy laws in
>>>> one part of the world are a factor we need to
>>>> be aware of, among other factors.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 9:07 AM nathalie coupet
>>>> via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nathalie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 12:02 PM,
>>>> Victoria Sheckler <vsheckler at riaa.com
>>>> <mailto:vsheckler at riaa.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 26, 2017, at 8:56 AM, Greg Shatan
>>>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for weighing in, Tim. Since
>>>> this is a multi_stakeholder_ process,
>>>> everyone is assumed to come in with a
>>>> point of view, so don't be shy. At the
>>>> same time, if stakeholders cling
>>>> dogmatically to their points of view
>>>> the multistakeholder model doesn't work.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As for being out on a limb:
>>>>
>>>> * We haven't decided what data will
>>>> be "private" and for which
>>>> registrants (e.g., based on
>>>> geography or entity status)
>>>> * We haven't decided there will be
>>>> "gated" access and what that might
>>>> mean, both for policy and practicality
>>>> * The question shouldn't be whether
>>>> we will be "allowing third parties
>>>> access to harvest, repackage and
>>>> republish that data," but how we
>>>> should allow this in a way that
>>>> balances various concerns.
>>>> Eliminating reverse Whois and other
>>>> such services is not a goal of this
>>>> Working Group.
>>>>
>>>> Our job should be to provide the
>>>> greatest possible access to the best
>>>> possible data, consistent with
>>>> minimizing risk under reasonable
>>>> interpretations of applicable law. We
>>>> need to deal with existing and incoming
>>>> privacy laws (and with other laws) as
>>>> well, but not in a worshipful manner;
>>>> instead it should be in a
>>>> solution-oriented manner. This is not,
>>>> after all, the Privacy Working Group.
>>>> I'll +1 Michael Hammer: Rather than
>>>> starting from a model of justifying
>>>> everything and anything from a privacy
>>>> perspective, I would suggest that it
>>>> would be much more appropriate, other
>>>> than technical changes such as moving
>>>> towards using JSON, to require
>>>> justification and consensus for any
>>>> changes from the existing model(s) of
>>>> WHOIS.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Finally, while our purpose is not to
>>>> maintain anyone's economic interest,
>>>> economic interests may well be aligned
>>>> with policy interests. Assuming that
>>>> economic interests are at odds with
>>>> policy interests is just as dangerous
>>>> as assuming that policy interests are
>>>> served by maximizing economic interests.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Greg Shatan
>>>> *C: 917-816-6428 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428>
>>>> S: gsshatan
>>>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>>>> <tel:%28646%29%20845-9428>
>>>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:28 AM,
>>>> Dotzero <dotzero at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:dotzero at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Adding to what Tim and Allison wrote.
>>>>
>>>> As a starting point, I've had an
>>>> account with DomainTools in the
>>>> past and will likely have one in
>>>> the future, although I don't
>>>> currently have one.
>>>>
>>>> There are other organizations and
>>>> individuals which consume/aggregate
>>>> whois data so I don't think that
>>>> for the purposes of this discussion
>>>> the focus should be on just
>>>> DomainTools. I know researchers and
>>>> academics who use this data to
>>>> analyze all sorts of things. As has
>>>> been pointed out, there are all
>>>> sorts of folks staking out
>>>> positions because of their economic
>>>> (and other) interests without
>>>> necessarily being transparent about
>>>> those interests.
>>>>
>>>> It should be remembered that the
>>>> Internet is an agglomeration of
>>>> many networks and resources, some
>>>> public and some private. At the
>>>> same time, it is simply a bunch of
>>>> technical standards that people and
>>>> organizations have agreed to use to
>>>> interact with each other. In many
>>>> cases, the ultimate solution to
>>>> abuse is to drop route. To the
>>>> extent that good and granular
>>>> information is not readily
>>>> available, regular (innocent) users
>>>> may suffer as owners and
>>>> administrators of resources act to
>>>> protect those resources and their
>>>> legitimate users from abuse and
>>>> maliciousness. The reality is that
>>>> most users of the internet utilize
>>>> a relatively small subset of all
>>>> the resources out there. For some,
>>>> a service like Facebook IS the
>>>> Internet.
>>>>
>>>> It may also incite a tendency
>>>> towards returning to a model of
>>>> walled gardens. At various points I
>>>> have heard discussions about the
>>>> balkanization of the internet, with
>>>> things like separate roots, etc.
>>>> People should think very carefully
>>>> about what they are asking for
>>>> because they may not be happy with
>>>> it if they actually get it.
>>>>
>>>> Rather than starting from a model
>>>> of justifying everything and
>>>> anything from a privacy
>>>> perspective, I would suggest that
>>>> it would be much more appropriate,
>>>> other than technical changes such
>>>> as moving towards using JSON, to
>>>> require justification and consensus
>>>> for any changes from the existing
>>>> model(s) of WHOIS.
>>>>
>>>> Michael Hammer
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:27 AM,
>>>> allison nixon <elsakoo at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:elsakoo at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your email Tim.
>>>>
>>>> Full disclosure(because I
>>>> believe in being transparent
>>>> about this sort of thing), we
>>>> do business with Domaintools
>>>> and use their tools to consume
>>>> whois data.
>>>>
>>>> "i'll close by saying I think
>>>> Allison's point about economic
>>>> value has merit. yes, the
>>>> point of the WG is not to
>>>> protect anyone's economic
>>>> interest. I agree 100% with
>>>> that statement and will
>>>> disagree with anyone who thinks
>>>> the future of DomainTools or
>>>> other commercial service should
>>>> have one iota of impact on this
>>>> discussion."
>>>>
>>>> I will however disagree
>>>> vehemently with you on this
>>>> point. It is obvious that many
>>>> of the arguments to cut off
>>>> anonymous querying to WHOIS
>>>> data are economically
>>>> motivated. Financial concerns
>>>> are cited numerous times in
>>>> approved documents. I also
>>>> believe the "vetting" process
>>>> is likely to become a new
>>>> revenue stream for someone as
>>>> well. A revenue stream with
>>>> HIGHLY questionable privacy
>>>> value-add.
>>>>
>>>> Every dollar of income for the
>>>> Domaintools company and others
>>>> like it come from their
>>>> clients, who see a multiplier
>>>> of value from it. That means
>>>> for every dollar spent on the
>>>> entire whois aggregator
>>>> industry means that a much
>>>> larger amount of money is saved
>>>> through prevented harms like
>>>> fraud, abuse, and even fake
>>>> medications which kill people.
>>>>
>>>> I think it is extremely
>>>> important to identify what
>>>> critical systems rely on whois
>>>> (either directly or
>>>> downstream), and determine if
>>>> we are ready to give up the
>>>> utility of these systems.
>>>>
>>>> We also need to identify the
>>>> value of the ability to
>>>> anonymously query whois and
>>>> what that loss of privacy will
>>>> mean as well. While I obviously
>>>> do not make many queries
>>>> anonymously(although our vendor
>>>> has their own privacy policy),
>>>> I understand this is important
>>>> especially to those researching
>>>> more dangerous actors. Why
>>>> would $_COUNTRY dissidents want
>>>> to query domains when their
>>>> opponents would surely be
>>>> hacking into the audit logs for
>>>> this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 25, 2017 11:41 PM,
>>>> "Chen, Tim"
>>>> <tim at domaintools.com
>>>> <mailto:tim at domaintools.com>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "And I hope more
>>>> stakeholders in this
>>>> multi-stakeholder process
>>>> will come forward with
>>>> their own perspectives, as
>>>> they will differ from mine."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> happy to do so.
>>>> DomainTools is clearly a
>>>> stakeholder in this debate.
>>>> and we have a fair amount
>>>> of experience around the
>>>> challenges, benefits and
>>>> risks of whois data
>>>> aggregation at scale.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> from the beginning of this
>>>> EWG/RDS idea we've stood
>>>> down bc i didn't believe
>>>> our opinion would be seen
>>>> as objective-enough given
>>>> our line of business. but
>>>> it is apparent to me having
>>>> followed this debate for
>>>> many weeks now, that this
>>>> is a working group of
>>>> individuals who all bring
>>>> their own biases into the
>>>> debate. whether they care
>>>> to admit that to themselves
>>>> or not. so we might as
>>>> well wade in too. bc I
>>>> think our experience is
>>>> very relevant to the
>>>> discussion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> i'll do my best to be as
>>>> objective as I can, as a
>>>> domain registrant myself
>>>> and as an informed industry
>>>> participant.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> since our experience is
>>>> working with security
>>>> minded organizations, that
>>>> is the context with which I
>>>> will comment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> since this is an ICANN
>>>> working group, I start with
>>>> the ICANN mission statement
>>>> around the security and
>>>> stability of the DNS. I
>>>> find myself wanting to fit
>>>> this debate to that as the
>>>> north star. i do not see
>>>> the RDS as purpose driven
>>>> to fit the GDPR or any
>>>> region-specific legal
>>>> resolution. but I do see
>>>> those as important inputs
>>>> to our discussion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> from a security
>>>> perspective, my experience
>>>> is that the benefits of the
>>>> current Whois model, taken
>>>> with this lens, far
>>>> outweigh the costs. again,
>>>> I can only speak from my
>>>> experience here at
>>>> DomainTools, and obviously
>>>> under the current Whois
>>>> regime. This is not to say
>>>> it cannot be improved.
>>>> From a data accuracy
>>>> perspective alone there is
>>>> enormous room for
>>>> improvement as I think we
>>>> can all agree. every day I
>>>> see the tangible benefits
>>>> to security interests,
>>>> which for the most part are
>>>> "doing good", from the work
>>>> that we do. when I compare
>>>> that to the complaints that
>>>> we get bc "my PII is
>>>> visible in your data", it's
>>>> not even close by my value
>>>> barometer (which my differ
>>>> from others'). this is
>>>> relevant bc any future
>>>> solution will be imperfect
>>>> as I have mentioned before.
>>>> as Allison and others
>>>> point out we need to
>>>> measure the harm done by
>>>> any new system that may
>>>> seek to solve one problem
>>>> (privacy?) and
>>>> inadvertently create many
>>>> more. since this group is
>>>> fond of analogies I'll
>>>> contribute one from the
>>>> medical oath (not sure if
>>>> this is just U.S.) "first,
>>>> do no harm".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> i'll close by saying I
>>>> think Allison's point about
>>>> economic value has merit.
>>>> yes, the point of the WG
>>>> is not to protect anyone's
>>>> economic interest. I agree
>>>> 100% with that statement
>>>> and will disagree with
>>>> anyone who thinks the
>>>> future of DomainTools or
>>>> other commercial service
>>>> should have one iota of
>>>> impact on this discussion.
>>>> but I also think "it's too
>>>> expensive" or "it's too
>>>> hard" are weak and
>>>> dangerous excuses when
>>>> dealing with an issue like
>>>> this which has enormous and
>>>> far reaching consequences
>>>> for the very mission of
>>>> ICANN around the security
>>>> and stability of our internet.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at
>>>> 3:50 PM, allison nixon
>>>> <elsakoo at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:elsakoo at gmail.com>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the
>>>> documentation in your
>>>> earlier email. While I
>>>> understand that's how
>>>> things are supposed to
>>>> work in theory, it's
>>>> not implemented very
>>>> widely, and unless
>>>> there is enforcement,
>>>> then it's unlikely to
>>>> be useful at all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "as a given, we put
>>>> ourselves in a certain
>>>> position in terms of
>>>> the actions we can and
>>>> cannot recommend. We
>>>> can make similar
>>>> statements focused on
>>>> registry operators,
>>>> registrars, or any
>>>> other stakeholder in
>>>> this space. If we all
>>>> approach this WG's task
>>>> with the goal of not
>>>> changing anything,
>>>> we're all just wasting
>>>> our time."
>>>>
>>>> There are things that
>>>> people would be willing
>>>> to change about WHOIS.
>>>> Changes purely relating
>>>> to the data format
>>>> would not be as
>>>> controversial. Changing
>>>> to that RDAP json
>>>> format would probably
>>>> be an agreeable point
>>>> to most here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are two different
>>>> major points of
>>>> contention here. The
>>>> first is the data
>>>> format, second is the
>>>> creation of a new
>>>> monopoly and ceding
>>>> power to it. By
>>>> monopoly I mean- who
>>>> are the gatekeepers of
>>>> "gated" access? Will it
>>>> avoid all of the
>>>> problems that
>>>> monopolies are
>>>> historically prone to?
>>>> Who will pay them? It
>>>> seems like a massive
>>>> leap of faith to commit
>>>> to this without knowing
>>>> who we are making the
>>>> commitment to.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "I do not believe it is
>>>> this WG's
>>>> responsibility to
>>>> protect anyone's
>>>>
>>>> commercial services if
>>>> those things are
>>>> basically in response to
>>>> deficiencies in the
>>>> existing Whois protocol. "
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From my understanding
>>>> of past ICANN working
>>>> groups, registrars have
>>>> fought against issues
>>>> that would have
>>>> increased their costs.
>>>> And the destruction of
>>>> useful WHOIS results(or
>>>> becoming beholden to
>>>> some new monopoly)
>>>> stand to incur far more
>>>> costs for far larger
>>>> industries. So this
>>>> shouldn't surprise you.
>>>> If those economic
>>>> concerns are not valid
>>>> then I question why the
>>>> economic concerns of
>>>> registrars are valid.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If entire industries
>>>> are built around a
>>>> feature you would
>>>> consider a
>>>> "deficiency", then your
>>>> opinion may solely be
>>>> your own. And I hope
>>>> more stakeholders in
>>>> this multi-stakeholder
>>>> process will come
>>>> forward with their own
>>>> perspectives, as they
>>>> will differ from mine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Not trying to
>>>> hamstring the WG. Just
>>>> asking if this is not
>>>> something that has
>>>> already been solved.."
>>>>
>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's an interesting
>>>> thought. This document
>>>> was recommended to me
>>>> as one that was
>>>> approved in the past by
>>>> the working group that
>>>> outlined what the
>>>> resulting system might
>>>> look like. I'm still
>>>> learning and reading
>>>> about these working
>>>> groups and what they
>>>> do, and this document
>>>> is massive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.icann.org/en/syste
>>>> m/files/files/final-report-06j
>>>> un14-en.pdf
>>>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the document, it
>>>> says: /"Central to the
>>>> remit of the EWG is the
>>>> question of how to
>>>> design a system that
>>>> increases the accuracy
>>>> of the data collected
>>>> while also offering
>>>> protections for those
>>>> Registrants seeking to
>>>> guard and maintain
>>>> their privacy."/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One of the things I
>>>> notice is that any talk
>>>> about actually
>>>> increasing accuracy of
>>>> whois info- via
>>>> enforcement- is
>>>> vigorously opposed in
>>>> this group, and it's
>>>> merely assumed that
>>>> people will supply
>>>> better quality data
>>>> under the new system.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Throughout the document
>>>> it talks about
>>>> use-cases and features
>>>> (whois history, reverse
>>>> query, etc), which are
>>>> indeed identical to the
>>>> features of the whois
>>>> aggregators of current
>>>> day. Such a system
>>>> would replace them.
>>>> Will the service
>>>> quality be as good?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On page 63 it gets into
>>>> thoughts on who would
>>>> be "accredited" to
>>>> access the gated whois
>>>> data. Every proposed
>>>> scenario seems to
>>>> recognize the resulting
>>>> system will need to
>>>> handle a large query
>>>> volume from a large
>>>> number of people, and
>>>> one proposes
>>>> accrediting bodies
>>>> which may accredit
>>>> organizations which may
>>>> accredit individuals.
>>>> It even proposes an
>>>> abuse handling system
>>>> which is also
>>>> reminiscent in
>>>> structure to how abuse
>>>> is handled currently in
>>>> our domain name system.
>>>> Many of these proposed
>>>> schemes appear to mimic
>>>> the ways that the
>>>> hosting industry and
>>>> registrar industry
>>>> operate, so we can
>>>> expect that the
>>>> patterns of abuse will
>>>> be equally frequent,
>>>> especially if higher
>>>> quality data is supplied.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The proposed scenarios
>>>> all paint a picture of
>>>> "gated" access with
>>>> very wide gates, while
>>>> simultaneously
>>>> representing to domain
>>>> purchasers that their
>>>> data is safe and
>>>> privacy protected. And
>>>> this is supposed to
>>>> *reduce* the total
>>>> number of privacy
>>>> violations? This
>>>> doesn't even appeal to
>>>> me as a consumer of
>>>> this data.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Whoever sets up this
>>>> system also stands to
>>>> inherit a lot of money
>>>> from the
>>>> soon-to-be-defunct
>>>> whois aggregation
>>>> industry. They would
>>>> certainly win our
>>>> contract, because we
>>>> would have no choice.
>>>> All domain reputation
>>>> services, anti-spam,
>>>> security research, etc,
>>>> efforts will all need
>>>> to pay up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> After being supplied
>>>> with the above
>>>> document, I also saw a
>>>> copy of a rebuttal
>>>> written by a company
>>>> that monitors abusive
>>>> domains. I strongly
>>>> agree with the
>>>> sentiments in this
>>>> document and I do not
>>>> see evidence that those
>>>> concerns have received
>>>> fair consideration.
>>>> While I do not see this
>>>> new gatekeeper as an
>>>> existential threat, I
>>>> do see it as a likely
>>>> degradation in the
>>>> utility i do see from
>>>> whois. To be clear, we
>>>> do not do any business
>>>> with this company.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/
>>>> input-to-ewg/attachments/20130
>>>> 823/410038bb/LegitScriptCommen
>>>> tsonICANNEWGWhoisReplacementSt
>>>> ructure-0001.pdf
>>>> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/input-to-ewg/attachments/20130823/410038bb/LegitScriptCommentsonICANNEWGWhoisReplacementStructure-0001.pdf>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I also found John
>>>> Bambenek's point in a
>>>> later thread to be
>>>> interesting-
>>>> concentrating WHOIS
>>>> knowledge solely to one
>>>> organization allows the
>>>> country it resides in
>>>> to use it to support
>>>> its intelligence
>>>> apparatus, for example
>>>> monitoring when its
>>>> espionage domains are
>>>> queried for, and
>>>> targeting researchers
>>>> that query them (since
>>>> anonymous querying will
>>>> be revoked). Nation
>>>> states already use
>>>> domains in operations
>>>> so this monopoly is a
>>>> perfect strategic data
>>>> reserve. The fact that
>>>> this system is pushed
>>>> by privacy advocates is
>>>> indeed ironic.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> None of those concerns
>>>> appear to have been
>>>> addressed by this group
>>>> in any serious
>>>> capacity. Before the
>>>> addition of new
>>>> members, I don't think
>>>> many people had the
>>>> backgrounds or
>>>> skillsets to even
>>>> understand why they are
>>>> a concern. But I think
>>>> this is a discussion
>>>> worth having at this
>>>> point in time for this
>>>> group.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at
>>>> 1:50 PM, Andrew
>>>> Sullivan
>>>> <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>>>> <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 24,
>>>> 2017 at 07:25:47PM
>>>> +0200, Paul Keating
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > Andrew,
>>>> >
>>>> > Thank you. That
>>>> was helpful.
>>>> >
>>>> > ""Given this
>>>> registrant, what other
>>>> > domains are
>>>> registered?" is a
>>>> solved problem, and
>>>> has been since the
>>>> > early 2000s.²
>>>> >
>>>> > This is also
>>>> traceable via
>>>> alternative means
>>>> such as
>>>> consistencies in
>>>> > various WHOIS
>>>> fields such as
>>>> email, address,
>>>> name, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Well, sort of. The
>>>> email, address, and
>>>> name fields are _user_
>>>> supplied. So they
>>>> come from the other
>>>> party to the
>>>> transaction. The
>>>> ROID is assigned by
>>>> the registry
>>>> itself. So once
>>>> you have a match,
>>>> you know that you
>>>> are looking at the
>>>> same object, only
>>>> the same
>>>> object, and all the
>>>> same object(s).
>>>>
>>>> Email addresses in
>>>> particular are
>>>> guaranteed unique
>>>> in the world at
>>>> any given time
>>>> (though not
>>>> guaranteed as
>>>> unique identifiers over
>>>> time), so they may
>>>> be useful for these
>>>> purposes. Take it
>>>> from someone
>>>> named "Andrew
>>>> Sullivan", however,
>>>> that names are
>>>> pretty useless as
>>>> context-free
>>>> identifiers :)
>>>>
>>>> > In reality
>>>> finding out answers
>>>> to questions such as
>>>> > yours (above)
>>>> requires
>>>> investigation using
>>>> a plethora of data.
>>>>
>>>> To be clear,
>>>> finding out the
>>>> answer to what I
>>>> (meant to) pose(d)
>>>> requires no
>>>> plethora of data:
>>>> it requires a
>>>> single query and
>>>> access to
>>>> the right
>>>> repository (the
>>>> registry). In some
>>>> theoretical system, the
>>>> correct underlying
>>>> database query
>>>> would be something
>>>> like this:
>>>>
>>>> SELECT
>>>> domain_roid,
>>>> domain_name FROM
>>>> domains WHERE
>>>> registrant_roid = ?;
>>>>
>>>> and you put the
>>>> correct ROID in
>>>> where the question
>>>> mark is, and off
>>>> you go. That will
>>>> give you the list
>>>> of all the domain
>>>> names, and
>>>> their relevant
>>>> ROIDs, registered
>>>> by a given
>>>> registrant contact. At
>>>> least one registry
>>>> with which I am
>>>> familiar once had a
>>>> WHOIS feature
>>>> that allowed
>>>> something close to
>>>> the above, only it
>>>> would stop after
>>>> some number of
>>>> domains so as not
>>>> to return too much
>>>> data. I think the
>>>> default was
>>>> therefore LIMIT 50,
>>>> but I also think
>>>> the feature was
>>>> eventually
>>>> eliminated about
>>>> the time that the
>>>> ICANN community
>>>> rejected
>>>> IRIS as an answer
>>>> to "the whois problem".
>>>>
>>>> What the above will
>>>> of course not do is
>>>> help you in the
>>>> event Bob The
>>>> Scammer has created
>>>> dozens of different
>>>> contacts for
>>>> himself by (say)
>>>> registering names
>>>> through many
>>>> different
>>>> registrars. I do
>>>> not believe
>>>> that any registry
>>>> is going to support
>>>> such a use at least
>>>> without
>>>> access controls,
>>>> because it can be
>>>> expensive to answer
>>>> such things.
>>>> So, what you
>>>> understood me to be
>>>> asking, I think, is
>>>> the question I
>>>> did _not_ ask:
>>>> given this human
>>>> being or
>>>> organization, what
>>>> other
>>>> domains are
>>>> registered?" That
>>>> does require a lot
>>>> of different data,
>>>> and it requires
>>>> cross-organizational
>>>> searches, and it
>>>> requires sussing
>>>> out when someone
>>>> has lied also.
>>>> Such research is, I
>>>> agree, completely
>>>> outside the scope
>>>> of what any
>>>> technical system
>>>> will ever be able to
>>>> offer reliably.
>>>>
>>>> > An entire
>>>> > industry exists
>>>> for this purpose
>>>> and I don¹t think
>>>> we should be
>>>> > considering
>>>> replacing what has
>>>> already been
>>>> existing in the
>>>> cyber security
>>>> > marketplace.
>>>>
>>>> I do not believe it
>>>> is this WG's
>>>> responsibility to
>>>> protect anyone's
>>>> commercial services
>>>> if those things are
>>>> basically in
>>>> response to
>>>> deficiencies in the
>>>> existing Whois
>>>> protocol. In this
>>>> case, however,
>>>> that's not the
>>>> problem. Linking
>>>> data in multiple
>>>> databases to a given
>>>> real-world human
>>>> being is hard even
>>>> in systems without
>>>> competition and
>>>> multiple points of
>>>> access. It's
>>>> always going to
>>>> require researchers
>>>> for the domain name
>>>> system.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Andrew Sullivan
>>>> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>>>> <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
>>>> ______________________________
>>>> _________________
>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>> mailing list
>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l
>>>> istinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________
>>>> ___
>>>> Note to self: Pillage
>>>> BEFORE burning.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________
>>>> _________________
>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing
>>>> list
>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l
>>>> istinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________
>>>> _________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l
>>>> istinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________
>>>> _________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/
>>>> listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>
>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-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
>>>> <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
>>>>
>>>> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
>>>> <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
>>>>
>>>> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
>>>> <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Web: www.key-systems.net
>>>> <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net
>>>> <http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com
>>>> <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /
>>>> www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser
>>>> Fan bei Facebook:
>>>>
>>>> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
>>>> <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems
>>>> <http://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 <http://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
>>>> <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
>>>>
>>>> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
>>>> <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
>>>>
>>>> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
>>>> <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Web: www.key-systems.net
>>>> <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net
>>>> <http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com
>>>> <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /
>>>> www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on
>>>> Facebook and stay updated:
>>>>
>>>> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
>>>> <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems
>>>> <http://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 <http://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-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>>>
>>> --
>>> _________________________________ Note to self: Pillage BEFORE
>>> burning.
>>> _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>> mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
> --
> Tamir Israel Staff Lawyer Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet
> Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) University of Ottawa |
> Faculty of Law | CML Section 57 Louis Pasteur Street Ottawa | ON |
> K1N 6N5 ☎: (613) 562-5800 ext. 2914 <tel:%28613%29%20562-5800>
> Fax: (613) 562-5417 <tel:%28613%29%20562-5417> PGP Key: 0x7F01E2C7
> <https://cippic.ca/documents/keys/tisrael@cippic.ca-pub.txt> PGP
> Fingerprint: 871C 31EC B6CC 3029 A1A1 14C4 D119 76EC 7F01 E2C7 *♺
> Do you really need to print this email? / Est-ce nécessaire
> d’imprimer ce courriel?*
>
> --
> _________________________________ Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.
--
Tamir Israel Staff Lawyer Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy &
Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) University of Ottawa | Faculty of Law |
CML Section 57 Louis Pasteur Street Ottawa | ON | K1N 6N5 ☎: (613)
562-5800 ext. 2914 Fax: (613) 562-5417 PGP Key: 0x7F01E2C7
<https://cippic.ca/documents/keys/tisrael@cippic.ca-pub.txt> PGP
Fingerprint: 871C 31EC B6CC 3029 A1A1 14C4 D119 76EC 7F01 E2C7 *♺ Do you
really need to print this email? / Est-ce nécessaire d’imprimer ce
courriel?*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170427/5ba0b5c0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170427/5ba0b5c0/signature-0001.asc>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list