[Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, action items from 17 Oct Privacy/Proxy IRT call
Theo Geurts
gtheo at xs4all.nl
Mon Nov 27 17:29:51 UTC 2017
Hi Steve, et al.
I will post the RrSG comments tomorrow, which will include a few examples.
Though when I look at the .Amsterdam GDPR solution by the Registry, is a
key example where our members are thinking, will such solutions nullify
the PPSAI efforts?
And perhaps this is not obvious for some folks on this IRT. But
development time is extremely scarce and very costly nowadays. So yes,
the RrSG folks in here are cautious as they will be the ones who will
have a very hard time convincing the developers that this all needs to
be coded and developed. And if it turns out to be all in vain, that is
not acceptable.
If we look at language draft and the WG recommendations.
DRAFT
3.14 Intellectual Property Disclosure Framework Specification. Provider
shall comply with the Intellectual Property Disclosure Framework
Specification
attached hereto. Provider shall not use high-volume, automated electronic
processes (for example, processes that do not utilize human review) for
sending
Requests or responses to Requests to Requesters or Customers in
performing any of
the steps in the processes outlined in the Intellectual Property Disclosure
Framework Specification.
WG language
“Given the balance that this Policy attempts to strike, evidence of the
use of high-volume, automated
electronic processes for sending Requests or responses to Requests
(without human review) to the
systems of Requesters, Providers, or Customers in performing any of the
steps in the processes outlined
in this Policy shall create a rebuttable presumption of non-compliance
with this Policy.”
It sounds to me it is conflicting. Or perhaps my interpretation is off.
Thanks,
Theo
On 27-11-2017 15:52, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
>
> Just to add to Jennifer’s note, I believe it would also be useful for
> those advocating for discussion on GDPR in this context to provide a
> couple of examples of specific items in the current draft of the
> accreditation agreement (or other documents) that they consider
> problematic in the GDPR context. In other words, concrete examples
> with respect to item 1 as well as item 2.
>
> *image001*
>
> *Steven J. Metalitz *|***Partner, through his professional corporation*
>
> T: 202.355.7902 |met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>**
>
> *Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp**LLP*|*www.msk.com <http://www.msk.com/>*
>
> 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
>
> *_THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY
> FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED
> RECIPIENTS._**THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION,
> AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS
> MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY
> REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS
> STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR
> TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM
> YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.*
>
> *From:*Jennifer Gore [mailto:jennifer.gore at icann.org]
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 25, 2017 8:03 PM
> *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> *Cc:* theo geurts; Metalitz, Steven; Sara Bockey
> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, action items from 17
> Oct Privacy/Proxy IRT call
>
> Thank you Darcy and all for re-raising your concerns. As I believe we
> can jointly discuss items 1&3 constructively, it would still be
> helpful for those IRT members whom believe item number 2 is actually
> an issue, please provide concrete examples for reference.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Jennifer Gore
>
> Jennifer
>
>
> On Nov 22, 2017, at 11:28 AM, Victoria Sheckler <vsheckler at riaa.com
> <mailto:vsheckler at riaa.com>> wrote:
>
> I disagree – we need to move the process along as far as we can,
> while considering GDPR, but we cannot get bogged down or delay
> other progress that we can accomplish while assessing GDPR issues.
>
> *From:*Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
> [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Darcy Southwell
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 22, 2017 10:19 AM
> *To:* theo geurts <gtheo at xs4all.nl <mailto:gtheo at xs4all.nl>>;
> gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven
> <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>; Sara Bockey
> <sbockey at godaddy.com <mailto:sbockey at godaddy.com>>
> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, action items from
> 17 Oct Privacy/Proxy IRT call
>
> Agree with Theo.
>
> @Steve, My concern here is that we’re moving forward with
> developing processes that may violate the GDPR, which goes into
> effect in just six months. It seems far more efficient to
> identify and discuss how GDPR affects any PDP policy
> recommendations before finalizing processes. We need to take a
> step back to do that first. I’m certainly not a GDPR expert, but
> data collection and transmission registrants who are EU residents
> appear to be problematic if we continue to ignore the GDPR.
>
> Darcy
>
> *From: *theo geurts <gtheo at xs4all.nl <mailto:gtheo at xs4all.nl>>
> *Date: *Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 12:50 PM
> *To: *<gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>>, "Metalitz, Steven"
> <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>, 'Darcy Southwell'
> <darcy.southwell at endurance.com
> <mailto:darcy.southwell at endurance.com>>, Sara Bockey
> <sbockey at godaddy.com <mailto:sbockey at godaddy.com>>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, action items from
> 17 Oct Privacy/Proxy IRT call
>
> Hi all,
>
> Some comments.
> @Darcy I agree on all points, very fundamental, and I think worth
> discussing at the Dec 5th meeting.
>
> 1 I agree Vlad's suggestion is good, the only question I have, and
> we discussed this earlier, do we wait for the second Hamilton
> piece or do we already have enough? I am not sure where at right
> now, perhaps staff can weigh in some to get a sense here.
> 3 PSWG liaison to the IRT, what is the status? Can we indeed
> confirm his availability?
>
> @Steve, your question to Darcy about the GDPR and the impact, and
> obviously I am not Darcy ;) but we contracted parties spent a ton
> of time on this GDPR thing, and we get frustrated how this GDPR
> keeps creeping up on us from angles we never imagined.
>
> Thick WHOIS IRT, I don't have to remind you there, you and I spent
> a lot of time there wrapping it up. Since Johannesburg, that
> thing has been a moving target.
>
> The WG recommendations for the PPSAI were made under different
> circumstances, and I hope you and fellow IRT members can
> understand we registrars we do not want a repeat here.
> Going through an exempt process with compliance is just
> time-consuming, costing money and all that. We need to be in scope
> here, and if we are not, we go back to the GNSO.
>
> Does this make any sense?
>
> Best
>
> Theo Geurts
>
> On 21-11-2017 20:39, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
>
> Re item 3 in Darcy’s list, I understand contact has been
> established with the new PSWG liaison to the IRT. Can we
> confirm his availability to participate in a call on December 5?
>
> Re item 1 I would note Vlad’s earlier comment to the list,
> which I support: “Maybe we can focus on critical issues that
> are not related to GDPR, and once ICANN comes back to us with
> some clarity on GDPR then we can tackle those issues.”
>
> Finally, Darcy perhaps you could clarify how you think these
> issues could be discussed constructively “before moving
> forward with reviewing the draft documents.” Items 2 and 3
> seem to refer to specific points in one or more of the draft
> documents. Re item 1, can you identify any specific points in
> the draft documents you would like to discuss with regard to
> the impact of GDPR?
>
> *<image001.gif>*
>
> *Steven J. Metalitz *|***Partner, through his professional
> corporation*
>
> T: 202.355.7902 | met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>
>
> *Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp**LLP*|*www.msk.com
> <http://www.msk.com/>*
>
> 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
>
> *_THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED
> ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED
> RECIPIENTS._**THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT
> COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF
> THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU
> ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION,
> FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
> PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND
> DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR
> SYSTEM. THANK YOU.*
>
> *From:*Darcy Southwell [mailto:darcy.southwell at endurance.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 21, 2017 2:00 PM
> *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>; Metalitz, Steven; Sara
> Bockey
> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, action items
> from 17 Oct Privacy/Proxy IRT call
>
> @ICANN Staff,
>
> I wanted to re-raise the issues mentioned below in advance our
> next meeting on 5 December. I think many IRT members would
> like to see us tackle these issues first before moving forward
> with reviewing the draft documents. Specifically:
>
> 1.Impact of GDPR on policy/implementation (i.e., aspects of
> the recommendations from the Final Report that will be
> impacted by the GDPR).
>
> 2.Contradictions between draft implementation language and the
> Final Report (e.g., how/why this is happening).
>
> 3.Concerns with proposed framework Public Safety Working Group.
>
> I suggest that our 5 Dec. agenda should focus on these
> discussion items.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Darcy
>
> *From: *Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com
> <mailto:darcy.southwell at endurance.com>>
> *Date: *Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 7:47 AM
> *To: *<gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>>, "Metalitz, Steven"
> <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>, Sara Bockey
> <sbockey at godaddy.com <mailto:sbockey at godaddy.com>>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, action items
> from 17 Oct Privacy/Proxy IRT call
>
> I agree with Theo. The scope has changed and implementation
> is impacted by GDPR. While I appreciate that Steve wants to
> move forward expeditiously, I don’t believe we can do so
> without jeopardizing the creation of an effective program.
> Further, in just the last week or so, issues have been raised
> about implementation language contradicting the policy. The
> role of an IRT is to implement the consensus policy produced
> in the PDP and we need to spend sufficient time reviewing and
> discussing the implementation to ensure we’re not changing
> policy. Similarly, I think there were questions raised about
> the proposed framework Public Safety Working Group. In
> addition to policy creep, I believe concerns were expressed
> that staff failed to modify the proposed framework based on
> the feedback from IRT participants. Rather than picking
> through the documents line by line, it seems like we should
> step back and have a discussion about the concepts to ensure
> we’re making progress toward an effective implementation that
> reflects the policy. There have also been repeated questions
> raised about the over-engineering of this implementation.
> Because many of the meetings have focused on reviewing
> language from a specific section (rather than reviewing issues
> as whole items), it seems like we haven’t gotten past this
> issue, and should probably take a fresh look at that to ensure
> we’re not making this implementation more complicated than it
> needs to be. We all know that doesn’t lead us to a better
> implementation. Right now, we have four draft documents for
> review/input: (1) accreditation agreement, (2)
> de-accreditation process, (3) applicant guide, and (4) data
> escrow specification. For many members, these require
> operational and legal review (at a minimum). Many registrars
> have commented that 1 December is the earliest they can
> provide full feedback given the complexity of these documents
> (although not all have committed to that date).
>
> Given these issues, as well as the fact that the privacy/proxy
> challenge stemming from IRTP-C needs to be added to this IRT
> for a solution, we need to take a step back and address these
> critical issues first. This isn’t about derailing the IRT;
> it’s about ensuring we don’t create an implementation that’s
> an operational nightmare for providers as well as registrants
> and end users – and that means addressing these critical
> issues first.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Darcy
>
> *From: *<gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of
> theo geurts <gtheo at xs4all.nl <mailto:gtheo at xs4all.nl>>
> *Reply-To: *<gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>>
> *Date: *Monday, November 6, 2017 at 12:27 PM
> *To: *<gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>>, "Metalitz, Steven"
> <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>, Sara Bockey
> <sbockey at godaddy.com <mailto:sbockey at godaddy.com>>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, action items
> from 17 Oct Privacy/Proxy IRT call
>
> Hi Steve, Vicky,
>
> Now your argument is logical and makes sense.
> Yes, as I mentioned before, CPH's will implement privacy
> services on many different levels to comply with the GDPR, we
> agree here.
>
> My biggest problem with the PPSAI IRT is the changing dynamics.
> The WG contemplated and discussed and made recommendations
> based on a very fixed situation.
>
> In my opinion, privacy services should not be used as bandaid
> for data protection problems.
> Complying with data protection laws was not the driving force
> during the WG days, and now it is.
>
> I think the scope of the IRT has changed and we should deal
> with this before we move on. We need to think a little smarter
> and deeper here before we unleash this to many contracted
> parties who have zero experience with these services and will
> be required to implement this to comply with data protection
> laws.
>
> So how do we do that? I think a fixed set of procedures and
> contractual agreements are essential, yet I do not want us to
> enter into a situation that causes more issues and forces
> providers into a situation that we need to ask compliance to
> defer.
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/contractual-compliance-statement-2017-11-02-en
>
> I think that scenario is unwanted for everyone on the IRT is
> it not?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Theo Geurts
>
> On 6-11-2017 19:40, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
>
> I strongly second Vicky’s comments. The ongoing ICANN
> work re GDPR is of course very important, but let’s not
> let it derail progress on the path we have moved so far
> along toward a P/P service accreditation framework to
> present to the community.
>
> In that regard, I have some sympathy (empathy?) for those
> requesting a relaxation of the comment deadline in light
> of so much other activity demanding our attention. May I
> suggest that we try to get as many proposed edits onto the
> list before our November 14 call (with much thanks to
> those who have already done so), with the goal of dealing
> with them then if possible, but leaving the door open for
> further edits over the next couple of weeks if necessary.
>
> Finally, some ICANN groups are adjusting the scheduling of
> their calls to reflect the return to standard time in
> North America and Europe. Is this group doing so as well?
> If our calls stay at 1400 UTC that is now 9 am EST and 6
> am for those on Pacific time. Moving to 1500 UTC would
> retain the pre-existing local start times, I believe.
>
> Steve Metalitz
>
> *<image002.gif>*
>
> *Steven J. Metalitz *|***Partner, through his professional
> corporation*
>
> T: 202.355.7902 | met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>
>
> *Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp**LLP*|*www.msk.com
> <http://www.msk.com/>*
>
> 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
>
> *_THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS
> INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE
> DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS._**THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN
> ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED
> AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN
> INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY
> REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS
> MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US
> IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM.
> THANK YOU.*
>
> *From:*gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Victoria Sheckler
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 31, 2017 5:55 PM
> *To:* gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>; Sara Bockey
> *Subject:* Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, action
> items from 17 Oct Privacy/Proxy IRT call
>
> Please note that ICANN’s work on GDPR’s on a separate
> track and that one thing we know almost for sure is that
> the adoption of rational, predictable rules for
> privacy/proxy will be more important post-GDPR than it
> ever was. So please let’s get those rules in place as
> expeditiously as possible.
>
> On 30-10-2017 11:32, Sara Bockey wrote:
>
> Caitlin,
>
> Thanks for the revised docs. A few items at first
> glance that need to be revised, as I believe they have
> been discussion/raised before. I will take a closer
> look and follow up with additional edits, but in the
> meantime…
>
> 1. Edit the definitions of Proxy Service and Privacy
> Service to match the definitions provided in the
> Final Report/2013 RAA
>
> 1. The definitions of Privacy Service and Proxy
> Service reflect those in the 2013 RAA.
> 2. In this context, the 2013 RAA also defines
> “Registered Name” as a domain name within the
> domain of a gTLD, about which a gTLD Registry
> Operator (or an Affiliate or subcontractor
> thereof engaged in providing Registry
> Services) maintains data in a Registry
> Database, arranges for such maintenance, or
> derives revenue from such maintenance, and
> “Registered Name Holder” is defined as the
> holder of a Registered Name.
> 3. It’s noted that ICANN staff has replace
> “Registered Name Holder” with “Customer” in
> many instances, but I question the logic in
> that since it is inconsistent with the RAA.
>
> 2. Edit Sections 3.5.3.3. thru 3.5.3.6 to take into
> consideration GDPR requirements regarding consent.
>
> 1. Consent must be explicitly given for each
> purpose and can be withdrawn at any time and
> not a requirement for registration or use of
> the service. Therefore, 3.5.3.3. – 3.5.3.6
> (at a minimum) are not compatible and must be
> revise.
>
> 3. Edit section 3.12.2, as it still contains new
> language that has been added since the IRT
> agreement on language in August. The first
> sentence in its entirety should be removed.
>
> 1. The section should start with “Well founded…”
>
> Additionally, the following sections need revision or
> at a minimum further discuss by the IRT
>
> 4. Edit Section 3.14 to remove the language re no
> automation. This is not feasible. This language
> must be removed:
>
> 1. Provider shall not use high-volume, automated
> electronic processes (for example, processes
> that do not utilize human review) for sending
> Requests or responses to Requests to
> Requesters or Customers in performing any of
> the steps in the processes outlined in the
> Intellectual Property Disclosure Framework
> Specification.
>
> 5. Edit Section 3.15 – Labeling – to remove excessive
> language.
>
> 1. Provider shall ensure that each Registered
> Name for which Provider is providing the
> Services is clearly labeled as such in the
> Registration Data Directory Service, as
> specified in the Labeling Specification
> attached hereto, and shall otherwise comply
> with the requirements of the Labeling
> Specification attached hereto. This language
> is duplicative and not necessary. Let’s not
> add unnecessary words to this already long
> document. If there are doing to be extra
> works, perhaps mention complying with
> applicable local laws in light of GDPR.
>
> *sara bockey*
>
> *sr. policy manager | **Go**Daddy^™ *
>
> *sbockey at godaddy.com <mailto:sbockey at godaddy.com>
> 480-366-3616*
>
> *skype: sbockey*
>
> /This email message and any attachments hereto is
> intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein
> and may contain confidential information. If you have
> received this email in error, please immediately
> notify the sender and permanently delete the original
> and any copy of this message and its attachments./
>
> *From: *<gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org>
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org> on
> behalf of Caitlin Tubergen
> <caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>
> <mailto:caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>
> *Reply-To: *"gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org"
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
> <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
> *Date: *Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 4:44 AM
> *To: *"gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org"
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
> <gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
> <mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] Materials, action
> items from 17 Oct Privacy/Proxy IRT call
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Thanks so much for your participation on today’s
> Privacy/Proxy IRT call. For those who could not
> attend, I encourage you to review the recording and
> materials on the wiki,
> https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/24+October+2017.
>
> During the call, we discussed an overview of the
> changes to the draft PPAA.
>
> Please note that ICANN proposed a deadline of
> *Tuesday,* *14 November* for all comments, concerns,
> and edits to the draft PPAA. The changes from the last
> iteration, provided to the IRT in July, have been
> highlighted in the attached issues list. Please
> respond to the list if you would like to request a
> longer review period.
>
> During ICANN60, we will be presenting an overview of
> the P/P program’s status to the community. Attached,
> please find the slide deck for the presentation.
>
> To highlight a few notes from the IRT’s discussion
> this morning, we received feedback to:
>
> 1. Edit the definition of *Working Group in Section
> 1.43*, to specify that the Provider Stakeholder
> Group, if formed, shall only appoint the
> /provider/ representatives of the Working Group,
> and the GNSO may appoint other members of the
> community.
>
> **
>
> 2. Add back in the previously-deleted *Code of
> Conduct *language in *Section 3.5.1*.
>
> **
>
> **
>
> 3. Add back in the previously-deleted *review
> provision *in *Section 7 of the Customer Data
> Accuracy Program Specification*.
>
> **
>
> If you believe the above items do not reflect the
> intent of the Working Group’s recommendations, please
> reply to the list by *14 November 2017*.
>
> Thank you, and safe travels to those of you attending
> ICANN 60!
>
> Kind regards,
>
> *Caitlin Tubergen*
>
> Registrar Services and Engagement Senior Manager
>
> ICANN
>
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
>
> Los Angeles, CA 90094
>
> Office: +1 310 578 8666
>
> Mobile: +1 310 699 5326
>
> Email: caitlin.tubergen at icann.org
> <mailto:caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list
>
> Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> <mailto:Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list
> Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> <mailto:Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list
>
> Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> <mailto:Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> <mailto:Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list
>
> Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> <mailto:Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list
> Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org <mailto:Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl/attachments/20171127/d2aea2d8/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2772 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl/attachments/20171127/d2aea2d8/image001-0001.gif>
More information about the Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl
mailing list