<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi Theo,</p>
<p>it is interesting that despite studies showing there is no
correlation between domain abuse and use of domain privacy, the
same argument is being raised again and again. from my own
experience of looking at the abuse complaints we receive, I note
that only a small fraction of abusive registrations use our
privacy functions. In most cases, harvested real data is used
instead. <br>
</p>
<p>Best,</p>
<p>Volker<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a20b4269-43cf-dbe3-51a7-4981260e69fd@xs4all.nl">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sadag-final-09aug17-en.pdf"
moz-do-not-send="true">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>
<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>