[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Using the GDPR as a basis for RDS Policy
Volker Greimann
vgreimann at key-systems.net
Wed Feb 14 16:14:28 UTC 2018
Best case: Everyone agrees on a common adoption of an implementation for
an RDS that is fully compliant with all applicable data protection laws
and still provides for an ability to get access to that data if a
legitimate interest in accessing a particular data set exists. Data
retention will be reduced to the maximum allowable limit under the
jurisdiction the registrar operates in (nothin new here, just re-stating
what should already be the case), and collection will be limited to
those data sets for which valid justifications exist at the time the
service is requested.
Legitimate accessors could be: LEAs of appropriate jurisdiction (either
registrar or data subject), accredited/certified accessors, entities
acting on behalf of data subject, etc.
Heretic thought of the day: We will probably be looking at a
thin/distributed model again, or at least a model where data does not
leave certain jurisdictions without legitimate reasons/justification.
For a possible example of how a GDPR compliant RDS might look, please
have a look at:
http://webwhois.nic.amsterdam/ and
search for:
/dejong.amsterdam/ for an example of a domain with data provided by a
private individual, or
/neuken.amsterdam/ for an example of a domain with data provided by an
organization.
Also note that certain requesters can be provided with access to full
data whois under:
http://nic.amsterdam/whois-privacy
This would be one possible implementation of the tiered access model
suggested by the EWG.
I am not saying thisis the perfect model, but it is _a_ possible model
that has already been given a nod by the dutch data privacy official. It
does provide full access to certain parties with legitimate interest.
Heretic thought of the day #2: It may be the case that we have looked at
this entire issue from the wrong end. I know we agreed on the existing
work plan, but instead of debating endlessly about purposes and legal
vs. legitimate, we might have been better served by at first building a
tight model and then look at what can and should be collected into this
model and who would be given access to what and how.
VG
Am 14.02.2018 um 16:41 schrieb DANIEL NANGHAKA:
> GDPR is one of the issues that calls for compliance. We should not
> neglect the other global issues. What we need is a bench mark then
> after follow the global compliance standards. GDPR is not the only. At
> the beginning of this WG, there was a review of the different Policies
> and laws which we cannot just throw away. GDPR should not make us
> loose our direction but we review the GDPR and discuss how it affects
> RDS.
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 14, 2018, Chuck <consult at cgomes.com
> <mailto:consult at cgomes.com>> wrote:
>
> I apologize for injecting this message way to late in the thread
> and for not responding to Alan Greenberg’s suggestion yesterday,
> but I was unavoidably offline for the last 18+ hours.
>
> As of now, let’s change the title of this thread to ‘Using the
> GDPR as a basis for RDS Policy’. For any future responses to
> earlier messages about this topic, please change the subject.
>
> Note that I changed the subject in my reply. Feel free to respond
> to this message with additional discussion about messages below.
> I hope this works; if anyone has a different suggestion regarding
> how to do this, please feel free to communicate it.
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Paul
> Keating
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 14, 2018 4:38 AM
> *To:* Dotzero <dotzero at gmail.com <mailto:dotzero at gmail.com>>;
> Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net
> <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>>
> *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] Legal basis vs. lawful
>
> Correct but they are the ones collecting the data so unless they
> are convinced of the need and legal ability they simply will not
> collect it. Processing only comes after collection.
>
> *From: *gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Dotzero
> <dotzero at gmail.com <mailto:dotzero at gmail.com>>
> *Date: *Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 5:23 PM
> *To: *Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net
> <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>>
> *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] Legal basis vs. lawful
>
> Volcker,
>
> Registrars are not the only constituency with a stake in this.
>
> Michael Hammer
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Volker Greimann
> <vgreimann at key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> no, sensible because a great number of registrars will be
> forced to deal with this anyway, because this will affect
> a great many of registrations and therefore it makes sense
> to take this as a basis. Of course we will then need to
> see if there need to be tweaks to accomodate for other
> jurisdictions, but as more as more countries are adopting
> similar regimes....
>
> Sure it will be more restrictive than open access and some
> people may have a harder time than today getting at
> certain information, but with tiered access access would
> still be possible for those with overriding legitimate
> interests. That is the model the EU commission hinted at.
> Not the only model, but a working one.
>
> Volker
>
> Am 13.02.2018 um 17:04 schrieb Dotzero:
>
> Volker, you assert that "it would be sensible to take
> GDPR as a basis and start from there". Perhaps
> sensible from your perspective and easier from your
> perspective but ICANN is an international organization
> - primarily dealing with technical/administrative
> issues - and it MUST take an approach that, as best it
> can, accommodates the laws and practices of various
> jurisdictions around the world. Your proposed
> approach, quite simply does not do that.
>
> Michael Hammer
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Volker Greimann
> <vgreimann at key-systems.net
> <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>> wrote:
>
> I think that it would be sensible to take the GDPR
> as a basis and start from there. Obviously, where
> it conflicts with other applicable laws, we should
> make sure to accomodate those as well, but as the
> EU Commission and others have pointed out is that
> compliance with GDPR does not preclude providing
> certain access levels to certain parties. What
> those levels would be and who those parties could
> be should be the main focus of our work.
>
> Am 13.02.2018 um 15:41 schrieb Chuck:
>
> Volker,
>
> Are you saying that you think that RDS
> policies should be designed to comply with
> European regulations and then applied to all
> other jurisdictions in the world?
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:*Volker Greimann
> [mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net
> <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 13, 2018 5:58 AM
> *To:* Chuck <consult at cgomes.com>
> <mailto:consult at cgomes.com>; 'Michael Palage'
> <michael at palage.com> <mailto:michael at palage.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Legal basis
> vs. lawful
>
> I am afraid that if we create different
> policies for different regions, we will break
> the model, encourage forum shopping and
> encourage firewalling of entire geographic
> sections of the net. I hope that is not what
> we are doing here.
>
> GDPR will cause some breakage of this and I
> see it as our mission to fix this breakage of
> the standard by proposing a unified model once
> again.
>
> Ultimately, if this solution does what the EU
> has been asking for, e.g. protect legitimate
> use cases of registration data as well as the
> rights of the data subjects, there is no
> reason why it should not be universally
> applicable.
>
> Best,
>
> Volker
>
> Am 13.02.2018 um 00:04 schrieb Chuck:
>
> Volker,
>
> The WG could recommend policies that are
> ‘universally applicable to all
> registrations’ but I seriously doubt that
> will happen in today’s world. That would
> be much simpler than policies that vary by
> region and users, but is it realistic?
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann
> *Sent:* Monday, February 12, 2018 2:30 PM
> *To:* Michael Palage <michael at palage.com>
> <mailto:michael at palage.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Legal
> basis vs. lawful
>
> Michael is right. ICANN iOS based on the
> thought of “One World; one Internet”. This
> also means that the policies it creates
> should be universally applicable to all
> registrations, if possible. IF we start
> creating policy that diverges, that would
> only lead to further fragmentation and
> undermine the founding ideal of ICANN
> itself. Our aim should be to create one
> policy that can be applied to all or most
> registrations and that can be implemented
> by all registrars alike.
>
> While we will likely have a certain amount
> of fragmentation following May 25 as each
> contracted party applies its own solution,
> it should be our goal to overcome this and
> present a new unified policy that works
> for all contracted parties.
>
> Volker
>
>
>
> On 12. Feb 2018, at 20:27, Michael
> Palage <michael at palage.com
> <mailto:michael at palage.com>> wrote:
>
> Greg/John,
>
> I will respectfully push back on your
> legal over simplification of the GDPR.
>
> The exterritorial aspect of the GDPR
> set forth in Article 3 is NOT just
> limited to EU residents/citizens. As
> Michele has noted in the past, the
> GDPR requires BlackKnight as an Irish
> legal entity to protect all of its
> customers data (EU/Non-EU) in
> compliance with GDPR, as well as US
> entities that target and conduct
> business within the EU.
>
> Now your points about the distinction
> between natural and legal persons is a
> fair one and one that has been noted
> in EU and Art 29 communications. Could
> you please share the basis of your
> proposition that 97% of all domain
> name registrations are registered by
> legal entities.
>
> As I have note previously the long
> term viability of the ICANN
> multi-stakeholder model is at risk as
> national governments continue to pass
> national laws that impact the
> operation of the Internet. However,
> the European Union is NOT alone in
> advancing Privacy Legislation, in fact
> data localization is perhaps the next
> biggest lurking threat to the domain
> name system.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael
>
> *From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>]*On
> Behalf Of*John Horton via gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> *Sent:*Monday, February 12, 2018 1:22 PM
> *To:*Greg Aaron <gca at icginc.com
> <mailto:gca at icginc.com>>
> *Cc:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:*Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Legal
> basis vs. lawful
>
> I think Greg is right on. There's
> simply no justification to force a law
> that is only intended to apply to a)
> EU residents/citizens that are b)
> natural persons not using the domain
> name for commercial purposes, to the
> remaining...what? 97% - 99% of the
> world's registrant population? That
> would be a balanced way to implement
> all of this.
>
>
> John Horton
> President and CEO, LegitScript
>
> *Follow****Legit**Script*: LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com>
> | Facebook
> <https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript>
> | Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/legitscript> |
> _Blog
> <http://blog.legitscript.com/>_ |Newsletter
> <http://go.legitscript.com/Subscription-Management.html>
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Greg
> Aaron <gca at icginc.com
> <mailto:gca at icginc.com>> wrote:
>
> I don’t know if we arrive at the
> same place.
>
> GDPR is based on one principle.
> It states what is legal. It's
> explicit about what you _are
> allowed to do_; granted there’s
> some flexibility and room for
> interpretation. It’s like saying
> what’s inside a box.
>
> U.S. law is one based on different
> principles. AFAIK U.S. consumer
> protection law does not enumerate
> specifically what is lawful.
> Instead it tends to state what is
> illegal, what you are _not allowed
> to do_. It’s like saying what’s
> outside the box. The U.S.
> doesn’t have something like GDPR
> that spells out legal bases for
> collecting data, i.e. the
> enumerated allowable reasons.
> Instead the trade and consumer
> protection laws basically say:
> entities have the right to form
> contracts between themselves, they
> should live up to the contract,
> don’t surprise people, don’t do
> certain dishonest things.
>
> Here's the problem: if one makes
> the GDPR principle the ICANN
> standard and you apply it to all
> registrations, then practices that
> are allowable in one place under
> the law (like the U.S.) would no
> longer be allowed there by ICANN
> policy. ICANN would be choosing
> one legal approach or regime for
> everyone in the world.
>
> The alternative is to apply the
> GDRP only to those that it is
> designed to protect: registrants
> in the EU.
>
> For example, there’s nothing in
> U.S. law that prohibits a U.S.
> registrar from having a contract
> that says publication of full
> contact data in WHOIS is a
> condition of registering a domain
> name if you are a registrant in
> the U.S.
>
> Seehttps://iapp.org/news/a/explaining-the-gdpr-to-an-american/
> <https://iapp.org/news/a/explaining-the-gdpr-to-an-american/>
> for more.
>
> *From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>]*On
> Behalf Of*Silver, Bradley via
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> *Sent:*Friday, February 9, 2018
> 2:54 PM
> *To:*Volker Greimann
> <vgreimann at key-systems.net
> <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>>;gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>
>
> *Subject:*Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg]
> Legal basis vs. lawful
>
> It is true that the GDPR is
> prescriptive, although also rather
> open-ended (hence our current
> pickle). But regardless of the
> term we use, don’t we arrive at
> the same place: which is that if
> something that requires a legal
> basis is done without one, it will
> be unlawful? Using Kathy’s
> example, if data is processed
> without complying with
> minimization or purpose
> principles, will such processing
> not run afoul of the law, and
> hence be unlawful?
>
> There are important distinctions
> between the meaning of “legal
> basis” which implies that a law
> requires something to be
> affirmatively present, versus
> “lawful”, which means that
> something is not prohibited by
> law. Ultimately though, isn’t
> “lawfulness”, the same end point,
> regardless?
>
> *From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>]*On
> Behalf Of*Volker Greimann
> *Sent:*Friday, February 09, 2018
> 11:27 AM
> *To:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:*Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg]
> Legal basis vs. lawful
>
> I do not see how. Kathy's analysis
> seems sound. The flexibility
> within the GDPR still only allows
> processing in very specific
> cicumstances, all of which are
> listed in the GDPR.
>
> Am 09.02.2018 um 16:45 schrieb
> Victoria Sheckler:
>
> Kathy’s analysis breaks down
> on a practical level when one
> looks at the GDPR and what it
> says about when data can be
> processed. The GDPR allows for
> flexibility for what can be
> processed and when, and
> kathy’s analysis overlooks
> that point.
>
> *From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>]*On
> Behalf Of*Kathy Kleiman
> *Sent:*Thursday, February 8,
> 2018 7:07 PM
> *To:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:*Re:
> [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Legal basis
> vs. lawful
>
> Tx for the invitation to join,
> Chuck, and following up on the
> discussion of Sam and Tapani,
> let me add that criteria for
> processing must be clearer
> than something broadly within
> ICANN's mission statement and
> something permissible
> somewhere. The requirements
> under law are express and
> concrete.
>
> Specifically, GDPR Article
> 5(1)(b and c) states:
>
> *Personal data shall be:
> 2. "collected for_specified,
> explicit and legitimate
> purposes_and not further
> processed in a manner that is
> incompatible with those
> purposes"*(the "purpose
> limitation") AND*
> 3. "adequate, relevant and
> limited to what is necessary
> in relation to the purposes
> for which they are
> processed"*(the "data
> minimisation" requirement).
> [underline added]*
> *
> Thus, our first criteria of
> "consistent with ICANN's
> mission," is only the first
> step and we need to go further
> than even the 3 criteria we
> are discussing..
>
> Second, lawful and legal enter
> us into a debate over words
> and I have to agree with Sam
> and Tapani's analysis and let
> me add some of my own.
>
> "Legal" is the term we use for
> actions expressly allowed
> under law. How we process
> personal data under the GDRP
> falls into this category -- of
> processing expressly allowed
> under law. Whereas the term
> lawful is used for a much
> broader category of actions
> which are generally
> permissible and allowable.
>
> The term "legal" is much more
> consistent with our criteria
> statement because the
> processing of personal data by
> ICANN must clearly have
> a/valid legal basis/as
> expressly defined by data
> protection laws.
>
> Best regards,
> Kathy
>
> On 2/7/2018 10:53 AM, Sam
> Lanfranco wrote:
>
> Thanks Tapani,
>
> I will extract from your
> longer message.
> I deliberately kept my
> brief and less technical.
> I think we are in
> agreement here and I
> support your position.
>
> On 2/7/2018 1:07 AM,
> Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>
> The key distinction, as I
> understand it, is that
> "lawful" would be
> defined by the negative,
> everything that some law
> does not prohibit,
>
> where as "legal basis" is
> defined by the positive,
> only things whose
> justification can be
> explicitly derived from law.
>
> <......>
>
> So I would prefer "legal
> basis" specifically in
> this sense: that any
> processing
> would have to be
> explicitly based on one of
> the criteria, or bases, as
> listed
> in GDPR Article 6, or
> similar explicit
> justification in other
> data protection legislation.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DwMDaQ&c=tq9bLrSQ8zIr87VusnUS92RmR2KtbW6AiQIx78dtRmA&r=TAA3GKe6tpWdv3RbCks6TRrjaTx9d0J3KzemA65KYpA&m=fOG1O9n2_DhDKrVj0wrojDKlYIsDeLHzwtDlEi-f9Ng&s=GditP_BvWvjE7xFIYot7e5akySiL4RPKaCgA_X_fyTE&e=>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DwMDaQ&c=tq9bLrSQ8zIr87VusnUS92RmR2KtbW6AiQIx78dtRmA&r=TAA3GKe6tpWdv3RbCks6TRrjaTx9d0J3KzemA65KYpA&m=fOG1O9n2_DhDKrVj0wrojDKlYIsDeLHzwtDlEi-f9Ng&s=GditP_BvWvjE7xFIYot7e5akySiL4RPKaCgA_X_fyTE&e=>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> */
> Reminder: Any email that requests
> your login credentials or that
> asks you to click on a link could
> be a phishing attack. If you have
> any questions regarding the
> authenticity of this email or its
> sender, please contact the IT
> Service Desk at212.484.6000
> <tel:%28212%29%20484-6000>or via
> email
> at/**/ITServices at timewarner.com/*
> <mailto:ITServices at timewarner.com>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This message is the property of
> Time Warner Inc. and is intended
> only for the use of the
> addressee(s) and may be legally
> privileged and/or confidential. If
> the reader of this message is not
> the intended recipient, or the
> employee or agent responsible to
> deliver it to the intended
> recipient, he or she is hereby
> notified that any dissemination,
> distribution, printing,
> forwarding, or any method of
> copying of this information,
> and/or the taking of any action in
> reliance on the information herein
> is strictly prohibited except by
> the intended recipient or those to
> whom he or she intentionally
> distributes this message. If you
> have received this communication
> in error, please immediately
> notify the sender, and delete the
> original message and any copies
> from your computer or storage
> system. 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
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>
> --
> 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
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
> <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>
> Web: www.key-systems.net
> <http://www.key-systems.net> /
> www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
> www.domaindiscount24.com
> <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /
> www.BrandShelter.com
> <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
>
> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie
> unser Fan bei Facebook:
> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
> <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
> www.twitter.com/key_systems
> <http://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 <http://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
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
> <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>
> Web: www.key-systems.net
> <http://www.key-systems.net> /
> www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
> www.domaindiscount24.com
> <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /
> www.BrandShelter.com
> <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
>
> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan
> community on Facebook and stay updated:
> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
> <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
> www.twitter.com/key_systems
> <http://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 <http://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
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards
> Nanghaka Daniel K.
> Executive Director - ILICIT Africa / Chair - FOSSFA / Community Lead -
> ISOC Uganda Chapter / Geo4Africa Lead / Organising Team - FOSS4G2018
> Mobile +256 772 898298 (Uganda)
> Skype: daniel.nanghaka
>
> ----------------------------------------- /"Working for Africa"
> /-----------------------------------------
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20180214/b812f255/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list