<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hey John, <br>
</p>
<p>is it still helpful when the problem exists on a subdomain, a
forum post, hacked sites, etc, i.e. all circumstances where the
registrant is not the (only) user of the domain or only a service
provider himself? In these cases, while you may need to be able to
contact the registrant, knowing who he is is not really necessary
to resolve the issue, correct?</p>
<p>Best,</p>
<p>Volker<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 05.07.2016 um 17:22 schrieb John
Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:31b1ffdc-142e-cd94-0fff-5e6db64725b1@bambenekconsulting.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>As someone who uses this information to put people in prison,
it is not as useless as you may think it is even when it's
"incorrect", or for that matter "whois privacy protected".<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/5/2016 4:08 AM, Volker Greimann
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:bc3898bf-ef51-0417-c25c-6498f596ff2e@key-systems.net"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>Ultimately, everyone accessing the internet can be identified
at the level of the access provider. The domain name is
probably the most useless point to identify a user, as the
domain name registrant may not even have to do anything with a
specific use. <br>
</p>
<p>Best,</p>
<p>Volker<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 04.07.2016 um 19:25 schrieb
Stephanie Perrin:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:9eff015d-403f-b7f7-ecfe-04b2800bc9ef@mail.utoronto.ca"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">One point here,
and it is not a big one. I don't accept that accuracy
is a sine qua non (see para 5). Contactability is, I
think it ends there. Excessive focus on accuracy of
data, when that data is not necessary any more is a cost
and consumer burden, not to mention an invasion of
privacy. (eg. if I have changed my mastercard number
but my registration is paid for two years, no need to
change it in the record) <br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">I did not
comment earlier on Volker's remark that responsibility
for accuracy of data rests with the registrant, but I
agree whole heartedly. How can it be otherwise? Some
parties would like to authenticate every individual and
every transaction on the INternet, and see the
registrars as the entry point and therefore the logical
ones to bear this (enormous) burden. </font></font><font
size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande"><font size="+1"><font
face="Lucida Grande">This is unnecessary and will
price domains out of the range of individuals who
can benefit most from their own place on the
Internet, in my view. </font></font> It would
hardly be appropriate for the policy person to point out
that in any authentication scheme, identifying the
individual in the first place (prior to tying that
individual to some identifier) is a big, costly and
complex matter that has slowed down many an
implementation of secure transactions. We need to limit
our attempts to identify individuals to only what is
necessary.</font></font></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<font size="+1">Stephanie Perrin<br>
PS I wish I had taken better notes on the whole thick/thin
whois issue during EWG. Since it took me a good while to
figure out how this thing had developed in the first place,
(and many thanks to my EWG colleagues who patiently
explained it to me over and over again) I may have missed an
invitation to throw it out and discuss it again from
scratch.....but I doubt it. Anyway, we were already talking
about tiered access by then and different configurations of
the model which would make it much less relevant.<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="+1">On 2016-07-04
12:22, Carlton Samuels wrote:</font><br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOZQb9T+p9T8ZLtSKzYJqjBfCkSUXN2Y+SSN1fpOZqLVpA7+xg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans
ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><font size="+1">Coming to
this conversation late but as a member of the EWG, my
recollection is we took seriously the stated objective
to chart a next generation RDDS unfettered by existing
WHOIS constraints.</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans
ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><font size="+1"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans
ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><font size="+1">To that
end, I was one of those who insisted and the group
accepted and grappled with the basic question; was
there a need for a RDDS and, to what purpose. For
those mindful of the ALAC perspective, this would not
be new; the ALAC is on record from as early as 2009
insisting that for policy development purposes, the
need and purpose for a RDDS ought, by reason and
judgment, to be the first declarative act of any
policy development process. You would have seen a
reprise of that principle here. </font></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans
ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><font size="+1"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans
ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><font size="+1">We were
acutely aware that some principles we espoused are
contrary by nature - privacy vs. security,
transparency vs. confidentiality and so on - and that
balancing the scale between contention sets of
principles was not going to be for the faint-hearted.
Some time ago I used a metaphor to describe what was
achieved; we set out to design and build a sleek
racehorse but with the contentions, likely ended up
with a two-humped camel. Naturally, some took umbrage
on behalf of camels. </font></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans
ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><font size="+1"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans
ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><font size="+1">My
recollection - and the record will show - the EWG
spent an inordinate amount of time looking at use
cases, the thinking being it would allow extraction of
a set of principles grounded in facts on the ground.
Yes, some of us had concerns about this as starting
point to get to principles; use cases conflated both
appropriate and alleged inappropriate uses,
highlighting some of the alleged noisome abuses. Some
of us soldiered on , embracing the idea that a
comprehensive problem statement provides the best
indicator to an improved model. This is why the gripes
of current stakeholders, the expert opinions and
deeper knowledge of what ails the current system took
so much time of our deliberations. </font></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans
ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><font size="+1">The
mitigation model that emerged is fairly easy to
script. I cannot recall any contest to the idea that
data accuracy is sine qua non for any RDDS. Yes, we
are very much aware of the distributed nature of
current WHOIS and even examined a model so configured
in the solution set we discussed. Again, balancing the
contentions, the centralized database offers certain
advantages - and these are listed in details - at
least for standard enforcement, query and access
control. The concept of a minimum set of RDDS data
elements for global unfettered display stems from
privacy concerns and, coincidentally, a nod to the
'thin' model. Gated access in the model addressed the
concerns from the perspective of a broader set of
business reasons for RDDS access, privacy and the
evaluation of and better knowledge of purposeful use. <br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans
ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><font size="+1"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans
ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><font size="+1">I could
give a lot more examples that underscore a different
narrative. Not just because I spent almost 2 years of
my life working this on a truly voluntary basis - I do
not make a living from the ecosystem and my day job
has no connection to it - but for the fact I sincerely
believe that what was achieved was remarkable in and
of itself. </font><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans
ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans
ms,sans-serif;font-size:small">-Carlton</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all">
<div>
<div class="gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><br>
==============================<br>
Carlton A Samuels<br>
Mobile: 876-818-1799<br>
<i><font color="#33CC00">Strategy, Planning,
Governance, Assessment & Turnaround</font></i><br>
=============================</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:04 PM,
Gomes, Chuck <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a></a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Andrew,<br>
<br>
I am sorry to take so long to respond to your very
thoughtful message but as you know I have been pretty
busy here in Helsinki. It seems to me personally that
you make some suggestions that could possibly be
constructive to the work ahead but I have two primary
concerns:<br>
<br>
1. I am pretty sure that it would require a charter
change. To do that would require going back to the
GNSO Council with the proposed changes and seeking
their approval. That is something that is not out of
the question but it could cause some delays and I
would want to make sure that there is strong WG
support for doing so. Also, I think we need to
remember that a lot of very smart people spent quite a
bit of time developing the framework that resulted in
the charter so I think we should consider possible
changes with that in mind.<br>
<br>
2. My understanding is that EWG debated things like
you are suggesting quite intensely. As you know I was
not a member of the EWG but Lisa has provided some
thoughts about that I include below.<br>
<br>
" It might be useful to reflect upon the EWG's
experience with system modeling. After starting with
use cases, some EWG members needed a system model
against which to test principles on purposes, data
needs, and associated privacy, access, and accuracy
issues. This led to the EWG's Initial Report proposing
both a set of principles and an Aggregated RDS system
model to support those principles - but without much
explanation of the ARDS. Over the year that followed,
the EWG evaluated half a dozen system models, drilling
deeper into two (Federated and Synchronized) to
examine feasibility and costs before recommending the
SRDS. Both SRDS and FRDS models use RDAP; neither
stores data in a single physical location. While the
SRDS is a "thick" storage model where queries are
served from synchronized data, the runner-up FRDS
actually uses "thin" registries, querying data from
registrars and validators in real-time.<br>
<br>
"While some possible requirements may reflect a
particular system model - for example, those drawn
from today's WHOIS policies -- our PDP WG has yet to
consider whether to recommend a next-gen system. But
no matter what model we recommend, perhaps we can
learn from the EWG's experience. First, while
envisioning a possible new model early on was helpful
to some, reaching agreement on a recommended model was
not possible until the EWG was nearly finished,
following feasibility and cost analysis. Second, while
each had pros/cons, both models were found to be
capable of supporting the EWG's principles. In other
words, model choice did not drive the EWG's principles
- principles and criteria such as cost drove the EWG's
choice of model."<br>
<br>
I want to add to Lisa's thoughts my own personal
opinion: I don't think the issue of Federated v.
Synchronized is a closed issue. My understanding is
that the final recommendation in the EWG report could
have been more the result of the desire to finish the
work than a strong consensus. Whether I am right on
that or not, our WG can consider both and make our own
decision between either one or some variation.<br>
<br>
Finally, I want to encourage all WG members to share
your thoughts on Andrews comments and on my responses
above.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Chuck<br>
</font></span>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan<br>
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 10:04 PM<br>
To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Apologies, and some
reflections on requirements<br>
<br>
Dear colleagues,<br>
<br>
Apologies first. I'm not going to be in
Helsinki. I'm in the middle of a move from NH
back to Toronto, and it turns out that my movers'<br>
understanding of, "I need to leave on $date,"
entails arranging things such that goods will
arrive after $date. Alas, in this case the goods
arrive Monday. I will attempt to follow the ICANN
meetings remotely next week, but I expect it will
be tricky.<br>
<br>
I have been deeply dissatisfied with the way the
work is going, and I believe it is because I see a
mismatch in what we are trying to do and the kind
of system we are trying to do it to. In
particular, I think we are trying to treat the RDS
as a single monolithic system, and attempting to
build "requirements" that match that assumption.
Here is an effort to sketch why I think that. I
didn't have time to write a short note, &c.
&c. Sorry this is long.<br>
<br>
Since the very introduction of the
competitive-registrar model (and arguably before
that), the RDS has been a distributed database.
It is far less successful than the other
distrubuted database we all know and love -- DNS
-- but it is nevertheless distributed.<br>
<br>
The distribution comes from different parties
having various parts of the data. In so-called
"thin" registries, this was always the case.<br>
The registry has names and nameservers, and since
the invention of registrars knows who the
registrar is. But if you wanted to know certain
kinds of data, you had to ask the registrar in
question.<br>
<br>
Because in (say) 1999-2001 nobody had anything
better than the whois/rwhois/whois++ protocol(s)
to deliver this kind of data, a whole bunch of bad
compromises got enshrined in policy. First, we
continued to use whois and its descendents
(anything on port 43) as the model for all of
this. The plain fact is that whois was obsolete
nearly at birth. It's a terrible protocol, and
should be taken behind the ice house and put out
of its misery.<br>
<br>
Second, in order to "fix up" whois, clients were
created all over the Internet that built in a
bunch of assumptions about whom to ask for what
data. The consequence of this was that clients
routinely got bad data as they queried the wrong
server. Old registrar data hung around even after
a transfer. When I worked on the org transition
from Verisign to PIR in 2003 (?), it took a long
time before whois clients stopped asking Verisign
about org data. And so on.<br>
<br>
Third, in an attempt to hack around the above
technical flaws in an already-obsolete protocol,
"thick whois" gained popularity in possibly the
worst possible arrangement known to data science.
Instead of insisting that registries hold the data
and that registrars and everyone else treat the
registry data as The Truth, we created "thick"<br>
whois in registries _without allowing registrars
to stop their service_. Any half-competent
database person will tell you that storing "the
same data" in two places that don't have tight
connections is an excellent way to create data
inconsistency, but is not a good way to arrive at
the truth. (Latterly, as though illustrating the
tendency of people to double down on bad ideas,
there have been suggestions that ICANN should run
the One Giant RDS of the Universe and hold all the
data in a central place. What could possibly go
wrong?)<br>
<br>
The thread running through this history of error
is the idea that the RDS is one system. But like
the DNS, it only appears to be one system. It's
actually a "distributed database", where in this
case the distribution is separable on organization
lines. That is, registries -- including ICANN,
who can be thought of in this case as both the
registry and registrar for the root zone -- have
some data.<br>
Registrars have some other data. Resellers and
privacy/proxy services have yet other data. In
many cases, the data does not need to be shared
across these organizational lines to make it
queryable by humans.<br>
<br>
The reason that isn't clear to most of us is
because whois -- the RDS we use today -- _was_
designed as a monolithic system. It was designed
that way because back when it was created -- RFC
812 is from _1982_! -- the database _was_ a
monolithic database. Whois (the protocol and the
client program) continues to have all the
deficiencies for distributed use that you might
expect of a program or protocol designed to talk
to exactly one authoritative service.<br>
Whois++ and rwhois attempted to graft on to this
basic protocol some<br>
distributed operation, but the graft didn't really
take and the ornamental shrub now looks like a
weed.<br>
<br>
People have nevertheless internalized the
whois-based thinking, which is why we keep asking
things like, "What data should be collected?"<br>
In a distributed system like this, that's barely
interesting, for the commercial interests in this
case all militate against collecting data that
nobody needs for any function. Instead, we should
ask what data should be collected _by different
actors_. This implicitly involves describing what
those actors are doing to require the data.<br>
<br>
The nice thing, of course, is that protocol
designers have done _a lot_ of this work for us,
when they were working on RDAP. They did this
because they were trying to come up with use cases
for the protocol, which finally did away with the
monolithic-system thinking of whois and offers us
a protocol designed precisely to work in the
distributed-database environment that is the
actual registration system. That we even still
have a work step that involves evaluating what
protocol we're going to use for all this makes me
a little ill.<br>
<br>
It seems to me that we can just say that we have
to embrace the distributed-database fact. For
first, it's a fact of how registration actually
works now. If we don't agree with that, I think
we should give up. Second, it's consistent with
how every single other thing on the Internet that
has not crashed and burned works. The Internet
cannot scale depending on monolithic systems. And
nobody has the power to impose one anyway.<br>
<br>
Once we have done that, there are still important
policy issues about what data ought to be
collected by anyone, under what conditions they
might reveal it to someone else (and who that
someone else is), and so on. But there are
empirical tests for whether some of the answers
people are proposing really match the distributed
nature of the system. If they don't, we can close
off those avenues of inquiry, because they'll
never be productive.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
A<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Andrew Sullivan<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
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
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>
Web: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.key-systems.net">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.RRPproxy.net">www.RRPproxy.net</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.BrandShelter.com">www.BrandShelter.com</a>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.keydrive.lu">www.keydrive.lu</a>
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
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>
Web: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.key-systems.net">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.RRPproxy.net">www.RRPproxy.net</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.BrandShelter.com">www.BrandShelter.com</a>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.keydrive.lu">www.keydrive.lu</a>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
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
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>
Web: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.key-systems.net">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.RRPproxy.net">www.RRPproxy.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.BrandShelter.com">www.BrandShelter.com</a>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.keydrive.lu">www.keydrive.lu</a>
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
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>
Web: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.key-systems.net">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.RRPproxy.net">www.RRPproxy.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.BrandShelter.com">www.BrandShelter.com</a>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.keydrive.lu">www.keydrive.lu</a>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
</pre>
</body>
</html>