[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [SPAM] Re: [registration-issues-wg] ALAC Statement regarding EPDP
Marita Moll
mmoll at ca.inter.net
Tue Aug 7 20:24:16 UTC 2018
This is great Greg. Thanks for filling in some of the details.
Marita
On 8/7/2018 10:17 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> I’ve been watching this conversation unfold for awhile. A few
> observations:
>
> 1. Nobody suggested that ALAC support an outcome that would violate
> GDPR. Compliance with GDPR is a given. Thankfully, that
> misunderstanding seems to have been cleared up.
>
> 2. No one is arguing in favor of putting the “private info of
> registrants” into “the hands of bad actors.” Indeed, GDPR is not
> primarily aimed at preventing access by bad actors. Rather it is aimed
> at regulating the use of personal data by any actor. I haven’t really
> thought about it, but GDPR is probably not going to be a major
> deterrent against real bad actors.
>
> 3. WHOIS/RDS exists in order to be accessed by third parties (i.e.,
> folks other than the registrant and the registrar). There are many,
> many legitimate use cases for access. Of course, there are “mis-use
> cases” involving bad actors, and one of the obvious challenges for the
> EPDP is dealing with those. From the point of view of the end-user,
> that needs to be dealt with in a way that does not hinder timely,
> straight-forward legitimate access to Whois data.
>
> 4. I have seen no evidence that the European Data Protection people
> have thought about how WHOIS/RDS can function under GDPR. More
> broadly, GDPR is a law about access, in very large part. GDPR provides
> a road map for data controllers and processors to get and “process”
> (use, store, provide access to, transfer, delete, etc.) data. Much of
> GDPR is concerned with how data is used (I’d rather use that term than
> “processed” for these discussions), the purposes for which it is used,
> how it is stored, how it is transferred, who is responsible for any
> use, the circumstances when a data subject does (and does not) have
> control over how their data is used. GDPR assumes that data will be
> “processed” and creates a set of rules of the road for that processing.
>
> 5. It is true that end-users and registrants benefit from both privacy
> and security. End-users benefit directly and indirectly from access to
> WHOIS/RDS data, for non-security related reasons as well as
> security-related reasons. Registrants also benefit from access to
> WHOIS/RDS, both by themselves and by third parties in a variety of
> ways. Registrants benefit from data privacy, at least with regard to
> their own data (though they may lose some of the benefits that come
> from third party access to their data, such as receiving offers to
> purchase domain names). However, I struggling to see how end-users (as
> end-users) benefit from barriers to accessing registrant WHOIS/RDS data.
>
> 6. How Cambridge Analytica got Facebook data is not particularly
> relevant. But if it is going to be used as a “cautionary tale”, we
> need to be accurate, so that the right lessons can be learned.
> Cambridge Analytica did NOT get the data by making a request to
> Facebook “to have access to these data for research.” In fact, they
> didn’t get the data directly from Facebook at all. The data was
> gathered through a personality quiz app, which was (as Facebook was
> configured at that time and with the consent of the participants) able
> to harvest data about friends and friends-of-friends of the
> participants, as well as the participants. It may have been used for
> legitimate research purposes. However, the data was then sold to
> Cambridge Analytica, without Facebook’s knowledge and in violation of
> their terms of service.
>
> 7. The California Consumer Privacy Act is already here, though it
> won’t be enforced until 2020. While it bears a resemblance to GDPR, it
> has many differences as well, and some of its goals are quite
> different. Like GDPR it is not primarily aimed at keeping data out of
> the hands of bad actors. I have not yet considered the impact of the
> CCPA on WHOIS/RDS, and how it is similar or different to the impact of
> GDPR. Its primary goals seem to be to control data monetization, and
> to give consumers greater access to their data, with data subject
> rights similar to those in GDPR.
>
> 8. Overall, I agree with those who believe that appropriate and timely
> access to WHOIS/RDS data benefits end-users. Whether GDPR is good or
> bad for end-users is moot. GDPR exists, and how it is dealt with will
> show how good or bad it is for end-users. Our goal should be to have
> GDPR implemented in the WHOIS/RDS context in a way that maximizes the
> benefit and minimizes the harm to end-users.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg Shatan
>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 1:58 PM Evan Leibovitch
> <evanleibovitch at gmail.com <mailto:evanleibovitch at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I don't know about the Europeans or the California government. I
> do have
> more than a decade's experience in ICANN, however, and have
> observed that
> its track record in both decent privacy and decent accessibility is
> abysmal.
>
> ___________________
> Evan Leibovitch, Toronto
> @evanleibovitch/@el56
>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018, 1:30 PM Marita Moll, <mmoll at ca.inter.net
> <mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>> wrote:
>
> > With respect Evan, saying I am missing the point is not really
> > respectful. No one is arguing for privacy without protections.
> I don't
> > have all the information I need to support this, but I have a
> feeling
> > the European Data Protection people might have thought about
> this. They
> > don't want to protect bad actors either. And I have heard that a
> > similiar law to GDPR is under consideration in California. So I
> don't
> > see any need to think we are only ones concerned with keeping
> bad actors
> > out of the ring.
> >
> > Marita
> >
> >
> > On 8/7/2018 7:08 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> > > Hi Marita,
> > >
> > > I think you may be missing the point when you state that
> "keeping the
> > > private info of registrants out of the hands of bad actors
> protects
> > > both parties". The examples that exist in abundance come from
> > > registrants who /ARE themselves/ the bad actors, that hide behind
> > > either privacy regulations or inaccurate contact information
> to avoid
> > > being held to account for their harm.
> > >
> > > Just as the right to freedom of speech is not absolute -- even in
> > > America -- neither is the right to privacy a way to hide
> > > accountability for causing demonstrable harm. Augmenting
> privacy with
> > > tiered access is fine so long as it is accessible to victims and
> > > effective in execution; that is exactly the balance of which I
> speak.
> > > This won't be easy -- being physically threatened demands a
> different
> > > response to merely being insulted -- but it is vital. Without such
> > > checks and balances, absolute privacy is a sure source of far more
> > > harm than good. For every whistleblower protected, a dozen
> others will
> > > be scammed out of their life savings, and thousands more will
> live in
> > > fear for their lives because of death threats from those with
> > > unchecked anonymity. This is not theory, it is happening.
> > >
> > > In summary, it is both naive and against the global public
> interest to
> > > advocate for privacy without advocating just as strenuously for
> > > appropriate protections against bad actors who seek to exploit
> that
> > > privacy to cause harm. At-Large seeks both.
> > >
> > > - Evan
> > >
> > >
> > > PS: I absolutely reject the assertion that it is fear-mongering to
> > > simply want to prevent abuse of privacy by some registrants
> that is
> > > both clearly evidenced and ongoing.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Aug 7, 2018, at 11:55, Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net
> <mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>
> > > <mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Evan and Allan. I agree with a number of those here
> how have
> > > suggested that the interests of registrants and end-users
> are not
> > that
> > > different. Keeping the private info of registrants out of
> the hands
> > of
> > > bad actors protects both parties. If crimes are committed,
> having
> > tiered
> > > access to the info would release that info to validated
> authorities.
> > As
> > > a registrant, I don't want my private information out
> there if it
> > isn't
> > > necessary. And I don't see how shielding my private info
> on WhoIS
> > will
> > > endanger my neighbour once tiered access is agreed upon.
> This is no
> > > different from the way the law usually works -- we don't
> all have to
> > > live in glass houses in order to be safe. We need well
> thought out
> > > procedures that protect all of us.
> > >
> > > It's just my opinion. I know others have good arguments.
> But I don't
> > buy
> > > the scary scenarios being presented by some groups hoping
> to scuttle
> > > this whole thing. If the Europeans don't think the world
> will come
> > to an
> > > end once GDPR is enforced, why is the boogey man being
> unleashed in
> > > North America?
> > >
> > > http://www.insidesources.com/fake-news-fake-pharmacies-whats-next/
> > >
> > > Marita
> > >
> > >
> > > On 8/7/2018 5:09 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> > >
> > > Marita, you cannot take one phrase out of context. If
> you go
> > > back in the thread (which was not fully copied here) I
> believe
> > > that a major concern of Holly and Bastiaan was that my
> > > statement sounded like it was trying to get around
> GDPR, but
> > > in fact compliance with GDPR is (to use a Startrek
> expression)
> > > "the prime directive". It is not a simple matter of
> security
> > > vs privacy. If, for instance, we were talking about USER
> > > security vs USER privacy, we would have a real
> challenge in
> > > deciding which was more important and I am pretty sure we
> > > would not even try in the general case. But that is
> not what
> > > we are taking about here. We are talking about gTLD
> REGISTRANT
> > > privacy vs USER security. And the ALAC's position has
> > > previously been that although we care about
> registrants (and
> > > their privacy and their domains etc) and have put very
> > > significant resources into supporting gTLD
> registrants, the
> > > shear number of users makes their security and ability
> to use
> > > the Internet with relative safety and trust takes
> precedence
> > > over the privacy of the relative handful of gTLD
> registrants.
> > > That is why ICANN has (and continues to) support the
> existing
> > > WHOIS system to the extent possible. That is the
> entire gist
> > > of the Temporary Spec. - /"Consistent with ICANN’s stated
> > > objective to comply with the GDPR, while maintaining the
> > > existing WHOIS system to the greatest extent possible, the
> > > Temporary Specification maintains....." /And I note
> with some
> > > amusement that some filter along the way has flagged this
> > > entire thread as SPAM. Alan At 06/08/2018 12:08 PM, Marita
> > > Moll wrote:
> > >
> > > I am in agreement with Tijani, Holly, Bastian and
> Michele.
> > > Perhaps it is unintentional, but the language does
> send
> > > the message that we are looking more carefully at
> security
> > > than privacy. I am also not convinced that
> end-users would
> > > want us to do that. Marita On 8/3/2018 10:30 AM,
> Tijani
> > > BEN JEMAA wrote:
> > >
> > > Very interesting discussion. This issue has been
> > > discussed several times and the positions didn’t
> > > change. What bothers me is the presentation of the
> > > registrants interest as opposite to the
> remaining
> > > users ones. they are not since the registrants are
> > > also subject to the domain abuse. You are speaking
> > > about 4 billion users; these include all:
> contracted
> > > parties, business, registrants, governments,
> etc. We
> > > are about defending the interest of all of them as
> > > individual end users, not as registry, registrar,
> > > businessman, minister, etc…. You included theÂ
> > > cybersecurity researchers; you know how Cambridge
> > > Analytica got the American data from Facebook?
> They
> > > requested to have access to these data for
> research,
> > > and the result was the American election result
> > > impacted. So, I agree with Bastiaan that we
> need to be
> > > careful and care about the protection of
> personal data
> > > as well as the prevention of any harmful use
> of the
> > > domain names, both together.
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > *Tijani BEN JEMAA* Executive Director
> Mediterranean
> > > Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
> Phone:
> > > +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Le 3 août 2018 à 07:22, Bastiaan Goslings
> > > <bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net
> <mailto:bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net>
> > > <mailto:bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net
> <mailto:bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net>
> > > <mailto:bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net
> <mailto:bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net>>>> a écrit :
> > > Thanks for clarifying, Alan. As a matter of
> > > principle I agree with Holly - and
> Michele. While
> > > I think I understand the good intent of
> what you
> > > are saying, your earlier responses almost
> sound to
> > > me like a false ‘security versus privacy’
> > > dichotomy. Like, the number of people
> (users) that
> > > care about security as opposed to those
> > > (registrants) that want their privacy
> protected to
> > > the max is larger. Etc. Apologies if I am
> > > oversimplifying things here, I do not mean
> to. In
> > > this particular EPDP case though I am
> convinced
> > > that we can find a common ground on what
> the ALAC
> > > members and alternates should bring to the
> table.
> > > In terms of perceived registrants’ and
> general
> > > Internet end-users’ interests. As you
> rightly
> > > state, it is about being GDPR compliant.
> So we do
> > > not have to be philosophical about a
> rather broad
> > > term like ‘privacy’ and argue about
> whether it
> > > is in conflict with e.g. the interest of LEAs.
> > > Indeed, ‘Privacy is not absolute’.
> However,
> > > ‘due process’ is a(nother) no brainer, not
> > > just because it might be a legal
> requirement. From
> > > what I understand the work being done on
> defining
> > > Access and Accreditation criteria is
> keeping that
> > > principle in mind, and within in the MS
> context of
> > > the EPDP we can together see to it that it
> does
> > > end up properly enshrined in policy and
> contracts.
> > > -Bastiaan
> > >
> > > On 3 Aug 2018, at 01:10, Alan Greenberg
> > > <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
> <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> > > <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
> <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> > > <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
> <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>>>> wrote:
> > > Holly, the original statement ends
> with "All
> > > within the constraints of GDPR of
> course." I
> > > don't know how to make that clearer.
> We would
> > > be absolutely FOOLISH to argue for
> anything
> > > else, since it will not be
> implementable. That
> > > being said, if through the EPDP or
> otherwise
> > > we can help make the legal argument
> for why
> > > good access for the folks we list at
> the end
> > > is within GDPR, more power to us. GDPR
> (and
> > > eventually similar legislation/regulation
> > > elsewhere) is the overall constraint.
> It is
> > > equivalent to the laws of physics
> which for
> > > the moment we need to consider
> inviolate. So
> > > my statement that "other issues trump
> privacy"
> > > is within that context. But just as
> > > proportionality governs what GDPR will
> decree
> > > as private in any given case, so it will
> > > govern what is not private. It all
> depends on
> > > making the legal argument and
> ultimately in
> > > needed convincing the courts. They are the
> > > arbiters, not me or anyone else in
> ICANN. In
> > > the US, there is the constitutional
> right to
> > > freedom of speech, but it is not
> unconstrained
> > > and there are limits to what you are
> allowed
> > > and not allowed to say. And from time
> to time,
> > > the courts and legislatures weigh in and
> > > decide where the line is. Alan At
> 02/08/2018
> > > 06:42 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Alan I have concerns with your
> > > statement - and since your reply
> below,
> > > with our statement of principles
> for the
> > > EPDP. As I suggested in my email of 1
> > > August, we need to be VERY clear
> that we
> > > are NOT arguing against
> implementation a
> > > policy that is compliant with the
> GDPR. Â
> > > We are arguing for other issues that
> > > impact on users - WITHIN the
> umbrella of
> > > the GDPR. Â And if we do not make that
> > > very clear, then we look as if we
> are not
> > > prepared to operate within the
> bounds of
> > > the EPDP - which is all about
> developing a
> > > new policy to replace the RDS
> requirements
> > > that will allow
> registries/registrars to
> > > comply with their ICANN contracts and
> > > operate within the GDPR framework.
> So your
> > > statement below that ‘yes, other
> issues
> > > trump privacyÂ’ - misstates that.
> Â What
> > > we are (or should be) arguing for is a
> > > balance of rights of access that -
> to the
> > > greatest extend possible -
> recognises the
> > > value of RDS to some
> constituencies with
> > > legitimate purposes - WITHIN the GDPR
> > > framework. That implicitly accepts
> that
> > > people/organisations that once had
> free
> > > and unrestricted access to the
> data will
> > > no longer have that open access.
> And for
> > > ALAC generally, I will repeat what
> I said
> > > in my 1 August email - our
> statement of
> > > principles must be VERY clear that
> we are
> > > NOT arguing for a new RDS policy
> that goes
> > > outside of the GDPR. Holly On 3
> Aug 2018,
> > > at 1:29 am, Alan Greenberg
> > > <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
> <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> > > <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
> <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> > > <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
> <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>>> > wrote:
> > >
> > > At 02/08/2018 10:37 AM,
> Michele Neylon
> > > - Blacknight wrote:
> > >
> > > Jonathan / Alan Thanks for the
> > > clarifications. 3 - I don't know
> > > how you can know what the
> > > interests of a user are. The
> > > assumption you seem to be
> making
> > > is that due process and
> privacy
> > > should take a backseat to
> access
> > > to data
> > >
> > > Privacy is not absolute but
> based on
> > > various other issues. So yes,
> we are
> > > saying that in some cases, the
> other
> > > issues trump privacy. Perhaps we
> > > differ on where the dividing
> line is.
> > >
> > > 4 - Same as 3. Plenty of
> ccTLDs
> > > never offered PII in their
> public
> > > whois and there weren't
> any issues
> > > with security or stability.
> > > Skipping due process for
> "ease of
> > > access" is a very slippery and
> > > dangerous slope.
> > >
> > > Both here and in reply to #3,
> the term
> > > "due process" tends to be used in
> > > reference to legal constraints
> > > associated with law enforcement
> > > actions as sanctioned by laws and
> > > courts. That is one path to
> unlocking
> > > otherwise private information.
> A major
> > > aspect of the GDPR
> implementation will
> > > be identifying other less
> cumbersome
> > > and restricted processes for
> accessing
> > > WHOIS data by a variety of
> partners.
> > > It will not be unconstrained
> nor will
> > > it be as cumbersome as going
> to court
> > > (hopefully). Alan
> > >
> > > Regards Michele -- Mr Michele
> > > Neylon Blacknight Solutions
> > > Hosting, Colocation & Domains
> > > https://www.blacknight.com/
> > > <https://www.blacknight.com/>
> > > https://blacknight.blog/
> > > <https://blacknight.blog/>
> Intl.
> > > +353 (0) 59 Â 9183072
> Direct Dial:
> > > +353 (0)59 9183090
> Personal blog:
> > > https://michele.blog/ Some
> > > thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Blacknight Internet
> Solutions Ltd,
> > > Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
> > > Park,Sleaty
> > > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93
> > > X265,Ireland  Company
> No.: 370845
> > > On 02/08/2018, 15:03,
> > > "Jonathan Zuck"
> > >
> <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>>
> > > wrote: Â Â Thanks Michele!
> Â Â 3.
> > > Where there appears to be a
> > > conflict of interest between a
> > > registrant and
> non-registrant end
> > > user, we'll be endeavoring to
> > > represent the interests of the
> > > non-registrant end user. Â
> Â 4.
> > > Related to 3. This is
> simply an
> > > affirmation of the
> interests of
> > > end users in a stable and
> secure
> > > internet and it is those
> interests
> > > we'll be representing. We've
> > > included law enforcement
> because
> > > efficiencies regarding their
> > > access may come up. Just
> because
> > > there's always a way for
> them to
> > > get to data doesn't mean
> it's the
> > > best way. Â Â Make sense? Â Â
> > > Jonathan   -----Original
> > > Message----- Â Â From: GTLD-WG
> > > <
> > gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> <mailto:gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org>>
> > > On Behalf Of Michele Neylon -
> > > Blacknight   Sent:
> Wednesday,
> > > August 1, 2018 12:34 PM Â
> Â To:
> > > Alan Greenberg
> > > <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
> <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>>; CPWG
> > > <cpwg at icann.org
> <mailto:cpwg at icann.org>> Â Â Subject: Re:
> > > [GTLD-WG] [CPWG]
> > > [registration-issues-wg] ALAC
> > > Statement regarding EPDP Â
> Â Alan
> > >   1 - good   2 - good
> Â Â 3 -
> > > I don't understand what
> that means
> > > Â Â 4 - Why are you
> combining law
> > > enforcement and private
> parties?
> > > Law enforcement can always get
> > > access to data when they
> follow
> > > due process.   Regards  Â
> > > Michele   --   Mr Michele
> > > Neylon   Blacknight
> Solutions Â
> > > Â Hosting, Colocation &
> Domains Â
> > > Â https://www.blacknight.com/
> > >
> <https://www.blacknight.com/> Â Â
> > > https://blacknight.blog/
> > > <https://blacknight.blog/> Â Â
> > > Intl. +353 (0) 59 Â
> 9183072 Â Â
> > > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59
> 9183090 Â
> > > Â Personal blog:
> > > https://michele.blog/ Â Â Some
> > > thoughts:
> https://ceo.hosting/ Â Â
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Â Â Blacknight Internet
> Solutions
> > > Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside
> Business
> > > Park,Sleaty  Â
> > > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93
> > > X265,Ireland  Company
> No.: 370845
> > > Â Â On 01/08/2018, 17:27,
> > > "registration-issues-wg on behalf
> > > of Alan Greenberg"
> > > <
> > registration-issues-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> <mailto:registration-issues-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> > > on behalf of
> > > alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>>
> wrote: Â
> > > Â Â Â Â Â Yesterday, the EPDP
> > > Members were asked to
> present a
> > > 1-3 minute      Â
> summary of
> > > their groups position in
> regard to
> > > the EPDP. The following Â
> Â Â Â Â
> > > Â is the statement agreed
> to by
> > > me, Hadia, Holly and Seun.
> Â Â Â Â
> > > Â Â 1. Â Â The ALAC
> believes that
> > > the EPDP MUST succeed and
> will be
> > > working       toward
> that
> > > end. Â Â Â Â Â Â 2. Â Â We
> have a
> > > support structure that we are
> > > organizing to ensure   Â
> Â Â Â
> > > that what we present here is
> > > understood by our
> community and
> > > has       their
> input and
> > > support. Â Â Â Â Â Â 3. Â
> Â The
> > > ALAC believes that individual
> > > registrants are users and
> we   Â
> > > Â Â Â have regularly worked on
> > > their behalf (as in the
> PDP that
> > > we       initiated to
> > > protect registrant rights when
> > > their domains expire), if
> Â Â Â Â
> > > Â Â registrant needs
> differ from
> > > those of the 4 billion
> Internet
> > > users       who are not
> > > registrants, those latter
> needs
> > > take precedence. We   Â
> Â Â Â
> > > believe that GDPR and this
> EPDP
> > > are such a situation. Â Â
> Â Â Â Â
> > > 4. Â Â Although some Internet
> > > users consult WHOIS and
> will not
> > > be able       to do
> so in
> > > some cases going forward,
> our main
> > > concern is access for  Â
> Â Â Â Â
> > > those third parties who
> work to
> > > ensure that the Internet
> is a safe
> > > Â Â Â Â Â Â and secure
> place for
> > > users and that means that law
> > > enforcement, Â Â Â Â Â Â
> > > cybersecurity researchers,
> those
> > > combatting fraud in domain
> names,
> > > Â Â Â Â Â Â and others who
> help
> > > protect users from phishing,
> > > malware, spam, Â Â Â Â Â Â
> fraud,
> > > DDoS attacks and such can work
> > > with minimal reduction in
> Â Â Â Â
> > > Â Â access to WHOIS data. All
> > > within the constraints of
> GDPR of
> > > course. Â Â Â Â Â Â
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Â Â Â Â Â Â CPWG mailing
> list  Â
> > > Â Â Â Â CPWG at icann.org
> <mailto:CPWG at icann.org> Â Â Â Â Â Â
> > >
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> > > <
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
> > > Â Â Â Â Â Â
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Â Â Â Â Â Â
> registration-issues-wg
> > > mailing list      Â
> > >
> > registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> <mailto:registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> > > Â Â Â Â Â Â
> > >
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
> > > Â Â
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >   CPWG mailing list  Â
> > > CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org> Â Â
> > >
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> > > <
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
> > > Â Â
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >   GTLD-WG mailing list  Â
> > > GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> <mailto:GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org> Â
> > > Â
> > >
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
> > > Â Â Working Group direct URL:
> > >
> > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
> > > <mailto:CPWG at icann.org
> <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
> > > <mailto:CPWG at icann.org
> <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>>>
> > >
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> > > <
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
> > >
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > registration-issues-wg mailing list
> > >
> > registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> <mailto:registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> > >
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > CPWG mailing list CPWG at icann.org
> <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
> > > <mailto:CPWG at icann.org
> <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
> > > <mailto:CPWG at icann.org
> <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>>>
> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> > >
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
> > >
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > CPWG mailing list CPWG at icann.org
> <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
> > > <mailto:CPWG at icann.org
> <mailto:CPWG at icann.org> <mailto:CPWG at icann.org
> <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>>>
> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> > > <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
> > >
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > CPWG mailing list CPWG at icann.org
> <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> > > <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
> > >
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > CPWG mailing list CPWG at icann.org
> <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> > > <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > GTLD-WG mailing list
> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> <mailto:GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
> > >
> <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg>
> > > Working Group direct URL:
> > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
> > >
> <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > CPWG mailing list
> > > CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> > >
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > GTLD-WG mailing list
> > > GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> <mailto:GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
> > >
> > > Working Group direct URL:
> > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CPWG mailing list
> > CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> > _______________________________________________
> > GTLD-WG mailing list
> > GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> <mailto:GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
> >
> > Working Group direct URL:
> > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> _______________________________________________
> GTLD-WG mailing list
> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> <mailto:GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>
> Working Group direct URL:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180807/9d9bd6b5/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CPWG
mailing list