[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Notes from RDS PDP WG Meeting - 3 October
theo geurts
gtheo at xs4all.nl
Fri Oct 6 13:59:30 UTC 2017
That definition is also used in other parts of the world, not just the
GDPR.
And I agree, it is very clear.
The community has to be very precise about these purposes and view them
through a data protection prism first.
This will allow the community to come up with technical solutions and
policies for those purposes and solve 80% of the purposes mentioned in
the purpose matrix published by ICANN without putting ICANN and it's
community in the data controller seat.
The other 20% will require some real outside of the box
thinking/solutions there.
Theo
On 6-10-2017 15:17, Chuck wrote:
>
> Thanks Jonathan. This seems very helpful regarding the definitions of
> personal data controllers and processors.
>
> The following seems pretty clear to me in the context of the ICANN
> community it will be up to others to decide that.
>
> “/‘Controller’ shall mean the natural or legal person, public
> authority, agency or/
>
> /any other body which alone or jointly with others determines the
> purposes and/
>
> /means of the processing of personal data; where the purposes and
> means of/
>
> /processing are determined by national or Community laws or
> regulations the/
>
> /controller or the specific criteria for his nomination may be
> designated by/
>
> /national or Community law;/
>
> /‘Processor’ shall mean a natural or legal person, public authority,
> agency or any/
>
> /other body which processes personal data on behalf of the controller./”
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:* jonathan matkowsky [mailto:jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net]
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 05, 2017 7:52 PM
> *To:* Chuck <consult at cgomes.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Notes from RDS PDP WG
> Meeting - 3 October
>
> This may be of interest
> http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2010/wp169_en.pdf
>
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:15 PM Chuck <consult at cgomes.com
> <mailto:consult at cgomes.com>> wrote:
>
> If any of you were on the ICANN GDPR webinar earlier today, you
> know that I raised this issue and said that I thought it would be
> helpful if ICANN Org accepted the fact that it is a controller for
> at least some personal data. That said though, I would be
> surprised if it doesn’t take quite a bit of time to make a
> decision on that, so my suggestion is that we don’t delay our work
> while we wait on that. There is plenty of work of us to do
> regardless of who the data controllers are.
>
> 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 *Ayden
> Férdeline
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 04, 2017 11:13 AM
> *To:* jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net
> <mailto:jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net>>
> *Cc:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Notes from RDS PDP WG
> Meeting - 3 October
>
> I agree with your assessment here, Jonathan, that ICANN is a data
> controller.
>
> Best wishes, Ayden
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Notes from RDS PDP
> WG Meeting - 3 October
>
> Local Time: 4 October 2017 6:13 PM
>
> UTC Time: 4 October 2017 17:13
>
> From: jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net
> <mailto:jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net>
>
> To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org
> <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>, gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>, lisa at corecom.com
> <mailto:lisa at corecom.com> <lisa at corecom.com
> <mailto:lisa at corecom.com>>
>
> I’ve given more thought to this and it it seems now obvious to
> me that ICANN is in fact a data Controller since alone or
> jointly with others, it is determining the purposes and means
> of the processing of the personal data.
>
> Jonathan Matkowsky
>
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:54 AM jonathan matkowsky
> <jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net
> <mailto:jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net>> wrote:
>
> Marika, there needs to be a “data flow” diagram with an
> analysis of the data from the time it’s provided by the
> registrant until it makes its way into the Whois, and the
> role that each registrar plays as controller vs processor,
> and ICANN as a co-controller versus processor. All the
> different obligations under the GDPR flow from these
> categories and they trigger different types of
> obligations. And that is unfortunately missing.
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:29 PM Marika Konings
> <marika.konings at icann.org
> <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>> wrote:
>
> Jonathan, I am not sure what you are referring to with
> ‘an analysis of ICANN as a data controller versus
> processor vs. co-controller’. I am not aware that
> anyone in particular is working on such an analysis
> but I am happy to stand corrected. I do note that the
> WSGR memorandum addresses the issue of controller in a
> number of its responses such as those to question 1
> and question 17.
>
> As Chuck indicated on the call, if/when responses are
> received to the limited number of follow up questions,
> these will be shared with the WG.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marika
>
> *From: *<gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf
> of jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net
> <mailto:jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net>>
> *Date: *Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 15:04
> *To: *"gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>"
> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>, Lisa Phifer
> <lisa at corecom.com <mailto:lisa at corecom.com>>
> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Notes from
> RDS PDP WG Meeting - 3 October
>
> Hi Lisa,
>
> —When will we get an analysis of ICANN as a data
> controller versus processor vs co-controller? How can
> we draw conclusions from the memo without this info?
>
> —What are the follow-up questions already posed to the
> law firm?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jonathan
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:33 PM Lisa Phifer
> <lisa at corecom.com <mailto:lisa at corecom.com>> wrote:
>
> *Dear all,*
>
> *Below please find notes from today’s RDS PDP WG
> meeting.*
>
> *To recap Action Items from today’s call:*
>
> ·*Action Item:* Staff to incorporate WG agreement
> in working draft.
>
> ·*Action Item:* WG leadership team to consider
> input received during today's meeting and consider
> how to move forward as today's meeting did not
> achieve the goal of moving forward on these questions.
>
> *Best regards,*
> *Lisa*
>
> **
>
> _Action Items and Notes from RDS PDP WG Call – 3
> October 2017_
>
> /These high-level notes are designed to help PDP
> WG members navigate through the content of the
> call and are not meant as a substitute for the
> transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript,
> and chat are provided separately and are posted on
> the wiki here:
> /https://community.icann.org/x/bWfwAw[community.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_bWfwAw&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=pSoLE7Y91MVjMmhJ-xbOcyqU8WJlZg4XQXqvhIgGu_0&s=4KHESqzP9NmlfumEghxako3KC7O-WGxT-TXjxYSCgXc&e=>
>
> 1. Roll Call/SOI Updates
>
> ·No SOI updates identified
>
> 2. Apply results from last week’s poll to working
> document
>
> ·https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66086765/AnnotatedResults-Poll-from-26SeptCall.pdf[community.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_download_attachments_66086765_AnnotatedResults-2DPoll-2Dfrom-2D26SeptCall.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=pSoLE7Y91MVjMmhJ-xbOcyqU8WJlZg4XQXqvhIgGu_0&s=GxZzR0dVr7ytyC8X_yDY1AyGTyVYRZ3Ecgbez36rWxA&e=>
>
> ·22 members participated in poll
>
> ·77% still don't think Original Registration Date
> should be a new data element
>
> ·Record in working document as tentative agreement
>
> *WG Agreement: *There is no requirement for the
> Original Registration Date as proposed by the EWG
> Final Report
>
> *Action Item:* Staff to incorporate WG agreement
> in working draft.
>
> 3. General questions about WSGR memo
>
> ·https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/wsgr-icann-memorandum-25sep17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_wsgr-2Dicann-2Dmemorandum-2D25sep17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=pSoLE7Y91MVjMmhJ-xbOcyqU8WJlZg4XQXqvhIgGu_0&s=2doxZn4IxSgdwjUDmWxeg3UdGggQLYV-QKzqnRTNw_8&e=>
>
> ·Leadership in consultation with legal advisors
> within WG have been working to extract principles
> from WSGR memo and also answers previously
> supplied by senior EU privacy experts, to be
> applied to our work going forward
>
> ·How was the law firm selected? Several candidates
> with expertise identified by staff and augmented
> with suggestions from legal advisors within WG.
> Using that input, candidates were evaluated and
> chosen based on experience, reputation, etc.
> Selection was ultimately made by leadership team
> not advisory group, with group's input on two
> finalists.
>
> ·Do we intend to go back to the law firm to ask
> for more typical legal advice - that is, tell them
> what we propose doing, and ask for advice on legal
> risks associated with proposal? Yes, we can seek
> legal advice in the future, from this firm or
> another firm, at appropriate points in our work -
> that will incur additional cost to seek answers to
> new questions.
>
> ·Were discussions with law firm recorded, or can a
> transcript be provided? The leadership team and
> legal advisors reviewed a confidential draft for
> the purpose of identifying any items required
> clarification, enabling finalization of the memo.
>
> ·The law firm explicitly asked that draft not be
> shared and be treated as confidential; they prefer
> to share only final work product. In some cases,
> they asked for clarification of the questions that
> were asked by WG. We can share questions that were
> asked, but those questions focused on
> clarification and not questioning views or
> opinions expressed by WSGR.
>
> ·How much did the advisory team feedback impact
> the ultimate questions? Not at all. The questions
> were developed by the WG prior to ICANN58 meeting,
> and then presented to full WG for
> review/edit/approval. Those questions were then
> published and asked of senior EU privacy experts
> in CPH. We intentionally gave WSGR the same
> questions (exactly) as were given to experts at CPH.
>
> ·Now it's time to take inputs received from two
> sources and use it to address work outlined in our
> charter...
>
> 4. Introduce methodology to be used to apply memo
> to our work
>
> ·Charter questions: Users/Purposes, Gated Access,
> Data Accuracy, Data Elements, and Privacy -
> fundamental questions to be addressed in Phase 1
>
> ·We have already examined all but Accuracy to some
> degree, mostly for MPDS
>
> ·What we're going to do today is to start with
> Charter question on Privacy and look at how inputs
> from senior EU privacy experts AND WSGR help us
> answer or move forward in addressing that
> question/sub-questions
>
> 5. Starting with charter question on Privacy for
> deliberation
>
> a. Introduce DP/Privacy principles related to the
> charter question on Privacy
>
> ·https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66086765/Handout-RDS-WG-Call-3Oct2017.pdf[community.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_download_attachments_66086765_Handout-2DRDS-2DWG-2DCall-2D3Oct2017.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=pSoLE7Y91MVjMmhJ-xbOcyqU8WJlZg4XQXqvhIgGu_0&s=gcPnRmTPeTHit2L-lYOL1zSYozVfG_wYMSWTdoBb40c&e=>
>
> ·Copied extracted principles in handout, mapped to
> the charter question on privacy and associated
> sub-questions, to facilitate reference during
> deliberation on those questions
>
> ·Note that at end of handout there appears the one
> WG agreement thus far under the Privacy charter
> question, which was limited to MPDS: 14. [For
> MPDS] Existing gTLD RDS policies do NOT
> sufficiently address compliance with applicable
> data protection, privacy, and free speech laws
> about purpose
>
> ·Review of principles mapped to this charter
> question/sub question:
>
> ·/5.1 Do existing gTLD registration directory
> services policies sufficiently address compliance
> with applicable data protection, privacy, and free
> speech laws within each jurisdiction?/
>
> b. Starting with Privacy sub-question 5.1, discuss
> impact on WG agreements
>
> ·We are not restricted to EU focus of this input;
> the input does provide guidance with respect to
> that jurisdiction. Our task is to provide
> requirements for RDS that takes into consideration
> all jurisdictions.
>
> ·“Within each jurisdiction” = within ALL
> jurisdictions of the world
>
> ·Re: 3.e. The GDPR applies to all personal data,
> comments that GDPR does NOT apply to all personal data
>
> ·Answer could be "yes" if taking into account
> procedure for dealing with conflicts with local law
>
> ·Conflating two different issues: policy and
> implementation. Reading RAA it matches up with
> GDPR, but the way it's been implemented does not
> (e.g., purpose, consent). Need to ask whether
> policies address compliance or whether
> implementation of those policies do or do not
>
> ·Comment: The policy as it is written is tightly
> bound to the extreme limitations of
> whois-the-protocol, which is part of the problem
>
> ·For example, from RAA: /3.7.7.4 Registrar shall
> provide notice to each new or renewed Registered
> Name Holder stating:3.7.7.4.1 The purposes for
> which any Personal Data collected from the
> applicant are intended;3.7.7.4.2 The intended
> recipients or categories of recipients of the data
> (including the Registry Operator and others who
> will receive the data from Registry
> Operator);3.7.7.4.3 Which data are obligatory and
> which data, if any, are voluntary; and 3.7.7.4.4
> How the Registered Name Holder or data subject can
> access and, if necessary, rectify the data held
> about them.3.7.7.5 The Registered Name Holder
> shall consent to the data processing referred to
> in Subsection 3.7.7.4./
>
> ·Is data escrow within the RDS's scope?
>
> ·Do questions not line up with existing policy,
> producing answers that are not useful? This is why
> people are concerned about questions - if you ask
> the wrong question, you don't get helpful answers
>
> ·Maybe the question should be "Do the existing
> implementations of gTLD policy sufficient address
> compliance....?
>
> ·Comment: Current policies violate GDPR for EU
> citizens - example CL&D
>
> ·Need to distinguish policies from implementation,
> which is informed by decisions about who the data
> controller is
>
> ·Note that WSGR did not respond to the questions
> that are in this document - these are questions
> that the WG identified as sub-questions to help
> address the overarching charter questions. The
> principles that you see were derived from the memo
> as aiming to assist in responding to these questions.
>
> ·Possible reframing of sub-question 5.1: /Do
> existing gTLD registration directory services
> policies and/or implementations PREVENT compliance
> with applicable data protection, privacy, and free
> speech laws within each jurisdiction?/
>
> ·Would re-applying existing policy, using RDAP
> instead of WHOIS, shed any light on whether it's
> the policy or the implementation that prevent
> compliance with applicable laws?
>
> *Action Item:* WG leadership team to consider
> input received during today's meeting and consider
> how to move forward as today's meeting did not
> achieve the goal of moving forward on these questions.
>
> 6. Confirm action items and proposed decision points
>
> ·*WG Agreement: *There is no requirement for the
> Original Registration Date as proposed by the EWG
> Final Report
>
> ·*Action Item:* Staff to incorporate WG agreement
> in working draft.
>
> ·*Action Item:* WG leadership team to consider
> input received during today's meeting and consider
> how to move forward as today's meeting did not
> achieve the goal of moving forward on these questions.
>
> 7. Confirm next WG meeting (Tuesday 10 October at
> 16.00 UTC)
>
> _Meeting Materials (all posted at
> https://community.icann.org/x/bWfwAw[community.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_bWfwAw&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=pSoLE7Y91MVjMmhJ-xbOcyqU8WJlZg4XQXqvhIgGu_0&s=4KHESqzP9NmlfumEghxako3KC7O-WGxT-TXjxYSCgXc&e=>)_
>
>
> ·*26 September Call poll (closed COB Saturday 30
> September)*
>
> ·*Link to participate*:
> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JM679DR[surveymonkey.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r_JM679DR&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=pSoLE7Y91MVjMmhJ-xbOcyqU8WJlZg4XQXqvhIgGu_0&s=80KHlbgsAUZ12B7MkyZpaxsYR1VNcDnNXeGyZU5JlII&e=>
>
> ·*PDF of Poll Questions*:
> Poll-from-26SeptemberCall.pdf[community.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_download_attachments_66086762_Poll-2Dfrom-2D26SeptemberCall.pdf-3Fversion-3D1-26modificationDate-3D1506462198000-26api-3Dv2&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=pSoLE7Y91MVjMmhJ-xbOcyqU8WJlZg4XQXqvhIgGu_0&s=Qh0wpwEJhnmMtn0WjUrDH--J5pDrK3j-XSvG9SkCoBE&e=>
>
> ·*SurveyMonkey Summary Poll Results:
> *SummaryResults-Poll-from-26SeptCall.pdf[community.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_download_attachments_66086765_SummaryResults-2DPoll-2Dfrom-2D26SeptCall.pdf-3Fversion-3D1-26modificationDate-3D1506882150000-26api-3Dv2&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=pSoLE7Y91MVjMmhJ-xbOcyqU8WJlZg4XQXqvhIgGu_0&s=YthnS4kRZFpcDW3V2wu5_4o2iacXHMPOm9-8pCh15Ts&e=>
>
> ·*SurveyMonkey Raw Data Poll Results:
> *RawDataResults-Poll-from-26SeptCall.zip[community.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_download_attachments_66086765_RawDataResults-2DPoll-2Dfrom-2D26SeptCall.zip-3Fversion-3D1-26modificationDate-3D1506882171000-26api-3Dv2&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=pSoLE7Y91MVjMmhJ-xbOcyqU8WJlZg4XQXqvhIgGu_0&s=GD_nKg2UD1C_5fk9Nu-8iWjbqBznGdRjovHat2Vsiz8&e=> and
> XLS[community.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_download_attachments_66086765_RawDataResults-2DPoll-2Dfrom-2D26SeptCall.xlsx-3Fversion-3D1-26modificationDate-3D1506882190000-26api-3Dv2&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=pSoLE7Y91MVjMmhJ-xbOcyqU8WJlZg4XQXqvhIgGu_0&s=sgYSSm5kVL1ORiWVra_xH_U_W8Szr60a2ofA5cMhAFA&e=>
>
> ·*Annotated Survey Results:
> *AnnotatedResults-Poll-from-26SeptCall.pdf[community.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_download_attachments_66086765_AnnotatedResults-2DPoll-2Dfrom-2D26SeptCall.pdf-3Fversion-3D1-26modificationDate-3D1506963736000-26api-3Dv2&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=pSoLE7Y91MVjMmhJ-xbOcyqU8WJlZg4XQXqvhIgGu_0&s=9PuB-N3Zz2zIaw8bKfiyR-TppIjiMhl7BO57I1_yQt8&e=>
>
> ·WSGR memorandum:
> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/wsgr-icann-memorandum-25sep17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_wsgr-2Dicann-2Dmemorandum-2D25sep17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=pSoLE7Y91MVjMmhJ-xbOcyqU8WJlZg4XQXqvhIgGu_0&s=2doxZn4IxSgdwjUDmWxeg3UdGggQLYV-QKzqnRTNw_8&e=>
>
> ·Principles from DP Expert and WSGR - 29 Sept
> 2017.docx[community.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_download_attachments_66086765_Principles-2520from-2520DP-2520Expert-2520and-2520WSGR-2520-2D-252029-2520Sept-25202017.docx-3Fversion-3D1-26modificationDate-3D1506964656000-26api-3Dv2&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=pSoLE7Y91MVjMmhJ-xbOcyqU8WJlZg4XQXqvhIgGu_0&s=kmC6D7EdNgHgKZ9sUHlKD98-MbEeT1aDl_0l40vc74w&e=>
>
> ·Handout-RDS-WG-Call-3Oct2017.pdf[community.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_download_attachments_66086765_Handout-2DRDS-2DWG-2DCall-2D3Oct2017.pdf-3Fversion-3D1-26modificationDate-3D1506979314000-26api-3Dv2&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=pSoLE7Y91MVjMmhJ-xbOcyqU8WJlZg4XQXqvhIgGu_0&s=OmxAWn8um4-fiyFlpuMK8T1wlIQ1bz-1gXS4eIsBnRY&e=>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
> --
>
> Jonathan Matkowsky
>
> *******************************************************************
> This message was sent from RiskIQ, and is intended
> only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain
> confidential or proprietary information and may be
> subject to confidentiality protections. If you are not
> a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or
> distribute this message. If you receive this in error,
> please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete
> this message. Thank you.
>
> *******************************************************************
>
>
> --
>
> Jonathan Matkowsky
>
> --
>
> Jonathan Matkowsky
>
> *******************************************************************
> This message was sent from RiskIQ, and is intended only for
> the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or
> proprietary information and may be subject to confidentiality
> protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may
> not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive
> this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and
> delete this message. Thank you.
>
> *******************************************************************
>
> --
>
> Jonathan Matkowsky
>
>
> *******************************************************************
> This message was sent from RiskIQ, and is intended only for the
> designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary
> information and may be subject to confidentiality protections. If you
> are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute
> this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender
> by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.
>
> *******************************************************************
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20171006/5d77eb33/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list