Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] FW: Draft Grouping of Charter Questions - some edits
Tim has raised a very valid and important point. A company can voluntarily do a lot of things and many of us do. But there's a very big difference between what we might view as a "best practice" vs a contractual OR legal obligation. (And ICANN has a terrible track record (to date) when it comes to understanding the significant differences between local law and US law and the contracts it forces on various parties.) Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2014 2:22 PM To: Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] FW: Draft Grouping of Charter Questions - some edits Of course, given this is an accreditation program, we are looking at what should be "required." The issues that Google or other online companies deal with are many, and you right, in some cases they choose to cooperate and in other cases they do not and for good reason. But in either case, they are "volunteering" to cooperate. To say that since they "volunteer" to cooperate sometimes it means p/p services should be "required" to reveal upon request is a huge jump. Again, if we are going to use other online companies as analogies, we should then take a detailed look at what is actually "required" of them in various situations. We may be able to glean useful concepts from that. Tim On Jan 8, 2014, at 8:37 AM, "Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria" <GCAMPILLOS@minetur.es<mailto:GCAMPILLOS@minetur.es>> wrote: Dear Volker, Your comments have prompted me to step in your conversation with John Horton. By sternly refusing to respond to foreign law enforcement authorities´ requests, p/p services blatantly disregard the fact that their services are used by foreign individuals, organizations and companies, not the least because they promote their services abroad. In its self-regulation industry represented at ICANN must pay heed to this conspicuous fact and react to it. Simply denying any legitimacy to foreign authorities is not acceptable. As for other Internet services, I invite you to have a look at the Transparency Report Google releases every six months. It´s an example of an Internet service provider who voluntarily attends to requests issued worldwide. Many hosting providers also respond our requests when we ask them to provide contact data of their customers. Once, I advised the group to visit www.internetjurisdiction.net/<http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/>. They are trying to work out avenues to solve jurisdiction problems through soft law. Efforts like this should be supported and tested, for instance, as regards p/p services. Best regards, Gema Campillos Glez De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Volker Greimann Enviado el: miércoles, 08 de enero de 2014 13:23 Para: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] FW: Draft Grouping of Charter Questions - some edits Hi all, to respond to John's comments: * When an allegation of illegal activity is submitted to the p/p service provider, it is important to understand that it may be coming from a victim of the crime. When an allegation of illegal activity is submitted, it is important to understand that it may be coming from someone who merely claims to vbe a victim of a crime, but is in fact not. The purposes for which someone may want to see the underlying registrant data are multifold and many of them are with the intent to later harass the privacy service user, or worse. We must remember in such cases that there may be a very good reason why the registrant has opted for whois privacy. It may therefore be essential for the registrant to know who has inquired to have messages relayed or to have the private data revealed to be able to help the p/p service provider better understand the situation. While I understand there may be cases where a complainant may also have an interest in keeping his identity hidden, he can avail himself of a multitude of methods to ensure this prior to launching the complaint. I do not see this question as actually necessary. * Similarly, I proposed an additional question regarding whether, if disclosure to the registrant is not required, it should be permitted even if law enforcement explains that it will jeopardize an investigation. The rationale for this is simply that in many cases -- in the offline world, as the online world -- disclosing this information puts a legitimate investigation at risk. Agreed, but not all law enforcement is created equal. Basically, I would hold that the p/p operator is unable to determine if an investigation is legitimate or not. Therefore, the only law enforcement that should receive special priviledges should be the law enforcement of the country where the p/p service is based or operates from. No such privileges should be extended to private organizations, no matter how well intentioned unless they are specially authorized be the laws of the country of the p/p operator. * The proposed questions pertaining to jurisdiction are based on the problem I identified (and Gema did, as well) in our earlier emails. I do feel that the way I've written the questions can be clarified and improved, so I welcome anyone who would like to give that a shot. * Similarly, we propose a question that relates to the other business interests controlled by or affiliated with the p/p service. To explain this, we have sometimes seen that the criminal organization "is" the privacy/proxy service. (Currently, of course, there is no accreditation scheme, but the fact remains that is what we see, and I am happy to provide examples if need be.) To be very specific, we know of circumstances where a rogue Internet pharmacy network operates its own "proxy" service, or alternatively, the proxy service -- that is, the individuals who operate it -- also operates as affiliate marketers for rogue networks, using their own privacy/proxy service primarily for their own illegal purposes. Under an accreditation scheme, if actual collusion can be proven, that should probably be a reason to pull the accreditation of the service. Finally, although I unfortunately had to miss the call this morning, I believe that some of the comments may have argued that registrars (or, ICANN) should not have to address criminal jurisdictional issues (that is, multi-jurisdictional complexities). I'd note that banks, credit card networks and search engine ad programs regularly have to address precisely the same multi-jurisdictional questions relating to criminal activity on their platform and do not simply leave it to law enforcement. I would argue that there is no reason to consider registrars a special case that are for some reason exempt from having to address the same issues that companies in the financial and advertising sectors have had to address, and have by and large done so quite competently. I am confident that the registrar community can competently do the same. John, please note that registrars are not (and are nothing like) banks or credit card networks, which are highly regulated by national laws. And even banks take action only based upon legal requirements, law enforcement requests or court orders. To demand any more for less regulated private companies is frankly ridiculous. Your new questions as to related to asking them about applicability of foreign law enforcement requests sound like an unrealistic wish list at best. Providers bowing to every whim of foreign law enforcement or organizations without actual legal authority would expose themsemselves to severe legal liability. Best, Volker Thank you for the opportunity to provide this input, and I welcome any suggestions as to how our suggestions can be improved or refined. John Horton President, LegitScript [https://static.legitscript.com/assets/logo-smaller-cdb8a6f307ce2c6172e72257d...] Follow LegitScript: LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com> | Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/legitscript> | YouTube<https://www.youtube.com/user/LegitScript> | Blog<http://blog.legitscript.com> | Google+<https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Tuesday 7 January 2014 16:38 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject: Fwd: Draft Grouping of Charter Questions - some edits Hi Marika, could you post this to our working group? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Draft Grouping of Charter Questions - some edits Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 10:35:02 -0500 From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Hi All, Hopefully you have seen the proposed edits I just to the SG-C Input Template (I haven't seen them posted). Attached here are some inputs to the Draft Grouping of Charter Questions - with an organizational-type perspective being added. The world is really not just commercial/individual, but truly one of commercial, noncommercial and individual (as ICANN has organized its non-contracted parties). For a religious group, political group, hobby group, dissident group may be organized as a limited liability company to protect the members in case someone falls in the building, but that does not nullify the fact that the group is engaged primarily and fully in noncommercial speech (as the wide array of members of NCSG show). Again edits highlighted and hopefully visible. I would like to see much more discussion on this issue in our next meeting and over the list. Best, Kathy : I will miss the first 30 minutes due to another obligation, but will join as soon as I can. From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 4:30 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI PDP WG Meeting Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next PPSAI PDP WG meeting (Tuesday 7 January at 15.00 UTC). Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda - PPSAI PDP WG Meeting - 7 January 2013 1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Review & finalise SG/C Template (see revised version attached) 3. Review & finalise SO/AC Outreach Letter (see revised version attached) 4. Input to EWG Survey (see attached) 5. Update on WG members survey (to participate, please go to https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/86N33WX) 6. Review proposed charter question groupings (see latest version attached) 7. Next steps & confirm next meeting _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@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 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@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-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
I would also agree that the topic of jurisdiction transcends this PDP, and in fact is a contentious issue throughout all of ICANN. The Internet is global, but government authority ends at the beach. That said, most industry providers are often very cooperative and responsive to requests from foreign governments, particularly if those requests are routed through local law enforcement or courts. But service providers can and should exercise discretion, for example refusing to release the contact information for a registrant in .GAY to Ugandan authorities, or disclose the identities of political dissidents or religious minorities. Existing ICAN contracts (2009 and 2013 RAAs, and Registry Agreements) extensively use the phrase "applicable law," and any agreement resulting from this accreditation program should follow those models. Thanks-- J. From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> Date: Wednesday, January 8, 2014 4:50 PM To: Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com<mailto:tim@godaddy.com>>, "Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria" <GCAMPILLOS@minetur.es<mailto:GCAMPILLOS@minetur.es>> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] FW: Draft Grouping of Charter Questions - some edits Tim has raised a very valid and important point. A company can voluntarily do a lot of things and many of us do. But there’s a very big difference between what we might view as a “best practice” vs a contractual OR legal obligation. (And ICANN has a terrible track record (to date) when it comes to understanding the significant differences between local law and US law and the contracts it forces on various parties.) Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2014 2:22 PM To: Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] FW: Draft Grouping of Charter Questions - some edits Of course, given this is an accreditation program, we are looking at what should be "required." The issues that Google or other online companies deal with are many, and you right, in some cases they choose to cooperate and in other cases they do not and for good reason. But in either case, they are "volunteering" to cooperate. To say that since they "volunteer" to cooperate sometimes it means p/p services should be "required" to reveal upon request is a huge jump. Again, if we are going to use other online companies as analogies, we should then take a detailed look at what is actually "required" of them in various situations. We may be able to glean useful concepts from that. Tim On Jan 8, 2014, at 8:37 AM, "Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria" <GCAMPILLOS@minetur.es<mailto:GCAMPILLOS@minetur.es>> wrote: Dear Volker, Your comments have prompted me to step in your conversation with John Horton. By sternly refusing to respond to foreign law enforcement authorities´ requests, p/p services blatantly disregard the fact that their services are used by foreign individuals, organizations and companies, not the least because they promote their services abroad. In its self-regulation industry represented at ICANN must pay heed to this conspicuous fact and react to it. Simply denying any legitimacy to foreign authorities is not acceptable. As for other Internet services, I invite you to have a look at the Transparency Report Google releases every six months. It´s an example of an Internet service provider who voluntarily attends to requests issued worldwide. Many hosting providers also respond our requests when we ask them to provide contact data of their customers. Once, I advised the group to visit www.internetjurisdiction.net/<http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/>. They are trying to work out avenues to solve jurisdiction problems through soft law. Efforts like this should be supported and tested, for instance, as regards p/p services. Best regards, Gema Campillos Glez De:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Volker Greimann Enviado el: miércoles, 08 de enero de 2014 13:23 Para: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Asunto: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] FW: Draft Grouping of Charter Questions - some edits Hi all, to respond to John's comments: * When an allegation of illegal activity is submitted to the p/p service provider, it is important to understand that it may be coming from a victim of the crime. When an allegation of illegal activity is submitted, it is important to understand that it may be coming from someone who merely claims to vbe a victim of a crime, but is in fact not. The purposes for which someone may want to see the underlying registrant data are multifold and many of them are with the intent to later harass the privacy service user, or worse. We must remember in such cases that there may be a very good reason why the registrant has opted for whois privacy. It may therefore be essential for the registrant to know who has inquired to have messages relayed or to have the private data revealed to be able to help the p/p service provider better understand the situation. While I understand there may be cases where a complainant may also have an interest in keeping his identity hidden, he can avail himself of a multitude of methods to ensure this prior to launching the complaint. I do not see this question as actually necessary. * Similarly, I proposed an additional question regarding whether, if disclosure to the registrant is not required, it should be permitted even if law enforcement explains that it will jeopardize an investigation. The rationale for this is simply that in many cases -- in the offline world, as the online world -- disclosing this information puts a legitimate investigation at risk. Agreed, but not all law enforcement is created equal. Basically, I would hold that the p/p operator is unable to determine if an investigation is legitimate or not. Therefore, the only law enforcement that should receive special priviledges should be the law enforcement of the country where the p/p service is based or operates from. No such privileges should be extended to private organizations, no matter how well intentioned unless they are specially authorized be the laws of the country of the p/p operator. * The proposed questions pertaining to jurisdiction are based on the problem I identified (and Gema did, as well) in our earlier emails. I do feel that the way I've written the questions can be clarified and improved, so I welcome anyone who would like to give that a shot. * Similarly, we propose a question that relates to the other business interests controlled by or affiliated with the p/p service. To explain this, we have sometimes seen that the criminal organization "is" the privacy/proxy service. (Currently, of course, there is no accreditation scheme, but the fact remains that is what we see, and I am happy to provide examples if need be.) To be very specific, we know of circumstances where a rogue Internet pharmacy network operates its own "proxy" service, or alternatively, the proxy service -- that is, the individuals who operate it -- also operates as affiliate marketers for rogue networks, using their own privacy/proxy service primarily for their own illegal purposes. Under an accreditation scheme, if actual collusion can be proven, that should probably be a reason to pull the accreditation of the service. Finally, although I unfortunately had to miss the call this morning, I believe that some of the comments may have argued that registrars (or, ICANN) should not have to address criminal jurisdictional issues (that is, multi-jurisdictional complexities). I'd note that banks, credit card networks and search engine ad programs regularly have to address precisely the same multi-jurisdictional questions relating to criminal activity on their platform and do not simply leave it to law enforcement. I would argue that there is no reason to consider registrars a special case that are for some reason exempt from having to address the same issues that companies in the financial and advertising sectors have had to address, and have by and large done so quite competently. I am confident that the registrar community can competently do the same. John, please note that registrars are not (and are nothing like) banks or credit card networks, which are highly regulated by national laws. And even banks take action only based upon legal requirements, law enforcement requests or court orders. To demand any more for less regulated private companies is frankly ridiculous. Your new questions as to related to asking them about applicability of foreign law enforcement requests sound like an unrealistic wish list at best. Providers bowing to every whim of foreign law enforcement or organizations without actual legal authority would expose themsemselves to severe legal liability. Best, Volker Thank you for the opportunity to provide this input, and I welcome any suggestions as to how our suggestions can be improved or refined. John Horton President, LegitScript [https://static.legitscript.com/assets/logo-smaller-cdb8a6f307ce2c6172e72257d...] FollowLegitScript: LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com> | Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/legitscript> | YouTube<https://www.youtube.com/user/LegitScript> | Blog<http://blog.legitscript.com> | Google+<https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Tuesday 7 January 2014 16:38 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject: Fwd: Draft Grouping of Charter Questions - some edits Hi Marika, could you post this to our working group? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Draft Grouping of Charter Questions - some edits Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 10:35:02 -0500 From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Hi All, Hopefully you have seen the proposed edits I just to the SG-C Input Template (I haven't seen them posted). Attached here are some inputs to the Draft Grouping of Charter Questions - with an organizational-type perspective being added. The world is really not just commercial/individual, but truly one of commercial, noncommercial and individual (as ICANN has organized its non-contracted parties). For a religious group, political group, hobby group, dissident group may be organized as a limited liability company to protect the members in case someone falls in the building, but that does not nullify the fact that the group is engaged primarily and fully in noncommercial speech (as the wide array of members of NCSG show). Again edits highlighted and hopefully visible. I would like to see much more discussion on this issue in our next meeting and over the list. Best, Kathy : I will miss the first 30 minutes due to another obligation, but will join as soon as I can. From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 4:30 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI PDP WG Meeting Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next PPSAI PDP WG meeting (Tuesday 7 January at 15.00 UTC). Best regards, Marika Proposed Agenda – PPSAI PDP WG Meeting – 7 January 2013 1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Review & finalise SG/C Template (see revised version attached) 3. Review & finalise SO/AC Outreach Letter (see revised version attached) 4. Input to EWG Survey (see attached) 5. Update on WG members survey (to participate, please go to https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/86N33WX) 6. Review proposed charter question groupings (see latest version attached) 7. Next steps & confirm next meeting _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@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 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@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-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
participants (2)
-
James M. Bladel -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight