<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hi Allion,</p>
<p>to your first point: the right to privacy of ones own data may be
different where I live and where you live. Suffice it to say that
in our day-to-day business we get eough complaints from customers
who feel their rivacy has been violated either by our putting
their data out for everyone to see or by customers of ours who
provide services that do the same. And we both agree that whois
privacy will not protect you 100%.</p>
<p>to your second point: why is requiring the same legal standard
for accessing data of customers of hosting service providers, of
ebay account holders, of Amazon sellers and many other areas where
the data is not public suddenly not feasible for customers of
domain name registrars? Our privacy service gets regular
subpoenas for data of customers. Why is making that the standard
suddenly the end of the world?</p>
<p>And while I appreciate the good work that many like John are
doing on a private level, ultimately they are not law enforcement
and are not entitled to the same level of access as law
enforcement has just like a rent-a-cop does not have the same law
enforcement powers a real cop has. <br>
</p>
<p>Re:Spamhaus: I have worked with them and while they provide a
valuable anti-spam service, some of their methods or publications
leave a lot to be desired. The fact that they ofter outright
refuse to provide evidence of their claims, the fact that they
outright lie to ICANN compliance, and the fact that they bend
numbers anyway they need to fit their narrative do not help to
build trust and work with them as partners. I think they provide a
good service but ultimately they are vigilantes and often
overshoot their mark. This "study" is one such instance where they
present a result without allowing the reader to look at the work
that led to the result. And that makes it worthless for peer
review or for basing anything on their results.<br>
</p>
<p>Best,</p>
<p>Volker</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 14.02.2017 um 18:39 schrieb allison
nixon:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACLR7wJ5Cy8Kqdbe=JKcRF4V6-aknN_m9uEoUuavObgfbOjUCQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">>><span style="font-size:12.8px">Here you go
with the edge cases again.</span>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px">The mother of all edge cases
is the main contention of this entire working group. The
theory that an innocent domain registrant's privacy is
either "violated" or "not violated" and that this somehow
hinges on the privacy status of the WHOIS data. This is
absolutely a false premise. If I want to find someone, and
they frequently use the Internet and aren't extremely
OPSEC-aware, I'm going to find them. WHOIS privacy
absolutely will not protect them. </span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Does anyone believe this
premise that also has experience in investigations? I do not
believe any such person exists, because when you are
experienced in tracking people down, you will know that this
premise is factually untrue.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px">>></span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">Well it might be so, but every
singel person “claiming” they use whois for investigation
seems to lack the understanding that they will get the
access it will just be a little harder to get the normal
misuse of whois info can be prevented but looks like noen of
you want that to happen</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Is this an assurance?
Because the talk I see here is about requiring paperwork
like subpeonas and search warrants and that isn't feasible
both from an investigation or automation standpoint as well
as the fact that the vast majority of the anti-abuse
community are not cops. There's no sign whatsoever that
there is consideration towards anti-abuse.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px">>></span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">I trust these statistics by
spamhaus less than anything coming out of the mouth of the
orange menace. And that is saying something.</span><span
style="font-size:12.8px"> </span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px">You stand alone in that
opinion. Spamhaus is not perfect but they are the most
widely used blocklists among network operators. The amount
of harm prevented by Spamhaus's block lists eclipses the
harm prevented by registrants receiving WHOIS spam. It is
like comparing the size of the sun to the size of an ant. If
you have ever tried to operate from infrastructure that's on
Spamhaus's block lists, your access to the Internet at large
will be very poor indeed.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px">How many of you people
actually have day to day experience in fighting spam and
preventing the massive privacy invasions that happen on a
daily basis to innocent people? I am getting the feeling
that this group badly needs to gain some perspective. WHOIS
spam is a problem and is an annoyance, privacy is important,
but this group keeps talking about WHOIS privacy and
completely ignoring the fact that by volume such a scheme
would cause great harms for mostly imaginary gain. To me
this shows a sign that many of the arguments here are about
idealism without practical experience.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 12:24 PM, <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:benny@nordreg.se">benny@nordreg.se</a>
<span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:benny@nordreg.se" target="_blank">benny@nordreg.se</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi John<br>
<br>
None in the group can do that, just as little as the
opposite if we dont work together on the needs, give and
take on it, we will not move forward.<br>
But the attitude which I see where the Status Quo are the
driver for the discussions are not really productive…<br>
<br>
Everything can be changed with new privacy laws coming in to
force<br>
<span class="im HOEnZb"><br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Med vänliga hälsningar / Kind Regards / Med vennlig hilsen<br>
<br>
Benny Samuelsen<br>
Registry Manager - Domainexpert<br>
<br>
Nordreg AB - ICANN accredited registrar<br>
IANA-ID: 638<br>
Phone: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B46.42197080" value="+4642197080">+46.42197080</a><br>
Direct: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B47.32260201" value="+4732260201">+47.32260201</a><br>
Mobile: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B47.40410200" value="+4740410200">+47.40410200</a><br>
<br>
</span><span class="im HOEnZb">> On 14 Feb 2017, at
18:18, John Horton <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:john.horton@legitscript.com">john.horton@legitscript.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi Benny,<br>
><br>
> Let me try to dig into that a little bit with a
serious question. What assurance do those of us engaged in
cybercrime investigation -- or not yet created
organizations that are legitimate -- have that we would
have the same level of access in the future? Is it
possible for this group to make that assurance? To be
sure, this isn't my only concern or objection, but part of
what I'm trying to get at is: even if those of us on this
working group were to agree that cybercrime-mitigation
entities should have the same access we have today, what's
to prevent a stricter regime from changing the rules in
the future? In other words, if we create a system that
empowers one central organization to say that Allison's
reasons (for example) are valid now, there's nothing to
prevent that organization from deciding to block her in
the future because they don't believe her reasons for
investigating cybercrime are valid. Put another way, my
concern isn't that you personally or anyone on this group
wants to block cybercrime mitigation from happening --
rather, I'm wondering how this group could bind a future
RDS 1, 5 or 10 years down the road not to change the
goalposts.<br>
><br>
> John Horton<br>
> President and CEO, LegitScript<br>
><br>
><br>
</span><span class="im HOEnZb">> Follow LegitScript:
LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter | Blog | Google+<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
</span>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5">> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 9:05 AM, <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:benny@nordreg.se">benny@nordreg.se</a>
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:benny@nordreg.se">benny@nordreg.se</a>>
wrote:<br>
> Well it might be so, but every singel person
“claiming” they use whois for investigation seems to
lack the understanding that they will get the access it
will just be a little harder to get the normal misuse of
whois info can be prevented but looks like noen of you
want that to happen...<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Med vänliga hälsningar / Kind Regards / Med vennlig
hilsen<br>
><br>
> Benny Samuelsen<br>
> Registry Manager - Domainexpert<br>
><br>
> Nordreg AB - ICANN accredited registrar<br>
> IANA-ID: 638<br>
> Phone: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B46.42197080" value="+4642197080">+46.42197080</a><br>
> Direct: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B47.32260201" value="+4732260201">+47.32260201</a><br>
> Mobile: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B47.40410200" value="+4740410200">+47.40410200</a><br>
><br>
> > On 14 Feb 2017, at 17:58, allison nixon <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:elsakoo@gmail.com">elsakoo@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Benny, dude, you just wrote "Buhu my work will
get harder", so please don't complain about adult and
mature answers<br>
> ><br>
> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:56 AM, <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:benny@nordreg.se">benny@nordreg.se</a>
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:benny@nordreg.se">benny@nordreg.se</a>>
wrote:<br>
> > A very adult and mature answer… with some nice
baked in threats, funny its only your kind of crimes
which matter apparantly… oh and the final on which
always are been draged out when there are no more
arguments, think about the one child we can save…<br>
> ><br>
> > To answer your questions hidden in the
threats, yes you are part of the better for all but that
also means everyone have to give and take to come to a
better solution.<br>
> > In you ignorance you completely miss the point
that by have all these data public there are commited
crimes every minut by using those data nut hey what does
that matter as long as you business can roll on… I guess
those people will thank you for you helpful insights…<br>
> ><br>
> > Welcome to the discussion<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > --<br>
> > Med vänliga hälsningar / Kind Regards / Med
vennlig hilsen<br>
> ><br>
> > Benny Samuelsen<br>
> > Registry Manager - Domainexpert<br>
> ><br>
> > Nordreg AB - ICANN accredited registrar<br>
> > IANA-ID: 638<br>
> > Phone: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B46.42197080" value="+4642197080">+46.42197080</a><br>
> > Direct: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B47.32260201" value="+4732260201">+47.32260201</a><br>
> > Mobile: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B47.40410200" value="+4740410200">+47.40410200</a><br>
> ><br>
> > > On 14 Feb 2017, at 17:29, John Bambenek
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jcb@bambenekconsulting.com">jcb@bambenekconsulting.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Let me translate Allison's comments in
the light of your mockery.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > You're ideas of privacy are patently
absurd and your arrogance that entire industries need to
rewrite how they do things to suit your effete and
fantastical notions is breathtaking. Your mockery of
people who investigate crime is just icing on the cake.
Its not a question of looking past your own walls, its a
question of whether you religious fanatics can
acknowledge that other use cases are valid (or are we
not part of the "all" in "better for all"). Are you
really suggesting preventing spam is a higher priority
than stopping human trafficking online?<br>
> > ><br>
> > > If someone who had need of privacy came
to me for advice on registering a domain name I would
tell them absolutely not to do it. Use blogspot or any
other mechanism that doesn't involve a financial
transaction to shield your privacy. Creating paper
trails is always a poor life decision when OPSEC
matters. Anything less and I would stop taking your
concerns seriously.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > That said, we have a viable compromise,
its called whois privacy protection. And it allows me to
use risk based decisions on how I treat traffic to such
domains.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > But if you wish to enable criminals to
better hide so they can steal people's life savings, so
they can anonymously traffic in child exploitation or to
engage in sextortion against teenage girls all because
you can't handle a spam filter, you can count me one
that will line up against you and very publicly label
you an enabler of child sexual exploitation. Then I will
go to Congress, drag ICANN back under the Department of
Commerce and ensure some adult supervision is had.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Or you can calm the hell down and knock
it off with your attitude and we can find a viable
middle ground. Totally your call.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > And if you are really concerned about
spammers, I help run investigations against them too
(using whois data, in part) and could totally use the
help.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Sent from my iPhone<br>
> > ><br>
> > >> On Feb 14, 2017, at 05:28, "<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:benny@nordreg.se">benny@nordreg.se</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:benny@nordreg.se">benny@nordreg.se</a>>
wrote:<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> So basicaly what you say are… Buhu my
work will get harder, let all innocent registrants
suffer from spam/scam mail sprung out of the whois data
published, all those registrants who get fake mails
about renewing there domain or buying fake SEO plans?<br>
> > >> How can anyone defend that we have
data published to get abused just because some bad guys
registrer domains? And those of you who does will still
have access to the date just not in the same easy way…<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> Sorry for my harsh tone but I really
don’t see why we cant look past our own walls and find a
solution which are to the better for all..<br>
> > >><br>
> > >><br>
> > >> --<br>
> > >> Med vänliga hälsningar / Kind Regards
/ Med vennlig hilsen<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> Benny Samuelsen<br>
> > >> Registry Manager - Domainexpert<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> Nordreg AB - ICANN accredited
registrar<br>
> > >> IANA-ID: 638<br>
> > >> Phone: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B46.42197080" value="+4642197080">+46.42197080</a><br>
> > >> Direct: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B47.32260201" value="+4732260201">+47.32260201</a><br>
> > >> Mobile: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B47.40410200" value="+4740410200">+47.40410200</a><br>
> > >><br>
> > >>> On 14 Feb 2017, at 06:38, allison
nixon <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:elsakoo@gmail.com">elsakoo@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> This car metaphor isn't complete
without also stating that some car owners purchase them
for the sole purpose of running over people!<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> Some car owners purchase fleets
of cars to run over as many people as possible. Even
though they re-use their name on every single vehicle
registration, the subpeona takes so long that the city
can no longer automatically block the cars as they
enter, and need to wait for them to run over a few
people before they can do anything about it.<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> This metaphor has obviously been
tortured past the point of absurdity, I'll leave it
alone now.<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> I've mostly been lurking for the
whole duration of this group, and please forgive me if
I'm missing something massive here, but I get the
impression that most people here don't spend a lot of
time doing investigations. But this is my life. If I
needed a subpeona for every single historical lookup,
pivot, and reverse search, I would get zero done due to
a lack of legal authority. Many if not most of the
people doing the heavy lifting in anti-cybercrime
efforts are private citizens with no government issued
authority. It seems that the general expectation here is
that limiting access to people with badges is OK, but
I'm telling you there is a severe lack of those
skillsets and it will be years before we see widespread
technical literacy among the police. Whatever system
results, private citizens need a path for unrestricted
and automated access. And if we want to talk protecting
privacy, I think criminally motivated violations of
privacy are far more likely to affect everyone's day to
day life right now, and automated WHOIS lookups are used
heavily especially in anti-phishing and anti-spam
operations.<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> With the status quo, I can go on
fishing expeditions through the WHOIS data and turn up
hundreds of domains used for the same type of malicious
activity, and predict with a high accuracy which domains
will be malicious before they are used for anything. It
sometimes turns up domains owned by innocent people, and
I doubt privacy minded people would like that, but the
reality is I rarely ever encounter WHOIS data that is
convincing PII. It's almost all fake. And if it's not
fake, it's a company's public contact info, or it's a
foolish person who turned down WHOIS privacy protection,
and will change their WHOIS as soon as the spam starts
flowing.<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> Have there been any studies on
what percentage of WHOIS data is real and correct? Can
we ever expect to have meaningful data when registrars
are allowed to take Bitcoins over Tor as payment? At
what point does "privacy" become an empty argument when
some of these Internet hosting/registrar companies
clearly profit from facilitating abuse, and network
defenders block entire TLDs due to the saturation of
abuse?<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> From my vantage point, I see
great benefit from seeing patterns in the fake data
submitted by fraudsters, and I see few harms from the
privacy side of things, because people seem to generally
realize that "123 fake st" is a perfectly acceptable
WHOIS entry.<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> I also recognize this situation
is completely absurd. Every aspect of this is surely an
abuse of the original system. But it seems like building
a pyramid from the top down, restricting access to
supposed "PII" that is unlikely to contain PII, to the
detriment of legitimate efforts that also seek to
enhance privacy by preventing criminal theft of private
data like bank account numbers.<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 9:14 PM,
Sam Lanfranco <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:sam@lanfranco.net">sam@lanfranco.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
> > >>> I have to strongly agree with
Alex that whatever the criteria are for thin data, they
cannot include that thin data "is transitive" in some
sort of bread crumb trail manner.<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> Everything is potentially
transitive in that sense. I observe a vehicle but all I
get is make, model and license plate, and in most
jurisdictions that is all I get. It is the vehicle
owner's "thin data". Of course I can hang around, see
that the car has a baby seat, witness a woman or man
putting a child in the car, assume that she/he has
legitimate access to the car, follow the car and
assemble more personal information (lives at; works at;
shops at; visits;) The license plate didn't facilitate
that crumb train discovery, but no license plate would
hamper legitimate seeking of information about who owns
the car (issuing a parking ticket, LEA investigation,
etc.) . License plate is part of thin data with no gated
access. Of course, this will change in the era of the
digital vehicle. Depending on security, and
authorization, one will be able to just ask the car, and
ask about a lot of things...like whose cell phone was in
the passenger's seat last night, when I was supposed to
be alone )-:<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> There needs to be a similar
balance (license plate but no owner's name unless
wanted, like Sam's Curry Pizza Barn logo, phone number
and website URL painted on the side).<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> More Important, have we made
progress (convergence) on the working principles that
should be brought to bear in building a thin data set. A
lot of time has been spent looking at good case and bad
case scenarios. What operational principles have been
distilled from all these examples? What is the balance
between thin data inclusion and exclusion, and design
and technical solutions that can be used to prevent (for
example) robotic harvesting? There is another frontier
here, and that is what governments will do to restrain
or enable certain uses of thin data? While ICANN needs
to be aware of what is going on there, that part is
beyond ICANN's remit, but those policies will help shape
some of the context within which ICANN deals with the
thin data task.<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> Sam L<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> On 2017-02-14 1:23 AM, Deacon,
Alex wrote:<br>
> > >>> All,<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> So it seems the debate has
progressed from “thin data” to “thick data” (i.e. data
that includes email). I know we are all super excited
to talk about “thick data” but I don’t think we are
there yet (are we? Hopefully I didn’t miss the party…)<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> Focusing on thin data for the
moment I struggle to understand how it is personal
data. I do not believe it is. As for the odd logic
proposed by some that the property of privacy is
transitive (i.e. Because “thin data” can be used to
link/point/discover other data then “thin data” equals
“personal data”) I just don’t buy it.<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> I don’t disagree with much of
what was expressed in this thread, however we must keep
in mind that balance and proportionality are important
concepts in many (all?) data privacy laws. Any
arguments that imply that no such balance exists (or
should exist) is obstructive IMO.<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> Alex<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> On 2/13/17, 5:42 AM, <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@<wbr>icann.org</a>
on behalf of <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:michele@blacknight.com">michele@blacknight.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> I agree and I know from how
I’ve used various email addresses that they are actively
being harvested and spammed.<br>
> > >>> Also it’s one of the
biggest sources of complaints we get from our clients
(registrants)<br>
> > >>> It’s definitely not an
“edge case”.<br>
> > >>> Regards<br>
> > >>> Michele<br>
> > >>> --<br>
> > >>> Mr Michele Neylon<br>
> > >>> Blacknight Solutions<br>
> > >>> Hosting, Colocation &
Domains<br>
> > >>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.blacknight.com/" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">https://www.blacknight.com/</a><br>
> > >>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://blacknight.blog/" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://blacknight.blog/</a><br>
> > >>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072<br>
> > >>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59
9183090<br>
> > >>> Social: <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://mneylon.social"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mneylon.social</a><br>
> > >>> Some thoughts: <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://ceo.hosting/"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://ceo.hosting/</a><br>
> > >>> ------------------------------<wbr>-<br>
> > >>> Blacknight Internet Solutions
Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty<br>
> > >>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93
X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845<br>
> > >>>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<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/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<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/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> --<br>
> > >>> *-----------------------------<wbr>---------------*<br>
> > >>> "It is a disgrace to be rich and
honoured<br>
> > >>> in an unjust state" -Confucius<br>
> > >>> ------------------------------<wbr>----------------<br>
> > >>> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus
& Senior Scholar)<br>
> > >>> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario,
CANADA - M3J 1P3<br>
> > >>> YorkU email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca">Lanfran@Yorku.ca</a>
Skype: slanfranco<br>
> > >>> blog: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://samlanfranco.blogspot.<wbr>com</a><br>
> > >>> Phone: 613 476-0429 cell:
416-816-2852<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<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/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> --<br>
> > >>> ______________________________<wbr>___<br>
> > >>> Note to self: Pillage BEFORE
burning.<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<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/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > --<br>
> > ______________________________<wbr>___<br>
> > Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.<br>
><br>
> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<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/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">_________________________________<br>
Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.</div>
</div>
<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>