<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <p>Hi Susan,</p>
    <p>I would agree with that assessment, but that is not what is being
      asked with the new set of recommendations. These suggested recs
      move away from contactibility and are demanding full accuracy,
      which is something I cannot support. <br>
    </p>
    <p>Please see my random Whois ARS example pick in my last response
      to Lili, where the registrant used accurate data all the way, but
      as one field was outdated, it caused an inaccuracy complaint. Were
      these the cases you are looking to prevent?</p>
    <p>Volker<br>
    </p>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 05.06.2018 um 17:23 schrieb Susan
      Kawaguchi:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJjzonHS11VM5fkFDqhzVZzpYHjajd163OeJ1jrnXf0yRLkgdg@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="ltr">Hi Volker, 
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>I was a member of the RT1 and accuracy was a concern for
          the RT.  Contactability is important but simply including a
          working email address in a WhOIS record with everything else
          false is not what the RT deemed acceptable.  That was the
          current status but allowing identity theft in RDS data or
          blatantly false data is a downfall of the current system. </div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>Susan</div>
      </div>
      <div class="gmail_extra"><br>
        <div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 8:15 AM, SUN
          Lili <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:L.SUN@interpol.int"
              target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">L.SUN@interpol.int</a>></span>
          wrote:<br>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
            .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
            <div bgcolor="white" link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-SG">
              <div class="m_3408941786610500834WordSection1">
                <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Could
                    you provide the official confirmation about RT1’s
                    intension? I have doubts on this. If that’s the
                    case, it’s inconsistent with the NORC study, and why
                    WHOIS ARS needs Phrase 3?</span></p>
                <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
                <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Please
                    also be reminded that WHOIS ARS only implemented
                    “contactability” check so far, while considerable
                    failures occurred.</span></p>
                <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
                <div>
                  <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1
                    1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
                    <p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"
                          lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"
                        lang="EN-US"> Volker Greimann [mailto:<a
                          href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net"
                          target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">vgreimann@key-systems.<wbr>net</a>]
                        <br>
                        <b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, 5 June, 2018 9:51 PM</span></p>
                    <div>
                      <div class="h5"><br>
                        <b>To:</b> SUN Lili <<a
                          href="mailto:L.SUN@interpol.int"
                          target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">L.SUN@interpol.int</a>><br>
                        <b>Cc:</b> <a
                          href="mailto:rds-whois2-rt@icann.org"
                          target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">rds-whois2-rt@icann.org</a><br>
                        <b>Subject:</b> Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] Data
                        Accuracy subgroup draft report</div>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <div class="h5">
                    <p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
                    <p>I have talked again to some of the members of the
                      RT1 regarding their intentions behind the
                      interpretation and they were very clear that they
                      were only concerned with achieving a significant
                      level of contactability. In fact, one commented: "
                      the original WHOIS Review team was not interested
                      in full accuracy, but "contactability." That
                      concept for fully -- almost completely -- achieved
                      in the 2013 RAA when the registrars verify (or is
                      it validate, I always mix up the terms) phone or
                      email. This should be listed as a huge, key
                      success of the original WHOIS Review Team
                      recommendation -- a big check mark for a job well
                      done (yes this enormous effort, work and
                      completion of mission is nowhere to be found!)."</p>
                    <p>I would therefore strongly urge that we follow
                      the original intent of the recommendation and mark
                      it as fully achieved.
                    </p>
                    <p>When analyzing whether the aims of the
                      recommendations of the first review have been met,
                      being neutral means not to misinterpret their
                      objectives to fit ones' own needs. The first RT
                      made a recommendation which has been acted upon
                      and which has in their own view been achieved. Our
                      work here is done!</p>
                    <p>Volker</p>
                    <p> </p>
                    <p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
                    <div>
                      <p class="MsoNormal">Am 30.05.2018 um 12:14
                        schrieb SUN Lili:</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">Hi
                          Volker,</span></p>
                      <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
                      <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">I
                          believe the divergence between us roots in the
                          understanding or interpretation of accuracy. I
                          checked once again about the definition of
                          “accuracy” in the 2010 NORC study (used Whois
                          requirements of 2009 RAA as benchmarks), 
                          quoted below for information.</span></p>
                      <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
                      <p class="m_3408941786610500834Default"><span
                          style="font-size:11.5pt">Under Registrar
                          Accreditation Agreement Section 3.3.1.6, an
                          accurate name and postal address of the
                          registered name holder means there is
                          reasonable evidence that the registrant data
                          consists of the correct name and a valid
                          postal mailing address for the current
                          registered name holder. Adapting this for the
                          study, there were three criteria to be met for
                          any WHOIS record to be considered accurate:
                        </span></p>
                      <p class="m_3408941786610500834Default"
                        style="margin-left:18.0pt">
                        <span>1.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New
                            Roman"">     
                          </span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span
                          style="font-size:11.5pt">Was the address of
                          the registrant a valid mailing address?
                        </span></p>
                      <p class="m_3408941786610500834Default"
                        style="margin-left:18.0pt">
                        <span>2.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New
                            Roman"">     
                          </span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span
                          style="font-size:11.5pt">Was the registrant
                          named associated in some way with the given
                          address?
                        </span></p>
                      <p class="m_3408941786610500834Default"
                        style="margin-left:18.0pt">
                        <span>3.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New
                            Roman"">     
                          </span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span
                          style="font-size:11.5pt">When contacted, would
                          the named registrant acknowledge that they
                          were indeed the registrant of the domain name,
                          and confirm all details given as correct and
                          current?
                        </span></p>
                      <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
                      <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">As
                          such, the core of accurate Whois data is
                          contactable while with association with the
                          registrant. 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”.
                          Again, if the information in the record has no
                          association with registrant, it will be deemed
                          as “Substantial failure”.</span></p>
                      <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
                      <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">The
                          Whois ARS project has checked syntax and
                          operability accuracy described in the SAC058
                          Report so far. The operability accuracy checks
                          the functionality of the information in a
                          record (e.g. Does the email go through? Does
                          the phone ring? Will the mail be delivered?).
                          In this context, whether the information in a
                          record has association with registered name
                          holder has not been checked (postponed to
                          Phrase 3 – Syntax + Operability + Identity
                          accuracy). Thus, Phrase 1 plus Phrase 2 are
                          contactable test only, Phrase 3 has not
                          started yet, there is no reason to take Whois
                          ARS project “over- or underperforms the
                          recommendations”. Again, I insisted that even
                          a Whois record could perfectly pass syntax and
                          operability check, while has no association
                          with the registered name holder, which will
                          deem as inaccurate.
                        </span></p>
                      <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
                      <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">I
                          do agree some registrars would be fully
                          compliance with RAA, but as exposed during
                          Whois ARS project, some registrars don’t, the
                          evidence is that the inaccuracy could be
                          remedied  after Compliance informing, or the
                          relating domain names were suspended or
                          cancelled. If the issue could be remedied at
                          this stage, why the validation and
                          verification couldn’t be down upon
                          registration? You may argue that “Who should
                          pay for that?”, but this is a responsibility
                          registrar should take according to RAA.</span></p>
                      <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
                      <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">I
                          also want to remind you that unfortunately,
                          except registrars who may have internal
                          accounting /ticket system to keep tracking
                          registrant not only on Whois data, but also
                          billing information, the public Whois data is
                          the only information that legitimate users or
                          generic public could access about registered
                          name holders. If the Whois data is outdated or
                          even falsified, it could be a mislead for the
                          information users.</span></p>
                      <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
                      <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Last
                          but not least, I understand your standpoint as
                          a representative of registrar, but as a review
                          team member, please keep neutral. What have
                          been reviewed in this subgroup falls in the
                          Action Plan provided by ICANN and contractual
                          obligations of RAA. We are not in the position
                          to challenge decisions have been made.</span></p>
                      <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
                      <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Thanks,</span></p>
                      <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Lili</span></p>
                      <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
                      <div>
                        <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1
                          1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
                          <p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"
                                lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"
                              lang="EN-US"> Volker Greimann [<a
                                href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net"
                                target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.<wbr>net</a>]
                              <br>
                              <b>Sent:</b> Monday, 28 May, 2018 6:29 PM<br>
                              <b>To:</b> SUN Lili <a
                                href="mailto:L.SUN@interpol.int"
                                target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><L.SUN@interpol.int></a><br>
                              <b>Cc:</b> <a
                                href="mailto:rds-whois2-rt@icann.org"
                                target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">rds-whois2-rt@icann.org</a><br>
                              <b>Subject:</b> Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] Data
                              Accuracy subgroup draft report</span></p>
                        </div>
                      </div>
                      <p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
                      <p>Hi Lili, </p>
                      <p>responses inline.</p>
                      <blockquote
                        style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
                        <div>
                          <p class="MsoNormal"> </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:</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”.</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.</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"> </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.
                          </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>
                      <p class="MsoNormal">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>
                        <br>
                        <br>
                      </p>
                      <blockquote
                        style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
                        <div>
                          <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.
                          </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>
                      <p class="MsoNormal">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>
                        <br>
                        <br>
                      </p>
                      <blockquote
                        style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
                        <div>
                          <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.</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>
                      <p class="MsoNormal">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>
                        <br>
                        <br>
                      </p>
                      <blockquote
                        style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
                        <div>
                          <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.</p>
                          <p><span style="color:red">The statistics were
                              quoted from </span><a
href="https://whois.icann.org/en/whoisars-contractual-compliance-metrics"
                              target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
                                style="color:red">WHOIS ARS Contractual
                                Compliance Metrics</span></a><span
                              style="color:red"> as a fact.</span></p>
                        </div>
                      </blockquote>
                      <p class="MsoNormal">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>
                        <br>
                        <br>
                      </p>
                      <blockquote
                        style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
                        <div>
                          <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.</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"
                              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>
                      <p class="MsoNormal">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>
                        <br>
                        <br>
                      </p>
                      <blockquote
                        style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
                        <div>
                          <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.</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>
                      <p class="MsoNormal">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>
                        <br>
                        <br>
                      </p>
                      <blockquote
                        style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
                        <div>
                          <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.</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>
                      <p class="MsoNormal">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>
                        <br>
                        <br>
                      </p>
                      <blockquote
                        style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
                        <div>
                          <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.</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>
                      <p class="MsoNormal">I disagree with the
                        rationale.<br>
                        <br>
                        <br>
                      </p>
                      <blockquote
                        style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
                        <div>
                          <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.
                          </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>
                      <p class="MsoNormal">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>
                        <br>
                        <br>
                      </p>
                      <blockquote
                        style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
                        <div>
                          <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></p>
                        </div>
                      </blockquote>
                      <p class="MsoNormal">OK<br>
                        <br>
                        <br>
                      </p>
                      <blockquote
                        style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
                        <div>
                          <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.</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.</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.
                          </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></p>
                        </div>
                      </blockquote>
                      <p class="MsoNormal">Only to a specific point, not
                        inaccuracy in general. Reading more into the
                        recommendation abuses them for purposes not
                        intended.
                        <br>
                        <br>
                        <br>
                      </p>
                      <blockquote
                        style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
                        <div>
                          <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.</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>
                      <p class="MsoNormal">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>
                        <br>
                        <br>
                      </p>
                      <blockquote
                        style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
                        <div>
                          <p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
                          <div>
                            <p class="MsoNormal">Am 25.05.2018 um 12:40
                              schrieb SUN Lili:</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></p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Sorry
                                for the late submission.</span></p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></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></p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></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></p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Thanks,</span></p>
                            <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Lili</span></p>
                            <div>
                              <p class="MsoNormal">******************************<wbr>******************************<wbr>******************************<wbr>*********<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>
                                ******************************<wbr>******************************<wbr>******************************<wbr>*******</p>
                            </div>
                            <p class="MsoNormal"><br>
                              <br>
                              <br>
                              <br>
                              <br>
                            </p>
                            <pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________</pre>
                            <pre>RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list</pre>
                            <pre><a href="mailto:RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org</a></pre>
                            <pre><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/rds-whois2-rt</a></pre>
                          </blockquote>
                          <p class="MsoNormal"><br>
                            <br>
                            <br>
                            <br>
                          </p>
                          <pre>-- </pre>
                          <pre>Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.</pre>
                          <pre> </pre>
                          <pre>Mit freundlichen Grüßen,</pre>
                          <pre> </pre>
                          <pre>Volker A. Greimann</pre>
                          <pre>- Rechtsabteilung -</pre>
                          <pre> </pre>
                          <pre>Key-Systems GmbH</pre>
                          <pre>Im Oberen Werk 1</pre>
                          <pre>66386 St. Ingbert</pre>
                          <pre>Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901</pre>
                          <pre>Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851</pre>
                          <pre>Email: <a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a></pre>
                          <pre> </pre>
                          <pre>Web: <a href="http://www.key-systems.net" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a href="http://www.RRPproxy.net" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.RRPproxy.net</a></pre>
                          <pre><a href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a href="http://www.BrandShelter.com" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.BrandShelter.com</a></pre>
                          <pre> </pre>
                          <pre>Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:</pre>
                          <pre><a href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a></pre>
                          <pre><a href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a></pre>
                          <pre> </pre>
                          <pre>Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin</pre>
                          <pre>Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken </pre>
                          <pre>Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534</pre>
                          <pre> </pre>
                          <pre>Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP</pre>
                          <pre><a href="http://www.keydrive.lu" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.keydrive.lu</a> </pre>
                          <pre> </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.</pre>
                          <pre> </pre>
                          <pre>------------------------------<wbr>--------------</pre>
                          <pre> </pre>
                          <pre>Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.</pre>
                          <pre> </pre>
                          <pre>Best regards,</pre>
                          <pre> </pre>
                          <pre>Volker A. Greimann</pre>
                          <pre>- legal department -</pre>
                          <pre> </pre>
                          <pre>Key-Systems GmbH</pre>
                          <pre>Im Oberen Werk 1</pre>
                          <pre>66386 St. Ingbert</pre>
                          <pre>Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901</pre>
                          <pre>Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851</pre>
                          <pre>Email: <a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a></pre>
                          <pre> </pre>
                          <pre>Web: <a href="http://www.key-systems.net" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a href="http://www.RRPproxy.net" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.RRPproxy.net</a></pre>
                          <pre><a href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a href="http://www.BrandShelter.com" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.BrandShelter.com</a></pre>
                          <pre> </pre>
                          <pre>Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:</pre>
                          <pre><a href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a></pre>
                          <pre><a href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a></pre>
                          <pre> </pre>
                          <pre>CEO: Alexander Siffrin</pre>
                          <pre>Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken </pre>
                          <pre>V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534</pre>
                          <pre> </pre>
                          <pre>Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP</pre>
                          <pre><a href="http://www.keydrive.lu" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.keydrive.lu</a> </pre>
                          <pre> </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.</pre>
                          <pre> </pre>
                          <pre> </pre>
                          <pre> </pre>
                        </div>
                      </blockquote>
                      <p class="MsoNormal"><br>
                        <br>
                        <br>
                      </p>
                      <pre>-- </pre>
                      <pre>Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.</pre>
                      <pre> </pre>
                      <pre>Mit freundlichen Grüßen,</pre>
                      <pre> </pre>
                      <pre>Volker A. Greimann</pre>
                      <pre>- Rechtsabteilung -</pre>
                      <pre> </pre>
                      <pre>Key-Systems GmbH</pre>
                      <pre>Im Oberen Werk 1</pre>
                      <pre>66386 St. Ingbert</pre>
                      <pre>Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901</pre>
                      <pre>Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851</pre>
                      <pre>Email: <a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a></pre>
                      <pre> </pre>
                      <pre>Web: <a href="http://www.key-systems.net" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a href="http://www.RRPproxy.net" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.RRPproxy.net</a></pre>
                      <pre><a href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a href="http://www.BrandShelter.com" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.BrandShelter.com</a></pre>
                      <pre> </pre>
                      <pre>Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:</pre>
                      <pre><a href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a></pre>
                      <pre><a href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a></pre>
                      <pre> </pre>
                      <pre>Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin</pre>
                      <pre>Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken </pre>
                      <pre>Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534</pre>
                      <pre> </pre>
                      <pre>Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP</pre>
                      <pre><a href="http://www.keydrive.lu" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.keydrive.lu</a> </pre>
                      <pre> </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.</pre>
                      <pre> </pre>
                      <pre>------------------------------<wbr>--------------</pre>
                      <pre> </pre>
                      <pre>Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.</pre>
                      <pre> </pre>
                      <pre>Best regards,</pre>
                      <pre> </pre>
                      <pre>Volker A. Greimann</pre>
                      <pre>- legal department -</pre>
                      <pre> </pre>
                      <pre>Key-Systems GmbH</pre>
                      <pre>Im Oberen Werk 1</pre>
                      <pre>66386 St. Ingbert</pre>
                      <pre>Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901</pre>
                      <pre>Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851</pre>
                      <pre>Email: <a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a></pre>
                      <pre> </pre>
                      <pre>Web: <a href="http://www.key-systems.net" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a href="http://www.RRPproxy.net" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.RRPproxy.net</a></pre>
                      <pre><a href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a href="http://www.BrandShelter.com" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.BrandShelter.com</a></pre>
                      <pre> </pre>
                      <pre>Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:</pre>
                      <pre><a href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a></pre>
                      <pre><a href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a></pre>
                      <pre> </pre>
                      <pre>CEO: Alexander Siffrin</pre>
                      <pre>Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken </pre>
                      <pre>V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534</pre>
                      <pre> </pre>
                      <pre>Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP</pre>
                      <pre><a href="http://www.keydrive.lu" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.keydrive.lu</a> </pre>
                      <pre> </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.</pre>
                      <pre> </pre>
                      <pre> </pre>
                      <pre> </pre>
                    </blockquote>
                    <p class="MsoNormal"><br>
                      <br>
                    </p>
                    <pre>-- </pre>
                    <pre>Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.</pre>
                    <pre> </pre>
                    <pre>Mit freundlichen Grüßen,</pre>
                    <pre> </pre>
                    <pre>Volker A. Greimann</pre>
                    <pre>- Rechtsabteilung -</pre>
                    <pre> </pre>
                    <pre>Key-Systems GmbH</pre>
                    <pre>Im Oberen Werk 1</pre>
                    <pre>66386 St. Ingbert</pre>
                    <pre>Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901</pre>
                    <pre>Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851</pre>
                    <pre>Email: <a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a></pre>
                    <pre> </pre>
                    <pre>Web: <a href="http://www.key-systems.net" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a href="http://www.RRPproxy.net" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.RRPproxy.net</a></pre>
                    <pre><a href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a href="http://www.BrandShelter.com" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.BrandShelter.com</a></pre>
                    <pre> </pre>
                    <pre>Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:</pre>
                    <pre><a href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a></pre>
                    <pre><a href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a></pre>
                    <pre> </pre>
                    <pre>Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin</pre>
                    <pre>Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken </pre>
                    <pre>Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534</pre>
                    <pre> </pre>
                    <pre>Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP</pre>
                    <pre><a href="http://www.keydrive.lu" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.keydrive.lu</a> </pre>
                    <pre> </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.</pre>
                    <pre> </pre>
                    <pre>------------------------------<wbr>--------------</pre>
                    <pre> </pre>
                    <pre>Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.</pre>
                    <pre> </pre>
                    <pre>Best regards,</pre>
                    <pre> </pre>
                    <pre>Volker A. Greimann</pre>
                    <pre>- legal department -</pre>
                    <pre> </pre>
                    <pre>Key-Systems GmbH</pre>
                    <pre>Im Oberen Werk 1</pre>
                    <pre>66386 St. Ingbert</pre>
                    <pre>Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901</pre>
                    <pre>Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851</pre>
                    <pre>Email: <a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a></pre>
                    <pre> </pre>
                    <pre>Web: <a href="http://www.key-systems.net" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a href="http://www.RRPproxy.net" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.RRPproxy.net</a></pre>
                    <pre><a href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a href="http://www.BrandShelter.com" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.BrandShelter.com</a></pre>
                    <pre> </pre>
                    <pre>Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:</pre>
                    <pre><a href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a></pre>
                    <pre><a href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a></pre>
                    <pre> </pre>
                    <pre>CEO: Alexander Siffrin</pre>
                    <pre>Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken </pre>
                    <pre>V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534</pre>
                    <pre> </pre>
                    <pre>Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP</pre>
                    <pre><a href="http://www.keydrive.lu" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.keydrive.lu</a> </pre>
                    <pre> </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.</pre>
                    <pre> </pre>
                    <pre> </pre>
                    <pre> </pre>
                  </div>
                </div>
              </div>
            </div>
            <br>
            ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
            RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list<br>
            <a href="mailto:RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org"
              moz-do-not-send="true">RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org</a><br>
            <a
              href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt"
              rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/rds-whois2-rt</a><br>
            <br>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
        <br>
      </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>