[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from Next-Gen RDS PDP WG call on Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 16:00 UTC
Terri Agnew
terri.agnew at icann.org
Tue Jun 13 19:40:45 UTC 2017
Dear All,
Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The Adobe
Connect chat, MP3 & Adobe Connect recordings below for the Next-Gen RDS PDP
Working group call held on Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 16:00 UTC.
MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-nextgen-rds-pdp-13jun17-en.mp3
AC recording:
<https://participate.icann.org/p51udaxpt8m/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=fe4916c8d08a1d57
b6033c272f8baf21b82328e1f63d18ee81e3277664cd772f>
https://participate.icann.org/p51udaxpt8m/
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master
Calendar page:
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group
-2Dactivities_calendar-23nov&d=DwMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7x
cl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m
=GJMkY4Fbi9sry9Z53DaSWJm-mHxMfFxg7MEVDf2JU90&s=FI3QJYH6DWWCDQir6NDMSjPkzdqfT
TUmf9Ua-AYpc14&e=> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/>
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/
Wiki agenda page: <https://community.icann.org/x/JsPRAw>
https://community.icann.org/x/JsPRAw
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri
———————————————
AC Chat Next-Gen RDS PDP WG Tuesday, 13 June 2017
Terri Agnew:Welcome to the next GNSO Next-Gen RDS PDP Working Group
teleconference on Tuesday, 13 June at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_J
MPRAw
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_
JMPRAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC
IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=LBM6zGaffzB1Q7jd7dVXrqWvEY6TeQXW4oJpxl8Dbp
c&s=cOjnrAO2nwEyt60to-Gp6A5q_hwaugaDyGYVeOO-ObA&e>
&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=LBM6zGaffzB1Q7jd7dVXrqWvEY6TeQXW4oJpxl8Dbpc&s=cO
jnrAO2nwEyt60to-Gp6A5q_hwaugaDyGYVeOO-ObA&e=
Chuck Gomes:Hello all
Farell Folly:Hello Chair
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All
Alex Deacon:morning all
Benny / Nordreg AB:sorry for being late
Volker Greimann:Vote for Public
Amr Elsadr:Yes, Chuck. Will pull it up.
andrew sullivan:I suggest we call it "sparky the wonderdog" and move on to
a different topic. I'm pretty frustrated with the endless discussion of
what seem like peripheral issues when we can't apparently agree on some
simple set of things that are just going to be available to everyone.
Lisa Phifer:In short: Seeking a term to encompass the set of data elements
deliberated on thus far and referenced in Wg agreements thus far, replacing
"thin data"
Michael Hammer:I'm in chat only as I have a conflicting meeting but wanted
to follow what's going on in the call.
Alan Greenberg:I thought that was what we were doing. Deciding if any
other elements need to se available without authentication/identification.
Amr Elsadr:@Steve: See Lisa's comment in the chat above. It might answer
your question.
Roger Carney:Agree with Greg. Thin Data is defined, some of which my be
part of the Public RDS Data. And as Steve mentions other elements may be
included in the Public RDS Data
Alex Deacon:+1 greg. the sparky the wonderdog data set is specific to
RDS.
Lisa Phifer:@Greg S - Public data set (new term, to replace "thin data"
wherever used in WG agreements forged to date), which is new set of data
elements containing existing "thin data" elements plus/minus what this WG
agrees should be in that set. Is that it?
Greg Shatan:@Chuck, agree with that concept.
Ayden Férdeline:Sorry to arrive late
Stephanie Perrin:My apologies for being late as well.
Alan Greenberg:Whether the "thin" data is personal is not the issue. It is
necessary for the system to work and must be ungated. We already decided
that.
Fabricio Vayra:+1 Andrew
Greg Aaron:+1 to Andrew and +1 to Alan
Lisa Phifer:Raise hand if you strongly object to using "public data set"
in existing WG agreements about "thin data"
Greg Shatan:That was a couple of minutes. On Jupiter.
Lisa Phifer:Displayed now:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dow
nload_attachments_64078628_AnnotatedResults-2DPoll-2Dfrom-2D6JuneCall.pdf
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do
wnload_attachments_64078628_AnnotatedResults-2DPoll-2Dfrom-2D6JuneCall.pdf&d
=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFz
L7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=LBM6zGaffzB1Q7jd7dVXrqWvEY6TeQXW4oJpxl8Dbpc&s=DJ34
zYtbIODY4jyrgr7ZXO9HsU7UkTe3VxtIuBtqUi4&e>
&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=LBM6zGaffzB1Q7jd7dVXrqWvEY6TeQXW4oJpxl8Dbpc&s=DJ
34zYtbIODY4jyrgr7ZXO9HsU7UkTe3VxtIuBtqUi4&e=
Lisa Phifer:Raw results and summary from SurveyMonkey also posted on wik
meeting page
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_J
MPRAw
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_
JMPRAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC
IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=LBM6zGaffzB1Q7jd7dVXrqWvEY6TeQXW4oJpxl8Dbp
c&s=cOjnrAO2nwEyt60to-Gp6A5q_hwaugaDyGYVeOO-ObA&e>
&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=LBM6zGaffzB1Q7jd7dVXrqWvEY6TeQXW4oJpxl8Dbpc&s=cO
jnrAO2nwEyt60to-Gp6A5q_hwaugaDyGYVeOO-ObA&e=
Nathalie Coupet:I thought it had been consensus on the call last week that
the exp date should be removed? The wording was confusing.
andrew sullivan:I don't think there was consensus either way last week,
hence the poll
Lisa Phifer:@Nathalie, no there was both support and disagreement in last
week's call - and in these poll results
Alex Deacon:no need for a poll on the poll IMO
Alan Greenberg:I thought we had ALREADY decided that all of the existing
thin data was to be ungated!!!
vicky sheckler:no need for a poll
andrew sullivan:I think no poll needed
Roger Carney:No poll
Nathalie Coupet:no poll
Lisa Phifer:In short, the proposed WG agreement from last week is NOT
accepted and will not be recorded as an Agreement
steve metalitz:Note that the following are already in the "public data
set" in the existing registry Whois for (nearly) all thick registries:
DNSSEC:signedDelegationDNSSEC:unsigned
Jim Galvin (Afilias):@andrew - +1
neil schwartzman:i agree with what andrew says about DNSSEC. it is a
technical aspect that makes a domain much more secure when deployed.
troubleshooting use is funadamental.
Lisa Phifer:There were 26 in support of this agreement, just 5 unsure, and
none opposed
vicky sheckler:agreee DNSSec should be part of the public record
Greg Shatan:Someone needs to mute.
Alex Deacon:@stepanie - your mic is open - causing some feedback.
vicky sheckler:per Lisa's statement, sounds like there is rough consensus
to include it in public data
Jim Galvin (Afilias):@chuck - no worries! nothing to add.
Jim Galvin (Afilias):it's not about bloat, adding it even though it's
already there. the issue is providing an out-of-band check, which is
important for security and operations
Stephanie Perrin:apologies for the mike, was not paying enough attention
to it
Volker Greimann:If there is no potential for abuse, then ok
Stephanie Perrin:+1 Volker, and thanks for the excellent explanation
Andrew
Jim Galvin (Afilias):@volker - no abuse p;otential
andrew sullivan:No objection here
Lisa Phifer:Page 3 is chart, page 4 provides comments which include a few
suggested additions from 2013 RAA
Ayden Férdeline:Hasn't this been circulated already?
Lisa Phifer:What's currently out there depends to some extent on the
domain being queried. The 2013 RAA list will be circulated on email.
Lisa Phifer:Displayed now:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dow
nload_attachments_64078628_RDSPDP-2DHandout-2DFor13JuneCall.pdf
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do
wnload_attachments_64078628_RDSPDP-2DHandout-2DFor13JuneCall.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=
FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0
AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=LBM6zGaffzB1Q7jd7dVXrqWvEY6TeQXW4oJpxl8Dbpc&s=rGlM7-xtrraAyd
k9s2DLT_WggH0n6_eGQ4iOQAxk1H0&e>
&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=LBM6zGaffzB1Q7jd7dVXrqWvEY6TeQXW4oJpxl8Dbpc&s=rG
lM7-xtrraAydk9s2DLT_WggH0n6_eGQ4iOQAxk1H0&e=
Greg Aaron:2013 raa is fine
Greg Aaron:but also look at the nLD Registry Contract
Volker Greimann:A purpose of public data is to allow the functioning of
the internet
Greg Aaron:Put them on screen?
Lisa Phifer:Greg A - see slide 2
Lisa Phifer:for agreements thus far
Lisa Phifer:Note WG Agreement #2: Every "thin data" element should have at
least one legitimate purpose.
Lisa Phifer:WG Agreement #3: Every existing "thin data" element does have
at least one legitimate purpose for collection.
Lisa Phifer:WG AGreements 5-13 then enumerate the list of purposes agreed
already as "a legitimate purpose for thin data collection."
andrew sullivan:I am in favour of Chuck's approach
Kal Feher:if a purpose can't be easily measured, is it worth documenting?
AFAICT the purpose of purposes (pun intended) is to assess the
appropriateness of a given level of access to RDS data. so if we can't use
if for that, why bother documenting the purpose at all?
Volker Greimann:If we misdefine the purpose, we may limit the way the data
can be used
Volker Greimann:if use case B does not fall under purpose A, we may have
an issue with allowing that use case
vicky sheckler:generally, agree that we should accept EWG purposes,as a
baseline
Kal Feher:no. misdefining won't limit its use. it'll only limit who has
access or how we decide to allow access. once people have the data, it'll be
used as they please.
andrew sullivan:If we have already determined that we're not going to
discriminate on use (because we don't know who's getting the data), then the
"purposes of use" and so on makes _no difference_, since you can't tell that
the use isn't conforming with whatever use you decided on
Lisa Phifer:All, please refer to
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_H
IzRAw
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_
HIzRAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC
IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=LBM6zGaffzB1Q7jd7dVXrqWvEY6TeQXW4oJpxl8Dbp
c&s=pBZkvvaZQIY-uXoFJYmlTUuLoqXmSQA-sb_o7_CRCRU&e>
&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=LBM6zGaffzB1Q7jd7dVXrqWvEY6TeQXW4oJpxl8Dbpc&s=pB
ZkvvaZQIY-uXoFJYmlTUuLoqXmSQA-sb_o7_CRCRU&e= for data protection law
concepts around purpose, discussed by this WG back in February
Stephanie Perrin:1. Let us not make this sound harder than it has to.
Volker Greimann:caveat: this mainly applies to personal data. non-personal
data does not really require a purpose.
tim obren:sorry for being tardy, client meeting
andrew sullivan:@Stephanie: too late!
Volker Greimann:having one though might cover our behinds if a court
surprisingly finds data we assume to be non-private to be private
Stephanie Perrin:2. The data commissioners have been tellling ICANN since
2000 that they need to define a purpose for collection and processing.
Greg Shatan:Defining a purpose is easy, defining all purposes is hard to
impossible.
Volker Greimann:@Steph: For private data
Michael Hammer:+1 to what Greg wrote.
Stephanie Perrin:SSAC also told ICANN in SAC 55 that defining the purpose
was important
andrew sullivan:So, we have purposes for all of this, which is supporting
the operations of the Internet.
andrew sullivan:There is not going to be a point when any of this data is
not going to be needed for that purpose, so long as we have a domain name
system
Greg Shatan:Stephanie: "the" purpose(s) or "a" purpose?
Volker Greimann:all of them:
Volker Greimann:ICANNspurpose for mandating the collection
andrew sullivan:having defined it that way, and given that we can't tell
what actual thing someone might do with the data, I can't see that _any_ of
the rest of it matters
Volker Greimann:registrar purpose would be limited to their own use
Greg Shatan:Andrew's point is fundamental. How specific do we need to be
about purpose?
Volker Greimann:registry similarly
Roger Carney:@Volker, agreed
Greg Shatan:Defining all purposes is about as easy as moving a beach with
tweezers.
Lisa Phifer:Pages 3-7 of the slides now displayed give Andrew Sullivan's
suggested purpose for each "thin data" element, which was developed shortly
after our CPH meeting in response to feedback that we needed to drill more
into purpose
Rod Rasmussen:Dang - sorry I was late due to another call - I *strongly*
objecto to calling a specific *limited* set of data the "public data set"
since there will be many registrants that will want *ALL* data that is
currently public to remain so (think large enterprises who want to ensure
consumer trust). Perhaps "Minimum Public Data Set" to allow for public
release of additional data at the request of the parties in question. Don't
want to run off on a tangent to where the call is now, but want to get this
point in there. so it isn't lost.
Volker Greimann:we can, by agreement
Greg Shatan:If we can be higher-level about purpose then it can be easier
(or at least possible).
Greg Shatan:Of course, we are missing the question. of whether the privacy
concerns about "purpose" are even relevant to "thin data.". It's my
understanding they would not be.
Lisa Phifer:@Rod, I think we landed on "public data set" and not "minimum
public data set" for this WG
Rod Rasmussen:@Lisa - and that's a big mistake.
Stephanie Perrin:Which data set are we talking about here, in terms of
purpose.
Chuck Gomes:We are talking about the Public Data Set as defined to date
Rod Rasmussen:@Jim - a process to update purposes was included in the EWG
report. :-)
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):pereodic review - I think it was in the new bylaws
Stephanie Perrin:The one that Rod would like called the minimum public
data set
Volker Greimann:Let us not assume our policy to be immutable.
Lisa Phifer:@Rod, it was stated that the public data set may be added to
as WG deliberation continues on to additional data elements
Volker Greimann:Why not bake in a process on how to add and/or remove
purposes based on technical requirements or legal issues
Volker Greimann:+1 Rod
Stephanie Perrin:I have given up trying to explain how this would be
interpreted under data protection law, so I am not going to intervene any
more and slow this process down. Go for broke.
Rod Rasmussen:@My point on "public data set" is that it will be
*different* depending on the nature and wishes of domain holders and their
associated contacts. A private person may wish to take advantage of just
having their minimum data published, whereas a company may want to have all
kinds of data published in the publicly available data. So there is no "one
size fits all" on what is available as data elements to anonymous public
access as we were talking about when we were calling this "thin".
andrew sullivan:I think Lisa captures exactly what I was trying to do in
proposing those bits of text. Please note that I don't feel super strongly
about the particular words, but it was all just to give the concreteness
that the DP experts who came to talk said we had to offer.
Lisa Phifer:@Rod, I get you but won't that come into play as we deliberate
on additional data elements? (that is, we've agreed it doesn't apply to the
data set discusssed thus far)
Jim Galvin (Afilias):@rod - I would suggest we look to create credentials
that can be used to assert access to different data sets. folks who want
access to more than the "public data set" would need to create an
appropriate credential management system and then RDAP servers would only
need to validate credentials and then provide the data.
Fabricio Vayra:+1 Vicky
Fabricio Vayra:no need to duplicate
Stephanie Perrin:The EWG report listed use cases. ARe you calling those
purposes?
steve metalitz:@Rod isn't it up to this group to recommend what elements
will ultimately be included in the "public data set," considering but not
being controlled by "the nature and wishes of domain holders and their
associated contacts."
Lisa Phifer:@Stephanie, I think the reference was to what appears in the
"EWG Prupose" column which were "permissible purposes" in the EWG Report
Lisa Phifer:(not use cases)
Rod Rasmussen:@Jim - nope, not my point. As say Facebook, I don't want to
limit access - I want the whole world to know everything about the domains I
own (except maybe new cool trademark terms I've yet to release) and I don't
want it gated at all. That will allow automated systems that already exist
to properly score my domains for anti-spam and other reputation without me
having to worry about it. In other words, I want more disclosure to
unfettered access to provide me with better results for many of the purposes
we've ben talking about here.
neil schwartzman:well that was fun. must run to a conflicting meeting to
fight some abuse. TTFN, see you all in J-burg.
vicky sheckler:apologies - i need to leave early
Jim Galvin (Afilias):@rod - interesting use case - I have to think about
that.
Rod Rasmussen:@Steve - precisely - I'm just saying that it isn't going to
be the same set of elements for all domains, so let's not label a concrete
set as "public data" to avoid confusion. "minimum public data" would
probably work to cover this issue.
Stephanie Perrin:NO
tim obren:restate the approach please?
Stephanie Perrin:It really does not matter Chuck. I have explained this
too many times.
Lisa Phifer:To summarize my sugestion: The poll would ask if you're in
agreement with each table row, if not, what do you feel needs to be explored
further - to inform next call deliberation
Ayden Férdeline:I think we are giving too much credence to the contents of
the EWG report. It feels like it is being treated like gospel.
Lisa Phifer:@Ayden, this text is actually largely from Andrew Sullivan
Lisa Phifer:The second column is the EWG Report column
Lisa Phifer:But Andrew went further into rationale for each data element
andrew sullivan:And note, I made the text up on a plane. It can probably
be improved :)
Kiran Malancharuvil:Regarding EWG report content, when used... there has
to be something to start from. If you give a compelling reason to reject,
then we can reject.
Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong:sorry i need to leave ;thanks
steve metalitz:@Rod, I see your point, "minimum public data set" might be
better, but I dont think the shorter phrase is inconsistent with a
specific DN registrant deciding to allow other elements outside the "public
data set" to be accessible without authentication.
Rod Rasmussen:Just one more point to raise on the "public data set" being
set in stone on particular elements issue before I shut up about it, is that
some registries have unique data requirements that they collect and display
today - some of those may need to be published in their unique registry RDS
"public data set" that will differ for them vs. "regular" registries.
Lisa Phifer:slides 10+ do give a brief description of each listed EWG
Purpose, but the table Chuck is referring to contains text proposed by
Andrew Sullivan
Greg Shatan:Which data protection perspective are you referring to? The
minimum legal requirements of a jurisdiction (and if so which one) or a data
protection advocacy perspective?
Greg Shatan:That was @Stephanie.
Stephanie Perrin:thanks, that helps
Lisa Phifer:Referring to tables on pages 3-7, from Andrew Sullivan's email
in March: To summarize my sugestion: The poll would ask if you're in
agreement with each table row, if not, what do you feel needs to be explored
further - to inform next call deliberation
Ayden Férdeline:it sounded to me before that we were looking to accept the
entire EWG report, not just the contents of this table
Stephanie Perrin:Exactly.
Lisa Phifer:For reference, the definitions given on pages 10+ for the EWG
purposes will be included - but only for reference
Lisa Phifer:+1 Alan
Lisa Phifer:DO you agree with listed purposes? Do you agree with rationale
for collection? Do you agree with rationale for publication?
Stephanie Perrin:Thanks to Alan for the clarification.
Tim Chen:sorry, bouncing bw two calls and not following as closely as I'd
like to here today. obviously late but did want to +1 Rod's point on
'minimum' public data set and the Facebook example he sets out. More
specifically, a company might launch a new service or marketing campaign and
want its users (those that care to) to be able to verify that the domain is
indeed owned by the company. and not some spammer. hence a preference for
the whois data to be public.
andrew sullivan:gain's too high
Greg Shatan:Rod, back off the mic
Terri Agnew:@Rod, turn down the volume, this should help
Greg Aaron:So to address Rod's concern: it should be "minimum public data
set" -- which means a lsit of fields that will always be public no matter
the TLD
Greg Shatan:or roll off the gain...
tim obren:voice is kutting out for me
steve metalitz:minimum not minimal
Lisa Phifer:@Greg A - gTLD
andrew sullivan:minimum, minimal, or sparky the wonderdog -- I am not
opposed to any of these
Greg Aaron:"minimum public data set" not "minimal"
Lisa Phifer:WG Agreement: "Minimum Public Data Set" to be used as a
replacement term to what had previously been referred to as "thin data"
Lisa Phifer:Red X if you think we need to poll
Lisa Phifer:Green check if attending ICANN59 in person
Lisa Phifer:For those unable to attend in person, there will be remote
participation by AC available
Fabricio Vayra:Thanks!!
Alex Deacon:thanks chuck!
Nathalie Coupet:Bye
andrew sullivan:bye
Terri Agnew:The next GNSO Next-Gen RDS PDP Working Group teleconference
will take place on Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 05:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Patrick Lenihan:Thanks to Each and All!
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all
Lisa Phifer:Hopefully we will spend at least part of our F2F starting
Thick Data!
Daniel K. Nanghaka:The audio bridge was terrible
Chuck Gomes:Sorry Daniel.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170613/499dec54/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: attendance RDS 13 June 2017.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 338833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170613/499dec54/attendanceRDS13June2017-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5018 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170613/499dec54/smime-0001.p7s>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list