[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Dangers of public whois
Greg Shatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Sun Feb 26 00:44:26 UTC 2017
Replies inline.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428
S: gsshatan
Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 8:01 AM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
wrote:
> +1 Stephanie
>
> I am sympathetic to the position which Kiran argues, because in theory I
> can see how voluntary agreements could be a useful way to avoid
> heavy-handed regulation which helps no one.
>
I'm glad you can see how voluntary agreements can be useful. Hold onto
that thought.
> BUT what we have seen in practice is very different. I’m thinking here
> about things like the Systematic Copyright Alternative Dispute Resolution
> Policy which the Public Interest Registry developed with the Domain Name
> Association.
>
We've seen nothing of the SCADRP "in practice." It hasn't been put into
practice.
It’s implementation has now been “paused”, but it was developed without
adequate input from those stakeholders who would be most impacted by it.
I don't have much information on what input was received and whether it
was adequate. Clearly, a number of people/entities within two groups of
"stakeholders who would be most impacted by it" did participate in its
development -- Contracted Parties and those victimized by systemic
copyright infringement -- copyright holders. I suppose there was not
"adequate input" from the other group of "stakeholders who would be most
impacted by it: systemic copyright infringers -- those who engage in
pervasive copyright infringement or run sites whose primary purpose is
distribution of infringing material. How would you propose getting
"adequate input from those stakeholders"?
I know that intentions here were good, and I fully acknowledge that there
are challenges involved in enforcing existing laws on copyright in online
environments.
Once again I'm glad to see that you recognize the positive intentions and
the challenges faced by registries, registrars and others who receive
complaints, and by the creative community and those who distribute the
authorized copies of their creative output. Hold onto that thought as
well.
But this ‘voluntary’ agreement did not provide registrants with sufficient
rights in a process which could see them loose their domain name.
This is directly contradicted by the proposal itself. The proposal
states that a key element is "ensuring that Registrants’ due process rights
are observed." The "clear and convincing" evidence standard is only one
element of that -- this is a higher evidentiary standard than nearly all
civil litigation -- and higher than that of the UDRP.
And it’s a slippery slope — if you can loose your domain name because of
copyright-infringing content (which the registrant may not have even
uploaded themselves), what’s next?
First, the SCADRP does not apply to garden variety "copyright-infringing
content"; it only applies to "pervasive" copyright infringement and sites
where the "primary purpose" is distributing copyright-infringing
materials. So even the case at the top of your "slippery slope" is not one
that will happen. "Slippery slope" arguments , like this one, that rely on
false equivalencies and a parade of horribles concocted by the maker of the
argument without any basis in fact tend to leave me cold.
Loosing your domain name because it hosts “fake news”?
Distributing or hosting systemic copyright infringement in violation of
the law is not equivalent to hosting "fake news." I don't know of any law
against "fake news" as such, and I'm not sure who the complainant would be
if there was one. And nobody has proposed a Fake News DRP (unless I missed
something). A "fake news" site might violate the Terms of Service of the
registry, registrar or hosting provider, in which case it will likely be
taken down when the TOS violation becomes known to the contracted party or
hosting company (assuming they agree that it's "fake news"). If so, the
registrant can look for another service provider who has no problem with
"fake news" sites.
Undesirable political speech?
Again, not equivalent to illegal copyright infringement and nobody has
proposed a DRP for this. I don't know who would support such a thing, but
I'm confident that potential complainants under the SCADRP are not among
them -- those who create, own and distribute copyrighted creative works
depend on freedom of expression -- the ability to distribute their "speech"
even if it is undesirable or unpopular or unsettling. Associating efforts
to control systemic copyright infringement with banning undesirable
political speech is ridiculous -- copyright protects the ability of a
speaker to choose when they "speak" and when they don't "speak": the exact
opposite of third party efforts to silence speech.
Had this policy been implemented, those that had the most to loose - the
registrant and their domain name - would have been powerless to object.
While I don't think we need to have a competition about who has "the most
to loose [sic]." The loss of billions of dollars every year to systemic and
pervasive copyright infringement seems like a heavy loss. I find it hard
to be sympathetic with those who engage in systemic and pervasive
distribution of thing that are not theirs to distribute -- whether they are
"fences" or sellers of "hot" cars or operators of websites or domain names
used for pervasive copyright infringement.
The copyright infringers can always object "with their feet" and move to a
different registry that did not adopt the Copyright DRP (many of those
engaged in systemic and pervasive copyright infringement have a number of
domain names as part of their business model anyway). Or they can object
by raising a hue and cry. While I don't believe we have heard from the
systemic copyright infringement stakeholder community in the current
discussion, perhaps we will.
Registrants who had built their NGO or brand on their *.org domain name for
many years cannot just move to another TLD or gTLD.
Can you provide an example of a "registrant who built their NGO or brand
on their *.org domain name for many years" and who is engaged in pervasive
copyright infringement or running a website with the primary purpose of
distributing apparently copyright-infringing materials? If this were a
Venn diagram, I think these two circles would not overlap. As such, this
proposal is irrelevant to "registrants who built their NGO or brand on
their *.org domain name for many years." And if there are a few of those
who also engage in systemic copyright infringement, I again find it hard to
be sympathetic.
And worst of all, entities like the Domain Name Association (who I do not
intend to speak ill of, I am just using DNA here because it is a recent and
relevant case study) were not looking to implement this ‘voluntary’
agreement with just one registrar, they were looking for it to affect
multiple registries and registrars, thus further hindering consumer choice.
I'm not sure if you have actually read the DNA proposal, since you seem to
think it applies to registrars (and you failed to note the commitment to
due process, among other registrant protections). The DNA program only
applies to registries.
In any event, the program is voluntary (no quotes needed) and I'm sure some
registries will not adopt it, perhaps seeking to cater to the systemic
copyright infringement community (not a consumer group I tend to see
identified as such) or for other reasons. The flip side of "consumer
choice" is "provider choice," which this proposal supplies to registries.
Other examples that come to mind include the MPAA’s Trusted Notifier
Program with Donuts.
Another example of what? A voluntary program? Something you don't like?
> Chuck - it’s for all these reasons (inadequate consultation, little
> recourse, inconsistent application) that I find ‘voluntary’ agreements, be
> they between registrars, hosting providers, or another party, to be
> problematic and something that this WG shouldn’t be supporting.
>
I don't believe that anyone suggested that this WG support the HDI or PIR
proposals. I don't even think anyone has asked this WG to opine on these
proposals -- which makes perfect sense, since these proposals are entirely
outside this WG's remit. (Also, other than "inadequate consultation" with
and "little recourse" by the copyright infringement community, the "all
these reasons" in your parenthetical are not really elucidated here
(particularly, "inconsistent application," whatever that is intended to
mean).)
> I would prefer that we recommend, where appropriate, the formation of new
> Policy Development Processes within the ICANN ecosystem where the subject
> can be transparently and comprehensively evaluated by all impacted and
> interested stakeholders prior to a decision being made.
>
Again, it's entirely outside the scope of this WG to recommend anything in
this situation. Also, I'm a bit surprised to see a suggestion that a GNSO
PDP should be formed specifically to deal with the substance and procedures
of copyright dispute resolution. I'm not sure if I object, but the clear
message over the last few years has been that the details of systems to
deal with copyright dispute resolution are better dealt with outside the
ICANN ecosystem. I'm just surprised to see the about-face. Nonetheless,
even if the ICANN community wants to get into the business of fashioning
copyright dispute resolution procedures, there's nothing that prevents
registries and registrars from independently doing so as well. Who knows
-- maybe we will have "consumer choice" between two different models of
copyright DRP!
Best regards,
Greg
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden Férdeline
> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Dangers of public whois
> Local Time: 25 February 2017 12:43 PM
> UTC Time: 25 February 2017 12:43
> From: cgomes at verisign.com
> To: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>,
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>
>
> Stephanie.
>
>
>
> I am not at all clear about what you are concerned about here. I was
> simply responding to a question John asked about WG scope. ICANN org nor
> ICANN community has not asked or suggested that various contracted parties
> do anything in this regard. Various WG members have simply been sharing
> some ideas about education of users that might be helpful. I personally
> think it is pretty early to get concerned and that it would be better to
> wait until we see if this discussion goes anywhere. In the meantime I
> think it is important for WG members to float ideas for possible future
> consideration or not. We will filter them to make sure they are in scope;
> some will be pursued further and some not and the ones we pursue further
> will be vetted by the full WG so there will be plenty of opportunity to
> everyone to contribute. In particular, if and when the WG decides to
> consider any possible best practices, we will have to evaluate whether
> there might be risk of coercion.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-
> bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephanie Perrin
> *Sent:* Friday, February 24, 2017 10:23 PM
> *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Dangers of public whois
>
>
>
> I have not consulted my SG yet, but I think I can safely say that we are
> getting quite concerned about what ICANN is asking/suggesting its various
> contracted parties do on a voluntary basis. Best practice, particularly in
> an unregulated environment, becomes coercive.
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
>
>
> On 2017-02-24 18:09, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> Thanks for explaining John. Below is my opinion on ‘on whether it's
> appropriate for this group to make a determination about this "chain of
> responsibility" as part of our work.’
>
>
>
> As someone else has already pointed out, ICANN has no relationship with
> hosting providers so it would be out of scope for consensus policy. But I
> don’t think that that would prevent the WG from making some recommendations
> along the lines that are being discussed that could be implemented on a
> voluntary basis.
>
>
>
> I ask staff and others to correct me if they think I am wrong on this.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* John Horton [mailto:john.horton at legitscript.com
> <john.horton at legitscript.com>]
> *Sent:* Friday, February 24, 2017 11:12 AM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> <cgomes at verisign.com>
> *Cc:* vgreimann at key-systems.net; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Dangers of public whois
>
>
>
> Hi Chuck,
>
>
>
> Sure. What I'm asking you to determine is whether it is within the ambit
> of this group's mission to do, or come to a consensus on, the following:
>
> 1. "Establish(ing) chains of responsibility in the data," in the
> context of submitting complaints or resolving issues with a website or
> domain name
>
> , and determining "registrar obligations" in response to those abuse
> complaints.
>
> 1. Either alternatively or simultaneously, developing or providing a
> "how to guide" or "guidance" "for going forward with a complaint."
>
> Concretely, I think the point is to formalize the notion that "registrars"
> shouldn't have to do the "hosting provider's job" and to "direct a lot of
> traffic away from the registrar." For example, one "chain of
> responsibility" that this group might seek to establish would be to direct,
> suggest or advise that a registrant should be contacted first, then the
> hosting provider, and only then the registrar.
>
>
>
> What I'm asking for is a determination on whether it's appropriate for
> this group to make a determination about this "chain of responsibility" as
> part of our work. From my perspective, it is outside the scope of our
> mission, so trying to discuss it, persuade each other or come to a
> consensus on it in this group isn't *apropos.* If this is something that
> is requested by the ICANN board as part of the RDS's group and any report
> we issue, or if it's appropriately within the ambit, it would be helpful to
> clarify that and also the scope.
>
>
>
> Let me know if I'm not clearly summarizing what I'm asking you to rule on.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> John Horton
> President and CEO, LegitScript
>
>
>
>
> *Follow LegitScript*: LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com> | Facebook
> <https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript> | Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/legitscript> | *Blog <http://blog.legitscript.com>*
> | Google+ <https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 6:53 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>
> John,
>
>
>
> Can you clarify what you want a ruling on?
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-
> bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *John Horton
> *Sent:* Friday, February 24, 2017 8:41 AM
> *To:* Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
> *Cc:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Dangers of public whois
>
>
>
> Let me provide a few comments on that.
>
> 1. I like Volker's idea of including hosting details in the ultimate
> RDS. It's additional information, which may be useful to the viewer. From a
> concrete use-case perspective, when I or one of my analysts is evaluating
> whether a merchant should be boarded with a bank or rejected based on risk,
> it's certainly one of the details we look it. (I'm not sure it's
> technically "registration data," but not sure if that matters.)
> 2. I object to using the RDS (or this group) to establish chains or a
> hierarchy of responsibility as being outside of our scope and mandate.
> (Chuck, maybe we can get a ruling on that?) I realize that there are
> members of this group who believe that a complainant should always go to
> the registrant first, then the host, and only the registrar as a last
> resort (some believe never). But that's not how everyone feels. Others
> believe it should be the payment processor first. Still others believe the
> registrar should be the first point of contact for a complaint. Still
> others believe there is no hierarchy and it's a case-by-case solution and
> all facilitators are equally valid points of contact. My point is not to
> get into an argument about who is right there (I and I'm sure many others
> don't have the time, and many of us have discussed this elsewhere); I
> simply don't think we should be using this group to try and resolve that
> particular issue, or impose some sort of a structure on internet users,
> because I think it's probably outside the scope of our mandate (and I will
> strongly note that I don't think there's consensus on that issue).
>
> Chuck, if I'm wrong and it's inside the scope of our mandate to use the
> RDS to establish a structure about who a complainant should approach first,
> second, third, fourth, etc. let us know, but if it's in scope, that's going
> to be a somewhat different discussion. Again, my objective here isn't to
> launch another 100-email debate about who is right or wrong; my objective
> is to argue that a) the idea of including hosting information in the RDS
> seems like a pretty reasonable one, but b) doing that in order to impose
> rules on internet users on what complaint hierarchy they should follow is
> out of scope for our mandate.
>
>
> John Horton
> President and CEO, LegitScript
>
>
>
>
> *Follow LegitScript*: LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com> | Facebook
> <https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript> | Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/legitscript> | *Blog <http://blog.legitscript.com>*
> | Google+ <https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Volker Greimann <
> vgreimann at key-systems.net> wrote:
>
> So should we maybe include hosting details in the ultimate RDS? These
> would have to be supplied differently, but it would make sense if we want
> to establish chains of responsibility in the data.
>
>
>
>
> Am 20.02.2017 um 14:20 schrieb theo geurts:
>
> Good point Michele,
>
> RDS should be a facilitating here in the sense that reports end up at the
> correct party and yet give the reporter a logical natural flow in creating
> the report without creating confusion with different set of contacts.
>
> Theo
>
>
> On 20-2-2017 12:24, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
>
> Volker
>
> From our perspective the frustration is when the client (registrant) has
> their details in whois and / or on the website and the complainant makes
> zero attempt to contact them. The first we hear about the alleged issues is
> when I get a 100 page takedown notice on my desk.
> So if they can at least attempt to contact the website operator then it
> makes our lives a lot easier.
> As the hosting provider we *should* have details of how to reach the site
> owner, but not always, as we also offer dedicated servers, colo etc., but
> we’ll know who the IPs are assigned to
>
> Regards
>
> Michele
>
>
> --
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
> https://www.blacknight.com/
> http://blacknight.blog/
> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 <%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072>
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
> -------------------------------
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
>
> On 20/02/2017, 11:21, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann at key-systems.net> wrote:
>
> Agreed. The question is who is next if the details are not available.
> If
> it is content, the next port of call should be the host as the host
> has
> the ability to remove said content and also bears certain legal
> obligations in case of obvious violations while the registrar does
> not.
> As the registrar may not even know the actual registrant, for
> example
> for registrations under third party privacy services, it does not even
> make sense to contact the registrar.
> Best,
> Volker
> Am 20.02.2017 um 12:08 schrieb Michele Neylon -
> Blacknight:
> > Volker
> >
> > The key thing is the sequence.
> > If the contact’s details are available either via whois OR on the
> website then they’re the first port of call.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Michele
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mr Michele Neylon
> > Blacknight Solutions
> > Hosting, Colocation & Domains
> > https://www.blacknight.com/
> > http://blacknight.blog/
> > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 <%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072>
> > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> > Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
> > Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
> > -------------------------------
> > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
> Park,Sleaty
> > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
> >
> > On 20/02/2017, 10:46, "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > Well, the registrant may not be the right contact in all cases,
> > especially if it comes down to subdomains. But yes, if the
> registrant is
> > known, then he should probably be contacted right after a
> known website
> > operator. But if the registrant is unknown, the next contact
> should be
> > the host as he is closer to the alleged violation than the
> registrar.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Volker
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 20.02.2017 um 11:28 schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight:
> > > Volker
> > >
> > > Really?
> > > As a hosting provider I’d strongly disagree.
> > >
> > > If you’ve got a problem with content on a website you should
> contact the registrant first.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Michele
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mr Michele Neylon
> > > Blacknight Solutions
> > > Hosting, Colocation & Domains
> > > https://www.blacknight.com/
> > > http://blacknight.blog/
> > > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
> <%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072>
> > > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> > > Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
> > > Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
> > > -------------------------------
> > > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside
> Business Park,Sleaty
> > > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.:
> 370845
> > >
> > > On 20/02/2017, 09:54, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org on
> behalf of Volker Greimann" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf
> of vgreimann at key-systems.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > When you say web site, it should be taken up with the
> web host not the
> > > registrar as the registrant is not necessarily the
> correct content.
> > >
> > > Problems with domain -> registrant
> > >
> > > Problems with content -> Web host
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Volker
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 17.02.2017 um 20:49 schrieb Mark Svancarek via
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg:
> > > > Counter example
> > > > "Joe" has a web site which is used to abuse my
> trademark. I can't contact Joe because his thin data is incorrect or
> hidden (I don't know that Joe is actually Joe.). I then contact the
> registrar. They follow up with the privacy proxy service if needed.
> Hopefully all this happens quickly and the cease and desist message is
> actually delivered.
> > > >
> > > > In actual practice, there is a noteworthy difference
> in effectiveness if we have to go through the registrar, compared to us
> contacting directly. If the registrar isn't responsive, then I may have to
> pressure ICANN to enforce the registrar contract, which has its own issues.
> > > >
> > > > In either case, your abuse of my trademark is
> probably a civil issue, so starting with law enforcement isn't a great
> option, even if they had the inclination and bandwidth to help out in a
> timely fashion.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: benny at nordreg.se [mailto:benny at nordreg.se]
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 9:41 AM
> > > > To: Mark Svancarek <marksv at microsoft.com>
> > > > Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> > > > Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Dangers of public whois
> > > >
> > > > Let us take a simple example
> > > >
> > > > A phone number can you as the one it's registered on
> choose by yourself if it shall be published in the phone book, if you give
> the number to someone it's your choice as an individual! If the police want
> your number they will get without to much effort.
> > > >
> > > > So why on earth are we forcing registrants to give up
> this right to choose to whom they share that info?
> > > >
> > > > Forget what Whois are as we know it and come up with
> ideas how we can make a new system which takes reasonable interest of all
> sides here.
> > > >
> > > > The Status Quo hammering are not productive at all.
> > > >
> > > > RDS are meant to make change to the better!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > >
> > > >> On 17 Feb 2017, at 18:28, Mark Svancarek <
> marksv at microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Spam and DDOS will always be with us, and the need
> to mitigate them does not eliminate the need to have public data. It seems
> orthogonal to me.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> > > >> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On
> Behalf Of
> > > >> benny at nordreg.se
> > > >> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 8:25 AM
> > > >> To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> > > >> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Dangers of public
> whois
> > > >>
> > > >> Another post about the problems with public whois
> > > >>
> > > >> How anyone here can still defend this abuse of info
> as a the best system I have serious problems understanding.
> > > >>
> > > >> http://domainnamewire.com/
> 2017/02/16/control-block-sms-spam-robocallin
> > > >> g-based-whois-info/
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> 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 17 Feb 2017, at 14:55, Michele Neylon -
> Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Allison
> > > >>>
> > > >>> As others have said, if you have an issue please
> report it to ICANN,
> > > >>> law enforcement, consumer protection etc., Some of
> us take our obligations very seriously and lumping all registrars and
> providers into one big bucket isn't very helpful for constructive dialogue.
> > > >>> We get a number of whois complaints from ICANN
> every year and we investigate each and every one of them. In some cases
> it's very obvious that the details provided are bogus, but in others it's
> not and we have to spend time energy and effort going back and forth with
> our client and ICANN to resolve it. Sometimes this leads to domains being
> suspended or deleted, sometimes the whois gets updated, sometimes the
> complaint is denied. But each complaint is handled on its merits.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> We also have a whois privacy service. It is NOT a
> fake address. You can check it in the Irish company office:
> > > >>> https://search.cro.ie/company/
> CompanyDetails.aspx?id=480317&type=C
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Now you may not like that people and organisations
> choose to obfuscate their contact details via services like that one, but
> that's a different issue entirely. I also personally have correspondence
> addresses in the US, mainland UK and a couple in Northern Ireland. I don't
> live at any of them, but you can send me physical mail and I will get it.
> You could argue that the address is "fake", but as I can get mail to it I'd
> suspect that in many cases it'd be considered valid.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Regards
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Michele
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Mr Michele Neylon
> > > >>> Blacknight Solutions
> > > >>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
> > > >>> https://www.blacknight.com/
> > > >>> http://blacknight.blog/
> > > >>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
> <%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072>
> > > >>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> > > >>> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
> > > >>> Some thoughts: https://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
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170225/e37d68f2/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list