<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<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. <br>
</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<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 30.05.2018 um 12:14 schrieb SUN
Lili:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fea95e72702447018c5429385daec14a@MBX21.interpol.int">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:SimSun;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@SimSun";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Garamond;
panose-1:2 2 4 4 3 3 1 1 8 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
p.Default, li.Default, div.Default
{mso-style-name:Default;
mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-autospace:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Garamond",serif;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:-1731165766;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:843305855 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:0cm;
text-indent:0cm;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-start-at:0;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:0cm;
text-indent:0cm;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-start-at:0;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:0cm;
text-indent:0cm;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-start-at:0;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:0cm;
text-indent:0cm;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-start-at:0;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:0cm;
text-indent:0cm;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-start-at:0;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:0cm;
text-indent:0cm;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-start-at:0;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:0cm;
text-indent:0cm;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-start-at:0;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:0cm;
text-indent:0cm;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-start-at:0;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:0cm;
text-indent:0cm;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Hi
Volker,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"><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:
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"
style="margin-left:18.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo2">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:11.5pt"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span><span
style="font-size:11.5pt">Was the address of the registrant a
valid mailing address?
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"
style="margin-left:18.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo2">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:11.5pt"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">2.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span><span
style="font-size:11.5pt">Was the registrant named associated
in some way with the given address?
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"
style="margin-left:18.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo2">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:11.5pt"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">3.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><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?
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></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”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></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.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Lili<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></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 class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net">mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, 28 May, 2018 6:29 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> SUN Lili <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:L.SUN@interpol.int"><L.SUN@interpol.int></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rds-whois2-rt@icann.org">rds-whois2-rt@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] Data Accuracy
subgroup draft report<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Hi Lili, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>responses inline.<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <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="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red"
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;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="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;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><o:p></o:p></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>
<o:p></o:p></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.
<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><o:p></o:p></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>
<o:p></o:p></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.<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><o:p></o:p></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>
<o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:red">The statistics were quoted from </span><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><span
style="color:red"> as a fact.</span><o:p></o:p></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>
<o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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><o:p></o:p></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>
<o:p></o:p></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.<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><o:p></o:p></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>
<o:p></o:p></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.<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><o:p></o:p></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>
<o:p></o:p></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.<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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">I disagree with the rationale.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></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.
<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><o:p></o:p></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>
<o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">OK<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></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.<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.</span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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>
<o:p></o:p></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.<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><o:p></o:p></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>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Dear
all,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Thanks,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Lili</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">***************************************************************************************************<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"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><br>
<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"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><br>
<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>
<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>