[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Attendance, Recordings & AC Chat from Next-Gen RDS PDP WG call on Tuesday, 01 August 2017 at 16:00 UTC
Julie Bisland
julie.bisland at icann.org
Tue Aug 1 23:49:35 UTC 2017
Dear All,
Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email, and the Adobe Connect chat, MP3 & Adobe Connect recordings below for the Next-Gen RDS PDP Working group call held on Tuesday, 01 August 2017 at 16:00 UTC.
MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-nextgen-rds-pdp-01aug17-en.mp3
AC recording: https://participate.icann.org/p9iru2t8yn8/<https://participate.icann.org/p9iru2t8yn8/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=576da2f56b1bce78d33e2124e47b1e7135cfcbe986c3c37c77f191df907c5dba>
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-2Dactivities_calendar-23nov&d=DwMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=GJMkY4Fbi9sry9Z53DaSWJm-mHxMfFxg7MEVDf2JU90&s=FI3QJYH6DWWCDQir6NDMSjPkzdqfTTUmf9Ua-AYpc14&e=>
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/
Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/VWfwAw
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Julie
———————————————
AC Chat Next-Gen RDS PDP WG Tuesday, 01 August 2017
Julie Bisland:Welcome to the GNSO Next-Gen RDS PDP Working Group call on Tuesday, 01 August 2017 at 16:00 UTC
Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_VWfwAw&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=QiF-05YzARosRvTYd84AB_UYInlydmFcjNmBM5XgySw&m=8xiMwbkCTIQGq0CaG_mL_HI2_-63KJLT4JJm-6Ow-iI&s=PnFD4KhHpsuUAH7NTALPB72EQkQJk0nUWMIvNixknG8&e=
Volker Greimann:Update: I am also Member of RDS Review team
Andrew Sullivan:When I was made IAB Chair a friend of mine offered "congratudolances", which I thought was an excellent word.
Alan Greenberg:Indeed! I like that. Will need to file it away for future use.
Lisa Phifer:RDS-WHOIS2-RT membership: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_WHO_Review-2BTeam-2BComposition&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=QiF-05YzARosRvTYd84AB_UYInlydmFcjNmBM5XgySw&m=8xiMwbkCTIQGq0CaG_mL_HI2_-63KJLT4JJm-6Ow-iI&s=uSoEnOsBE5ztWCEZEu9zjSdzCg3iP6Qu5eUdHkaVs0I&e=
Michele Neylon:Andrew - that's a wonderful word
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):hello all, sorry for being bit late
Stephanie Perrin:apologies for being a couple of nnnutes late
Vicky Sheckler:apologies for being late . . . and having to leave .5 hr early today
Lisa Phifer:From RAA: The Registrant is the entity that has acquired the right to use the Internet resource. A Domain Name Registrant is the person ororganization who has registered the domain name, also referred to as a Registered Name Holder.
Stephanie Perrin:I do think it matters legally what your arrangement is with the entity who is the registered name holder
Michele Neylon:Marc's correct
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):We might exect large amount of trusties also( persons whom registrants trust to register on their behalf), as a part of efforts rount GDPR issues
Michele Neylon:in a privacy registration the registrant name is listed in the whois output
Alan Greenberg:Yes, correct. Privacy reveal the name and but not the contact info.
Michele Neylon:or can be
Lisa Phifer:@Marc is correct, the proxy is the registant but in a privacy registration, the registrant is not the privacy provider
Alan Greenberg:However, are there actually any privacy providers? Lat time I looked I could not find one.
Stephanie Perrin:Do we know much about lawyers who act for clients? My thought was no...
Michele Neylon:Stephanie - there's no way to know
Alan Greenberg:We know they exist...
Stephanie Perrin:Exactly, we are not privy tt the contract
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Stephanie, in case where it is not the only service (registrsation of domains), we will not see them as privacy proxy , I think
Michele Neylon:and they don't identify themselves as lawyers acting for anyone in the registration
Michele Neylon:TBH we also have designers / developers / IT service companies registering domains for people - we've no way of knowing
Alan Greenberg:At one point, the case was made that a lawyer acting in this way MUST register as a Proxy provider, but that is clearly not practical or going to happen.
Michele Neylon:Alan - there's no way to police it
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):currently it is possible to use email+1contact at gmail.com<mailto:email+1contact at gmail.com> and email+2contact at gmail.com<mailto:email+2contact at gmail.com> when really it is only one
Fabricio Vayra:+1 Michele
Alex Deacon:Agree Michele
Vicky Sheckler:re email address, if the email provider goes down, can't the registrant update his / her information w/ an updated email address?
Greg Shatan:This is why we need email AND phone AND physical address.
Michele Neylon:Vicky - depends on whether they can login to change it - they can end up in a catch 22 / circle of hell
Michele Neylon:ie. login is tied to the email that isn't working + the reset stuff goes to the dead email
Andrew Sullivan:I think it is entirely reasonable to suggest that you can't have a domain name if you don't have an email address
Lisa Phifer:"At minimum" is not "At most" - option a) states that email address to reach the Registrant is mandatory to collect and include in the RDS
Lisa Phifer:option b) states that one or more email address(es) to reach contact(s) serving in certain roles is mandatory to collect and include in the RDS
Vicky Sheckler:+1 andrew
Marc Anderson:+1 Rod - that addresses my hesitation
Fabricio Vayra:+1 Andrew. Wea re talking about an audience who is opting for a domain name registration -- the very basis for email addresses.
Tapani Tarvainen:A registrar or domain reseller could offer contact email management as a service (which they'd presumably relay to the actual registrant somehow).
Lisa Phifer:a) and b) are really different requirements
Rod Rasmussen:@Tapani - yep, that's thinking outside the current registration paradigm "box"
Roger Carney:+1 Michele
Andrew Sullivan:It seems to me that someone who doesn't have an email address is pretty unlikely to need a domain name. Perhaps such registrations ought to be discouraged!
Michele Neylon:Andrew - I'd disagree strongly - sorry :)
neil schwartzman:"I think it is entirely reasonable to suggest that you can't have a domain name if you don't have an email address" +1
Lisa Phifer:@Alan, the need for alternatives is covered by poll question 30
neil schwartzman:why infantize domain registrants. do they have credit cards? bank accounts?
Andrew Sullivan:I think it would be a bad idea to disallow in-bailiwick email addresses
Andrew Sullivan:People used to try to do this for nameservers, and we discovered that what people did was make circular references
Alex Deacon:agree with andrew and it is yet another reason why we need multiplc contact mathods (email AND phone AND physical address.)
Andrew Sullivan:My MX record for anvilwalrusden.com and crankycanuck.ca is mx4.yitter.info
Andrew Sullivan:but of course, yitter.info and anvilwalrusden.com and crankycanuck.ca are all on the same machine
Andrew Sullivan:so this policy would actually provide no protection but would be another barrier.
Michele Neylon:Andrew - years ago we had two nameservers running on the same physical server :)
Lisa Phifer:Note that alternative contacts are covered in the next poll question, so any new concept should dovetail with that (if agreed)
Lisa Phifer:Anyone opposed to b) please raise hand and explain why
Andrew Sullivan:A TLD of my acquaintance had out-of-baliwick name servers "for safety". Unfortunately, the name servers for the out-of-bailiwick name was beneath the TLD :)
Michele Neylon:haha
Vicky Sheckler:i am ok w/ B
Andrew Sullivan:when the Bad Day happened, it was a lot more work to figure out what was wrong.
Andrew Sullivan:I'm ok with B
Michele Neylon:well the TLDs that use their own TLD for their own DNS are kind of asking for trouble
Kris Seeburn:i'm also ok with B
Michele Neylon:the DNS swapping that some of the ccTLDs do makes a lot more sense to me
Andrew Sullivan:@Michele: I disagree, actually. That glue is all over the place for any TLD that is in widespread use. But it does no harm, either
Michele Neylon:Andrew - one of these days we'll agree on something :)
Lisa Phifer:(Revised) WG Agreement #29: At a minimum, one or more e-mail addresses must be collected for every domain name included in the RDS, for contact roles that require an e-mail address for contactability
Volker Greimann:the registrar may need it and collect it, but why would it need to be included in the rds?
tim obrine:hello all, appologies for the tardyness - flight from Vegas was late, and conflicting call :/
Andrew Sullivan:@Volker: I am trying to understand what the RDS is that is not what registrars collect. But the need is because, if your domain is spewing stuff onto the Internet and I need to reach you, I'm probably not going to be able to use the Internet to do it.
Michele Neylon:Volker - exactly
Lisa Phifer:GregS: In addition to email address, data enabling two alternative methods of contact must be collected and included in the RDS.
Lisa Phifer:Question: Does a requirement for one preclude two?
Lisa Phifer:DONE, see GregS above
Greg Shatan:This is hardly "every possible risk," Also, you can't publish data you don't collect.....
Alex Deacon:Greg A. comment is important IMO - existing policy requires email and two other required contact methods (postal address and phone #) I don't see any reason to change that policy..
Vicky Sheckler:disagree w/ stephanie. see comments in poll for rationale for having multiple forms of contact
Michele Neylon:I'll slip Stephanie a fiver later for all those nice comments :)
Herb Waye Ombuds:Folks, I must drop out for another commitment. Wishing you all a productive meeting. See you next time.
Michael Hammer:That still doesn't address the issue of fake information provided.
Lisa Phifer:@Alex, could you provide rationale for why those other contat methods are required? So that we can move beyond "it's that way now" to "it needs to be that way because..."
tim obrine:disagree w/ stephanie
Vicky Sheckler:disagree again - there is a need for information to be accessible to others outside of the registrar. that is part of ther eason for having the RDS in teh first place.
Stephanie Perrin:I am certainly not arguing with the riskiness of reliance on email
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):spam filters sometimes fail even for working e-mail
Alex Deacon:@lisa - basically to ensure chances of contactability are high.
Greg Shatan:I was going to suggest 13 alternative methods of contact, but I decided not to try and address every possible risk.
tim obrine:There, name fixed
Lisa Phifer:@Alex, can you differentiate between a need for 2 alternatives (of any kind) versus the two alternatives you listed? Which should be required and why?
jonathan matkowsky:I am also mystified by how a distributed database would be guarded by the RDS
tim obrine:or not :/
jonathan matkowsky:Guarded by the registrars, and not in the RDS is what I mean
Otieno Antony:@FAITID That depends with how it has been developed
Stephanie Perrin:Lots of stuff in the RAA not included in the RAA
Stephanie Perrin:RDS that is
Lisa Phifer:Scope of RAA is not simply RDDS reuqirements - RDDS requirements are a subset of the RAA requirements today
Andrew Sullivan:Since we're talking not just about the stuff that is exposed but also the stuff that is collected, we extended the traditional meaning of "RDS", IMO
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):what ID's, scans of the passports e.t.c. has to do with RDS?
Andrew Sullivan:Apparently I am being hobbled by my history with database design :-/
jonathan matkowsky:Registrars have to disclose all contact information to the Dispute Resolution Providers, and that correspondence is provided to the Complainant anyway, so it should be publicly available to begin with as it needs to be verified in a UDRP, for example,
Andrew Sullivan:Anyway, I think this is my problem and not one for anyone else, so I'll shut up and stop distracting us
Lisa Phifer:Recall a year or so ago when we discussed SAC054, Report on Domain Name Registration Data Model (June 2012) and noted some data is collected that is beyond the scope of RDS data
Fabricio Vayra:@Michele - What types of info?
Lisa Phifer:https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-054-en.pdf
Michele Neylon:Fabricio - IP addresses for every login
Michele Neylon:usernames
Michele Neylon:full list of other services
Michele Neylon:payment methods
Michele Neylon:failed payments
Michele Neylon:a lot of things
Greg Shatan:Lisa did!
Lisa Phifer:Yes, the alternative is in chat and notes
Greg Shatan:Thank you, Lisa.
Otieno Antony:Should we have local/national internet registries that aim at ensuring clean databases of domain names and their entities?
Andrew Sullivan:Note that I was _not_ suggesting "the RDS" should have everything in it. But we got here because people were talking about contact info that registrars were to be required to collect, but that "wasn't in the RDS". I don't understand what that means.
Lisa Phifer:Suggest staff recirculate slides developed for our first F2F meeting based on SAC054 which illustrated the universe of data and the difference between that and WHOIS (RDS) today
Stephanie Perrin:Good idea Lisa
Andrew Sullivan:I know what SAC054 says & the distinction it makes
Andrew Sullivan:Nothing wrong with recirculating them, but it's able to make that distinction because of how WHOIS works.
Lisa Phifer:@Andrew, I know you do but we need to all get on the same page w/r/t scope
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):collected items should be justified by a reason
Alan Greenberg:@Andrew, sorry for expanding on what you were saying, but as an example, there are domains under my Registrar account that do not have me as the registrant. So in the correct circumstances, the regisrar can contact me or provide my contact info. But I am still not the registrant of record or in any way associated with the current WHOIS.
Andrew Sullivan:We have been debating whether some of the data that is collected now ought to be collected at all, and we've been talking about that as "collected in the RDS".
jonathan matkowsky:There is no one law governing data protection and varying views and even principles and philosophies of privacy.
Andrew Sullivan:It now sounds like there's some other database we have in mind that, taken together, is a superset of the RDS -- that is, the RDS is a proper subset of the distributed database that is all registration information
Andrew Sullivan:Keep in mind that "in the RDS" does not necessarily mean "under ICANN's control". This is a distributed database
Stephanie Perrin:What a registrar lcollects that is not in the RDS is under the Registrars sole controllership. I think the DPAs were sayingthat the data they collect for ICANN is under joint control.
Lisa Phifer:@Andrew, I know that wasn't the intent of at least the EWG, which had a principle to explicitly state data may be collected by registrars that is never shared with the RDS
Michael Hammer:In that case Tim, drop route. Have them added to RBLs.
jonathan matkowsky:Good point, Tim
Stephanie Perrin:Andrew, if ICANN compels it to be collected they are the controller of the data in DP terms....
tim obrine:that helps my org, but what of everyone else?
Michael Hammer:RBLs
Stephanie Perrin:I realize they do ntt have custody,
tim obrine:and that is only internal clients - what of those that are remote/on the road?
Lisa Phifer:suggest we re-poll on Q6 to separate concepts embodied: should alternative(s) be required, if so how many, what type, and why
Andrew Sullivan:@Stephanie: the point is that they won't necessarily have the data in their hands
Stephanie Perrin:Just to get this on the record as a reminder, we need to clarify that the data currently collected, disclosed, and escrowed as provided by the RAA may be surplus to what is permissible under the GDPR
Michael Hammer:"surplus to what is permissible"?
Vicky Sheckler:apologies but i need to drop off
Stephanie Perrin:too much being collected, disclosed and escrowed.
Sam Lanfranco:Ditto re: "apologies" - have to tend the fields - bye to all
Lisa Phifer:Note: we will keep "sync" on as Rod speaks to these slides, but you can download them from the wiki:
jonathan matkowsky:Let's leave that to the GDPR legal experts
Lisa Phifer:https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66086741/PBC-Overview-1August.pdf
jonathan matkowsky:And GDPR is not the only law out there. Lots of others equally relevant.
Andrew Sullivan:In EPP, these contacts all have a ROID
Andrew Sullivan:So you can use that as the key
Andrew Sullivan:since ROIDs are unique, generated by the repository ('registry') using a base assigned by IANA, so they're globally unique identfiers
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Contact data better to mark " was validated"
Volker Greimann:I have no issue with the voluntary provision of these additional funcitional contacts, but I do object to any requirement to do so.
Kris Seeburn:some regitrars still do that with the nic-hdl
Andrew Sullivan:@Volker: in TLDs you have to have these contacts today
Andrew Sullivan:they don't have to be reusable, unfortunately, and they're not allowed to be inter-registry
Alex Deacon:does EPP and RDAP use the same structure for contacts? (I believe RDAP uses vCard - no?)
Andrew Sullivan:The way the data appears is not the same, but that's the publication format
Andrew Sullivan:the data underneath it is the same
Volker Greimann:@Andrew: Legal contact, abuse contact? Where are thosetoday?
Andrew Sullivan:Oh, those two are new, yes
Andrew Sullivan:they're actually just new distinctions, of course.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):requireing Legal Contact from not so rich person is not realistic
Lisa Phifer:Abuse is not new, although it is done differently today that Admin/Tech, Abuse email and phone are in RAA now
Michael Hammer:LEgal contact doesn't necessarily mean "lawyer".
Volker Greimann:@Rod: I am worried about the Registrant ID field. That being public would allow anyone to figure out the complete set of domains owned by a registrant. And that may allow cross-referencing detective work
Kris Seeburn:Yes they are new.... but the issue is if you are a one man show.... it can be intteresting as to who would handle them
Kris Seeburn:but abuse is not new...i agree
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):most probably we will have lots of people adding local police dept there
Michael Hammer:@Volker, that is exactly what we do with abuse investigations.
Chuck Gomes:@ Volker: Please raise your question in the Q&A.
Alex Deacon:@rod - audio is fine. no noise on my end.
Volker Greimann:So if I owned dumptrump.com but still want to travel to the US in the near future without harrassment by border control and also greimann.org, those would share the same ID and therefore expose my ownership of the former
Volker Greimann:@Chuck: I have to leave early, so I wanted to put my concerns here to have them on the record...
Volker Greimann:I will listen to the answers in the recording later
Stephanie Perrin:I think Volker is raising a really good point.
Michael Hammer:@Volker, I'm sure you know how to register them differently.
Andrew Sullivan:It is part of the reason that people sometimes didn't use the handles
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Volker, you will need to use different Registrars to keep them with different IDs
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Simple, but important question - Who is goign to issue unique Registrant IDs?
Lisa Phifer:@Maxim, hold that question - Rod will answer
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):ok
Kris Seeburn:then we must have a field that defines indivudual, individual org and so on
Kris Seeburn:if you are small one...then you refill each filed all along...
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):this Idea is equal to creation to a registry of natural persons IDs
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):this idea will not pass GAC
Michael Hammer:Of course nobody will assume another persons identity...
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Which jurisdiction will trust the creation of a large directory of it's citizens to ICANN?
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):the only way to establish identity is an ID or a passport, so the directory should have scans of them, and it is way over the top of what we do in DNS
Michael Hammer:@Maxim, you don't trust me when I say I am me?
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):no, it might be not you :)
Michael Hammer:It really is, trust me.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it is just pixels and sound
Fabricio Vayra:Thanks, Rod! Great recap!!
Alex Deacon:@ maxim - no one has suggested a passport would be required.
Lisa Phifer:Sync is now off, you can scroll to any slide you had questions about
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):than how do we identofy persons to be same registrant ID?
Lisa Phifer:Copying for Rod to answer: Volker Greimann: @Rod: I am worried about the Registrant ID field. That being public would allow anyone to figure out the complete set of domains owned by a registrant. And that may allow cross-referencing detective work
Scott Hollenbeck (Verisign):ROID = Repository Identifier as specified in EPP
Scott Hollenbeck (Verisign):Repository Object IDentifier to be specific
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and if we do not identify Registrants, then value is minimal, so using ROIDs of Registry is more or less simple for this reason(and Registrars with Registrars, P&P have the full info, also it is in Escrow)
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and another concern is how good ICANN at keeping secrets? Historical records are not good for the latter
Andrew Sullivan:EV certificates have worked so well! Let's do it again ;-)
tim obrine:lol@ Andrew
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):at least one of the big companies could help with that
Andrew Sullivan:@Maxim: I think the idea is that you could do this cross-registry, though. That would be pretty convenient
Amr Elsadr:Volker Greimann: @Rod: I am worried about the Registrant ID field. That being public would allow anyone to figure out the complete set of domains owned by a registrant. And that may allow cross-referencing detective work
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Andrew, We will not trust another registry to held correct information until we have a contract with them
tim obrine:Which is something we need to have - to detect the full spread of malicious actors web sites
Andrew Sullivan:@Maxim: yeah, that's why I think this is a non-starter
Andrew Sullivan:but that's the underlying idea
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@tim you see only lazy ones this way
Scott Hollenbeck (Verisign):@Andrew @Maxim: The old Internic service could be used for something like this (again). it's in ICANN's possession...
Lisa Phifer:@Michael, IDs are used in gated access to query additional data, when you have permission to do so
Scott Hollenbeck (Verisign):...and registries and registrars already have contracts with ICANN...
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Scott, As I saw - usually ICANN hires some company to do everything from the scratch
Michael Hammer:Ouch!
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Scott, our contracts do not require blind trust to third parties
Scott Hollenbeck (Verisign):I'm not suggesting involvement of a third party
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):a registry/registrar to whom we do not have a contract - is a third party
Scott Hollenbeck (Verisign):I'm talking about ICANN and contracted parties - no other third parties
Alex Deacon:I don't see the concern as there is no requirement to re-use ID. you can always create a new one.
Andrew Sullivan:@Scott: so you're suggesting a single repository of contact information, and then separate registries for different domains, all referring to the central contact database?]
jonathan matkowsky:For compromised sites, would you reach out to the technical, admin and abuse contact? Maybe we should add a Security contact (thinking of this from the registrant's perspective)
Lisa Phifer:Note there are ways to map tokens to the same underlying contact - there are many ways to do this, if you have the concept of managing contacts, separately from managing registrations that use them.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):from ICANN's perspective yes, from a Registry/Registrar perspective - no, due to lack of agreements
Scott Hollenbeck (Verisign):@Andrew: yes, could be
Michele Neylon:Jonathan - the operational point of contact was floated in the past
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@jonathan , Security usually CC in all Aabuse contacts
Michele Neylon:Though I wish some infosec people would learn to use our abuse-c and not some $random email address
Lisa Phifer:Yes Rod
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all, it was a good call
Nathalie Coupet:bye all
jonathan matkowsky:Great presentation, and call
jonathan matkowsky:I like the idea of a "Disputes" contact more so than a "legal" contact per se
tim obrine:+jonathan
Julie Bisland:The next GNSO Next-Gen RDS PDP Working Group teleconference will take place on Tuesday, 08 August 2017 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
tim obrine:bye all
Andrew Sullivan:thanks, bye all
Kris Seeburn:bye
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170801/a69ca9ce/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Attendance RDS PDP 1 Aug.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 338616 bytes
Desc: Attendance RDS PDP 1 Aug.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170801/a69ca9ce/AttendanceRDSPDP1Aug-0001.pdf>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list