[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Dangers of public whois

allison nixon elsakoo at gmail.com
Tue Feb 14 18:36:16 UTC 2017 

I'm sure you can find that information. You won't even need my WHOIS data
to find it!

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 1:35 PM, benny at nordreg.se <benny at nordreg.se> wrote:

> Can you please reveal where you work and you job title? I would love to
> put these advices forward to ICANN compliance when we will be held up for
> allowing this…
>
> I would  be very helpful to have a good reference saying that only stupid
> people put in  there real adress
> --
> Med vänliga hälsningar / Kind Regards / Med vennlig hilsen
>
> Benny Samuelsen
> Registry Manager - Domainexpert
>
> Nordreg AB - ICANN accredited registrar
> IANA-ID: 638
> Phone: +46.42197080
> Direct: +47.32260201
> Mobile: +47.40410200
>
> > On 14 Feb 2017, at 19:20, allison nixon <elsakoo at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>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%.
> >
> > So put your contact address as "123 fake st" and your phone number as
> "555-555-5555". Make a fake email. No one is forcing you to disclose more
> than you want to. And the only people who disclose too much are doing so by
> mistake, not by coercion.
> >
> > >>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?
> >
> > Because when I purchase something from Amazon, I need to give my credit
> card number, address, zip, etc.  Similarly, we do not get payment details
> from the registrar, even though they require billing address and zip code,
> which is a completely different dataset than the zip codes in WHOIS data.
> WHOIS data is completely arbitrary and not required to complete any
> transactions.
> >
> > >>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.
> >
> > Your comparisons between anti-abuse and rent-a-cops further demonstrates
> your disrespect. I am happy to allow law enforcement to fully take over
> this work, but this field has not matured enough yet, and the literacy just
> isn't there. The skills, experience, and power rests almost fully in the
> private sector. This isn't some mall cop operation. It's the last line of
> defense between you and all manner of bad things happening to you. You
> might not like that, and you probably don't want to recognize that as
> legitimate, but it's reality. You should thank the people defending your
> networks, and the people defending the networks of companies you do
> business with.
> >
> > >>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.
> >
> > And it shows how bad the situation is when an operation of this quality
> is still the best and most used blocklist out there. When the volume of
> abuse is so high that "due process" is, literally, a mathematically
> impossible order. And despite all of those flaws, their actions do more to
> protect privacy than anything discussed in this working group.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Volker Greimann <
> vgreimann at key-systems.net> wrote:
> > 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 <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
> >> Direct: +47.32260201
> >> Mobile: +47.40410200
> >>
> >> > On 14 Feb 2017, at 18:18, John Horton <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 <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
> >> > Direct: +47.32260201
> >> > Mobile: +47.40410200
> >> >
> >> > > On 14 Feb 2017, at 17:58, allison nixon <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 <
> 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
> >> > > Direct: +47.32260201
> >> > > Mobile: +47.40410200
> >> > >
> >> > > > On 14 Feb 2017, at 17:29, John Bambenek <
> 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" <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
> >> > > >> Direct: +47.32260201
> >> > > >> Mobile: +47.40410200
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>> On 14 Feb 2017, at 06:38, allison nixon <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> 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 on
> behalf of 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
> >> > > >>>    https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> _______________________________________________
> >> > > >>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> >> > > >>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> >> > > >>> 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
> >> > > >>> Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> _______________________________________________
> >> > > >>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> >> > > >>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> >> > > >>> 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
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > _________________________________
> >> > > 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
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> _________________________________
> >> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> > gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> > 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
>
>


-- 
_________________________________
Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170214/49d49fcf/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list