[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Dangers of public whois
Volker Greimann
vgreimann at key-systems.net
Tue Feb 14 18:03:43 UTC 2017
Hi Allion,
to your first point: the right to privacy of ones own data may be
different where I live and where you live. Suffice it to say that in our
day-to-day business we get eough complaints from customers who feel
their rivacy has been violated either by our putting their data out for
everyone to see or by customers of ours who provide services that do the
same. And we both agree that whois privacy will not protect you 100%.
to your second point: why is requiring the same legal standard for
accessing data of customers of hosting service providers, of ebay
account holders, of Amazon sellers and many other areas where the data
is not public suddenly not feasible for customers of domain name
registrars? Our privacy service gets regular subpoenas for data of
customers. Why is making that the standard suddenly the end of the world?
And while I appreciate the good work that many like John are doing on a
private level, ultimately they are not law enforcement and are not
entitled to the same level of access as law enforcement has just like a
rent-a-cop does not have the same law enforcement powers a real cop has.
Re:Spamhaus: I have worked with them and while they provide a valuable
anti-spam service, some of their methods or publications leave a lot to
be desired. The fact that they ofter outright refuse to provide evidence
of their claims, the fact that they outright lie to ICANN compliance,
and the fact that they bend numbers anyway they need to fit their
narrative do not help to build trust and work with them as partners. I
think they provide a good service but ultimately they are vigilantes and
often overshoot their mark. This "study" is one such instance where they
present a result without allowing the reader to look at the work that
led to the result. And that makes it worthless for peer review or for
basing anything on their results.
Best,
Volker
Am 14.02.2017 um 18:39 schrieb allison nixon:
> >>Here you go with the edge cases again.
>
> The mother of all edge cases is the main contention of this entire
> working group. The theory that an innocent domain registrant's privacy
> is either "violated" or "not violated" and that this somehow hinges on
> the privacy status of the WHOIS data. This is absolutely a false
> premise. If I want to find someone, and they frequently use the
> Internet and aren't extremely OPSEC-aware, I'm going to find them.
> WHOIS privacy absolutely will not protect them.
>
> Does anyone believe this premise that also has experience in
> investigations? I do not believe any such person exists, because when
> you are experienced in tracking people down, you will know that this
> premise is factually untrue.
>
> >>Well it might be so, but every singel person “claiming” they use whois
> for investigation seems to lack the understanding that they will get
> the access it will just be a little harder to get the normal misuse of
> whois info can be prevented but looks like noen of you want that to happen
>
> Is this an assurance? Because the talk I see here is about requiring
> paperwork like subpeonas and search warrants and that isn't feasible
> both from an investigation or automation standpoint as well as the
> fact that the vast majority of the anti-abuse community are not cops.
> There's no sign whatsoever that there is consideration towards anti-abuse.
>
> >>I trust these statistics by spamhaus less than anything coming out of
> the mouth of the orange menace. And that is saying something.
>
> You stand alone in that opinion. Spamhaus is not perfect but they are
> the most widely used blocklists among network operators. The amount of
> harm prevented by Spamhaus's block lists eclipses the harm prevented
> by registrants receiving WHOIS spam. It is like comparing the size of
> the sun to the size of an ant. If you have ever tried to operate from
> infrastructure that's on Spamhaus's block lists, your access to the
> Internet at large will be very poor indeed.
>
> How many of you people actually have day to day experience in fighting
> spam and preventing the massive privacy invasions that happen on a
> daily basis to innocent people? I am getting the feeling that this
> group badly needs to gain some perspective. WHOIS spam is a problem
> and is an annoyance, privacy is important, but this group keeps
> talking about WHOIS privacy and completely ignoring the fact that by
> volume such a scheme would cause great harms for mostly imaginary
> gain. To me this shows a sign that many of the arguments here are
> about idealism without practical experience.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 12:24 PM, benny at nordreg.se
> <mailto:benny at nordreg.se> <benny at nordreg.se <mailto:benny at nordreg.se>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi John
>
> None in the group can do that, just as little as the opposite if
> we dont work together on the needs, give and take on it, we will
> not move forward.
> But the attitude which I see where the Status Quo are the driver
> for the discussions are not really productive…
>
> Everything can be changed with new privacy laws coming in to force
>
>
>
> --
> Med vänliga hälsningar / Kind Regards / Med vennlig hilsen
>
> Benny Samuelsen
> Registry Manager - Domainexpert
>
> Nordreg AB - ICANN accredited registrar
> IANA-ID: 638
> Phone: +46.42197080 <tel:%2B46.42197080>
> Direct: +47.32260201 <tel:%2B47.32260201>
> Mobile: +47.40410200 <tel:%2B47.40410200>
>
> > On 14 Feb 2017, at 18:18, John Horton <john.horton at legitscript.com
> <mailto:john.horton at legitscript.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Benny,
> >
> > Let me try to dig into that a little bit with a serious
> question. What assurance do those of us engaged in cybercrime
> investigation -- or not yet created organizations that are
> legitimate -- have that we would have the same level of access in
> the future? Is it possible for this group to make that assurance?
> To be sure, this isn't my only concern or objection, but part of
> what I'm trying to get at is: even if those of us on this working
> group were to agree that cybercrime-mitigation entities should
> have the same access we have today, what's to prevent a stricter
> regime from changing the rules in the future? In other words, if
> we create a system that empowers one central organization to say
> that Allison's reasons (for example) are valid now, there's
> nothing to prevent that organization from deciding to block her in
> the future because they don't believe her reasons for
> investigating cybercrime are valid. Put another way, my concern
> isn't that you personally or anyone on this group wants to block
> cybercrime mitigation from happening -- rather, I'm wondering how
> this group could bind a future RDS 1, 5 or 10 years down the road
> not to change the goalposts.
> >
> > John Horton
> > President and CEO, LegitScript
> >
> >
> > Follow LegitScript: LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter | Blog | Google+
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 9:05 AM, benny at nordreg.se
> <mailto:benny at nordreg.se> <benny at nordreg.se
> <mailto:benny at nordreg.se>> wrote:
> > Well it might be so, but every singel person “claiming” they use
> whois for investigation seems to lack the understanding that they
> will get the access it will just be a little harder to get the
> normal misuse of whois info can be prevented but looks like noen
> of you want that to happen...
> >
> > --
> > Med vänliga hälsningar / Kind Regards / Med vennlig hilsen
> >
> > Benny Samuelsen
> > Registry Manager - Domainexpert
> >
> > Nordreg AB - ICANN accredited registrar
> > IANA-ID: 638
> > Phone: +46.42197080 <tel:%2B46.42197080>
> > Direct: +47.32260201 <tel:%2B47.32260201>
> > Mobile: +47.40410200 <tel:%2B47.40410200>
> >
> > > On 14 Feb 2017, at 17:58, allison nixon <elsakoo at gmail.com
> <mailto:elsakoo at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Benny, dude, you just wrote "Buhu my work will get harder", so
> please don't complain about adult and mature answers
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:56 AM, benny at nordreg.se
> <mailto:benny at nordreg.se> <benny at nordreg.se
> <mailto:benny at nordreg.se>> wrote:
> > > A very adult and mature answer… with some nice baked in
> threats, funny its only your kind of crimes which matter
> apparantly… oh and the final on which always are been draged out
> when there are no more arguments, think about the one child we can
> save…
> > >
> > > To answer your questions hidden in the threats, yes you are
> part of the better for all but that also means everyone have to
> give and take to come to a better solution.
> > > In you ignorance you completely miss the point that by have
> all these data public there are commited crimes every minut by
> using those data nut hey what does that matter as long as you
> business can roll on… I guess those people will thank you for you
> helpful insights…
> > >
> > > Welcome to the discussion
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Med vänliga hälsningar / Kind Regards / Med vennlig hilsen
> > >
> > > Benny Samuelsen
> > > Registry Manager - Domainexpert
> > >
> > > Nordreg AB - ICANN accredited registrar
> > > IANA-ID: 638
> > > Phone: +46.42197080 <tel:%2B46.42197080>
> > > Direct: +47.32260201 <tel:%2B47.32260201>
> > > Mobile: +47.40410200 <tel:%2B47.40410200>
> > >
> > > > On 14 Feb 2017, at 17:29, John Bambenek
> <jcb at bambenekconsulting.com <mailto:jcb at bambenekconsulting.com>>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Let me translate Allison's comments in the light of your
> mockery.
> > > >
> > > > You're ideas of privacy are patently absurd and your
> arrogance that entire industries need to rewrite how they do
> things to suit your effete and fantastical notions is
> breathtaking. Your mockery of people who investigate crime is just
> icing on the cake. Its not a question of looking past your own
> walls, its a question of whether you religious fanatics can
> acknowledge that other use cases are valid (or are we not part of
> the "all" in "better for all"). Are you really suggesting
> preventing spam is a higher priority than stopping human
> trafficking online?
> > > >
> > > > If someone who had need of privacy came to me for advice on
> registering a domain name I would tell them absolutely not to do
> it. Use blogspot or any other mechanism that doesn't involve a
> financial transaction to shield your privacy. Creating paper
> trails is always a poor life decision when OPSEC matters. Anything
> less and I would stop taking your concerns seriously.
> > > >
> > > > That said, we have a viable compromise, its called whois
> privacy protection. And it allows me to use risk based decisions
> on how I treat traffic to such domains.
> > > >
> > > > But if you wish to enable criminals to better hide so they
> can steal people's life savings, so they can anonymously traffic
> in child exploitation or to engage in sextortion against teenage
> girls all because you can't handle a spam filter, you can count me
> one that will line up against you and very publicly label you an
> enabler of child sexual exploitation. Then I will go to Congress,
> drag ICANN back under the Department of Commerce and ensure some
> adult supervision is had.
> > > >
> > > > Or you can calm the hell down and knock it off with your
> attitude and we can find a viable middle ground. Totally your call.
> > > >
> > > > And if you are really concerned about spammers, I help run
> investigations against them too (using whois data, in part) and
> could totally use the help.
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > >
> > > >> On Feb 14, 2017, at 05:28, "benny at nordreg.se
> <mailto:benny at nordreg.se>" <benny at nordreg.se
> <mailto:benny at nordreg.se>> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> So basicaly what you say are… Buhu my work will get harder,
> let all innocent registrants suffer from spam/scam mail sprung out
> of the whois data published, all those registrants who get fake
> mails about renewing there domain or buying fake SEO plans?
> > > >> How can anyone defend that we have data published to get
> abused just because some bad guys registrer domains? And those of
> you who does will still have access to the date just not in the
> same easy way…
> > > >>
> > > >> Sorry for my harsh tone but I really don’t see why we cant
> look past our own walls and find a solution which are to the
> better for all..
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Med vänliga hälsningar / Kind Regards / Med vennlig hilsen
> > > >>
> > > >> Benny Samuelsen
> > > >> Registry Manager - Domainexpert
> > > >>
> > > >> Nordreg AB - ICANN accredited registrar
> > > >> IANA-ID: 638
> > > >> Phone: +46.42197080 <tel:%2B46.42197080>
> > > >> Direct: +47.32260201 <tel:%2B47.32260201>
> > > >> Mobile: +47.40410200 <tel:%2B47.40410200>
> > > >>
> > > >>> On 14 Feb 2017, at 06:38, allison nixon <elsakoo at gmail.com
> <mailto:elsakoo at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This car metaphor isn't complete without also stating that
> some car owners purchase them for the sole purpose of running over
> people!
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Some car owners purchase fleets of cars to run over as
> many people as possible. Even though they re-use their name on
> every single vehicle registration, the subpeona takes so long that
> the city can no longer automatically block the cars as they enter,
> and need to wait for them to run over a few people before they can
> do anything about it.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This metaphor has obviously been tortured past the point
> of absurdity, I'll leave it alone now.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I've mostly been lurking for the whole duration of this
> group, and please forgive me if I'm missing something massive
> here, but I get the impression that most people here don't spend a
> lot of time doing investigations. But this is my life. If I needed
> a subpeona for every single historical lookup, pivot, and reverse
> search, I would get zero done due to a lack of legal authority.
> Many if not most of the people doing the heavy lifting in
> anti-cybercrime efforts are private citizens with no government
> issued authority. It seems that the general expectation here is
> that limiting access to people with badges is OK, but I'm telling
> you there is a severe lack of those skillsets and it will be years
> before we see widespread technical literacy among the police.
> Whatever system results, private citizens need a path for
> unrestricted and automated access. And if we want to talk
> protecting privacy, I think criminally motivated violations of
> privacy are far more likely to affect everyone's day to day life
> right now, and automated WHOIS lookups are used heavily especially
> in anti-phishing and anti-spam operations.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> With the status quo, I can go on fishing expeditions
> through the WHOIS data and turn up hundreds of domains used for
> the same type of malicious activity, and predict with a high
> accuracy which domains will be malicious before they are used for
> anything. It sometimes turns up domains owned by innocent people,
> and I doubt privacy minded people would like that, but the reality
> is I rarely ever encounter WHOIS data that is convincing PII. It's
> almost all fake. And if it's not fake, it's a company's public
> contact info, or it's a foolish person who turned down WHOIS
> privacy protection, and will change their WHOIS as soon as the
> spam starts flowing.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Have there been any studies on what percentage of WHOIS
> data is real and correct? Can we ever expect to have meaningful
> data when registrars are allowed to take Bitcoins over Tor as
> payment? At what point does "privacy" become an empty argument
> when some of these Internet hosting/registrar companies clearly
> profit from facilitating abuse, and network defenders block entire
> TLDs due to the saturation of abuse?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> From my vantage point, I see great benefit from seeing
> patterns in the fake data submitted by fraudsters, and I see few
> harms from the privacy side of things, because people seem to
> generally realize that "123 fake st" is a perfectly acceptable
> WHOIS entry.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I also recognize this situation is completely absurd.
> Every aspect of this is surely an abuse of the original system.
> But it seems like building a pyramid from the top down,
> restricting access to supposed "PII" that is unlikely to contain
> PII, to the detriment of legitimate efforts that also seek to
> enhance privacy by preventing criminal theft of private data like
> bank account numbers.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Sam Lanfranco
> <sam at lanfranco.net <mailto:sam at lanfranco.net>> wrote:
> > > >>> I have to strongly agree with Alex that whatever the
> criteria are for thin data, they cannot include that thin data "is
> transitive" in some sort of bread crumb trail manner.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Everything is potentially transitive in that sense. I
> observe a vehicle but all I get is make, model and license plate,
> and in most jurisdictions that is all I get. It is the vehicle
> owner's "thin data". Of course I can hang around, see that the car
> has a baby seat, witness a woman or man putting a child in the
> car, assume that she/he has legitimate access to the car, follow
> the car and assemble more personal information (lives at; works
> at; shops at; visits;) The license plate didn't facilitate that
> crumb train discovery, but no license plate would hamper
> legitimate seeking of information about who owns the car (issuing
> a parking ticket, LEA investigation, etc.) . License plate is part
> of thin data with no gated access. Of course, this will change in
> the era of the digital vehicle. Depending on security, and
> authorization, one will be able to just ask the car, and ask about
> a lot of things...like whose cell phone was in the passenger's
> seat last night, when I was supposed to be alone )-:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> There needs to be a similar balance (license plate but no
> owner's name unless wanted, like Sam's Curry Pizza Barn logo,
> phone number and website URL painted on the side).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> More Important, have we made progress (convergence) on the
> working principles that should be brought to bear in building a
> thin data set. A lot of time has been spent looking at good case
> and bad case scenarios. What operational principles have been
> distilled from all these examples? What is the balance between
> thin data inclusion and exclusion, and design and technical
> solutions that can be used to prevent (for example) robotic
> harvesting? There is another frontier here, and that is what
> governments will do to restrain or enable certain uses of thin
> data? While ICANN needs to be aware of what is going on there,
> that part is beyond ICANN's remit, but those policies will help
> shape some of the context within which ICANN deals with the thin
> data task.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Sam L
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 2017-02-14 1:23 AM, Deacon, Alex wrote:
> > > >>> All,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> So it seems the debate has progressed from “thin data” to
> “thick data” (i.e. data that includes email). I know we are all
> super excited to talk about “thick data” but I don’t think we are
> there yet (are we? Hopefully I didn’t miss the party…)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Focusing on thin data for the moment I struggle to
> understand how it is personal data. I do not believe it is. As
> for the odd logic proposed by some that the property of privacy is
> transitive (i.e. Because “thin data” can be used to
> link/point/discover other data then “thin data” equals “personal
> data”) I just don’t buy it.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I don’t disagree with much of what was expressed in this
> thread, however we must keep in mind that balance and
> proportionality are important concepts in many (all?) data privacy
> laws. Any arguments that imply that no such balance exists (or
> should exist) is obstructive IMO.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Alex
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 2/13/17, 5:42 AM, <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> michele at blacknight.com <mailto:michele at blacknight.com>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I agree and I know from how I’ve used various email
> addresses that they are actively being harvested and spammed.
> > > >>> Also it’s one of the biggest sources of complaints
> we get from our clients (registrants)
> > > >>> It’s definitely not an “edge case”.
> > > >>> Regards
> > > >>> Michele
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Mr Michele Neylon
> > > >>> Blacknight Solutions
> > > >>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
> > > >>> https://www.blacknight.com/
> > > >>> http://blacknight.blog/
> > > >>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
> > > >>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> > > >>> Social: http://mneylon.social
> > > >>> Some thoughts: http://ceo.hosting/
> > > >>> -------------------------------
> > > >>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside
> Business Park,Sleaty
> > > >>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company
> No.: 370845
> > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> > > >>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> > > >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> > > >>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> > > >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> *--------------------------------------------*
> > > >>> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
> > > >>> in an unjust state" -Confucius
> > > >>> ----------------------------------------------
> > > >>> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
> > > >>> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
> > > >>> YorkU email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco
> > > >>> blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
> <http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com>
> > > >>> Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> > > >>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> > > >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> _________________________________
> > > >>> Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> > > >> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> > > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > _________________________________
> > > Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> > gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> _________________________________
> Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-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
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
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
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
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
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
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170214/60521258/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list