<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><br>
</p>
Got it, thanks, <br>
<br>
Just a risk analysis where a TLD is often involved in abuse, the
domain names in that TLD get a higher risk score if privacy services
are also present for that domain name. I read that some anti-spam
systems block certain new gTLDs entirely, I guess the risk score
went through the roof. <br>
<br>
The reason for drilling down on this a little more was due to this
recent report, and I somewhat misread or failed to understand how
the risk score is being calculated.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sadag-final-09aug17-en.pdf">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sadag-final-09aug17-en.pdf</a><br>
<br>
This report mentions: The usage of Privacy or Proxy Services by
itself is not a reliable indicator of abuse.<br>
<br>
Thanks again, <br>
<br>
Theo <br>
<br>
Again it is clear now, thanks all. <br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 28-9-2017 20:50, Dotzero wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJ4XoYfhvrvBKVEQKK-m32GQPMRbqu_7EFsmdOSOMrU5CVuiXA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>To add to what Allison has indicated, websites do
analysis of these sorts of datapoints for evaluating
transactions for fraud and potential abuse. For example,
signups form domains that have private registrations have a
very high propensity to be related to abuse. Signups and
visits to our websites from IP addresses belonging to
hosting providers have an even higher correlation with abuse
(how many endusers browse the web from severs in
datacenters?).<br>
<br>
</div>
This is not police action, it is organizations protecting
themselves, their other users and the internet at large from
abusive activity.<br>
<br>
</div>
Michael Hammer<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:33 PM,
allison nixon <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:elsakoo@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">elsakoo@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Reputation is based on a lot of different
points not just contents of WHOIS data. If the .EU TLD can
keep its customer base clean, there isn't much need for
WHOIS data for the most part, however this group doesn't
make policy for ccTLDs. For other TLDs that this group
does recommend policy for, for example, .XYZ, which boasts
a greater-than-90-percent rate of maliciousness, any
legitimate domain in that space will need some other
points of reputation to make up for that. WHOIS is part of
that, including the age, and actual contact details.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That said, WHOIS data is an important part of tracing
ownership and it can have consequences for the
registrant.<br>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Recently we had to deal with a ccTLD of .ir that
was being used to control large botnets. The current
and historical WHOIS data showed signs that a
legitimate registrant's account was stolen to do
this. Thus, when the complaint was sent to the
registrar, the registrant was not accused of running
botnets, but instead the registrar was alerted to an
abuse of the service and they could take action
accordingly. If the ownership of this domain could
not be traced, and if there were not skilled
investigators on the other end, would the registrant
have been in danger of going to an Iranian prison? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It turns out, the ccTLD of .ir was specifically
chosen because the criminals thought the poor
international relations would hamper law enforcement
action. However WHOIS and the transparency it
provides allowed people to discover the truth and
prevent serious problems. By locking up WHOIS behind
court orders, these cross-border issues will become
worse.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Also, to be clear since a lot of people can't
seem to tell the difference, everything we did was
well within the bounds of civil action, we weren't
"pretending to be the police" or any of the other
things people in this group accuse security
companies of doing when they deal with malware. Any
member of the public can file an abuse complaint.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:10
PM, theo geurts <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gtheo@xs4all.nl</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Allison, <br>
</p>
<p>Does this problem also exsist with TLDs like
.EU, .NL, .DE, .FR just to name a few ccTLDs?</p>
<p>Curious, <br>
</p>
<p>Theo <br>
</p>
<div>
<div class="m_-3822653643895831728h5"> <br>
<div
class="m_-3822653643895831728m_-8357489614026739257moz-cite-prefix">On
28-9-2017 19:42, allison nixon wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>>> So, I can see a day that
if privacy advocates and/or EU
legislation fears prevent such a Best
Practice as proper WHOIS records, the
service providers will simply choose
practices, such as 'you cannot access
our service unless you have public
whois information available'.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It's already happening. Try sending
an e-mail using a domain behind WHOIS
privacy. Some anti-spam systems drop
it straight in the garbage because
WHOIS privacy is already a negative
reputation point. If WHOIS gets shut
down, I fully expect groups like
Spamhaus, M3AAWG, APWG, etc, to
publish a set of guidelines that
registrants need to abide by in order
to send mail, or be accessible by
people behind corporate firewalls that
block based on reputation. ICANN must
understand that they are at risk of
losing relevancy if they want to take
this hardline approach, because if a
law breaks the continued functioning
of a network, the network will route
around it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Look at the "cookies" EU law. Did
that actually stop any websites from
using cookies? No, it just created a
popup that no one reads but everyone
clicks through to visit the website.
Because breaking cookies breaks
websites. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>>>Some of us have real jobs
too..</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>which is the main reason why i
can't spend 8 hours every day watching
this group, unlike some people here
who have been active in this group for
years now. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My response to Chuck's email
earlier, I bolded the responses and
tagged the start and end of my replies
for clarity:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">"independent
answers to the same questions we
asked the European data protection
experts earlier in the year"<br>
[Chuck Gomes] That was a request
from WG members who felt that the DP
experts might be biased. The
questions were developed by the WG.
There were two primary reasons for
using the same questions: 1) both
groups would be responding to the
same questions and therefore make it
easy to compare; 2) the questions
were approved by the WG.</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b><allison>I don't think
anyone accused the DP experts of
being biased. The objection was
that the questions themselves were
biased. The words "phishing" and
"spam" and "malware" never once
appeared in this entire document,
despite being major core issues.
The only abuse issues that were
focused on were in relation to
intellectual property violation
and harassment of women, both of
which are not the major issues
most of us deal with on a daily
basis(not to belittle them but
they are generally not the reason
why we are here today). The word
"fraud" was mentioned once in a
question and then never directly
addressed in the response.</b></div>
<div><b><br>
</b></div>
<div><b>Additionally, my entire
industry was grossly
misrepresented in question #6.
None of us operate with police
powers, and none of us pretend to
have any. When we submit a
complaint to a registrar about one
of their customers breaking the
law, the illegality of the act
provides necessary justification
for the registrar to drop the
customer without a refund. This is
not prosecution of a crime, and
claiming it is such is a lie.
Evidence of breaking the law is
necessary because registrars
aren't just going to take down any
customer we say we don't like. I
wholly object to the entire line
they continued on about
cybersecurity companies and
"quasi-police powers", because the
question never differentiated
between civil and criminal actions
and it was therefore misleading. </b></div>
<div><b><br>
</b></div>
<div><b>None of the questions
addressed the issues that
registrants have where their WHOIS
and other reputation points affect
the de-facto functionality of a
domain, for example a domain's
functionality is hampered when it
is on blocklists. Or if someone
sends a complaint against the
domain and has no tools to
differentiate the registrant from
the criminal (as registrar
accounts are often hacked), then
the incorrect accusation can also
affect the operability of the
domain as it is mistakenly taken
down in confusion. None of the
questions ask about conflicts
between GDPR and basic
network-level-functionality of
domains.</b></div>
<div><b><br>
</b></div>
<div><b>Also, none of the questions
ask if a free no-obligation
alternative (whois privacy
protect) enhances the validity of
consent given for making WHOIS
records public. </allison></b></div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">So
we weren't allowed to ask questions
of these legal experts? You know,
they can't magically divine all
legitimate use cases. The session
with the EU data protection experts
earlier this year is the exact same
one we objected to because anti
abuse use cases got exactly zero
representation. So why choose that
exact set of questions again
especially since an entire group of
people have joined the group
afterwards(actually, due to this
specific problem of lack of
representation)? And then label it
"final", really.<br>
[Chuck Gomes] We didn’t ask them to
consider use cases except as they
were relevant to the questions we
asked; that is our job and we
prepared a list of those a long time
ago. We asked them to focus on
their understanding of European Data
Protection law. Our WG has a good
mix of people that use RDS data for
different uses.</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div><b><allison>And his answers
are borderline useless. The
scenarios presented were extremely
poor, and not reflecting today's
Internet and the problems network
operators face. For example, when
he writes "This means that the
term 'vital interest' is to be
interpreted as referring to an
individual’s life, health, safety,
or other such interest that is
essential to their physical
wellbeing", he goes on to talk
about IP violations, the rights of
a child, the economic interests of
a search engine, finally
concluding "we believe that the </b><b>conditions
for using the 'legitimate
interests' legal basis would not
be satisfied".</b></div>
<div><b><br>
</b></div>
<div><b>That's a complete
misrepresentation of the interests
at stake here. The issue at hand
is not the economic interests of
one company nor about mere
copyright infringement. The WHOIS
data resource is used to combat
all types of fraud, international
espionage, rigging of elections,
and so many hostile attacks. Some
of these attacks, especially DDOS,
frequently threaten basic
functionality of the Internet. It
has an international strategic
value and promotes lawful behavior
far more than it hurts. It's used
to create cleaner, safer networks.
There are countless documented
instances where WHOIS played a key
role and where the replacement
system would have allowed the
malicious behavior to continue.
All of these facts have been
conveniently left out of the
question, and since the lawyer
can't be expected to know all
this, he has no choice but to
conclude that the legitimate
interests provided are too weak.
</allison></b></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Havent
gone through it yet, will do so as i
get time. Expecting to see the same
result one can expect when one
doesn't represent entire groups of
constituencies.<br>
[Chuck Gomes] What do you mean by
representing ‘entire groups of
constituencies’? Do you represent
an entire constituency? Are you
aware of any constituencies who are
not represented in the WG? If so,
please encourage them to
participate.</blockquote>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b><allison>Dozens of people
joined this mailing list after
numerous events demonstrated that
this working group did not consider
the overall well being of the
Internet, and had a completely
skewed idea of the problems the
Internet faces today. People were
outraged that this group was going
in the direction it was going,
ignoring how the Internet actually
works. The fact that these questions
were chosen- and the fact that the
new membership(especially those that
joined after the questions were
initially asked) were not given any
opportunity to provide input on
questions to the lawyer- does not
reflect well on the leadership of
this working group. Even when the
original questions were created, as
far as I can tell, only people
physically present at that meeting
had any chance to provide input. For
those of us with jobs in operations,
being ever-present for this working
group is impossible, and none of us
have the stamina that some of the
people here have, because we are
busy working. </b></div>
<div><b><br>
</b></div>
<div><b>At its most charitable
interpretation, the choice of these
specific questions could be an
innocent oversight or
miscommunication. At its least
charitable, it looks like ICANN's
money was wasted on a procedural
trick to keep facts out of the
conversation and continue to push a
narrow agenda.</b></div>
<div><b><br>
</b></div>
<div><b>People from numerous unrelated
Internet companies and law firms
flooded this group earlier this year
once sunshine was shed on this
group's activities. Maybe that's
important. Please take it seriously.
</allison></b></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 27,
2017 at 6:22 PM, Michael Peddemors <span
dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:michael@linuxmagic.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">michael@linuxmagic.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">IMHO, If
ICANN cannot figure out how to make
a proper functioning WHOIS policy,
we have to remember that the
community at large will, and then
simply, ICANN will loose relevance
on this issue.<br>
<br>
No one passed a law that a mail
server had to have a functioning PTR
record, (well yes, some
international spam legislations
clearly spelled out the need for
clearly specifying the operator) but
if you want to send email today,
functionally you need a PTR record.<br>
<br>
Only problem is, that often it is
the biggest players that set those
standards, and it is the role of
organizations like ICANN to level
the field, and make sure that
directions aren't dictated by the
biggest players on the block, and
never more so in a world of
consolidation and cloud providers.<br>
<br>
I think it was Yahoo that was one of
the first big players to simply not
accept connections from IP(s) with
no PTR, and I know we were one of
the early adopters to that
strategy..<br>
<br>
So, I can see a day that if privacy
advocates and/or EU legislation
fears prevent such a Best Practice
as proper WHOIS records, the service
providers will simply choose
practices, such as 'you cannot
access our service unless you have
public whois information available'.<br>
<br>
It would be far better if ICANN can
understand the importance of that
need, and make a statement that
everyone can get behind and point
to, that levels that field, in
'spite' of possible contradictory
privacy information.<br>
<br>
Let's just simple keep these two
conversations separate, one should
NOT affect the other, this isn't a
privacy vs information publishing
standards issue, we can have both.<br>
<br>
(And again, I assert that simply
'informed consent' can always deal
with any situations where they
conflict)<br>
<br>
-- Michael --<br>
<br>
PS, my concern is that this lengthy
wrangling prevents real work from
getting done, and the participants
who are integral to this
conversation will fall by the way
side, and the lobbyist's will simply
wear them down ..<br>
<br>
Some of us have real jobs too..<span><br>
<br>
<br>
On 17-09-27 02:58 PM, John
Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg
wrote:<br>
</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex"><span> A
simple policy proscription would
be, for instance, to say under
US law if you get a domain under
the control of a US registrar,
we need you to consent to full
disclosure. Don't like it, pick
a European ccTLD. I don't
advocate that, mind you, but
that's the kind of policy
balkanization could produce.<br>
<br>
j<br>
<br>
<br>
On 09/27/2017 04:31 PM, Paul
Keating wrote:<br>
</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex"><span> I
am failing to understand how
such a walled-garden approach
will solve anything.<br>
<br>
</span><a href="http://1.EU"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">1.EU</a>
registrars/registries would
still have to deal with GDPR.<br>
<br>
2.Registrars are not aided by
the distinction since they would
still end up with EU customers
and EU registrant data.<br>
<br>
PRK<br>
<br>
From: <<a
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann<wbr>.org</a>
<mailto:<a
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounce<wbr>s@icann.org</a>>>
on behalf of jonathan matkowsky
<<a
href="mailto:jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net</a>
<mailto:<a
href="mailto:jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">jonathan.matkowsky@ris<wbr>kiq.net</a>>><span><br>
Date: Wednesday, September 27,
2017 at 11:03 PM<br>
</span> To: Rubens Kuhl <<a
href="mailto:rubensk@nic.br"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">rubensk@nic.br</a>
<mailto:<a
href="mailto:rubensk@nic.br"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">rubensk@nic.br</a>>><br>
Cc: RDS PDP WG <<a
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<mailto:<a
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.<wbr>org</a>>><span><br>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg]
WSGR Final Memorandum<br>
<br>
Assuming for argument's
sake that's true without
taking any<br>
position as I'm still
catching up from a week ago,
I'm not sure<br>
this should be dismissed
without consideration as a
possibility,<br>
although obviously not by
any stretch of the imagination
ideal --><br>
non-EU registrars block EU
registrants, and registries
contract<br>
with non-EU registrars.<br>
<br>
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at
8:25 PM, Rubens Kuhl <<a
href="mailto:rubensk@nic.br"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">rubensk@nic.br</a><br>
</span> <mailto:<a
href="mailto:rubensk@nic.br"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">rubensk@nic.br</a>>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>
On Sep 26, 2017, at
7:17 PM, John Horton<br>
<<a
href="mailto:john.horton@legitscript.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">john.horton@legitscript.com</a><br>
</span><span>
<mailto:<a
href="mailto:john.horton@legitscript.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">john.horton@legitscrip<wbr>t.com</a>>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
Much of this problem
goes away if we all agree
that EU-based<br>
registrars should
henceforth only be allowed
to accept<br>
registrants in the
EU. Aside from the effect on
EU<br>
registrars' revenue,
what's the logical argument
against that<br>
from a policy
perspective?<br>
<br>
</span> After all,
isn't the purpose of the GDPR
to protect _EU<br>
residents_?<br>
</blockquote>
<span> <br>
That's correct, but
the conclusion is not. Non-EU
registrars<br>
are also subject to
GDPR if targeting EU
customers, which<br>
could be as simple as
providing services in EU
languages and<br>
accepting registration
transactions from the EU.<br>
So, for the problem to
go away non-EU registrars
would need to<br>
block EU registrants,
and registries would only be
able to<br>
enter contracts with
non-EU registrars.<br>
<br>
So EU users would
either be happy using numeric
IP addresses,<br>
or develop a naming
system of their own. Then we
would have<br>
balkanisation, this
time actually including the
original balkans.<br>
<br>
<br>
Rubens<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list<br>
</span> <a
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<mailto:<a
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.<wbr>org</a>><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><span><br>
<<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
******************************<wbr>******************************<wbr>*******<br>
This message was sent from
RiskIQ, and is intended only
for the<br>
designated recipient(s).
It may contain confidential or<br>
proprietary information
and may be subject to
confidentiality<br>
protections. If you are
not a designated recipient,
you may not<br>
review, copy or distribute
this message. If you receive
this in<br>
error, please notify the
sender by reply e-mail and
delete this<br>
message. Thank<br>
you.**************************<wbr>******************************<wbr>***********___________________<wbr>____________________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing
list <a
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
</span> <mailto:<a
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.<wbr>org</a>><span><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<span>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
<br>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."<br>
------------------------------<wbr>------------------------------<wbr>------------<br>
Michael Peddemors, President/CEO
LinuxMagic Inc.<br>
Visit us at <a
href="http://www.linuxmagic.com"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.linuxmagic.com</a>
@linuxmagic<br>
------------------------------<wbr>------------------------------<wbr>------------<br>
A Wizard IT Company - For More Info
<a href="http://www.wizard.ca"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.wizard.ca</a><br>
"LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark
of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.<br>
------------------------------<wbr>------------------------------<wbr>------------<br>
<a href="tel:604-682-0300"
value="+16046820300"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">604-682-0300</a> Beautiful
British Columbia, Canada<br>
<br>
This email and any electronic data
contained are confidential and
intended<br>
solely for the use of the individual
or entity to which they are
addressed.<br>
Please note that any views or
opinions presented in this email are
solely<br>
those of the author and are not
intended to represent those of the
company.
<div
class="m_-3822653643895831728m_-8357489614026739257HOEnZb">
<div
class="m_-3822653643895831728m_-8357489614026739257h5"><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div
class="m_-3822653643895831728m_-8357489614026739257gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">______________________________<wbr>___<br>
Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset
class="m_-3822653643895831728m_-8357489614026739257mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
<a class="m_-3822653643895831728m_-8357489614026739257moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<a class="m_-3822653643895831728m_-8357489614026739257moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div class="m_-3822653643895831728gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">______________________________<wbr>___<br>
Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>