[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] WSGR Final Memorandum

allison nixon elsakoo at gmail.com
Sun Oct 1 19:34:10 UTC 2017


Yes, you are correct. And as we consider this, we need to consider the
consequences that will happen after that.

These reputation systems try to block malicious activity and minimize false
positives. By reducing the number of datapoints available to these systems,
they will lose precision, resulting in two main outcomes:

   - Some systems will over-block, denying legitimate registrants the full
   use of their domains. Like the many examples I noted either, e-mail will be
   the most impacted, but so will the ability for users behind corporate
   firewalls to reach websites. This will impact new registrants the worst.
   - Other systems will under-block. They will miss malicious domains that
   they otherwise would have caught. This will result in increased
   victimization due to spam, ransomware, banking trojans, phishing, and so
   forth.

All of these issues already have huge real-world consequences, from
financial loss(not just for large companies, but for the savings accounts
of vulnerable people), to espionage, to election rigging, and these
consequences will get worse. As a direct result of the loss of WHOIS for
the gTLD system.

Another follow-on consequence is when reputation systems are forced to
paint broader strokes, they will more often threaten entire registrars.
Imagine if a large network operator warns your company that you have too
many abusive customers and threatens to block all your customers entirely.
I have heard of these company-wide-blocking events happening, and in every
instance I have heard of, it either makes the volume of abuse drop like a
rock, or the registrar begs for forgiveness and cleans up the problem
themselves, because this can be a death penalty.

Yes, many ccTLDs do not publish WHOIS data. And here are a couple of ways
they are treated by reputation systems:

   - Some ccTLDs experience very low rates of abuse, like .se, and they
   don't have a problem
   - Other ccTLDs, due to their higher rates of abuse, are entirely
   rejected on many networks. .ru and .cn are the best examples of this,
   despite having a large number of legitimate domains, many networks block
   the entire TLD because it's just not worth it.

Also, please consider the state of the new TLD's that ICANN released over
the past few years, and how much their commercial viability has been
impacted by abuse. Is it feasible for any business owner to build their
brand on a .xyz or .science domain? No, it isn't! Not if they ever want to
send e-mail. This is a damning indictment of the system, and it is a direct
result of the "not my problem" attitude. Even if the working group decides
they don't care about the other consequences, I think the basic commercial
viability of the gTLD system should be a potential consideration.

This working group needs to understand these issues and the consequences of
our actions. If you don't think that these consequences will happen, or
that you don't think abuse affects the commercial viability of domains,
then let's have a conversation about that, and we can bring more evidence
to the table. If you don't think these consequences are something we should
consider at all, please say so, because that's a conversation that should
be resolved here too.




On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <
michele at blacknight.com> wrote:

> Allison
>
>
>
> So if most domain names were using whois privacy / proxy to mask the
> registrant details then, logically, they’d all have to be treated the same
> with respect to that data point?
>
>
>
> Also,  many ccTLDs do not publish verbose whois data, however that is not
> the same as whois privacy, as in most cases the registry will have the data
> but simply won’t publish it.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Michele
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mr Michele Neylon
>
> Blacknight Solutions
>
> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
>
> https://www.blacknight.com
>
> https://blacknight.blog /
>
> http://ceo.hosting/
>
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072 <+353%2059%20918%203072>
>
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 <+353%2059%20918%203090>
>
> -------------------------------
>
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
>
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow, R93 X265
>
> ,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>
>
>
> *From: *<gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of allison nixon <
> elsakoo at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Friday 29 September 2017 at 16:19
> *To: *Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
> *Cc: *RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] WSGR Final Memorandum
>
>
>
> No, so here is how reputation works. Privacy is one factor out of many.
> When assessing a domain, you have datapoints like the date registered, the
> registrar, the TLD, yes/no on whois privacy, any exposed contents of whois,
> the IP it points to, and a number of other factors.
>
>
>
> Say there is a years-old domain, that has pointed to the same IP for
> years, but has WHOIS privacy turned on, and no bad incidents attached to
> it. That domain has an otherwise good reputation, despite the WHOIS privacy
> it is fine and it won't be blocked.
>
>
>
> Now imagine another domain, which is newly registered, less than a month
> old and has WHOIS privacy turned on, has pointed to the same IP for less
> than a month, and has no bad incidents attached to it. It's status is
> ambiguous, and the fact that WHOIS privacy is turned on may be the deciding
> factor flipping the switch to filter any emails sent using that domain. If
> the WHOIS privacy was turned off and the details pointed to a known
> company, that may flip the switch the other way and the domain may not be
> blocked.
>
>
>
> It's an oversimplification but that's how it works.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Volker Greimann <
> vgreimann at key-systems.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Allison,
>
> I do not appreciate the comment you made and do not agree that there is a
> difference, but I think we should take part of our discussion off the list
> as it does not benefit the rest of the group. You obviously seem to be
> unwilling to conform to the standards we all agreed to and I will take that
> into account going forward.
>
> The claim that use of privacy indicates a higher propensity for abuse as
> alleged by Michael was not supported by the study. While privacy may be an
> indicator if all other stars align, by itself it is not.Once privacy
> becomes the norm, it will mean nothing.
>
> Best,
>
> Volker
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 29.09.2017 um 17:02 schrieb allison nixon:
>
> >>Again, I resent your allegation and expect you to take it back.
> Name-calling and loosely flung accusations of trolling do not conform to
> the standard of behavior we all agreed to.
>
>
>
> See my explanation in my other email. I did not call you A troll, and i
> was not calling you names. i described your behavior as trolling and i
> explained why in the other thread.
>
>
>
> >>I must admit that I have not read that other study yet, so I cannot
> comment on their conclusion. This study here however reached another
> conclusion:
>
>
>
> "The analysis of the use of WHOIS Privacy and Proxy
>
> services leads us to conclude that the usage of a WHOIS
>
> Privacy and Proxy services by itself is not a reliable indicator
>
> of malicious activity. Apart from the peaks, the usage of
>
> Privacy and Proxy services for abusive domains is not that
>
> high (see Figure 28, Figure 29)."
>
>
>
> You are once again misinterpreting the simple english in that sentence. It
> is saying the use of WHOIS privacy *BY ITSELF* is not a reliable indicator
> of malicious activity. Meaning, in a vaccuum, with no other information
> about the domain, it doesn't guarantee the domain is malicious. If you
> actually understood the problem space, or read any of the other 32 pages of
> the study, you would discover that domain reputation relies on a large
> number of indicators and WHOIS privacy is only one indicator, and that the
> sentence is neither vindication nor damnation of the service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Volker Greimann <
> vgreimann at key-systems.net> wrote:
>
> Again, I resent your allegation and expect you to take it back.
> Name-calling and loosely flung accusations of trolling do not conform to
> the standard of behavior we all agreed to.
>
> I must admit that I have not read that other study yet, so I cannot
> comment on their conclusion. This study here however reached another
> conclusion:
>
> "The analysis of the use of WHOIS Privacy and Proxy
> services leads us to conclude that the usage of a WHOIS
> Privacy and Proxy services by itself is not a reliable indicator
> of malicious activity. Apart from the peaks, the usage of
> Privacy and Proxy services for abusive domains is not that
> high (see Figure 28, Figure 29)."
>
> Volker
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 29.09.2017 um 16:15 schrieb allison nixon:
>
>
>
> Then you should have read the exact next sentence following the one that
> you took to vaguely support your argument:
>
>
>
> "There are many legitimate reasons why someone may want
>
> to conceal possession of a domain name. The usage of a
>
> WHOIS Privacy and Proxy services by itself is, therefore not a
>
> reliable single indicator of malicious activity.* A previous study*
>
> *by National Physical Laboratories [44], however did find that*
>
> *a significant portion of abusive domains use Privacy and Proxy*
>
> *services.*"
>
>
>
> You are trolling once again.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Volker Greimann <
> vgreimann at key-systems.net> wrote:
>
> Not really, since Mike was alleging that there is a correlation between
> the use of whois privacy and abuse, whereas the study says the opposite.
>
> Whois data may have its use for fighting abuse, but private registrations
> are not an indicator of abuse, according to the study. I have not seen a
> study that showed there is a correlation.
>
> Volker
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 29.09.2017 um 15:05 schrieb John Bambenek:
>
> I think you mistake his point. Domain whois data IS useful in fighting
> abuse according to everyone who actually fights abuse. The report
> referenced making the statement it did shows there remains a
> misunderstanding on that point.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> On Sep 29, 2017, at 3:20 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Theo,
>
> it is interesting that despite studies showing there is no correlation
> between domain abuse and use of domain privacy, the same argument is being
> raised again and again. from my own experience of looking at the abuse
> complaints we receive, I note that only a small fraction of abusive
> registrations use our privacy functions. In most cases, harvested real data
> is used instead.
>
> Best,
>
> Volker
>
>
>
>
>
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sadag-final-09aug17-en.pdf
>
> This report mentions: The usage of Privacy or Proxy Services by itself is
> not a reliable indicator of abuse.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Theo
>
> Again it is clear now, thanks all.
>
> On 28-9-2017 20:50, Dotzero wrote:
>
> To add to what Allison has indicated, websites do analysis of these sorts
> of datapoints for evaluating transactions for fraud and potential abuse.
> For example, signups form domains that have private registrations have a
> very high propensity to be related to abuse. Signups and visits to our
> websites from IP addresses belonging to hosting providers have an even
> higher correlation with abuse (how many endusers browse the web from severs
> in datacenters?).
>
> This is not police action, it is organizations protecting themselves,
> their other users and the internet at large from abusive activity.
>
> Michael Hammer
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:33 PM, allison nixon <elsakoo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Reputation is based on a lot of different points not just contents of
> WHOIS data. If the .EU TLD can keep its customer base clean, there isn't
> much need for WHOIS data for the most part, however this group doesn't make
> policy for ccTLDs. For other TLDs that this group does recommend policy
> for, for example, .XYZ, which boasts a greater-than-90-percent rate of
> maliciousness, any legitimate domain in that space will need some other
> points of reputation to make up for that. WHOIS is part of that, including
> the age, and actual contact details.
>
>
>
> That said, WHOIS data is an important part of tracing ownership and it can
> have consequences for the registrant.
>
>
>
> Recently we had to deal with a ccTLD of .ir that was being used to control
> large botnets. The current and historical WHOIS data showed signs that a
> legitimate registrant's account was stolen to do this. Thus, when the
> complaint was sent to the registrar, the registrant was not accused of
> running botnets, but instead the registrar was alerted to an abuse of the
> service and they could take action accordingly. If the ownership of this
> domain could not be traced, and if there were not skilled investigators on
> the other end, would the registrant have been in danger of going to an
> Iranian prison?
>
>
>
> It turns out, the ccTLD of .ir was specifically chosen because the
> criminals thought the poor international relations would hamper law
> enforcement action. However WHOIS and the transparency it provides allowed
> people to discover the truth and prevent serious problems. By locking up
> WHOIS behind court orders, these cross-border issues will become worse.
>
>
>
> Also, to be clear since a lot of people can't seem to tell the difference,
> everything we did was well within the bounds of civil action, we weren't
> "pretending to be the police" or any of the other things people in this
> group accuse security companies of doing when they deal with malware. Any
> member of the public can file an abuse complaint.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:10 PM, theo geurts <gtheo at xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> Allison,
>
> Does this problem also exsist with TLDs like .EU, .NL, .DE, .FR just to
> name a few ccTLDs?
>
> Curious,
>
> Theo
>
>
>
> On 28-9-2017 19:42, allison nixon wrote:
>
> >> So, I can see a day that if privacy advocates and/or EU legislation
> fears prevent such a Best Practice as proper WHOIS records, the service
> providers will simply choose practices, such as 'you cannot access our
> service unless you have public whois information available'.
>
>
>
> It's already happening. Try sending an e-mail using a domain behind WHOIS
> privacy. Some anti-spam systems drop it straight in the garbage because
> WHOIS privacy is already a negative reputation point. If WHOIS gets shut
> down, I fully expect groups like Spamhaus, M3AAWG, APWG, etc, to publish a
> set of guidelines that registrants need to abide by in order to send mail,
> or be accessible by people behind corporate firewalls that block based on
> reputation. ICANN must understand that they are at risk of losing relevancy
> if they want to take this hardline approach, because if a law breaks the
> continued functioning of a network, the network will route around it.
>
>
>
> Look at the "cookies" EU law. Did that actually stop any websites from
> using cookies? No, it just created a popup that no one reads but everyone
> clicks through to visit the website. Because breaking cookies breaks
> websites.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>Some of us have real jobs too..
>
>
>
> which is the main reason why i can't spend 8 hours every day watching this
> group, unlike some people here who have been active in this group for years
> now.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> My response to Chuck's email earlier, I bolded the responses and tagged
> the start and end of my replies for clarity:
>
>
>
> "independent answers to the same questions we asked the European data
> protection experts earlier in the year"
> [Chuck Gomes] That was a request from WG members who felt that the DP
> experts might be biased.  The questions were developed by the WG.  There
> were two primary reasons for using the same questions: 1) both groups would
> be responding to the same questions and therefore make it easy to compare;
> 2) the questions were approved by the WG.
>
>
>
> *<allison>I don't think anyone accused the DP experts of being biased. The
> objection was that the questions themselves were biased. The words
> "phishing" and "spam" and "malware" never once appeared in this entire
> document, despite being major core issues. The only abuse issues that were
> focused on were in relation to intellectual property violation and
> harassment of women, both of which are not the major issues most of us deal
> with on a daily basis(not to belittle them but they are generally not the
> reason why we are here today). The word "fraud" was mentioned once in a
> question and then never directly addressed in the response.*
>
>
>
> *Additionally, my entire industry was grossly misrepresented in question
> #6. None of us operate with police powers, and none of us pretend to have
> any. When we submit a complaint to a registrar about one of their customers
> breaking the law, the illegality of the act provides necessary
> justification for the registrar to drop the customer without a refund. This
> is not prosecution of a crime, and claiming it is such is a lie. Evidence
> of breaking the law is necessary because registrars aren't just going to
> take down any customer we say we don't like. I wholly object to the entire
> line they continued on about cybersecurity companies and "quasi-police
> powers", because the question never differentiated between civil and
> criminal actions and it was therefore misleading. *
>
>
>
> *None of the questions addressed the issues that registrants have where
> their WHOIS and other reputation points affect the de-facto functionality
> of a domain, for example a domain's functionality is hampered when it is on
> blocklists. Or if someone sends a complaint against the domain and has no
> tools to differentiate the registrant from the criminal (as registrar
> accounts are often hacked), then the incorrect accusation can also affect
> the operability of the domain as it is mistakenly taken down in confusion.
> None of the questions ask about conflicts between GDPR and basic
> network-level-functionality of domains.*
>
>
>
> *Also, none of the questions ask if a free no-obligation alternative
> (whois privacy protect) enhances the validity of consent given for making
> WHOIS records public. </allison>*
>
>
>
> So we weren't allowed to ask questions of these legal experts? You know,
> they can't magically divine all legitimate use cases. The session with the
> EU data protection experts earlier this year is the exact same one we
> objected to because anti abuse use cases got exactly zero representation.
> So why choose that exact set of questions again especially since an entire
> group of people have joined the group afterwards(actually, due to this
> specific problem of lack of representation)? And then label it "final",
> really.
> [Chuck Gomes] We didn’t ask them to consider use cases except as they were
> relevant to the questions we asked; that is our job and we prepared a list
> of those a long time ago.  We asked them to focus on their understanding of
> European Data Protection law.  Our WG has a good mix of people that use RDS
> data for different uses.
>
>
>
> *<allison>And his answers are borderline useless. The scenarios presented
> were extremely poor, and not reflecting today's Internet and the problems
> network operators face. For example, when he writes "This means that the
> term 'vital interest' is to be interpreted as referring to an individual’s
> life, health, safety, or other such interest that is essential to their
> physical wellbeing", he goes on to talk about IP violations, the rights of
> a child, the economic interests of a search engine, finally concluding "we
> believe that the conditions for using the 'legitimate interests' legal
> basis would not be satisfied".*
>
>
>
> *That's a complete misrepresentation of the interests at stake here. The
> issue at hand is not the economic interests of one company nor about mere
> copyright infringement. The WHOIS data resource is used to combat all types
> of fraud, international espionage, rigging of elections, and so many
> hostile attacks. Some of these attacks, especially DDOS, frequently
> threaten basic functionality of the Internet. It has an international
> strategic value and promotes lawful behavior far more than it hurts. It's
> used to create cleaner, safer networks. There are countless documented
> instances where WHOIS played a key role and where the replacement system
> would have allowed the malicious behavior to continue. All of these facts
> have been conveniently left out of the question, and since the lawyer can't
> be expected to know all this, he has no choice but to conclude that the
> legitimate interests provided are too weak. </allison>*
>
>
>
>
>
> Havent gone through it yet, will do so as i get time. Expecting to see the
> same result one can expect when one doesn't represent entire groups of
> constituencies.
> [Chuck Gomes] What do you mean by representing ‘entire groups of
> constituencies’?  Do you represent an entire constituency?  Are you aware
> of any constituencies who are not represented in the WG?  If so, please
> encourage them to participate.
>
>
>
> *<allison>Dozens of people joined this mailing list after numerous events
> demonstrated that this working group did not consider the overall well
> being of the Internet, and had a completely skewed idea of the problems the
> Internet faces today. People were outraged that this group was going in the
> direction it was going, ignoring how the Internet actually works. The fact
> that these questions were chosen- and the fact that the new
> membership(especially those that joined after the questions were initially
> asked) were not given any opportunity to provide input on questions to the
> lawyer- does not reflect well on the leadership of this working group. Even
> when the original questions were created, as far as I can tell, only people
> physically present at that meeting had any chance to provide input. For
> those of us with jobs in operations, being ever-present for this working
> group is impossible, and none of us have the stamina that some of the
> people here have, because we are busy working. *
>
>
>
> *At its most charitable interpretation, the choice of these specific
> questions could be an innocent oversight or miscommunication. At its least
> charitable, it looks like ICANN's money was wasted on a procedural trick to
> keep facts out of the conversation and continue to push a narrow agenda.*
>
>
>
> *People from numerous unrelated Internet companies and law firms flooded
> this group earlier this year once sunshine was shed on this group's
> activities. Maybe that's important. Please take it seriously. </allison>*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Michael Peddemors <michael at linuxmagic.com>
> wrote:
>
> IMHO, If ICANN cannot figure out how to make a proper functioning WHOIS
> policy, we have to remember that the community at large will, and then
> simply, ICANN will loose relevance on this issue.
>
> No one passed a law that a mail server had to have a functioning PTR
> record, (well yes, some international spam legislations clearly spelled out
> the need for clearly specifying the operator) but if you want to send email
> today, functionally you need a PTR record.
>
> Only problem is, that often it is the biggest players that set those
> standards, and it is the role of organizations like ICANN to level the
> field, and make sure that directions aren't dictated by the biggest players
> on the block, and never more so in a world of consolidation and cloud
> providers.
>
> I think it was Yahoo that was one of the first big players to simply not
> accept connections from IP(s) with no PTR, and I know we were one of the
> early adopters to that strategy..
>
> So, I can see a day that if privacy advocates and/or EU legislation fears
> prevent such a Best Practice as proper WHOIS records, the service providers
> will simply choose practices, such as 'you cannot access our service unless
> you have public whois information available'.
>
> It would be far better if ICANN can understand the importance of that
> need, and make a statement that everyone can get behind and point to, that
> levels that field, in 'spite' of possible contradictory privacy information.
>
> Let's just simple keep these two conversations separate, one should NOT
> affect the other, this isn't a privacy vs information publishing standards
> issue, we can have both.
>
> (And again, I assert that simply 'informed consent' can always deal with
> any situations where they conflict)
>
>         -- Michael --
>
> PS, my concern is that this lengthy wrangling prevents real work from
> getting done, and the participants who are integral to this conversation
> will fall by the way side, and the lobbyist's will simply wear them down ..
>
> Some of us have real jobs too..
>
>
> On 17-09-27 02:58 PM, John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg wrote:
>
> A simple policy proscription would be, for instance, to say under US law
> if you get a domain under the control of a US registrar, we need you to
> consent to full disclosure. Don't like it, pick a European ccTLD. I don't
> advocate that, mind you, but that's the kind of policy balkanization could
> produce.
>
> j
>
>
> On 09/27/2017 04:31 PM, Paul Keating wrote:
>
> I am failing to understand how such a walled-garden approach will solve
> anything.
>
> 1.EU registrars/registries would still have to deal with GDPR.
>
> 2.Registrars are not aided by the distinction since they would still end
> up with EU customers and EU registrant data.
>
> PRK
>
> From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-
> bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of jonathan matkowsky <
> jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net <mailto:jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net>>
> Date: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 11:03 PM
> To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br <mailto:rubensk at nic.br>>
> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.
> org>>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] WSGR Final Memorandum
>
>     Assuming for argument's sake that's true without taking any
>     position as I'm still catching up from a week ago, I'm not sure
>     this should be dismissed without consideration as a possibility,
>     although obviously not by any stretch of the imagination ideal -->
>     non-EU registrars block EU registrants, and registries contract
>     with non-EU registrars.
>
>     On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br
>     <mailto:rubensk at nic.br>> wrote:
>
>         On Sep 26, 2017, at 7:17 PM, John Horton
>         <john.horton at legitscript.com
>         <mailto:john.horton at legitscript.com>> wrote:
>
>         Much of this problem goes away if we all agree that EU-based
>         registrars should henceforth only be allowed to accept
>         registrants in the EU. Aside from the effect on EU
>         registrars' revenue, what's the logical argument against that
>         from a policy perspective?
>
>         After all, isn't the purpose of the GDPR to protect _EU
>         residents_?
>
>
>         That's correct, but the conclusion is not. Non-EU registrars
>         are also subject to GDPR if targeting EU customers, which
>         could be as simple as providing services in EU languages and
>         accepting registration transactions from the EU.
>         So, for the problem to go away non-EU registrars would need to
>         block EU registrants, and registries would only be able to
>         enter contracts with non-EU registrars.
>
>         So EU users would either be happy using numeric IP addresses,
>         or develop a naming system of their own. Then we would have
>         balkanisation, this time actually including the original balkans.
>
>
>         Rubens
>
>
>
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>         gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>         https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>         <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>
>
>
>     *******************************************************************
>     This message was sent from RiskIQ, and is intended only for the
>     designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or
>     proprietary information and may be subject to confidentiality
>     protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not
>     review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in
>     error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this
>     message. Thank
>     you.********************************************************
> ***********_______________________________________________
>     gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>     <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> "Catch the Magic of Linux..."
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.
> Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
> "LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
>
> This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
> Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
> those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the
> company.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Im+Oberen+Werk+1%0D+66386+St.+Ingbert&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> 66386 St. Ingbert <https://maps.google.com/?q=Im+Oberen+Werk+1%0D+66386+St.+Ingbert&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
>
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
>
> 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 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Im+Oberen+Werk+1%0D+66386+St.+Ingbert&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> 66386 St. Ingbert <https://maps.google.com/?q=Im+Oberen+Werk+1%0D+66386+St.+Ingbert&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
>
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
>
> 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 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Im+Oberen+Werk+1%0D+66386+St.+Ingbert&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> 66386 St. Ingbert <https://maps.google.com/?q=Im+Oberen+Werk+1%0D+66386+St.+Ingbert&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
>
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
>
> 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 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Im+Oberen+Werk+1%0D+66386+St.+Ingbert&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> 66386 St. Ingbert <https://maps.google.com/?q=Im+Oberen+Werk+1%0D+66386+St.+Ingbert&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
>
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
>
>
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>
>
>
> Volker A. Greimann
>
> - Rechtsabteilung -
>
>
>
> Key-Systems GmbH
>
> Im Oberen Werk 1 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Im+Oberen+Werk+1%0D+66386+St.+Ingbert&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> 66386 St. Ingbert <https://maps.google.com/?q=Im+Oberen+Werk+1%0D+66386+St.+Ingbert&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
>
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
>
> 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 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Im+Oberen+Werk+1%0D+66386+St.+Ingbert&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> 66386 St. Ingbert <https://maps.google.com/?q=Im+Oberen+Werk+1%0D+66386+St.+Ingbert&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
>
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> _________________________________
> Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
>
>
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>
>
>
> Volker A. Greimann
>
> - Rechtsabteilung -
>
>
>
> Key-Systems GmbH
>
> Im Oberen Werk 1 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Im+Oberen+Werk+1%0D+66386+St.+Ingbert&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> 66386 St. Ingbert <https://maps.google.com/?q=Im+Oberen+Werk+1%0D+66386+St.+Ingbert&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
>
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
>
> 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 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Im+Oberen+Werk+1%0D+66386+St.+Ingbert&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> 66386 St. Ingbert <https://maps.google.com/?q=Im+Oberen+Werk+1%0D+66386+St.+Ingbert&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
>
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> _________________________________
> Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.
>



-- 
_________________________________
Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20171001/221544e7/attachment-0001.html>


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