<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi Lili, <br>
</p>
<p>responses inline.<br>
</p>
<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4e6c926e731e4031a2a3c5fbc43cdd92@MBX21.interpol.int">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Regarding Section 3.2, I am a bit puzzled why no reference at
all is made to a significant qualifier included in Rec 6. Rec
6 only refers to reducing the occurrence of the accuracy
groups of Substantial Failure and Full Failure (of
contactibility of the contact). In other words, if there is a
partial inaccuracy, this would not even be covered by the
recommendation if sufficient contactibility is maintained by
the remaining contact points. WHOIS ARS does not make such a
differentiation either, and instead goes beyond the
recommendation as it merely looks for any error in the data
regardless of whether the remaining data provides for
sufficient contactibility. The data from the ARS would have to
be analyzed in more significant detail before making the
determination of whether the recommendation was implemented. I
also am not convinced that the observations under 3.2 are fit
to match the recommendation, and some are baseless
speculation:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red"
lang="EN-US">The NORC study defined “Substantial failure” as
“Undeliverable address and/or unlinkable name, however
registrant located. Unable to interview registrant to obtain
confirmation; Deliverable address, but unable to link or
even locate the registrant, removing any chance of
interview”; defined the “Full failure” as “Failed on all
criteria - undeliverable address and unlinkable, missing, or
patently false name, unable to locate to interview”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red"
lang="EN-US">In this context, my view is that both Syntax
check and Operability check are not necessarily linkable to
the registrant. A Whois record could perfectly pass Syntax
and Operability check while has not a single linkable
information of the registrant. I don’t think “sufficient
contactibility” is the objective of Rec #6, the essence of
Rec #6 is how much relevant the Whois data to the
registrant. The WHOIS ARS leave the identity check to the
last stage, which means the relevance has not been checked
yet.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">1) This may very
well be the case, but eneral improvement of the whois data is
not what the recommendation is about. The recommendation is
about achieving a certain level of accuracy, not total
accuracy as the ARS is designed for. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">This
observation is an overall assessment of the impact of WHOIS
ARS.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
We should also comment on how the ARS implementet the
recommendations and where it over- or underperforms the
recommendations. Both are important when looking at how ICANN
implemented the recommendations.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4e6c926e731e4031a2a3c5fbc43cdd92@MBX21.interpol.int">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p>2) We should not speculate on causes for reasons of why the
numbers are what they are. Accordingly, the entire second
paragraph should be removed.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">Disagree.
The fact was already there, the review means assessing the
implementation, identifying problems/issues, and putting out
new recommendations, if the RT doesn’t dig into the reasons,
how can the RT recommend?</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
I have no objections against fact-based reviews of reasons, however
we should not enter into the realm of speculation. I therefore
object to the inclusion of any conclusions that are not based on
research and facts but only on pure speculation. Otherwise we could
also blame anything on the phases of the moon or the ascendancy of
Jupiter in Virgo.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4e6c926e731e4031a2a3c5fbc43cdd92@MBX21.interpol.int">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p>3) Again, the inaccurate rate is of no importance in the
contect of the recommendation. The only rate of concern would
be that of inaccuracies that would be considered as
Substantial and Full Failure of contactibility of the contact.
Therefore this observation has no relevance to the
recommendation as it stands.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">See
above. The objective of Rec #6 is to reduce the inaccuracy
in a measurable way, and Syntax + Operability accuracy
doesn’t mean the criteria of not falling in Substantial
failure have been met. As such, I used the term “confirmed”.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
I disagree with the interpretation of that objective. The
recommendation specifically determines the inaccuracy levels it is
concerned with. Inaccuracies in general or 100% accuracy were not
the objective of that recommendation. The language here is clear. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4e6c926e731e4031a2a3c5fbc43cdd92@MBX21.interpol.int">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p>4) Instead of seldom, I would use the term "very rarely, and
only in the first cycle" to correctly reflect the numbers.
Four cases of breach notices out of 2,688 tickets is
statistically irrelevant.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:red">The statistics were quoted from <a
href="https://whois.icann.org/en/whoisars-contractual-compliance-metrics"
moz-do-not-send="true">
<span style="color:red">WHOIS ARS Contractual Compliance
Metrics</span></a> as a fact.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Correct. I only object to the word "seldom". We should be specific
when interpreting the statistic. In this case, the breach notices
only occurred in the first cycle.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4e6c926e731e4031a2a3c5fbc43cdd92@MBX21.interpol.int">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><span style="color:red"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p>With regard to section 3.5, I fully disregard with the
phrasing of the statement in section 4 that refers to "... if
the WDRP were fully enforced...". We have no reason to believe
that at this time this policy is not fully enforced and
followed by registrars merely because of a report ICANN issued
in 2004, especially as the followig section points out that we
do not have reliable data from the compliance audit program.
We must look at the situation today and if we have no data on
that, we cannot make such a statement. I therefore suggest to
strike the entire last paragraph of section 4. If anything, we
should ask for compliance to provide better and more detailed
data.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">The
enforcement of WDRP was reflected in the following
paragraph, and only sampled registrars were audited and no
detailed information on how the registrars remedy
</span><span style="color:red">deficiency on WDRP compliance
is provided in the audit report. Regarding the statement of
“</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">Thus, there is good reason for this subgroup to
believe that if the WDRP were fully enforced at annual
basis, there would be a quite positive impact on Whois
accuracy.”, that’s the assessment of the impact of WDRP
policy you mentioned below, I’ll leave it for open
discussion of the whole RT.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Again, we have no indication that the WDRP requirement is not fully
enforced. Your statement indicates it is not, which is a false
statement.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4e6c926e731e4031a2a3c5fbc43cdd92@MBX21.interpol.int">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red"
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p>Further, the recommendation focusses on the impact of these
messages, not on the observance of the policy by contracted
parties, so the fifth paragraph focussing on registrar
compliance misses that point entirely and should be removed. I
agree with the assessment that rec 9 has not been implemented
though.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">I
don’t understand this comment well. The statement above is
the impact of WDRP policy. As a proactive measure to improve
Whois accuracy, the assessment of WDRP enforcement is
necessary in my opinion.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
I disagree. Even if the policy were not properly enforced and only a
small number of registrars followed it (which we have no indication
for), we could still analyse how the policy impacts those
registrants that receiver it, which is what the recommendation was
about. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4e6c926e731e4031a2a3c5fbc43cdd92@MBX21.interpol.int">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p>4.0-4.5 This section should again loses focus of the actual
content of the recommendations to improving contactibility,
not overall accuracy. We should therefore rephrase this
section accordingly. Instead of "accuracy" and "reliability"
we should use instead the terminology of sufficient
contactibility, substantial and full failure.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">See
Above. Again, I don’t agree “</span><span style="color:red">the
actual content of the recommendations to improving
contactibility, not overall accuracy</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">”.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
The recommendation is clearly phrased. If it wanted to recommend
full accuracy, it would have not used the substantial failure and
full failure. If you interpret it otherwise, that is not covered by
the language they intentfully used, but rather implies your own
agenda.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4e6c926e731e4031a2a3c5fbc43cdd92@MBX21.interpol.int">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p>4.2. What is the basis for this belief? As the ARS program
took great lengths to create a significant sample size, its
results regarding accuracy as a percentage should have some
statistical relevance regarding the overall inaccuracy. Also,
inaccuracies should be graded by the standards laid down in
the recommendations. Insignificant inaccuracies that do not
affect contactibility were still reported by the ARS program
and included in the statistics, but play no role in the
evaluation of the implementation of the recommendations. For
example, many ARS compliance reports we received were for
formatting errors where the data in the WHOIS, while accurate,
did not match the format prescribed by the RAA, was entered in
the wrong field, etc. Such inaccuracies do not normally affect
contactibility.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">The
rationale was depicted in the 2 paragraphs already.
</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
I disagree with the rationale.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4e6c926e731e4031a2a3c5fbc43cdd92@MBX21.interpol.int">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p>4.3 I disagree with the section headline. The contractual
compliance report to the contrary demonstrates proper
enforcement of these obligations as they demonstrate the
enforcement actions taken upon discovery of a deficiency. I
also would argue for the removal of the section regarding
Avalanche, since it is anecdotal at best and has no
implication on compliance as the obligations are phrased in a
way to allow multiple venues and methods of verification.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">To
validate the format of Whois data and then verify Whois data
are contractual obligations of registrar, it should be done
upon registration, not to be dealt with after being
discovered by complaints from community and/or WHOIS ARS.
And according to contractual compliance report, the top
issue with regards to registrar compliance on WHOIS
inaccuracy is “registrars failing to verify or validate
Whois information as required by 2013 RAA”.
</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Your answer misses my point. This paragraph suggests whois
obligations are not properly enforced based on the fact that there
are inaccuraties. This is a fallacy, as the contractual obligations
do not prevent all inaccuracies. An address can be perfectly
formated and therefore validatable and the email address verifyable
and the whois record may still be inaccurate for any number of
reasons. The registrar can be fully compliant with his obligations
under the 2013, but those do not guarantee accurate whois data and
therefore cause whois inaccuracy complaints. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4e6c926e731e4031a2a3c5fbc43cdd92@MBX21.interpol.int">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">I
agree that the example of Avalanche currently has no
relevance to compliance, it’s only a demonstration that
registrar is in the best position and is also capable to
verify Whois data.</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
OK<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4e6c926e731e4031a2a3c5fbc43cdd92@MBX21.interpol.int">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p>4.4. seems to be missing a word in the headline. <br>
Also, as the the privacy proxy service take the role of the
registrant in the public whois, on the accuracy of its own
contact data should be of relevance for whois accuracy. Any
issues with inaccuracies of the underlying data do not factor
into the recommandations as issue for this subgroup. Instead
any discussions of underlying data accuracies should be
restricted to the privacy proxy subgroup.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">I
agree that “</span><span style="color:red">underlying data
accuracies should be restricted to the privacy proxy
subgroup</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">”,
as it’s invisible to this subgroup. What has been outlined
here is the facts of Whois check when it comes to P/P
service.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p>4.5. As inaccuracy of whois is not at issue, this entire
section would need reworking. I also do not agree with its
conclusion that the measures are not sufficient to fulfill the
targets of the recommendations.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">I
totally disagree that “</span><span style="color:red">inaccuracy
of whois is not at issue</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">”,
that was the reason why Rec #5-9 were to reduce the Whois
inaccuracy. </span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Only to a specific point, not inaccuracy in general. Reading more
into the recommendation abuses them for purposes not intended. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4e6c926e731e4031a2a3c5fbc43cdd92@MBX21.interpol.int">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p>I also reject the assumption of the perception of
non-compliance by registrars with their obligations. From my
own experience, most inaccuracy reports received are not
preventable by the measures required by the RAA. A record may
be fully validatable and verifyable, yet still be incorrect.
For example, an address may be perfectly formatted in
accordance with the requirements, thus passing every required
validation, yet still be incorrect due to the street not
existing or being the address of someone else. I therefore
strongly suggest removing the last paragraph of section 1 of
4.5.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">Your
example perfectly indicate that validation is not enough, a
following verification is needed to make sure the Whois
information belongs to the registrant.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Needed for what? Who should pay for that? As even cross-field
verification is commercially unfeasible, verification of identity is
impossible to achieve from a commercially reasonable perspective.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Volker<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4e6c926e731e4031a2a3c5fbc43cdd92@MBX21.interpol.int">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 25.05.2018 um 12:40 schrieb SUN Lili:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Dear
all,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Sorry
for the late submission.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Please
refer to attached the revised version of the Data Accuracy
subgroup draft report, which incorporated the discussion
of 2<sup>nd</sup> F2F meeting and answers to the follow up
questions on Data accuracy and Compliance from ICANN. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">As
to the proposed recommendations, I’ll reflect in
Compliance subgroup draft report.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Thanks,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Lili</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">***************************************************************************************************<br>
This message, and any attachment contained, are
confidential and subject of legal privilege. It may be
used solely for the designated police/justice purpose and
by the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. The
information is not to be disseminated to another agency or
third party without the author’s consent, and must not be
retained longer than is necessary for the fulfilment of
the purpose for which the information is to be used. All
practicable steps shall be taken by the recipients to
ensure that information is protected against unauthorised
access or processing. INTERPOL reserves the right to
enquire about the use of the information provided.<br>
If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you
have received this message in error. In such a case, you
should not print it, copy it, make any use of it or
disclose it, but please notify us immediately and delete
the message from any computer.<br>
*************************************************************************************************<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org" moz-do-not-send="true">RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Mit freundlichen Grüßen,<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Volker A. Greimann<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>- Rechtsabteilung -<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Key-Systems GmbH<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Im Oberen Werk 1<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>66386 St. Ingbert<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Email: <a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" moz-do-not-send="true">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Web: <a href="http://www.key-systems.net" moz-do-not-send="true">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a href="http://www.RRPproxy.net" moz-do-not-send="true">www.RRPproxy.net</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com" moz-do-not-send="true">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a href="http://www.BrandShelter.com" moz-do-not-send="true">www.BrandShelter.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems" moz-do-not-send="true">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems" moz-do-not-send="true">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="http://www.keydrive.lu" moz-do-not-send="true">www.keydrive.lu</a> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>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.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>--------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Volker A. Greimann<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>- legal department -<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Key-Systems GmbH<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Im Oberen Werk 1<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>66386 St. Ingbert<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Email: <a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" moz-do-not-send="true">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Web: <a href="http://www.key-systems.net" moz-do-not-send="true">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a href="http://www.RRPproxy.net" moz-do-not-send="true">www.RRPproxy.net</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com" moz-do-not-send="true">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a href="http://www.BrandShelter.com" moz-do-not-send="true">www.BrandShelter.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems" moz-do-not-send="true">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems" moz-do-not-send="true">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>CEO: Alexander Siffrin<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="http://www.keydrive.lu" moz-do-not-send="true">www.keydrive.lu</a> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>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.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
</div>
</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>