<div dir="ltr">I agree with Kathy's suggestion:<div><span style="font-size:12.8px"> "start with these opening bullet points:</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">- what domain name registration data is collected and for what purpose? </span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">- what specific laws and restrictions limit the re-use or secondary use of this domain name registration data? (data gathering, legal analysis section)</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">- what additional uses would people like to use the domain name registration data and why?</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">- Outreach to the Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees and outreach to the greater Internet Community</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">- Deliberations as to whether these additional uses are legal, possible, optional -- and what the costs and benefits are of providing this data for the secondary purposes that people are seeking it. "</span><br></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Kathy Kleiman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com" target="_blank">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi Chuck, <br>
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the starting point of the draft
work plan. It says that the "Bulk of Work in phase 1 relates to
recommending requirements for Registration Directory Services."
After review of the EWG, it states that we will "Develop a
comprehensive list of possible requirement [sic] (without a debate)
as a first step." <br>
<br>
It seems to me that the first step should be evaluating the data
collected by the registrars for registration purposes. The next step
should be evaluating the purposes for which that data is collected.
The third step should be seeking out additionally purposes for which
folks not registrars would like to use the data. The fourth step
should be to determine whether the information could legally be made
available for those additional purposes, and whether those
additional purposes are even desirable or useful (or are there
dangers and concerns?)<br>
<br>
Jumping straight into "Develop a comprehensive list of possible
requirements (without debate)" skips the whole analysis (above) that
I understand is necessary under EU nations' laws (and the many other
countries with data protection laws) and jumps straight into -- "who
wants this data?! Get your data here!"<br>
<br>
For the draft work plan, section 3 below ("Review and discuss draft
work plan"), I would start with these opening bullet points:<br>
- what domain name registration data is collected and for what
purpose? <br>
- what specific laws and restrictions limit the re-use or secondary
use of this domain name registration data? (data gathering, legal
analysis section)<br>
- what additional uses would people like to use the domain name
registration data and why?<br>
- Outreach to the Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees and
outreach to the greater Internet Community<br>
- Deliberations as to whether these additional uses are legal,
possible, optional -- and what the costs and benefits are of
providing this data for the secondary purposes that people are
seeking it. <br>
<br>
On a related note, I used to program large-scale databases on Wall
Street and respectfully submit that the term "requirements" in the
first 3 bullet points of section 3 is being used incorrectly (or
confusingly) as a technical matter. Until we do the detailed
analysis of the key issues of what data collected, its primary
purpose, sought secondary use, proportionality, etc, we can't
possibly know or lay out the "requirements" we are seeking for the
new Registration Directory Services. "Requirements" is best used as
the term for the features we intend to build into our new RDS
system. We are nowhere near the "requirements" stage yet -- we are
at the preliminary data gathering, use and user analysis, legal
review, and other preliminaries. Shaping, scoping, defining and
describing the "requirements" of the new system will come later.
What other term can we use? <br>
<br>
<i>To the other question of the WG, what "rough categories of
expertise" are needed:</i><i><br>
</i>I would add groups that specialize in free speech, freedom of
expression, human rights, domestic violence, international
journalist organizations, and groups that specialize in political
oppression. It is these groups that know intimately who is being
harassed, stalked and even killed based on Whois data -- and many of
them participated in the last public comment held by the
Proxy/Privacy Accreditation Working Group. They are definitely
reachable and in tune with our issues. <br>
<br>
I deeply apologize for missing the meeting this week. We had a death
of a family friend and given daytime commitments, I could not
participate in the late-night call.<br>
<br>
Tx for your review. <br>
Best,<br>
Kathy (Kleiman)<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/25/2016 9:57 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Thanks
for the feedback Kathy. I will let those who were on the
EWG respond to what happened after London but I did insert
some personal responses below.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Chuck<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Kathy Kleiman<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 25, 2016 9:04 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes and action
items from Next-Generation RDS PDP WG Meeting - deep
concerns<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Chuck,<br>
Tx you for the reminder for the last call of comments. I would
like to raise concerns about some of the items in the work
plan. My objections have to do with the focus of the<i>
</i>"Outline of Approach for Phase 1" extensively on input
from the EWG Final Report. The work plan, as circulated
(particularly under its "Assumptions") implies an
understanding and acceptance of the EWG Final Report that
never existed. Let me explain<b>
</b>(and invite my EWG friends and all present at that time)
to supplement this record:<span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">[Chuck
Gomes] Please tell me why you think there is an
acceptance of the EWG Final Report? No such assumption
was made by the Leadership Team. As you share below,
the intent is for it to be a starting point.<u></u><u></u></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><br>
<br>
Background: </b>the EWG Final Report was greatly changed
from the interim to the final draft. Not a little bit, but
significantly, substantively, clearly changed. Dozens of new
pages were added; entirely new analysis and recommendations.
The final Report was difficult, even impossible, to
understand. Long public sessions were held at the ICANN
meeting in London where speaker after speaker raised issues,
concerns and questions, questions, questions. There were so
much ambiguity in the text, so many sections that were
unclear, so many cross-references that were not complete that
even those of us who have been in this field for many years
found it impossible to understand specifically what was being
recommended and why. Further, there were major questions
raised about the large amount of data being collected and
retained, indications of nearly unlimited access for certain
types of users, and many more concerns.
<i>There were so many questions that commenters at the
microphone agreed we/they could not even start a full and
substantive critique of the Final Report because it is
unclear even what was being recommended on certain key and
substantive points. The essence of drafting rules and
technical policy is, of course, clarity and we agreed in
these public session in London that it was lacking in this
Final Report.** Answers were promised; answers never came.
The EWG Final Report remains an ambiguous, unclear document.
<br>
<br>
</i><b>No Final Public Comment: </b>Unfortunately, despite
major and extensive changes between the interim and final
drafts, and ICANN precedent itself, the EWG Final Report never
went to public written comment. (In all my time in ICANN,
which is a lot, I have never seen a final report which did not
go to public comment - particularly a final report as complex,
difficult, convoluted and significantly-changed as this one.)
There was no final comment period for this report -- just a
promise that no group would ever accept the Final Report as an
absolute starting point; and that all future groups working
with the EWG Final Report would know that it never received a
final review, never received consensus, and was never even
understood by those critiquing it in the public sessions.<b> <br>
<br>
Dissent: </b>Further, the EWG Final Report received a
strong dissent from the only member of the EWG with a data
protection background - the person who was a key drafter of
the Canadian Data Protection Report. Her
<span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">issues and concerns have, of course, never
been addressed because the EWG Final Report never went out for
that final round of public comment and final round of
revisions.
<span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">[Chuck
Gomes] I fully expect and encourage the dissenter
(Stephanie) to add possible requirements that address
her concerns.</span></i></b><br>
<b><br>
Accordingly: </b>calls for acceptance and reliance on the
EWG Final Report should be much more carefully worded and
limited in the Work Plan than they are now. I know the Board
wants us to refer it as a reference point and touch point, but
not the only or exclusive starting point<b>. </b>The work
plan has references to other sources other than the EWG Final
Report, but what are they, where are they and who will find
and summarize them? Given the speed we want to work, it is
incumbent on the WG, at this early point in development, in
this Work Plan, to determine what these other sources might be
and how we can access them quickly, efficiently and
effectively. I would like to request that the Work Plan
include provisions for subteams to form and Staff to help
find, use and summarize these other sources so that they will
be available as quickly as the EWG Report (and noting that it
may be difficult for members of the community to drop other
work and write short White Papers.) But it is clear that we
need to fairly and fully pull in the widest range of
information and input at this critical point of Phase 1 -- the
RDS Working Group richly deserves it!
<span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">[Chuck
Gomes] If you think the wording asks for acceptance and
reliance on the EWG Final Report, please suggest
alternative wording. Regarding other sources, many of
them are identified in the EWG Report, in the Issues
Report and I encourage WG members to identify other
sources. Stephanie’s minority statement is one source
already mentioned, although I consider it part of the
EWG Report.<u></u><u></u></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">In
my view, I see no need for writing white papers. What
we will need though in the early parts of our work is
for everyone to identify possible requirements so that
we create as comprehensive a list as possible. That
list will then be deliberated on by the WG to determine
which ones we agree should be recommended.<u></u><u></u></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
Best, <br>
Kathy (Kleiman)<br>
p.s. In summary, I would like to ask Assumptions be modified
to reflect the huge questions and concerns raised about the
EWG Final Report in London, and the complete lack of any final
comment period on a hugely and substantively-changed final
report. I would also like to request that Outline of Approach
to Phase 1 be modified to reflect a concerted effort of the
WG, Leadership Team subteam(s) and Staff to identify, define
and summarize the "sources other than the EWG Final Report"
that will be used and what resources will be devoted by Staff
to collecting and summarizing them for ease of use by the WG.
<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Kathy<br>
<br>
On 2/24/2016 1:34 AM, Marika Konings wrote: <br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear All,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please find below the notes and action
items of today’s meeting. I would like to draw special
attention to the following action items and deadlines
associated with these:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal">
<b>Action item #1</b>: All to review categories identified
by small team and provide feedback within 24 hours (see
attached)<u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
<b>Action item #4</b>: All to review work plan approach as
has been circulated with the agenda and provide any
comments / questions on the mailing list within 48 hours.
(see attached)<u></u><u></u></li>
</ul>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please share any input or questions you
may have with the mailing list.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best regards,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Marika<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Notes/Action items 24 February 2016
- Next–Generation RDS PDP WG Meeting</b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>1. Roll call/ SOI</i><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal">
Note, observers have read-only access to the mailing list
and do not receive the call details. If you want to change
your status, you can inform the GNSO Secretariat
accordingly.<u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Members are required to provide a Statement of Interest in
order to participate in the Working Group.<u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Updates to SOIs are requested at the start of every
meeting.<u></u><u></u></li>
</ul>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">A<b>ction item #1</b>: Please complete
/ update your Statement of Interest if you have not done
so yet. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>2. Review of WG membership &
expertise update</i><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal">
Small team has been discussing how to identify current
level of expertise<u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Identified a number of rough categories of expertise that
is expected to be needed for this effort: Legal (IP,
criminal, civil), Technical (Protocol development,
Security, Audit), Data Protection, Operational (Registrar,
Registries), Commercial/e-business, Non commercial/not for
profit, government advisory, law enforcement (police,
investigators, courts), individual internet user.<u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Proposal to put these categories into a zoomerang poll to
allow for WG members to self-identify their expertise<u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Small team would like to receive input on the categories
identified and possible sub-categories<u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Consider removing investigators as it can be considered
part of 'police'. There are also other agencies that are
involved in investigations, maybe that is why it has been
identified as a separate category. Should investigators
(non-government) be a separate category? This would
include organisations like consumer organisations.<u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Security may not only be technical expertise, there may
also be non-technical aspects to it. Consider having a
security category that is not under the technical heading.<u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
DNS technical specialists should also be considered as a
category<u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Categories are intended to get a general sense of
expertise available<u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Consider updating law enforcement to public safety to
capture a broader category of investigators?<u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Should public defenders be added to the legal category?
Might already be covered by legal/criminal?<u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Consider a category for cybersecurity. <u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Experts can be invited to just join when a particular
topic is discussed - not only looking at filling gaps in
membership, but also identify specific support that may be
needed in an expert capacity. <u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Consider adding a category for WHOIS software / service
developer<u></u><u></u></li>
</ul>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Action item #1</b>: All to review
categories identified and provide feedback within 24 hours<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Action item #2</b>: staff to develop
survey on the basis of the categories identified and
request WG members to participate<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Action item #3</b>: small team to
review feedback received to the survey and identify
whether additional outreach is needed based on the survey
results. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>3. Review and discuss draft work
plan approach</i><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal">
Bulk of work in phase 1 relates to recommending
requirements for Registration Directory Services<u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Use EWG Final Report as starting point, as instructed by
the ICANN Board. Substantial public input was provided and
incorporated by this effort. Not restricted to the EWG
Final Report, but an important starting point. <u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Develop a comprehensive list of possible requirement
(without a debate) as a first step. Deliberations on each
possible requirement will be the next step after
developing this comprehensive list, including reaching
consensus on whether requirements should be included or
not.<u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Outreach to SO/ACs is expected during various stages of
the PDP, periodically as needed. This outreach may take
various forms, formal, informal. There is a requirement
for formal input at the early phase of the process. <u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Interdependency of all eleven questions in the charter
will main that the WG may need to go back and forth
between questions. <u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
First five questions are critical as they are essential to
responding to the foundational question of whether a new
RDS is needed. <u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
No comment period held on the Final EWG Report. EWG Report
expected to be starting point - not stopping there, just a
first list of possible requirements that the WG is
expected to add to.<u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Should purpose be defined before discussion uses? Purposes
and uses are part of the charter which are expected to
result in possible requirements (see question 1).<u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Leadership team has started developing a first list of
possible requirements - draft as a starting point for the
full WG to review and add to. SO/AC/SG/Cs can also be
asked to add to the list of possible requirements.
Objective to have comprehensive list of requirements. <u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Once this comprehensive list is 'complete' (WG is of the
view that all possible requirements have been added),
systematic review of the requirements by the WG. <u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Deliberation of some requirements could be deferred to
later phases, if deemed appropriate. <u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Following this work, the WG is expected to deliberate on
foundational question: is a new RDS needed or can the
existing WHOIS system be modified to satisfy the
recommended requirements for questions 1-5. Answer to this
question will determine subsequent steps. <u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Who will come up with costing based on the requirements
identified? Is it possible to estimate costs until you get
to phase 2 and 3? Might be possible to get a high level
idea in phase 1, but you cannot do it thorougly until you
get to phase 2 when the policies are identified. Phase 1
could identify what costs need to be measured while phase
2 may ballpark those. Cost impact expected across the
whole eco-system. Impact assessment will be important
question.<u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Outreach to SO/ACs may involve those groups to consult
with their respective constituencies that may take more
than 35 days. Smaller requests more frequently may
facilitate feedback. All should be communicating regularly
with their respective groups - bring feedback to the WG on
an ongoing basis. If any request for input would be
associated with a minimum 35 day timeline it would have a
significant impact on the overall timeline.<u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Leadership team will work on the detail of the work plan
based on the approach outlined and comments received.<u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Those on the call were supportive of the approach
outlined. Provide opportunity for those not on the call to
provide feedback on the approach. <u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Leadership team would like to be able to send out a first
cut of a work plan by the end of this week so it can be
further discussed and reviewed during next week's meeting.<u></u><u></u></li>
</ul>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Action item #4</b>: All to review
work plan approach as has been circulated with the agenda
and provide any comments / questions on the mailing list
within 48 hours. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Action item #5</b>: Leadership team
to send out first draft of work plan by the end of this
week.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>4. Discuss proposed outreach to
SO/AC/SG/Cs to solicit early input</i><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal">
Required to formally request input at early stage, minimum
of 35 days response time. Considering asking for general
input.<u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Request formal input shortly after ICANN meeting in
Marrakech. <u></u><u></u></li>
</ul>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Action item #6:</b> Leadership team
to develop draft outreach message for WG review.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>5. ICANN meeting in Marrakech F2F
meeting</i><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal">
See <a href="http://doodle.com/poll/7f9h9spwwmys26c5" target="_blank">http://doodle.com/poll/7f9h9spwwmys26c5</a>.
To date 46 expected to participate in person, 20 are
planning to participate remotely and 5 are not able to
attend.<u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
See <a href="https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/wed-rds" target="_blank">https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/wed-rds</a>
for further details.<u></u><u></u></li>
</ul>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>6. Confirm next steps and next
meeting</i><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal">
Next meeting will be scheduled for Tuesday 1 March at
16.00 UTC <u></u><u></u></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Chuck will not be available for the next meeting - Susan
Kawaguchi has volunteered to chair the meeting on 1 March.<u></u><u></u></li>
</ul>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><br style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Times;font-size:medium"><br style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Times;font-size:medium"><div style="min-width:960px;min-height:82px;line-height:18px;margin:6px 0px;padding:8px;border-top-width:1px;border-top-color:rgb(153,153,153);border-top-style:dotted;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-color:rgb(153,153,153);border-bottom-style:dotted;font-family:'Lucida Grande',Verdana,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12px;color:rgb(153,153,153)"><a href="http://www.donuts.domains" title="donuts.domains" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.donuts.domains/images/D-99x124.png" alt="Donuts Inc." width="37" height="54" style="float:left;padding:2px 6px 0px 0px;border:none"></a><div style="padding:6px 0px 0px"><span style="font-size:14px"><strong style="color:rgb(51,51,51)">Elaine Pruis</strong>, Vice President, Operations</span><br><strong><a href="http://www.donuts.domains" title="donuts.domains" style="color:rgb(102,102,102);text-decoration:none;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-bottom-style:dotted" target="_blank">Donuts Inc.</a></strong><br>10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 350, Bellevue Washington, 98004, U.S.A. | Telephone: 509.899.3161<br><a href="https://twitter.com/DonutsInc" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.donuts.domains/images/social_twitter_box_white_512.png" alt="Twitter" width="30" height="30" style="float:left;margin:2px 4px 0px 0px;border:none"></a><a href="https://www.facebook.com/donutstlds" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.donuts.domains/images/social_facebook_box_white_512.png" alt="Facebook" width="30" height="30" style="float:left;margin:2px 4px 0px 0px;border:none"></a><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/company/donuts-inc-" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.donuts.domains/images/social_linkedin_box_white_512.png" alt="Linked In" width="30" height="30" style="float:left;margin:2px 4px 0px 0px;border:none"></a></div><div style="clear:both"></div></div><br style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Times;font-size:medium"><br style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Times;font-size:medium"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Times;font-size:medium"> </span><br></div></div>
</div>