[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Proposed language on attestation - a few new words
James M. Bladel
jbladel at godaddy.com
Mon Apr 13 01:55:27 UTC 2015
Hi Folks.
Catching up on this topic, but the new language seems reasonable. I can't see requests like this being routine, but good to know the option exists. It's unlikely that providers would require this of anyone they consider a "Trusted Report," save perhaps the initial contact establishing that relationship.
Thanks--
J.
_______
James Bladel
GoDaddy
Sent using Outlook<http://taps.io/outlookmobile> for iPad
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:15 PM -0700, "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy at kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
Hi Todd and All,
It sounds like we all agree that the requester must have the rights holders' authorization to make the submit the reveal request, make the infringement allegation and bind the rights holder to the limitations on the revealed data. For rights holders, that agency will be reflected in a document -- an agency agreement (or equivalent). That's all we're asking for -- the ability to see it if there are questions. We circulated some longer language earlier, but have been reviewing it. Building on Val's language, it may now boil down to a few additional words. They are below (in italics) and attached in the Reveal Policy (using the text by Mary for our meeting last Tues):
-----------------------------------------------
(1) A good faith statement[, either] under penalty of perjury [or notarized or accompanied by sworn statement[1] (“Versicherung an Eides statt”),] from either the trademark holder or an authorized representative of the trademark holder, that —:
a) provides a basis for reasonably believing that the use of the trademark in the domain name
(i) allegedly infringes the trademark holder’s rights and
(ii) is not defensible;
b) states that Requestor will use Customer’s contact details only
(i) to determine whether further action is warranted to resolve the issue;
(ii) to attempt to contact Customer regarding the issue; and/or
(iii) in a legal proceeding concerning the issue.
c) Where the signatory is not the rights holder, he/she must attest that he/she is an authorized representative of the rights holder, capable and qualified to evaluate and address the matters involved in this request, and having the authority to make the representations and claims on behalf of the rights holder in the request including to bind the rights holder to the limitations on the data once revealed[2].
d) Where the signatory is not the rights holder, an officer of the rights holder (if a corporate entity) or an attorney of the rights holder, the signatory shall agree to provide a copy of its agency agreement (or equivalent thereof) to the Provider if requested.
----------------------------------------------------------
Best,
Kathy
On 4/10/2015 9:33 AM, Williams, Todd wrote:
Thanks Volker.
The whole point of the attestation language is for the requester to attest that they have the prop0er authorization, so that the P/P Provider can then rely on that attestation. Nobody is arguing that a requester should be able to submit a request without doing so.
Rather, the only question on the table is whether the requester also needs to provide documentation to the P/P Provider to “back up” that attestation – and if so, what form that documentation should take, and what steps the P/P Provider will need to take to validate it. Here’s what Michele said on our call on Tuesday on that question:
“For us as a provider of any service having to go off and validate third party documents is going to cost me money, time, effort, legal fees. So I personally wouldn’t be interested in going down that route.”
And then Volker here’s what you said:
“Personally I would love to look at those contracts but not as a provider but rather as the curious cat that I am. As a provider I would not want to see those contracts and the specific details, I just would like to see a confirmation as part of the complaint that a certain standard has been followed and that would be of course also attributable to the complainant but I wouldn't look at the contract as a provider.”
(Emphasis added).
But then in your email below you seem to be arguing the opposite. So I guess I’m confused on where you stand on this. Do you want the requester to have to provide documentation in support of its attestation that the P/P Provider will then be obligated to legally validate? Or is it enough that the requester “confirm” (attest) as part of the complaint that a certain standard has been followed?
-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 4:32 AM
To: Alex_Deacon at mpaa.org<mailto:Alex_Deacon at mpaa.org>; Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com>
Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Proposed language on attestation
So you are proposing to move back into the realm of unsubstantiated claims? If we cannot even rely on the proper authorization of the agent, what can we rely on?
And where is the harm in documenting the authority of the agent? The only cases where I see an issue is where there is no proper authorization and those should be excluded in the first place. So providing a PoA should really be a basic requirement.
I really do not understand the issues with it.
As to Privacy vs human rights: Privacy is the service. If a complainant only makes claims in order to remove the privacy, i.e. uses them as pretext, the request should be denied and the complainant ashamed of himself. Human rights on the other hand would require a detailed legal analysis. Also, Harm resulting from a denial of privacy not necessarily impacts human rights.
Best,
Volker
Am 10.04.2015 um 00:50 schrieb Alex_Deacon at mpaa.org<mailto:Alex_Deacon at mpaa.org>:
> Hi All,
>
> Just wanted to add my thoughts to this thread.
>
> Regarding attestation I support the language Val suggested at the beginning of this thread. Requiring a power-of-attorney or a half page authorization and attestation is unnecessary - especially if it neither has to be delivered to the Provider nor checked, verified or confirmed by the Provider.
>
> As for III.C.5, I’m not 100% sure where we landed but I believe that ending that sentence (the pretext provision) with “privacy” is not the way to go. I am however OK with using “human rights (e.g., freedom of expression)”. We don’t want to get into a situation where the mere request for a disclosure is always countered as “contravening” privacy and thus a basis to refuse all reveal/disclosure requests.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Alex
>
>
>
>
>
> On 4/8/15, 7:38 AM, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann at key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>> wrote:
>
>> Hi Kiran,
>>
>> it can be a general PoA but a PoA should be provided.
>>
>> Every lawyer making a legal request in Germany must, upon request,
>> provide a copy of his PoA to the requestee. Providing documentary
>> evidence of your authorization is also just good practice. How else
>> is a recipient of a complaint to know the agent is properly
>> authorized by the complainant?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Volker
>>
>> Am 08.04.2015 um 16:32 schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil:
>>> To your first comment, the distinction between a registrar and a requesting party is best dealt with in Todd's email and Steve's.
>>>
>>> To your second, we are not going to complete and attach a power of attorney to every request.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Kiran
>>>
>>> Kiran Malancharuvil
>>> Internet Policy Counselor
>>> MarkMonitor
>>> 415-419-9138 (m)
>>>
>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>>>
>>>> On Apr 8, 2015, at 7:24 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Kiran,
>>>>
>>>>> I have no interest in language that inserts itself into the relationship/authority under which we act on behalf of our clients.
>>>> As a registrar, I know this very feeling very well. But such is life...
>>>>> Further, I don't understand why it's necessary. The agent binds the trademark owner and consequently the owner liable for any negative consequences of the agents (potentially - very unlikely) abusive request on their behalf. If there is some breakdown of the agency relationship, or its misrepresented, the requestor is liable. Either way there is someone to punish.
>>>> I think the details can be worked out. Personally, I could live with the complainant including a power of attorney in the complaint attachments which would include the required language.
>>>>
>>>> Volker
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> K
>>>>>
>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil
>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor
>>>>> MarkMonitor
>>>>> 415-419-9138 (m)
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 8, 2015, at 7:08 AM, Williams, Todd <Todd.Williams at turner.com<mailto:Todd.Williams at turner.com<mailto:Todd.Williams at turner.com%3cmailto:Todd.Williams at turner.com>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you Volker. Yes, of course, I agree with all of that. And if we want to say that dotting the “i”s and crossing the “t”s in this context means including Val’s attestation language – such that a contracted party can ignore a complaint that doesn’t do that – I’m fine with that.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I don’t think that’s what we’re talking about. We’re talking about what form the document that delegates authority from the trademark/copyright owner to third-party agents should take, and who must sign it. But if the contracted party isn’t going to have to check, verify, or confirm that form (and I don’t think there is any way they can, for the reasons that you and Michele mentioned yesterday), and in fact may never see it, that’s where I get confused.
>>>>>
>>>>> From:
>>>>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounc<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounc>
>>>>> es at icann.org<mailto:es at icann.org>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On
>>>>> Behalf Of Volker Greimann
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 9:53 AM
>>>>> To:
>>>>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Proposed language on
>>>>> attestation
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Todd,
>>>>>
>>>>> it fits the remit only if that becomes a trigger for a reveal process, i.e. ifconditions a, b, and c are met and d, e, and f are not present, g follows.
>>>>>
>>>>> ICANN cannot tell third parties what to do. But it can tell a contracted party what they must accept and what they can ignore. And if a request does not meet the requirements, no obligation of the provider to act in a certain way is triggered.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, if the complainant dots the "i"s and crosses the "t"s, inaction by the provider could result in compliance action. If the complainant does not care to follow prescribed procedure, nothing the provider does results in compliance action.
>>>>>
>>>>> Volker
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 08.04.2015 um 15:29 schrieb Williams, Todd:
>>>>> I’m sorry, I’m getting quite confused on this part.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ultimately what we’re discussing is an accreditation policy for P/P Providers, correct? And one of the questions (the big question) that we’ve been discussing is when can/should/must accredited P/P Providers disclose? We’ve developed a fairly detailed framework to answer that question (at least in the trademark and copyright context), and one component of that framework is that a request for disclosure must include the requisite attestation (and, for the record, I like Val’s language as to what that attestation should look like). So far that all makes sense to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> But now we’re debating what form the document that delegates authority from the trademark/copyright owner to third-party agents should take (and who must sign it)? As Paul mentioned: how does that fit into our remit? It doesn’t have anything to do with the P/P providers whom ICANN will be accrediting – right? As Kathy mentioned below, the forms will not “be delivered to the Provider and certainly not checked, verified or confirmed by the Provider.” But if that’s the case – meaning that the P/P Provider is completely out of the loop – then how can ICANN regulate the content of that form (and who must sign it) by accrediting (or de-accrediting) a P/P Provider who has nothing to do with the form, isn’t checking, verifying, or confirming it, and in fact may never see it? I guess I don’t see the contractual “hook” any more.
>>>>>
>>>>> To put it another way: the trademark/copyright owners have no contractual relationship with ICANN, right? So how can ICANN tell them what form to use when they choose to delegate authority (and who must sign it)? And when we say that the forms should be “available for audit” – audit by whom? By ICANN?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bottom line: I would think that the most that we can do is perfect Val’s attestation language (and I like it the way that it is), and then leave it at that. Does that mean that there is a risk that the attestation will be false in some cases? Yes. But can ICANN police false attestations through its contracting/accreditation of P/P Providers? I don’t see how.
>>>>>
>>>>> From:
>>>>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounc<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounc>
>>>>> es at icann.org<mailto:es at icann.org>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On
>>>>> Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 3:24 PM
>>>>> To: McGrady, Paul D.;
>>>>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Proposed language on
>>>>> attestation
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Paul, Hi Jim,
>>>>> No, the proposal would not apply to attorneys. The proposal is designed to apply to consultants and other outside entities not bound by the attorney-client relationship. We'll be certain to clarify in the next version. But tracing back to our discussions over the last few weeks -- we have been concerned about parties *other than attorneys and officers of the company* making legal allegations and taking possession of private data. By the rules we live by, attorneys for the company (inside and outside counsel) and officers of the corporation are bound by a number of ethical and fiduciary rules (depending on their position) that help ensure that they will operate a) within the scope of their expertise in making legal allegations of infringement and b) within the scope of their authority to legally bind their companies to the limitations that the policy will require for the use of the revealed data.
>>>>>
>>>>> What we are looking for is some documentation from the Trademark Owner/Copyright Owner that consultants and others similarly have a) the expertise to make the legal allegations of infringement, and b) have the legal authority to bind Procter & Gamble and others to limitations on the use of the revealed data once received.
>>>>>
>>>>> The half page authorization and delegation to the consultant on letterhead from the Trademark Owner/Copyright Owner that I think Chris Pelling spoke of today would probably complement Val's self-attestation terms nicely. It does not have to be delivered to the Provider and certainly not checked, verified or confirmed by the Provider, but it should be available for audit. And again, applies to those not bound by the other rules we have discussed...
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> :
>>>>> Kathy, would you proposal below apply to law firms as well? I will let the other service providers speak for themselves, but I really, really don’t think ICANN has any business attempting to interfere in attorney/client relationships – that is clearly outside of our scope and ICANN’s remit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul D. McGrady Jr.
>>>>>
>>>>> Partner
>>>>>
>>>>> Chair, Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice
>>>>>
>>>>> Winston & Strawn LLP
>>>>> 35 W. Wacker Drive
>>>>> Chicago, IL 60601-9703
>>>>>
>>>>> D: +1 (312) 558-5963
>>>>>
>>>>> F: +1 (312) 558-5700
>>>>>
>>>>> Bio<http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/mcgrady-paul-d.
>>>>> html> | VCard<http://www.winston.com/vcards/996.vcf> |
>>>>> Email<mailto:pmcgrady at winston.com> |
>>>>> winston.com<http://www.winston.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> <image001.jpg>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From:
>>>>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounc<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounc>
>>>>> es at icann.org<mailto:es at icann.org>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On
>>>>> Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 8:19 AM
>>>>> To:
>>>>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Proposed language on
>>>>> attestation
>>>>>
>>>>> Tx Val,
>>>>> Many of us think adding the statement you have drafted below would be very useful. Tx you! But still it does not get its hand around our full concer. What we seek is not the self-declaration of the Consultant, but the clear delegation of the Trademark/Copyright Owner (e.g., Procter and Gamble). Where is the authorization?
>>>>>
>>>>> James Gannon, our newest member, has been working on some language that is perhaps a little long, and I am sure we can consolidate, but creates a "Letter of Delegation of Authority for Reveal Requests" that shows clearly that the Trademark/Copyright Owner at the senior levels intended to delegate the authority for the legal judgments of infringements being made, and the limitations on the use of the revealed data being committed to. Provided to the Provider and, if necessary, the Customer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's the language. Best, Kathy
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to find a compromise between both sides of the aisle here I suggest the following possible solution:
>>>>>
>>>>> Policy Principle: Entities who issue requests pursuant to the Policy must ensure they have the delegated authority to do so. Where an entity requests a reveal of records and does not have the written authority to do so, the entity is deemed to be in non-compliance with the policy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Detailed Policy Language for Principle:
>>>>>
>>>>> The sitting corporate officers or general counsel of the requester organization issues a Letter of Delegation of Authority for Reveal Requests to be held directly by anyone to whom the Reveal Request authority is delegated. This letter is separate to the general delegation of agency to work on the holders behalf. This letter would be specifically delegating the authority to issue Reveal Requests to P/P Service Providers.
>>>>>
>>>>> The letter would include the following provisions:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Confirming and warranting the authorization of the delegator to appoint a delegate as an sitting Officer or General Counsel of the company or entity in question.
>>>>> - Specifying the nature of the delegation and the subject to whom the delegation is being given.
>>>>>
>>>>> - For each individual that the delegation of authority applies, a letter so delegating that authority to the individual, by name, will be prepared. This letter will specify that the delegation is specific to the process for requesting reveals of personal and potentially private and sensitive information of individuals, organizations and companies.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Affirming the authority and expertise of the delegated party to render legal judgements on trademark and copyright infringements.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Clearly and directly affirming the commitment of the delegating organization or company to be bound by the limits of the use of the Revealed Data as set out in the ICANN policy now and as it might be modified in the future, and consistent with the laws of the jurisdiction in which the Proxy/Privacy Service Provider is incorporated.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Delegating Organization or Company expressly agrees to be answerable for any challenges that arise by virtue of the Delegatee's actions in preparing and responding to Reveal Requests, and the Delegatee's handling of the Revealed Data, and agrees to be bound to challenge, review and/or lawsuit in any jurisdiction in which the Delegatee has agreed to be bound.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Delegating Organization or Company consents Provide a copy of this Letter of Delegated Authority for Reveal Requests as a part of the Reveal Request process and as requested by the Proxy/Privacy Service Provider.
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> :
>>>>> Dear all:
>>>>>
>>>>> Following up on our productive discussion earlier this week, we’d like to offer a suggestion to modify the “attestation” provisions (II.A.6.c; II.B.7.d; and II.C.6.c) to require a statement by the requestor specifying his/her authority for making the request, or basis for agency if he or she is not the rights holder. For example: “Where the signatory is not the rights holder, he/she must attest that he/she is an authorized representative of the rights holder, capable and qualified to evaluate and address the matters involved in this request, and having the authority to make the representations and claims on behalf of the rights holder in the request.”
>>>>>
>>>>> We could even spell out the statement for the signatory to make in conjunction with each request : “I attest that I am the rights holder / authorized representative of the rights holder, capable and qualified to evaluate and address the matters involved in this request, and have the authority to make the representations and claims in this request.”
>>>>>
>>>>> These statements of authority and agency are to be made in good faith, under the penalty of perjury – just like representations forming the basis for the request and the requestor’s promise to use the data disclosed only for limited enumerated purposes – and the falsity of these statements would be redressable by the method(s) we agree on.
>>>>>
>>>>> We believe this approach fairly balances the considerations expressed by various WG members and look forward to your thoughts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Val
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Valeriya
>>>>> Sherman<http://www.sgrlaw.com/attorneys/profiles/sherman-valeriya/
>>>>> > | Attorney at Law
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 202-973-2611 phone
>>>>> 202-263-4326 fax
>>>>> www.sgrlaw.com<http://www.sgrlaw.com<http://www.sgrlaw.com%3chttp:/www.sgrlaw.com>>
>>>>> vsherman at sgrlaw.com<mailto:vsherman at sgrlaw.com<mailto:vsherman at sgrlaw.com%3cmailto:vsherman at sgrlaw.com>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
>>>>> Suite 400
>>>>> Washington, D.C. 20007
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ms. Sherman's practice is limited to matters before federal courts and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
>>>>> She is not admitted in the District of Columbia.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <image002.jpg><http://www.sgrlaw.com> Smith, Gambrell & Russell,
>>>>> LLP
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> Confidentiality Notice
>>>>> This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>
>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>
>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> 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: vgreimann at key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net%3cmailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net%3chttp:/www.key-systems.net>> /
>>>>> www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net%3chttp:/www.RRPproxy.net>>
>>>>>
>>>>> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com%3chttp:/www.domaindiscount24.com>> /
>>>>> www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com%3chttp:/www.BrandShelter.com>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
>>>>>
>>>>> www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems%3chttp:/www.facebook.com/KeySystems>>
>>>>>
>>>>> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems%3chttp:/www.twitter.com/key_systems>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
>>>>>
>>>>> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
>>>>>
>>>>> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>>>>>
>>>>> www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu%3chttp:/www.keydrive.lu>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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: vgreimann at key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net%3cmailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net%3chttp:/www.key-systems.net>> /
>>>>> www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net%3chttp:/www.RRPproxy.net>>
>>>>>
>>>>> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com%3chttp:/www.domaindiscount24.com>> /
>>>>> www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com%3chttp:/www.BrandShelter.com>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
>>>>>
>>>>> www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems%3chttp:/www.facebook.com/KeySystems>>
>>>>>
>>>>> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems%3chttp:/www.twitter.com/key_systems>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
>>>>>
>>>>> Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
>>>>>
>>>>> V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>>>>>
>>>>> www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu%3chttp:/www.keydrive.lu>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>>> --
>>>> 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: vgreimann at key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>>>>
>>>> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>
>>>> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>
>>>>
>>>> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
>>>> www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
>>>> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
>>>>
>>>> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
>>>> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.:
>>>> DE211006534
>>>>
>>>> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>>>> www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu>
>>>>
>>>> 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: vgreimann at key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>>>>
>>>> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>
>>>> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>
>>>>
>>>> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
>>>> www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
>>>> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
>>>>
>>>> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
>>>> Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
>>>>
>>>> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>>>> www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> --
>> 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: vgreimann at key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>>
>> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com>
>> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>
>>
>> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
>> www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
>> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
>>
>> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
>> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.:
>> DE211006534
>>
>> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>> www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu>
>>
>> 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: vgreimann at key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>>
>> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com>
>> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>
>>
>> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
>> www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
>> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
>>
>> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
>> Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
>>
>> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>> www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
--
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: vgreimann at key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu>
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: vgreimann at key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu>
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.
_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150413/f13dd748/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list