<blockquote type="cite" class="protonmail_quote"><p>the consumer is free to
choose which lane they want to be in, and the rest of us can use
that data how we see fit.<br></p></blockquote><div>This is not a solution that would satisfy the spirit of the GDPR, because:<br></div><ul><li>We must describe a purpose before we collect data.<br></li><li>Once a purpose is ascribed, the data collected must only be used for that purpose.<br></li><li>Obtaining consent is one way to justify the processing of their personal data, but consent is not a waiver for disproportionate or unlawful processing.<br></li></ul><div class="protonmail_signature_block "><div class="protonmail_signature_block-user "><div>- Ayden <br></div></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block-proton protonmail_signature_block-empty"><br></div></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite"><div>-------- Original Message --------<br></div><div>Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] international law enforcement association resolution regarding domain registration data<br></div><div>Local Time: 27 April 2017 7:34 PM<br></div><div>UTC Time: 27 April 2017 18:34<br></div><div>From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<br></div><div>To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<br></div><div><br></div><div> <br></div><p>That was why I advocate whois privacy (or equivalent). WHOIS
would still be public be some elements need to be public
(nameservers) or it just doesn't work... the consumer is free to
choose which lane they want to be in, and the rest of us can use
that data how we see fit.<br></p><div><br></div><div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/27/2017 1:17 PM, <a href="mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">tisrael@cippic.ca</a> wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Hi there,<br></div><div> <br></div><div> Sorry to interject here.<br></div><div> <br></div><div> I think a governance exercise here must look beyond what the law
strictly allows in terms of formulating WHOIS and to how a given
WHOIS configuration will impact on recognized legal privacy
protections.<br></div><div> <br></div><div> So, in Canada, our courts have built legal protections and
safeguards into the civil discovery process that determine under
what conditions anonymous online activity can be identified.
Similarly, we have constitutional protections that prevent private
entities from voluntarily identifying anonymous online actors to
law enforcement if certain procedural steps aren't met.<br></div><div> <br></div><div> Making WHOIS public by default would effectively bypass all of
these safeguards. Surely that, then, also has to be a
consideration in a governance process of this sort?<br></div><div> <br></div><div> Best regards,<br></div><div> Tamir<br></div><div> <br></div><div> <br></div><div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2017-04-27 2:07 PM, Paul Keating
wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>All good questions but I would like to start with the scope
of the. Urrent laws as it applies to current Whois data. <br></div><div> <br></div><div> Sincerely, <br></div><div>Paul Keating, Esq.<br></div></div><div><div><br></div><div>On Apr 27, 2017, at 7:47 PM, allison nixon <<a href="mailto:elsakoo@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">elsakoo@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br></div><div> <br></div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>I'm sure everyone's schedules are quite busy,
and they will manage. <br></div><div><br></div><div>We need a proper legal authority here because it's
potentially falsely being presumed that the use of WHOIS
data is illegal and noncompliant in the first place. We
simply do not know if that is a factual premise. We also
need to take into account laws other than the EU privacy
laws, and laws outside the EU. A number of exemptions
exist within these privacy laws and those people
throwing around the legal arguments accusing this of
being illegal don't seem to ever mention that fact. We
need an unbiased legal expert.<br></div><div><br></div><div>What if a country is trying to enforce a law that is
deemed distasteful (violates human rights, etc), and
their registrant is located within the country? does the
gatekeeper have grounds to deny them the ability to
enforce their own laws against their own people, and if
so when?<br></div><div><br></div><div>How does WHOIS play into other areas of compliance,
such as know-your-customer, complying with sanctions,
anti-money laundering, HIPPAA, PCI, etc? Is complying to
one law more important than complying to another, if one
had to choose?<br></div><div><br></div><div>Will the gatekeeper comply with anti-trust laws?<br></div><div><br></div><div>How does privacy law prohibit information collection
on registrants yet collect detailed PII info on queriers
and subject them to audit? What happens if the
gatekeeper is hacked into for those audit logs? What
happens if the gatekeeper receives a national security
letter?<br></div><div><br></div><div>All of these are legal questions that need to be
answered without bias and with full understanding of the
facts.<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 12:42 PM,
Stephanie Perrin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote"><div><p>And we need to have a lengthy discussion about
precisely who that legal expert might be. It
appears that many of our members are prepared to
reject the views of the Data Protection
Authorities themselves, who took the time out of
their extraordinarily busy schedules to come and
speak with us in Copenhagen.<br></p><p>Stephanie Perrin<br></p><div><br></div><div class="m_-7524833532384583483moz-cite-prefix">On
2017-04-27 09:14, Gomes, Chuck via gnso-rds-pdp-wg
wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="m_-7524833532384583483WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span>We as a WG have not
requested funds for a legal expert, but I
don’t know what staff has built into the
Draft FY18 budget.</span><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Marika – Did the
Policy Team build any funds into the Draft
FY18 budget for legal experts?</span><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Note that this is a
very time sensitive issue because the
comment period on the Draft FY18 Operating
Plan and Budget ends tomorrow.</span><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Lisa/Marika/Amr –
Please prepare a draft comment on the Budget
that the Leadership Team or me as Chair
could send on Friday in this regard. If
funds have not been proposed for such
expenses, I think we should at a minimum
raise the issue in the public comment forum
even if there is not time to propose
specific details.</span><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Chuck</span><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a name="m_-7524833532384583483__MailEndCompose"><span> </span></a><br></p><div><span></span><br></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>From:</span></b><span> <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org" class="m_-7524833532384583483moz-txt-link-abbreviated" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.<wbr>org</a> [<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org" class="m_-7524833532384583483moz-txt-link-freetext" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-<wbr>bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul Keating<br> <b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 27, 2017
7:55 AM<br> <b>To:</b> Greg Shatan <a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" class="m_-7524833532384583483moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener"><gregshatanipc@gmail.com></a>;
Volker Greimann <a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" class="m_-7524833532384583483moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener"><vgreimann@key-systems.net></a><br> <b>Cc:</b> RDS PDP WG <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" class="m_-7524833532384583483moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener"><gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org></a><br> <b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] Re:
[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] international law
enforcement association resolution
regarding domain registration data</span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"> <br></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Has the WG
requested funds to retain a legal expert
to educate us on the actual laws at issue?</span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>From: </span></b><span><<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@<wbr>icann.org</a>>
on behalf of Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>><br> <b>Date: </b>Thursday, April 27, 2017 at
12:38 AM<br> <b>To: </b>Volker Greimann <<a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>><br> <b>Cc: </b>RDS PDP WG <<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>><br> <b>Subject: </b>Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg]
international law enforcement association
resolution regarding domain registration
data</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><blockquote><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>We also need to
be very clear about the limits of the
legal requirements of applicable law,
and the various options available for
dealing with the law. There's no need
to overcomply. Indeed it would be
quite unreasonable to do so. </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Just as paying
the lowest calculable income tax is
perfectly legitimate, so is complying
with the law in the least disruptive
way possible.</span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Greg</span><br></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span></span><br></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p><a name="m_-7524833532384583483_UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtmlFilter_UNIQUE_ID_SafeH"></a><b><span>Greg
Shatan<br> </span></b><span>C: <a value="+19178166428" href="tel:%28917%29%20816-6428" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">917-816-6428</a><br> S: gsshatan<br> Phone-to-Skype: <a value="+16468459428" href="tel:%28646%29%20845-9428" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">646-845-9428</a><br> </span><span><a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener"><span>gregshatanipc@gmail.com</span></a></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>On Wed, Apr 26,
2017 at 1:06 PM, Volker Greimann <<a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>>
wrote:</span><br></p><blockquote><div><p><span>I wish it were so simple.
"Doing harm" is not necessary to
be in violation with applicable
law. Just like jaywalking,
speeding on an empty road or
crossing a red light carries a
fine regardless of whether harm
was done, privacy law too does not
care about an actual harm.</span><br></p><p><span>We need to be very clear
about the legal requirements when
we define the limits of what can
be done with the data we collect,
and by whom.</span><br></p><p><span>Volker</span><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Am
26.04.2017 um 18:43 schrieb John
Horton:</span><br></p></div><blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Greg,
well said. And Tim, well said.
And I'll strongly +1 Michael
Hammer as well. I agree with
the "do no harm" philosophy --
I'm not convinced that some of
the proposed changes (e.g.,
those outlined in the EWG
report) wouldn't cause more
harm than the existing,
admittedly imperfect, system.
As I've said before, the
importance of tools like
Reverse Whois isn't only
direct -- it's derivative as
well. (If you enjoy the
benefits of those of us who
fight payment fraud, online
abuse and other sorts of
malfeasance, you have reverse
Whois among other tools to
thank.) Privacy laws in one
part of the world are a factor
we need to be aware of, among
other factors. </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>On
Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 9:07
AM nathalie coupet via
gnso-rds-pdp-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>>
wrote:</span><br></p></div><blockquote><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>+1</span><br></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Nathalie </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>On
Wednesday,
April 26, 2017
12:02 PM,
Victoria
Sheckler <<a href="mailto:vsheckler@riaa.com" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">vsheckler@riaa.com</a>>
wrote:</span><span></span><br></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>+1<br> <br> Sent from my
iPhone</span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span><br>On Apr 26,
2017, at 8:56
AM, Greg
Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><blockquote><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Thanks
for weighing
in, Tim.
Since this is
a multi<u>stakeholder</u> process,
everyone is
assumed to
come in with a
point of view,
so don't be
shy. At the
same time, if
stakeholders
cling
dogmatically
to their
points of view
the
multistakeholder
model doesn't
work.</span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>As
for being out
on a limb:</span><br></p></div><div><ul type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal"><span>We
haven't
decided what
data will be
"private" and
for which
registrants
(e.g., based
on geography
or entity
status)</span><br></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span>We
haven't
decided there
will be
"gated" access
and what that
might mean,
both for
policy and
practicality</span><br></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span>The
question
shouldn't be
whether we
will be
"allowing
third parties
access to
harvest,
repackage and
republish that
data," but how
we should
allow this in
a way that
balances
various
concerns.
Eliminating
reverse Whois
and other such
services is
not a goal of
this Working
Group.</span><br></li></ul><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Our
job should be
to provide the
greatest
possible
access to the
best possible
data,
consistent
with
minimizing
risk under
reasonable
interpretations
of applicable
law. We need
to deal with
existing and
incoming
privacy laws
(and with
other laws) as
well, but not
in a
worshipful
manner;
instead it
should be in a
solution-oriented manner. This is not, after all, the Privacy Working
Group. I'll
+1 Michael
Hammer: </span><span>Rather
than starting
from a model
of justifying
everything and
anything from
a privacy
perspective, I
would suggest
that it would
be much more
appropriate,
other than
technical
changes such
as moving
towards using
JSON, to
require
justification
and consensus
for any
changes from
the existing
model(s) of
WHOIS.</span><span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Finally,
while our
purpose is not
to maintain
anyone's
economic
interest,
economic
interests may
well be
aligned with
policy
interests.
Assuming that
economic
interests are
at odds with
policy
interests is
just as
dangerous as
assuming that
policy
interests are
served by
maximizing
economic
interests.</span><span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Greg</span><span></span><br></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><blockquote><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span></span><br></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><a name="m_-7524833532384583483_m_-6028739752990097634_m_-70575339787632"></a><b><span>Greg
Shatan<br> </span></b><span>C: <a href="tel:%28917%29%20816-6428" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">917-816-6428</a><br> S: gsshatan<br> Phone-to-Skype: <a href="tel:%28646%29%20845-9428" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">646-845-9428</a><br> </span><span><a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener"><span>gregshatanipc@gmail.com</span></a></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><blockquote><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>On
Wed, Apr 26,
2017 at 11:28
AM, Dotzero
<<a href="mailto:dotzero@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">dotzero@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</span><br></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><blockquote><div><div><div><blockquote><div><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Adding
to what Tim
and Allison
wrote.</span><br></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>As
a starting
point, I've
had an account
with
DomainTools in
the past and
will likely
have one in
the future,
although I
don't
currently have
one. <br> <br> There are
other
organizations
and
individuals
which
consume/aggregate
whois data so
I don't think
that for the
purposes of
this
discussion the
focus should
be on just
DomainTools. I
know
researchers
and academics
who use this
data to
analyze all
sorts of
things. As has
been pointed
out, there are
all sorts of
folks staking
out positions
because of
their economic
(and other)
interests
without
necessarily
being
transparent
about those
interests.</span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>It
should be
remembered
that the
Internet is an
agglomeration
of many
networks and
resources,
some public
and some
private. At
the same time,
it is simply a
bunch of
technical
standards that
people and
organizations
have agreed to
use to
interact with
each other. In
many cases,
the ultimate
solution to
abuse is to
drop route. To
the extent
that good and
granular
information is
not readily
available,
regular
(innocent)
users may
suffer as
owners and
administrators
of resources
act to protect
those
resources and
their
legitimate
users from
abuse and
maliciousness.
The reality is
that most
users of the
internet
utilize a
relatively
small subset
of all the
resources out
there. For
some, a
service like
Facebook IS
the Internet.<br> <br> It may also
incite a
tendency
towards
returning to a
model of
walled
gardens. At
various points
I have heard
discussions
about the
balkanization
of the
internet, with
things like
separate
roots, etc.
People should
think very
carefully
about what
they are
asking for
because they
may not be
happy with it
if they
actually get
it.</span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Rather
than starting
from a model
of justifying
everything and
anything from
a privacy
perspective, I
would suggest
that it would
be much more
appropriate,
other than
technical
changes such
as moving
towards using
JSON, to
require
justification
and consensus
for any
changes from
the existing
model(s) of
WHOIS.</span><br></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Michael
Hammer</span><br></p></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><blockquote><div><div><div><blockquote><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>On
Wed, Apr 26,
2017 at 10:27
AM, allison
nixon <<a href="mailto:elsakoo@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">elsakoo@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</span><br></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><blockquote><div><div><div><blockquote><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Thank
you for your
email Tim.</span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Full
disclosure(because I believe in being transparent about this sort of
thing), we do
business with
Domaintools
and use their
tools to
consume whois
data.</span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>"i'll
close by
saying I think
Allison's
point about
economic value
has merit.
yes, the point
of the WG is
not to protect
anyone's
economic
interest. I
agree 100%
with that
statement and
will disagree
with anyone
who thinks the
future of
DomainTools or
other
commercial
service should
have one iota
of impact on
this
discussion."</span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>I
will however
disagree
vehemently
with you on
this point. It
is obvious
that many of
the arguments
to cut off
anonymous
querying to
WHOIS data are
economically
motivated.
Financial
concerns are
cited numerous
times in
approved
documents. I
also believe
the "vetting"
process is
likely to
become a new
revenue stream
for someone as
well. A
revenue stream
with HIGHLY
questionable
privacy
value-add.</span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Every
dollar of
income for the
Domaintools
company and
others like it
come from
their clients,
who see a
multiplier of
value from it.
That means for
every dollar
spent on the
entire whois
aggregator
industry means
that a much
larger amount
of money is
saved through
prevented
harms like
fraud, abuse,
and even fake
medications
which kill
people.</span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>I
think it is
extremely
important to
identify what
critical
systems rely
on whois
(either
directly or
downstream),
and determine
if we are
ready to give
up the utility
of these
systems.</span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>We
also need to
identify the
value of the
ability to
anonymously
query whois
and what that
loss of
privacy will
mean as well.
While I
obviously do
not make many
queries
anonymously(although
our vendor has
their own
privacy
policy), I
understand
this is
important
especially to
those
researching
more dangerous
actors. Why
would
$_COUNTRY
dissidents
want to query
domains when
their
opponents
would surely
be hacking
into the audit
logs for this?</span><br></p></div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>On
Apr 25, 2017
11:41 PM,
"Chen, Tim"
<<a href="mailto:tim@domaintools.com" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">tim@domaintools.com</a>>
wrote:</span><br></p><blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>"And
I hope more
stakeholders
in this
multi-stakeholder
process will
come forward
with their own
perspectives,
as they will
differ from
mine."</span><span></span><br></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>happy
to do so.
DomainTools is
clearly a
stakeholder in
this debate.
and we have a
fair amount of
experience
around the
challenges,
benefits and
risks of whois
data
aggregation at
scale. </span><span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>from
the beginning
of this
EWG/RDS idea
we've stood
down bc i
didn't believe
our opinion
would be seen
as
objective-enough
given our line
of business.
but it is
apparent to me
having
followed this
debate for
many weeks
now, that this
is a working
group of
individuals
who all bring
their own
biases into
the debate.
whether they
care to admit
that to
themselves or
not. so we
might as well
wade in too.
bc I think
our experience
is very
relevant to
the
discussion.</span><span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>i'll
do my best to
be as
objective as I
can, as a
domain
registrant
myself and as
an informed
industry
participant.</span><span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>since
our experience
is working
with security
minded
organizations,
that is the
context with
which I will
comment. </span><span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>since
this is an
ICANN working
group, I start
with the ICANN
mission
statement
around the
security and
stability of
the DNS. I
find myself
wanting to fit
this debate to
that as the
north star. i
do not see the
RDS as purpose
driven to fit
the GDPR or
any
region-specific
legal
resolution.
but I do see
those as
important
inputs to our
discussion.</span><span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>from
a security
perspective,
my experience
is that the
benefits of
the current
Whois model,
taken with
this lens, far
outweigh the
costs. again,
I can only
speak from my
experience
here at
DomainTools,
and obviously
under the
current Whois
regime. This
is not to say
it cannot be
improved.
From a data
accuracy
perspective
alone there is
enormous room
for
improvement as
I think we can
all agree.
every day I
see the
tangible
benefits to
security
interests,
which for the
most part are
"doing good",
from the work
that we do.
when I
compare that
to the
complaints
that we get bc
"my PII is
visible in
your data",
it's not even
close by my
value
barometer
(which my
differ from
others').
this is
relevant bc
any future
solution will
be imperfect
as I have
mentioned
before. as
Allison and
others point
out we need to
measure the
harm done by
any new system
that may seek
to solve one
problem
(privacy?) and
inadvertently
create many
more. since
this group is
fond of
analogies I'll
contribute one
from the
medical oath
(not sure if
this is just
U.S.) "first,
do no harm".</span><span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>i'll
close by
saying I think
Allison's
point about
economic value
has merit.
yes, the
point of the
WG is not to
protect
anyone's
economic
interest. I
agree 100%
with that
statement and
will disagree
with anyone
who thinks the
future of
DomainTools or
other
commercial
service should
have one iota
of impact on
this
discussion.
but I also
think "it's
too expensive"
or "it's too
hard" are weak
and dangerous
excuses when
dealing with
an issue like
this which has
enormous and
far reaching
consequences
for the very
mission of
ICANN around
the security
and stability
of our
internet.</span><span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Tim</span><span></span><br></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>On
Mon, Apr 24,
2017 at 3:50
PM, allison
nixon <<a href="mailto:elsakoo@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">elsakoo@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</span><br></p><blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Thanks
for the
documentation
in your
earlier email.
While I
understand
that's how
things are
supposed to
work in
theory, it's
not
implemented
very widely,
and unless
there is
enforcement,
then it's
unlikely to be
useful at all.</span><br></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>"</span><span>as
a given, we
put ourselves
in a certain
position in
terms of the
actions we can
and cannot
recommend. We
can make
similar
statements
focused on
registry
operators,
registrars, or
any other
stakeholder in
this space. If
we all
approach this
WG's task with
the goal of
not changing
anything,
we're all just
wasting our
time."</span><span><br> <br> </span><span>There
are things
that people
would be
willing to
change about
WHOIS. Changes
purely
relating to
the data
format would
not be as
controversial.
Changing to
that RDAP json
format would
probably be an
agreeable
point to most
here.</span><span></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>There
are two
different
major points
of contention
here. The
first is the
data format,
second is the
creation of a
new monopoly
and ceding
power to it.
By monopoly I
mean- who are
the
gatekeepers of
"gated"
access? Will
it avoid all
of the
problems that
monopolies are
historically
prone to? Who
will pay them?
It seems like
a massive leap
of faith to
commit to this
without
knowing who we
are making the
commitment to.</span><span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>"I
do not believe
it is this
WG's
responsibility
to protect
anyone's</span><span></span><br></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>commercial
services if
those things
are basically
in response to<br> deficiencies
in the
existing Whois
protocol. "</span><span></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>From
my
understanding
of past ICANN
working
groups,
registrars
have fought
against issues
that would
have increased
their costs.
And the
destruction of
useful WHOIS
results(or
becoming
beholden to
some new
monopoly)
stand to incur
far more costs
for far larger
industries.
So this
shouldn't
surprise you.
If those
economic
concerns are
not valid then
I question why
the economic
concerns of
registrars are
valid.</span><span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>If
entire
industries are
built around a
feature you
would consider
a
"deficiency",
then your
opinion may
solely be your
own. And I
hope more
stakeholders
in this
multi-stakeholder
process will
come forward
with their own
perspectives,
as they will
differ from
mine.</span><span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>"Not trying
to hamstring
the WG. Just
asking if this
is not
something that
has already
been solved.."</span><span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Hi
Paul,</span><span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>It's
an interesting
thought. This
document was
recommended to
me as one that
was approved
in the past by
the working
group that
outlined what
the resulting
system might
look like. I'm
still learning
and reading
about these
working groups
and what they
do, and this
document is
massive.</span><span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">https://www.icann.org/en/syste
m/files/files/final-report-06j
un14-en.pdf</a></span><span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>In
the document,
it says: <i>"Central
to the remit
of the EWG is
the question
of how to
design a
system that
increases the
accuracy of
the data
collected
while also
offering
protections
for those
Registrants seeking
to guard and
maintain their
privacy."</i></span><span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>One
of the things
I notice is
that any talk
about actually
increasing
accuracy of
whois info-
via
enforcement-
is vigorously
opposed in
this group,
and it's
merely assumed
that people
will supply
better quality
data under the
new system. </span><span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Throughout
the document
it talks about
use-cases and
features
(whois
history,
reverse query,
etc), which
are indeed
identical to
the features
of the whois
aggregators of
current day.
Such a system
would replace
them. Will the
service
quality be as
good?</span><span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>On
page 63 it
gets into
thoughts on
who would be
"accredited"
to access the
gated whois
data. Every
proposed
scenario seems
to recognize
the resulting
system will
need to handle
a large query
volume from a
large number
of people, and
one proposes
accrediting
bodies which
may accredit
organizations
which may
accredit
individuals.
It even
proposes an
abuse handling
system which
is also
reminiscent in
structure to
how abuse is
handled
currently in
our domain
name system.
Many of these
proposed
schemes appear
to mimic the
ways that the
hosting
industry and
registrar
industry
operate, so we
can expect
that the
patterns of
abuse will be
equally
frequent,
especially if
higher quality
data is
supplied.</span><span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>The
proposed
scenarios all
paint a
picture of
"gated" access
with very wide
gates, while
simultaneously
representing
to domain
purchasers
that their
data is safe
and privacy
protected. And
this is
supposed to
*reduce* the
total number
of privacy
violations?
This doesn't
even appeal to
me as a
consumer of
this data.</span><span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Whoever
sets up this
system also
stands to
inherit a lot
of money from
the
soon-to-be-defunct
whois
aggregation
industry. They
would
certainly win
our contract,
because we
would have no
choice. All
domain
reputation
services,
anti-spam,
security
research, etc,
efforts will
all need to
pay up. </span><span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>After
being supplied
with the above
document, I
also saw a
copy of a
rebuttal
written by a
company that
monitors
abusive
domains. I
strongly agree
with the
sentiments in
this document
and I do not
see evidence
that those
concerns have
received fair
consideration.
While I do not
see this new
gatekeeper as
an existential
threat, I do
see it as a
likely
degradation in
the utility i
do see from
whois. To be
clear, we do
not do any
business with
this company.</span><span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span><a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/input-to-ewg/attachments/20130823/410038bb/LegitScriptCommentsonICANNEWGWhoisReplacementStructure-0001.pdf" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/
input-to-ewg/attachments/20130
823/410038bb/LegitScriptCommen tsonICANNEWGWhoisReplacementSt
ructure-0001.pdf</a></span><span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>I
also found
John
Bambenek's
point in a
later thread
to be
interesting-
concentrating
WHOIS
knowledge
solely to one
organization
allows the
country it
resides in to
use it to
support its
intelligence
apparatus, for
example
monitoring
when its
espionage
domains are
queried for,
and targeting
researchers
that query
them (since
anonymous
querying will
be revoked).
Nation states
already use
domains in
operations so
this monopoly
is a perfect
strategic data
reserve. The
fact that this
system is
pushed by
privacy
advocates is
indeed ironic.</span><span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>None
of those
concerns
appear to have
been addressed
by this group
in any serious
capacity.
Before the
addition of
new members, I
don't think
many people
had the
backgrounds or
skillsets to
even
understand why
they are a
concern. But I
think this is
a discussion
worth having
at this point
in time for
this group.</span><span></span><br></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>On
Mon, Apr 24,
2017 at 1:50
PM, Andrew
Sullivan <<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>>
wrote:</span><br></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Hi,<br> <br> On Mon, Apr
24, 2017 at
07:25:47PM
+0200, Paul
Keating wrote:<br> > Andrew,<br> ><br> > Thank
you. That was
helpful.<br> ><br> > ""Given
this
registrant,
what other<br> > domains
are
registered?"
is a solved
problem, and
has been since
the<br> > early
2000s.²<br> ><br> > This is
also traceable
via
alternative
means such as
consistencies
in<br> > various
WHOIS fields
such as email,
address, name,
etc.<br> <br> Well, sort
of. The
email,
address, and
name fields
are _user_<br> supplied. So
they come from
the other
party to the
transaction.
The<br> ROID is
assigned by
the registry
itself. So
once you have
a match,<br> you know that
you are
looking at the
same object,
only the same<br> object, and
all the same
object(s).<br> <br> Email
addresses in
particular are
guaranteed
unique in the
world at<br> any given time
(though not
guaranteed as
unique
identifiers
over<br> time), so they
may be useful
for these
purposes.
Take it from
someone<br> named "Andrew
Sullivan",
however, that
names are
pretty useless
as<br> context-free
identifiers :)<br> <br> > In
reality
finding out
answers to
questions such
as<br> > yours
(above)
requires
investigation
using a
plethora of
data.<br> <br> To be clear,
finding out
the answer to
what I (meant
to) pose(d)<br> requires no
plethora of
data: it
requires a
single query
and access to<br> the right
repository
(the
registry). In
some
theoretical
system, the<br> correct
underlying
database query
would be
something like
this:<br> <br> SELECT
domain_roid,
domain_name
FROM domains
WHERE
registrant_roid
= ?;<br> <br> and you put
the correct
ROID in where
the question
mark is, and
off<br> you go. That
will give you
the list of
all the domain
names, and<br> their relevant
ROIDs,
registered by
a given
registrant
contact. At<br> least one
registry with
which I am
familiar once
had a WHOIS
feature<br> that allowed
something
close to the
above, only it
would stop
after<br> some number of
domains so as
not to return
too much
data. I think
the<br> default was
therefore
LIMIT 50, but
I also think
the feature
was<br> eventually
eliminated
about the time
that the ICANN
community
rejected<br> IRIS as an
answer to "the
whois
problem".<br> <br> What the above
will of course
not do is help
you in the
event Bob The<br> Scammer has
created dozens
of different
contacts for
himself by
(say)<br> registering
names through
many different
registrars. I
do not believe<br> that any
registry is
going to
support such a
use at least
without<br> access
controls,
because it can
be expensive
to answer such
things.<br> So, what you
understood me
to be asking,
I think, is
the question I<br> did _not_ ask:
given this
human being or
organization,
what other<br> domains are
registered?"
That does
require a lot
of different
data,<br> and it
requires
cross-organizational
searches, and
it requires
sussing<br> out when
someone has
lied also.
Such research
is, I agree,
completely<br> outside the
scope of what
any technical
system will
ever be able
to<br> offer
reliably.<br> <br> > An entire<br> > industry
exists for
this purpose
and I don¹t
think we
should be<br> >
considering
replacing what
has already
been existing
in the cyber
security<br> >
marketplace.<br> <br> I do not
believe it is
this WG's
responsibility
to protect
anyone's<br> commercial
services if
those things
are basically
in response to<br> deficiencies
in the
existing Whois
protocol. In
this case,
however,<br> that's not the
problem.
Linking data
in multiple
databases to a
given<br> real-world
human being is
hard even in
systems
without
competition
and<br> multiple
points of
access. It's
always going
to require
researchers<br> for the domain
name system.<br> <br> Best regards.</span></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span><br>A</span><span><br> <br> <span class="m_-7524833532384583483m-6028739752990097634m-7057533978763232585m7951444643704396651yiv5387804389m615767156484145872m-1989214556801852688m-7832141262075475097hoenzb">--</span><br> <span class="m_-7524833532384583483m-6028739752990097634m-7057533978763232585m7951444643704396651yiv5387804389m615767156484145872m-1989214556801852688m-7832141262075475097hoenzb">Andrew
Sullivan</span><br> <span class="m_-7524833532384583483m-6028739752990097634m-7057533978763232585m7951444643704396651yiv5387804389m615767156484145872m-1989214556801852688m-7832141262075475097hoenzb"><a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a></span><br> <span class="m_-7524833532384583483m-6028739752990097634m-7057533978763232585m7951444643704396651yiv5387804389m615767156484145872m-1989214556801852688m-7832141262075475097hoenzb">______________________________
_________________</span><br> <span class="m_-7524833532384583483m-6028739752990097634m-7057533978763232585m7951444643704396651yiv5387804389m615767156484145872m-1989214556801852688m-7832141262075475097hoenzb">gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list</span><br> <span class="m_-7524833532384583483m-6028739752990097634m-7057533978763232585m7951444643704396651yiv5387804389m615767156484145872m-1989214556801852688m-7832141262075475097hoenzb"><a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a></span><br> <span class="m_-7524833532384583483m-6028739752990097634m-7057533978763232585m7951444643704396651yiv5387804389m615767156484145872m-1989214556801852688m-7832141262075475097hoenzb"><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l istinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></span></span><span></span></p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span><br></span><span></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>--</span><br></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>______________________________
___<br> Note to self:
Pillage BEFORE
burning.</span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span><br>______________________________ _________________<br> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br> <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l
istinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></span></p></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><blockquote><div><div><div><blockquote><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span>______________________________
_________________</span><br></p></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><blockquote><div><div><div><blockquote><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span><br>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br> <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l
istinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></span></p></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><blockquote><div><div><div><blockquote><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span><br>______________________________ _________________</span></p></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><blockquote><div><div><div><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span><br>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br> <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/
listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></span></p></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br> <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></span></p></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br> <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing
list<br> <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></span></p></blockquote></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span><br></span></p><pre><span>______________________________<wbr>_________________</span><br></pre><pre><span>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list</span><br></pre><pre><span><a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">https<wbr>://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></span><br></pre></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span></span><br></p><pre><span>-- </span><br></pre><pre><span>Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.</span><br></pre><pre><span> </span><br></pre><pre><span>Mit freundlichen Grüßen,</span><br></pre><pre><span> </span><br></pre><pre><span>Volker A. Greimann</span><br></pre><pre><span>- Rechtsabteilung -</span><br></pre><pre><span> </span><br></pre><pre><span>Key-Systems GmbH</span><br></pre><pre><span>Im Oberen Werk 1</span><br></pre><pre><span>66386 St. Ingbert</span><br></pre><pre><span>Tel.: <a href="tel:+49%206894%209396901" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901</a></span><br></pre><pre><span>Fax.: <a href="tel:+49%206894%209396851" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851</a></span><br></pre><pre><span>Email: <a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a></span><br></pre><pre><span> </span><br></pre><pre><span>Web: <a href="http://www.key-systems.net" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a href="http://www.RRPproxy.net" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">www.RRPproxy.net</a><a href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">www.<wbr>domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a href="http://www.BrandShelter.com" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">www.BrandShelter.com</a></span><br></pre><pre><span> </span><br></pre><pre><span>Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:</span><br></pre><pre><span><a href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a><a href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">www<wbr>.twitter.com/key_systems</a></span><br></pre><pre><span> </span><br></pre><pre><span>Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin</span><br></pre><pre><span>Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken </span><br></pre><pre><span>Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534</span><br></pre><pre><span> </span><br></pre><pre><span>Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP</span><br></pre><pre><span><a href="http://www.keydrive.lu" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">www.keydrive.lu</a> </span><br></pre><pre><span> </span><br></pre><pre><span>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.</span><br></pre><pre><span> </span><br></pre><pre><span>------------------------------<wbr>--------------</span><br></pre><pre><span> </span><br></pre><pre><span>Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.</span><br></pre><pre><span> </span><br></pre><pre><span>Best regards,</span><br></pre><pre><span> </span><br></pre><pre><span>Volker A. Greimann</span><br></pre><pre><span>- legal department -</span><br></pre><pre><span> </span><br></pre><pre><span>Key-Systems GmbH</span><br></pre><pre><span>Im Oberen Werk 1</span><br></pre><pre><span>66386 St. Ingbert</span><br></pre><pre><span>Tel.: <a href="tel:+49%206894%209396901" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901</a></span><br></pre><pre><span>Fax.: <a href="tel:+49%206894%209396851" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851</a></span><br></pre><pre><span>Email: <a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a></span><br></pre><pre><span> </span><br></pre><pre><span>Web: <a href="http://www.key-systems.net" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a href="http://www.RRPproxy.net" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">www.RRPproxy.net</a><a href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">www.<wbr>domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a href="http://www.BrandShelter.com" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">www.BrandShelter.com</a></span><br></pre><pre><span> </span><br></pre><pre><span>Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:</span><br></pre><pre><span><a href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a><a href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">www<wbr>.twitter.com/key_systems</a></span><br></pre><pre><span> </span><br></pre><pre><span>CEO: Alexander Siffrin</span><br></pre><pre><span>Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken </span><br></pre><pre><span>V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534</span><br></pre><pre><span> </span><br></pre><pre><span>Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP</span><br></pre><pre><span><a href="http://www.keydrive.lu" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">www.keydrive.lu</a> </span><br></pre><pre><span> </span><br></pre><pre><span>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.</span><br></pre><pre><span> </span><br></pre><pre><span> </span><br></pre><pre><span> </span><br></pre></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>______________________________<wbr>_________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></span><br></p></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>______________________________<wbr>_________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener"> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></span><br></p></blockquote></div><pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" class="m_-7524833532384583483moz-txt-link-abbreviated" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" class="m_-7524833532384583483moz-txt-link-freetext" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br></pre></blockquote></div><div>______________________________<wbr>_________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a> <a rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>-- <br></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" class="gmail_signature">_________________________________
Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.<br></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span> <span>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list</span> <span><a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a></span> <span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></span><br></div></blockquote><pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br></pre></blockquote><div class="moz-signature"><div>-- <br></div><div><span class="font" style="font-family:Calibri"><span class="colour" style="color:#000000">Tamir Israel
Staff Lawyer
Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC)
University of Ottawa | Faculty of Law | CML Section
57 Louis Pasteur Street
Ottawa | ON | K1N 6N5
☎: (613) 562-5800 ext. 2914
Fax: (613) 562-5417
PGP Key: <a href="https://cippic.ca/documents/keys/tisrael@cippic.ca-pub.txt" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">0x7F01E2C7</a> PGP Fingerprint: 871C 31EC B6CC 3029 A1A1 14C4 D119 76EC 7F01 E2C7 </span></span> <b><span class="font" style="font-family:calibri"><span class="size" style="font-size:13px"><span class="colour" style="color:#008000">♺ Do you really need to print this email? / Est-ce nécessaire d’imprimer ce courriel?</span></span></span></b><br></div></div><pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br></pre></blockquote></blockquote><div><br></div>