[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Updated: Mp3, Attendance, AC Chat for Next-Gen RDS PDP WG on Wednesday, 18 January 2017 at 06:00 UTC
Greg Shatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Thu Jan 19 18:29:34 UTC 2017
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> It is your inner Canadian coming out there Greg, doubtless a harbinger of
> further agreement to come....:-D
>
> SP
>
> On 2017-01-19 12:35, Greg Shatan wrote:
>
> I never thought I would agree with Stephanie on a privacy-related
> matter.... 😂
>
> But I do this time.
>
> Greg
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your thoughtful contributions to this discussion Stephanie.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounce
>> s at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephanie Perrin
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 18, 2017 2:58 PM
>> *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Updated: Mp3,
>> Attendance, AC Chat for Next-Gen RDS PDP WG on Wednesday, 18 January 2017
>> at 06:00 UTC
>>
>>
>>
>> I will do my best to make the call next week, but am travelling so may
>> not manage it. Since I am the one querying the suggestion that protecting
>> the data and the names of the individuals under the rubric of privacy is a
>> wee bit off base, believing instead that people should be accountable for
>> what they are putting in their polling data, here is my view, for what it
>> is worth.
>>
>> 1. ICANN is fundamentally an open, transparent multistakeholder
>> organization where pdps are open to all. There is an expectation that
>> there will be robust debate and that people will be accountable for the
>> views they wish to express. IF a person wishes to watch what is happening
>> and not participate, they can monitor and thereby not be forced to express
>> a view. Participation in the working group should mean that one's
>> expectations of privacy in terms of opinions expressed is very limited. I
>> would like to hear the arguments for such an opinion, if anyone has
>> advanced them.
>>
>> 2. In this respect, if an organization sends a representative to attend
>> a pdp and they do not have the authority to speak for the organization
>> without vetting/checking, they have a number of options: a) omit the
>> survey b) fill it out in their own name with caveats that they do not
>> represent the organization c) get the survey questions and consult on the
>> answers. I don't really think it is acceptable for organizations to
>> anonymously fill out the survey, just as I don't buy the privacy argument
>> from individuals.
>>
>> 3. The data is useful to those of us who are trying to understand where
>> people are coming from. As I have said numerous times, we all view these
>> matters from our own perspectives and knowledge base. I am trying to
>> understand the degree to which people still do not understand privacy
>> concepts, which I think I can detect from their answers. (others may
>> wonder why I still don't understand how the RDS works, fair enough says I!
>> CHeck my data, it might help you detect necessary educational
>> opportunities...) I am also interested in the variance across questions,
>> cumulative totals per SG, etc etc).
>>
>> 4. At a rather fundamental level, data that is used by us even to form
>> rough concepts of concensus should be accessible to all in my view. This
>> is very controversial topic which has caused considerable conflict over the
>> years, let us try to minimize any potential for later questions or distrust
>> by ensuring all data is available.
>>
>> There are ways around this problem of disclosure vs non-disclosure.
>>
>> 1. Inform people that polling data will be available. Forwarned.
>>
>> 2. RElease data minus the name. However, folks will be guessing who is
>> from what constituency, and frankly we must have the constituency data.
>> Normally for disclosure of PI for people in groups we go by the rule of
>> 4.....rarely are there 4 NCSG folks filling out the polls, so you can
>> identify us anyway, this may be different for other groups. I think this
>> one is a non-starter but there it is.
>>
>> 3. Seek consent. As discussed above, I don't think the privacy
>> arguments hold water; it is bad policy to seek consent on something that
>> you could not /should not protect in the first place. Also a non-starter
>> in my view, but there it is.
>>
>> Again, I hope to make the call next week but wanted to start off this
>> discussion on the list in case I don't make it.
>>
>> Cheers STephanie
>>
>> On 2017-01-18 10:45, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>>
>> For those of you who were unable to attend this meeting, I encourage you
>> to listen to the MP3 recording and/or review the transcript as well as the
>> notes that Marika sent right after the meeting. We made quite a lot of
>> progress; we discussed all of the remaining proposed purposes for the
>> collection of thin data and there were no objections from anyone on the
>> call to the conclusion that each of the purposes are legitimate for the
>> collection of thin data.
>>
>>
>>
>> The third purpose, where we started for this meeting, is Domain Name
>> Certification. We spent quite a bit of time talking about this. For those
>> who feel that you do not understand this purpose fully, at about 14:50 into
>> the call we had what I thought was a very good discussion designed to make
>> sure everyone understands Domain Name Certification, so I encourage you to
>> at least listen to that portion and the discussion following where we
>> discussed whether it was an acceptable purpose. You will note that some
>> thick data elements were also mentioned but we did not make any conclusions
>> regarding thick data.
>>
>>
>>
>> Once we finished our deliberation on Domain Name Certification, there was
>> just minimal discussion on the other remaining purposes so you may not find
>> the balance of the recording very informative.
>>
>>
>>
>> Near the very end of the recording we alerted everyone to an agenda topic
>> we will have next week about whether raw poll data should be shared with
>> the WG and, if so, in what way. Those not on the call may benefit from
>> listening to that discussion in preparation for next week.
>>
>>
>>
>> Happy listening.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounce
>> s at icann.org <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Nathalie
>> Peregrine
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 18, 2017 6:57 AM
>> *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> *Cc:* gnso-secs at icann.org
>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Updated: Mp3, Attendance, AC
>> Chat for Next-Gen RDS PDP WG on Wednesday, 18 January 2017 at 06:00 UTC
>>
>>
>>
>> *With updated apologies*
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *"owner-gnso-secs at icann.org" <owner-gnso-secs at icann.org> on
>> behalf of Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
>> *Date: *Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 11:52 AM
>> *To: *"gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> *Cc: *"gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
>> *Subject: *[gnso-secs] Mp3, Attendance, AC Chat for Next-Gen RDS PDP WG
>> on Wednesday, 18 January 2017 at 06:00 UTC
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>>
>> Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3
>> recording below for the Next-Gen RDS PDP Working group call held on
>> Wednesday, 18 January 2017 at 06:00 UTC.
>>
>> *MP3:* https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-nextgen-rds-pdp-18jan
>> 17-en.mp3[audio.icann.org]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gnso-2Dnextgen-2Drds-2Dpdp-2D18jan17-2Den.mp3&d=DwMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KzV067Eeyuj3JRSZjh52PCELr7QkhUBq7VIagMYGQHQ&s=uyVJrYZT_qdZJbfPUPpqgfDfWFEr8V_cPaLxcsC8WHg&e=>
>>
>> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO
>> Master Calendar page:
>>
>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-2Dactivities_calendar-23nov&d=DgMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=weT6ABypO2mbhE1dWs5uImJ38Mh2plfgTgH1L07rZf0&s=EHJpg8atZYvWGJ5XfS368jdC7F4jfuSw2xjKnh_5bn8&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
>>
>>
>>
>> Mailing list archives:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/
>>
>>
>>
>> Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/tarDAw[community.icann.org]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_tarDAw&d=DgMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=F8D7r-W_wECDv1_jEDzbEWNFadeWG_alTD0XBlxPtBQ&s=RaRFcjj5cgZxXRr3idDQZOPXm8sHAdt_QG2T3G_mqU8&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Nathalie
>>
>>
>>
>> ———————————————
>>
>>
>>
>> *AC Chat Next-Gen RDS PDP WG Wednesday 18 January 2017*
>>
>> Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the Next-Gen RDS PDP WG call
>> on Wednesday 18 January 2017 at 06:00 UTC.
>>
>> Nathalie Peregrine:Meeting page: https://urldefense.proof
>> point.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_EbTDAw&
>> d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=
>> PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSD
>> zgqG&m=WjwIlN9HqKqst0hBUakd2-JJXpDPPFOkSb7qA5DRdFM&s=9uxit6N
>> -giqXHRfYH-5VIR7I-CJjYrAxWqkj2PJDjGc&e=
>>
>> Michele Neylon:good morning people
>>
>> Michele Neylon:it's good middle of the bloody night :)
>>
>> Chuck Gomes:Morning?!!
>>
>> Benny / Nordreg AB:Good Afternoon ;-)
>>
>> Alex Deacon:Hi all...
>>
>> Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong:Bonjour à tous / hello to everyone
>>
>> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Good morning all.
>>
>> Michele Neylon:MUTE yourselves please
>>
>> Fabricio Vayra:good morning
>>
>> Tapani Tarvainen:Decent hour in Finland, too
>>
>> Farell FOLLY (africa 2.0):Morning All
>>
>> Michele Neylon:6am is an hour
>>
>> Tapani Tarvainen:8am here
>>
>> Michele Neylon:I'm not sure if it's decent or desiarable
>>
>> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):not thaat horrible - 9am
>>
>> Farell FOLLY (africa 2.0):6 am here !
>>
>> Benny / Nordreg AB:Currently in Bangkok 1 PM
>>
>> Benny / Nordreg AB:so not to bad
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin:1 am here. I am not at my perkiest I must admit.
>>
>> Benny / Nordreg AB:So a silent Stephanie today? ;-)
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin:Not likely...just delayed, I suspect....:-)
>>
>> Marika Konings:no, I haven't seen anything
>>
>> Sam Lanfranco npoc/csih:Stephanie is probably quiet because it is -5C
>> outside and the weather is freezing rain (-:
>>
>> Lisa Phifer:Actually, question 3 assessed level of support for several
>> listed purposes, not just Domain Name Certification
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin:Yes Sam, if the power goes out again I may be extra
>> quiet....
>>
>> Alex Deacon:1995 - earlier if you count the RSA days :)
>>
>> Fabricio Vayra:@Alex - Nice!
>>
>> Sam Lanfranco npoc/csih:Question: What percentage of DN Certificate
>> Requests turn out to be bogus?
>>
>> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):current WHOIS data is not 100% true .. should we
>> assume that not all 100% are good?
>>
>> Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong:I need some clarification about the first
>> question as iam newcomer in this WG ,Thanks my second do you have some
>> resources for no-English speaker ?
>>
>> Benny / Nordreg AB:or .se / .nu where there are no info in whois for
>> private persons
>>
>> Lisa Phifer:@Geoff, with respect to thin data elements, which elements
>> are consulted for this authentication?
>>
>> Michele Neylon:My current bugbear is a particular company who insists
>> on sending us their requests
>>
>> Michele Neylon:not to our clients
>>
>> Daniel K. Nanghaka:The challenge with the WHOIS is that there is no
>> appropriate verification method for the users - there should be a way to
>> validate sensitive data
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin:How often do you need to authenticate for these
>> certificates?
>>
>> Benny / Nordreg AB:at least once per year
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin:Do you rely on what is in WHOIS, OR do you call the
>> technical/administrative contact?
>>
>> Benny / Nordreg AB:per domain/ certificate
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin:what data do you trust? IN other words, how do you
>> verify the data?
>>
>> Michele Neylon:domain validated certs are the cheapest ones
>>
>> Michele Neylon:they're also the fastest ones to get issued
>>
>> Michele Neylon:the level of "trust" is negligible
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin:But what are they worth?
>>
>> Michele Neylon:Stephanie - to whom?
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin:To anyone who is relying on the certificate....
>>
>> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):hhmm .. and if the mailbox was compromised ?
>>
>> Michele Neylon:FYI - they're also used by valid users like me :)
>>
>> Michele Neylon:I'm using one on michele.blog
>>
>> Alex Deacon:You could argue that Domain Validation certs are good for
>> encryption only. they provide zero value from an authentication/identity
>> point of view.
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin:I would have no clue what I am using. I think I speak
>> for most consumers....
>>
>> Michele Neylon:what Alex said
>>
>> Michele Neylon:they're a step up from a self-signed cert
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin:Thanks Alex, that is kind of where I was heading....
>>
>> Daniel K. Nanghaka:This is where Domain verification comes in strongly
>> - and the Domain validated certificates should be placed in the page of the
>> Domain to prove that the domain is validated. The Company should have a
>> respective data handler who will be responsible for domain validation and
>> certificate authentication.
>>
>> Michele Neylon:Daniel - which company?
>>
>> Benny / Nordreg AB:Unsure how you will make that happen Daniel?
>>
>> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):The company
>>
>> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):in some movies it was the name for one of the
>> agencies
>>
>> Alex Deacon:@stephanie - it depends on the type of cert.
>>
>> Daniel K. Nanghaka:@Michele - the company that that owns the Domain
>>
>> Daniel K. Nanghaka:Yes, the biggest challenge is that many companies
>> take these certificates for granted
>>
>> Michele Neylon:Daniel - what makes you think they're a company? these
>> days a LOT of the domain validated certs are for individiuals not companies
>>
>> Michele Neylon:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__
>> letsencrypt.org_&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJ
>> ms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTB
>> s0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=WjwIlN9HqKqst0hBUakd2-JJXpDPPFOkSb7qA5D
>> RdFM&s=gUMAlV9Le_Uk-WKSJISZI3A_tCUNIGZECo84Qr5k-w0&e=
>>
>> Michele Neylon:see also https://urldefense.proofp
>> oint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__motherboard.vice.com_read_goog
>> le-2Dwill-2Dsoon-2Dshame-2Dall-2Dwebsites-2Dthat-2Dare-2Dune
>> ncrypted-2Dchrome-2Dhttps&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSV
>> zgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyX
>> rxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=WjwIlN9HqKqst0hBUakd2-JJXpDP
>> PFOkSb7qA5DRdFM&s=pFgFCnrUIsQEyD06VMwyJjHMCAjk5hpZrorKO9I0cCU&e=
>>
>> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):letsencrypt ... they relay on publicsuffix, for
>> exumple and the latter uses whois ...
>>
>> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):*example
>>
>> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):the only other source of info ... is LEA
>>
>> Alex Deacon:@maxim - you lost me. what info does LEA have?
>>
>> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Law Enforcement Agency
>>
>> Alex Deacon:i know what lea stands for....
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin:I must be missing something here. If I am a
>> legitimate rep of a company requesting a cert, why could you not ask for a
>> whole mess of non-publically available data, signed by the company, to
>> validate my request?
>>
>> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):current internet users will surely suffer (and
>> services too ) if certificates are no more
>>
>> Michele Neylon:Stephanie - because it's time consuming and a pain in
>> the neck?
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin:If you are looking for a phone number is that part of
>> thin data? I did not think so.
>>
>> Michele Neylon:it doesn't scale
>>
>> Alex Deacon:@stephanie - a CA needs a way to "bind" (associate) an
>> org/user with a domain. WHOIS does this today.
>>
>> Michele Neylon:phone numbers are "thick"
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin:That is what I thought. So we are talking about thick
>> data here. And if only some registrants want certs, then why should all
>> registrants have to put their thick data in WHOIS?
>>
>> Lisa Phifer:Note that handout is now displayed, showing this purpose
>> and related thin data elements
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin:So what percentage of registrations want/need certs?
>>
>> Michele Neylon:Stephanie - see the link I posted above
>>
>> Benny / Nordreg AB:Soon every active domains with a website
>>
>> Michele Neylon:what Benny said :)
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin:We are talking about a purpose for collection. I will
>> certainly argue about disclosure. you are collecting for a valid
>> purpose. We need to discuss how you are going to use and disclose it.
>>
>> Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong:@Maxim I need more information when you said
>> the current internet user will sufer if we don't have more certifications
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin:As far as I can see though, you are not collecting any
>> separate data elements solely for the purpose of domain certs. validation
>>
>> Michele Neylon:Stephanie - in thin?
>>
>> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Abdeldjalil lots of services redend on
>> certificates ... e-mail , online banking e.t.c.
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin:certainly in thin, but even in thick...what new data
>> elements are you looking for?
>>
>> Michele Neylon:Stephanie - no new ones
>>
>> Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong:Thanks @Maxim
>>
>> Lisa Phifer:After we get rough consensus on purposes for collecting
>> thin data, we'll move to Data Elements and examine the individual data
>> elements needed by that purpose, and given that we can look at under what
>> conditions that data should be disclosed for that purpose...
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin:I seem to be the only one quibbling here. I am not
>> arguing about the importance of encryption, or certification of sites. I
>> am quibbling about whether authenticators, who arguably ought to be trusted
>> parties, should be harvesting this data off an open WHOIS. If this is what
>> they are doing as part of their functions, they could be autheticated to
>> seek the data at a deeper level.
>>
>> Lisa Phifer:@Sam, do study subjects not have any opportunity for
>> anonymity, or does it depend on the study and the types of data involved?
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin:It depends on the university ethics
>> protocols. Certainly in Canadian unis you would not be able to disclose
>> the personal data, you would have to bind users to the same privacy
>> commitements.
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin:ICANN would have to set a research protocol for this,
>> that meets the highest standard, otherwise academic access could become one
>> of those jurisdictional nightmares....
>>
>> Lisa Phifer:@Rod, you propose adding Name Servers and Registrar to the
>> list of thin data elements for this purpose?
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin:Is it not the case that every time you need thick
>> data, you absolutely have to have access to the thin data to get at it??
>>
>> Lisa Phifer:@Stephanie, yes, you need at least Domain Name to query
>> any WHOIS data, but beyond that you may not need other thin data elements
>> (dates, etc) for a given purpose
>>
>> Michele Neylon:Stephanie - yes
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin:Thanks Michele
>>
>> Michele Neylon:the thin tells you where to find the thick
>>
>> Michele Neylon:(sort of)
>>
>> Michele Neylon:(and I can't believe I just wrote that and it made sense
>> to me)
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin:It is indeed a worrying sign...
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin:We have been at this a full year, I would point out....
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin:Consumer protection is very limited. Yes it is a
>> valid purpose. Disclosure is another matter...
>>
>> Sam Lanfranco npoc/csih:Q. Thin raw data from the polls, or Thick raw
>> data from the polls? (-:
>>
>> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):just add checkbox - I do want my name shown
>>
>> Tapani Tarvainen:Analyzing pdf is not impossible, it's just a bit less
>> convenient than xls
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin:I think it would be interesting to see both. I want
>> to look for contradictions in responses. I also want to look for
>> aggregates.
>>
>> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):NamesCon?
>>
>> Tapani Tarvainen:(having written a number of pdf-to-text thingies...)
>>
>> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Could we add example of report as a header to
>> survey? like after you fill this - it is going to look like this and that?
>>
>> Lisa Phifer:In short, we would need to get consent of all who responded
>>
>> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):P.s: my IP address is useless ... giant NAT pool
>> of the local ISP
>>
>> Michele Neylon:Stephanie is that you??
>>
>> Tapani Tarvainen:+1 Stephanie. Don't really see any privacy issue here.
>>
>> Michele Neylon:has someone hijacked her identity??
>>
>> Michele Neylon:/me ducks
>>
>> Lisa Phifer:@Maxim, generally not true of respondents taking survey
>> from within corporate networks - in that case, IP is often static
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin:Sadly I may not be on the call next week, depending on
>> travel schedule
>>
>> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Lisa, agree - it depends
>>
>> Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Bye all
>>
>> Benny / Nordreg AB:bye all
>>
>> Daniel K. Nanghaka:bye
>>
>> Patrick Lenihan:Thanks to Each and All!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing
>> list gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l
>> istinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170119/1a32ec50/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: canadian-things-collage.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 99328 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170119/1a32ec50/canadian-things-collage.jpg>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list