Questions for P/P providers from the WG call earlier today
Dear WG members, With the Chairs¹ consent, I¹m sending on the questions that were asked by several WG members during the call earlier today, in the hopes that those members who are or know of P/P providers and their practices can respond. If links to or copies of provider practices and policies can be provided, that would be very helpful too. 1. What are provider practices regarding customer notification when a disclosure request is received, and is the customer given the opportunity to respond? (Note - on the call, James had agreed to provide information about DBP; Graeme and Michele had responded on behalf of their respective companies perhaps other providers besides DBP can also step in here?) 2. Does any provider offer its customer an option other than disclosure or publication, e.g. an opportunity to cancel the registration instead (i.e. what some WG members have mentioned as a ³takedown²)? 3. What are provider ³standards" for determining disclosure to third parties? 4. Can providers give the WG some general information about the percentage of requests for disclosure that are successful 5. For Q4, do providers also have information about the type of claims those relate to e.g. If they are from LEA, 3P IP claim etc.? As also noted on the call, the Chairs will discuss some of the responses and suggestions that were made, with a view toward hopefully offering some kind of summary or recommendation in time for the call next week. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
My apologies if I missed something, but I have not seen any responses to the questions posed below. I think it would be very helpful if the P/P providers could respond to these questions prior to tomorrow's meeting if at all possible. Keith Kupferschmid From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 6:38 PM To: PPSAI WG Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Questions for P/P providers from the WG call earlier today Dear WG members, With the Chairs' consent, I'm sending on the questions that were asked by several WG members during the call earlier today, in the hopes that those members who are or know of P/P providers and their practices can respond. If links to or copies of provider practices and policies can be provided, that would be very helpful too. 1. What are provider practices regarding customer notification when a disclosure request is received, and is the customer given the opportunity to respond? (Note - on the call, James had agreed to provide information about DBP; Graeme and Michele had responded on behalf of their respective companies - perhaps other providers besides DBP can also step in here?) 2. Does any provider offer its customer an option other than disclosure or publication, e.g. an opportunity to cancel the registration instead (i.e. what some WG members have mentioned as a "takedown")? 3. What are provider "standards" for determining disclosure to third parties? 4. Can providers give the WG some general information about the percentage of requests for disclosure that are successful 5. For Q4, do providers also have information about the type of claims those relate to e.g. If they are from LEA, 3P IP claim etc.? As also noted on the call, the Chairs will discuss some of the responses and suggestions that were made, with a view toward hopefully offering some kind of summary or recommendation in time for the call next week. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
Hi Keith, We've seen descriptions of their processes from GoDaddy, Tucows and Endurance. What I think should be inferred though from our discussions and from those descriptions is that there are no established standards for disclosure because they are exceedingly difficult to craft. In many respects, standards would make the jobs of our compliance teams significantly easier. However, in our years of doing business we have never come to a place where we've found a set of rules that we can apply to the variety of requests that we get. This working group is attempting to codify rules (in a relatively short time frame) that service providers haven't been able to achieve individually. This isn't to say we shouldn't try, but it's clearly not easy. There are few black and white cases, and unending reams of gray requests, which is why we've heard so much about providers protecting their ability to exercise discretion. As for the below questions: 1. I think I answered this previously in my description of our service. 2. is an idea we had previously considered, 'self-requested take-down' might be something we offer pending the outcome of this WG 3. We do not have one for private 3rd parties. Excluding LEA and UDRP 4. & 5. Answers to these require the provider to be using some sort of ticketing/request system that allows tagging/categorization and reporting based on outcomes. Many may not be big enough to have this sort of system in place, or have systems that don't offer these features. This is probably exceedingly difficult information to capture. Graeme _________________________ Graeme Bunton Manager, Management Information Systems Manager, Public Policy Tucows Inc. PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634 ------ Original Message ------ From: "Keith Kupferschmid" <keithk@SIIA.net> To: "Mary Wong" <mary.wong@icann.org>; "PPSAI WG" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Sent: 9/22/2014 1:58:36 PM Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Questions for P/P providers from the WG call earlier today
My apologies if I missed something, but I have not seen any responses to the questions posed below. I think it would be very helpful if the P/P providers could respond to these questions prior to tomorrow’s meeting if at all possible.
Keith Kupferschmid
From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 6:38 PM To: PPSAI WG Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Questions for P/P providers from the WG call earlier today
Dear WG members,
With the Chairs’ consent, I’m sending on the questions that were asked by several WG members during the call earlier today, in the hopes that those members who are or know of P/P providers and their practices can respond. If links to or copies of provider practices and policies can be provided, that would be very helpful too.
What are provider practices regarding customer notification when a disclosure request is received, and is the customer given the opportunity to respond? (Note - on the call, James had agreed to provide information about DBP; Graeme and Michele had responded on behalf of their respective companies – perhaps other providers besides DBP can also step in here?)Does any provider offer its customer an option other than disclosure or publication, e.g. an opportunity to cancel the registration instead (i.e. what some WG members have mentioned as a “takedown”)?What are provider “standards" for determining disclosure to third parties? Can providers give the WG some general information about the percentage of requests for disclosure that are successfulFor Q4, do providers also have information about the type of claims those relate to e.g. If they are from LEA, 3P IP claim etc.? As also noted on the call, the Chairs will discuss some of the responses and suggestions that were made, with a view toward hopefully offering some kind of summary or recommendation in time for the call next week.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@icann.org
Thanks Graeme. I want to make sure I understand your point on Questions 4 and 5 – which are basically just asking p/p providers for statistics on how often they disclose customer/beneficial user information to third-party complainants (percentage-wise), and who those complainants are (LEA, 3P IP complainants, etc.). Are you saying that if I as a customer ask my p/p provider how many times they’ve disclosed my contact information to complainants – and if so, to whom – most providers would respond that it’s exceedingly difficult to track that information, and that therefore they don’t know? From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Graeme Bunton Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 4:50 PM To: Keith Kupferschmid; PPSAI WG Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Questions for P/P providers from the WG call earlier today Hi Keith, We've seen descriptions of their processes from GoDaddy, Tucows and Endurance. What I think should be inferred though from our discussions and from those descriptions is that there are no established standards for disclosure because they are exceedingly difficult to craft. In many respects, standards would make the jobs of our compliance teams significantly easier. However, in our years of doing business we have never come to a place where we've found a set of rules that we can apply to the variety of requests that we get. This working group is attempting to codify rules (in a relatively short time frame) that service providers haven't been able to achieve individually. This isn't to say we shouldn't try, but it's clearly not easy. There are few black and white cases, and unending reams of gray requests, which is why we've heard so much about providers protecting their ability to exercise discretion. As for the below questions: 1. I think I answered this previously in my description of our service. 2. is an idea we had previously considered, 'self-requested take-down' might be something we offer pending the outcome of this WG 3. We do not have one for private 3rd parties. Excluding LEA and UDRP 4. & 5. Answers to these require the provider to be using some sort of ticketing/request system that allows tagging/categorization and reporting based on outcomes. Many may not be big enough to have this sort of system in place, or have systems that don't offer these features. This is probably exceedingly difficult information to capture. Graeme _________________________ Graeme Bunton Manager, Management Information Systems Manager, Public Policy Tucows Inc. PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634 ------ Original Message ------ From: "Keith Kupferschmid" <keithk@SIIA.net<mailto:keithk@SIIA.net>> To: "Mary Wong" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>; "PPSAI WG" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Sent: 9/22/2014 1:58:36 PM Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Questions for P/P providers from the WG call earlier today My apologies if I missed something, but I have not seen any responses to the questions posed below. I think it would be very helpful if the P/P providers could respond to these questions prior to tomorrow’s meeting if at all possible. Keith Kupferschmid From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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 Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 6:38 PM To: PPSAI WG Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Questions for P/P providers from the WG call earlier today Dear WG members, With the Chairs’ consent, I’m sending on the questions that were asked by several WG members during the call earlier today, in the hopes that those members who are or know of P/P providers and their practices can respond. If links to or copies of provider practices and policies can be provided, that would be very helpful too. 1. What are provider practices regarding customer notification when a disclosure request is received, and is the customer given the opportunity to respond? (Note - on the call, James had agreed to provide information about DBP; Graeme and Michele had responded on behalf of their respective companies – perhaps other providers besides DBP can also step in here?) 2. Does any provider offer its customer an option other than disclosure or publication, e.g. an opportunity to cancel the registration instead (i.e. what some WG members have mentioned as a “takedown”)? 3. What are provider “standards" for determining disclosure to third parties? 4. Can providers give the WG some general information about the percentage of requests for disclosure that are successful 5. For Q4, do providers also have information about the type of claims those relate to e.g. If they are from LEA, 3P IP claim etc.? As also noted on the call, the Chairs will discuss some of the responses and suggestions that were made, with a view toward hopefully offering some kind of summary or recommendation in time for the call next week. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
Not quite, Todd. First, as we inform all of our customers about requests & complaints they would already know the answer by looking at their communications from us. Should also be the case with most providers. That said... My answer to 4&5 was an educated* guess, so I may have been over-reaching there. If i could clarify slightly - I wouldn't be surprised if a provider could tell you every interaction around a single, specific domain, but have a difficult time looking across all requests/domains. *educated in that I have experience building data sets out of ticketing systems. Graeme _________________________ Graeme Bunton Manager, Management Information Systems Manager, Public Policy Tucows Inc. PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634 ------ Original Message ------ From: "Williams, Todd" <Todd.Williams@turner.com> To: "Graeme Bunton" <gbunton@tucows.com>; "Keith Kupferschmid" <keithk@SIIA.net>; "PPSAI WG" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Sent: 9/22/2014 5:12:57 PM Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Questions for P/P providers from the WG call earlier today
Thanks Graeme. I want to make sure I understand your point on Questions 4 and 5 – which are basically just asking p/p providers for statistics on how often they disclose customer/beneficial user information to third-party complainants (percentage-wise), and who those complainants are (LEA, 3P IP complainants, etc.).
Are you saying that if I as a customer ask my p/p provider how many times they’ve disclosed my contact information to complainants – and if so, to whom – most providers would respond that it’s exceedingly difficult to track that information, and that therefore they don’t know?
From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Graeme Bunton Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 4:50 PM To: Keith Kupferschmid; PPSAI WG Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Questions for P/P providers from the WG call earlier today
Hi Keith,
We've seen descriptions of their processes from GoDaddy, Tucows and Endurance.
What I think should be inferred though from our discussions and from those descriptions is that there are no established standards for disclosure because they are exceedingly difficult to craft. In many respects, standards would make the jobs of our compliance teams significantly easier. However, in our years of doing business we have never come to a place where we've found a set of rules that we can apply to the variety of requests that we get.
This working group is attempting to codify rules (in a relatively short time frame) that service providers haven't been able to achieve individually. This isn't to say we shouldn't try, but it's clearly not easy. There are few black and white cases, and unending reams of gray requests, which is why we've heard so much about providers protecting their ability to exercise discretion.
As for the below questions:
1. I think I answered this previously in my description of our service.
2. is an idea we had previously considered, 'self-requested take-down' might be something we offer pending the outcome of this WG
3. We do not have one for private 3rd parties. Excluding LEA and UDRP
4. & 5. Answers to these require the provider to be using some sort of ticketing/request system that allows tagging/categorization and reporting based on outcomes. Many may not be big enough to have this sort of system in place, or have systems that don't offer these features. This is probably exceedingly difficult information to capture.
Graeme
_________________________
Graeme Bunton
Manager, Management Information Systems
Manager, Public Policy
Tucows Inc.
PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634
------ Original Message ------
From: "Keith Kupferschmid" <keithk@SIIA.net>
To: "Mary Wong" <mary.wong@icann.org>; "PPSAI WG" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>
Sent: 9/22/2014 1:58:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Questions for P/P providers from the WG call earlier today
My apologies if I missed something, but I have not seen any responses to the questions posed below. I think it would be very helpful if the P/P providers could respond to these questions prior to tomorrow’s meeting if at all possible.
Keith Kupferschmid
From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 6:38 PM To: PPSAI WG Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Questions for P/P providers from the WG call earlier today
Dear WG members,
With the Chairs’ consent, I’m sending on the questions that were asked by several WG members during the call earlier today, in the hopes that those members who are or know of P/P providers and their practices can respond. If links to or copies of provider practices and policies can be provided, that would be very helpful too.
What are provider practices regarding customer notification when a disclosure request is received, and is the customer given the opportunity to respond? (Note - on the call, James had agreed to provide information about DBP; Graeme and Michele had responded on behalf of their respective companies – perhaps other providers besides DBP can also step in here?)Does any provider offer its customer an option other than disclosure or publication, e.g. an opportunity to cancel the registration instead (i.e. what some WG members have mentioned as a “takedown”)?What are provider “standards" for determining disclosure to third parties? Can providers give the WG some general information about the percentage of requests for disclosure that are successfulFor Q4, do providers also have information about the type of claims those relate to e.g. If they are from LEA, 3P IP claim etc.? As also noted on the call, the Chairs will discuss some of the responses and suggestions that were made, with a view toward hopefully offering some kind of summary or recommendation in time for the call next week.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@icann.org
Thanks, Graeme. Your responses below and previously have been helpful. As you point out below, I can appreciate the challenges of bringing the service provider community together to try and fashion more uniform standards while also respecting the need for discretion amongst individual service providers. Unfortunately, we have little hope of successfully addressing these challenges if we are unable to get the group to timely share information that sheds light on these challenges. Thus, I am hopeful others service provider representatives of P/P Services who yet to respond to the questions can do so, so that we can to move forward. Keith From: Graeme Bunton [mailto:gbunton@tucows.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 4:50 PM To: Keith Kupferschmid; PPSAI WG Subject: Re[2]: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Questions for P/P providers from the WG call earlier today Hi Keith, We've seen descriptions of their processes from GoDaddy, Tucows and Endurance. What I think should be inferred though from our discussions and from those descriptions is that there are no established standards for disclosure because they are exceedingly difficult to craft. In many respects, standards would make the jobs of our compliance teams significantly easier. However, in our years of doing business we have never come to a place where we've found a set of rules that we can apply to the variety of requests that we get. This working group is attempting to codify rules (in a relatively short time frame) that service providers haven't been able to achieve individually. This isn't to say we shouldn't try, but it's clearly not easy. There are few black and white cases, and unending reams of gray requests, which is why we've heard so much about providers protecting their ability to exercise discretion. As for the below questions: 1. I think I answered this previously in my description of our service. 2. is an idea we had previously considered, 'self-requested take-down' might be something we offer pending the outcome of this WG 3. We do not have one for private 3rd parties. Excluding LEA and UDRP 4. & 5. Answers to these require the provider to be using some sort of ticketing/request system that allows tagging/categorization and reporting based on outcomes. Many may not be big enough to have this sort of system in place, or have systems that don't offer these features. This is probably exceedingly difficult information to capture. Graeme _________________________ Graeme Bunton Manager, Management Information Systems Manager, Public Policy Tucows Inc. PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634 ------ Original Message ------ From: "Keith Kupferschmid" <keithk@SIIA.net<mailto:keithk@SIIA.net>> To: "Mary Wong" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>; "PPSAI WG" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Sent: 9/22/2014 1:58:36 PM Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Questions for P/P providers from the WG call earlier today My apologies if I missed something, but I have not seen any responses to the questions posed below. I think it would be very helpful if the P/P providers could respond to these questions prior to tomorrow’s meeting if at all possible. Keith Kupferschmid From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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 Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 6:38 PM To: PPSAI WG Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Questions for P/P providers from the WG call earlier today Dear WG members, With the Chairs’ consent, I’m sending on the questions that were asked by several WG members during the call earlier today, in the hopes that those members who are or know of P/P providers and their practices can respond. If links to or copies of provider practices and policies can be provided, that would be very helpful too. 1. What are provider practices regarding customer notification when a disclosure request is received, and is the customer given the opportunity to respond? (Note - on the call, James had agreed to provide information about DBP; Graeme and Michele had responded on behalf of their respective companies – perhaps other providers besides DBP can also step in here?) 2. Does any provider offer its customer an option other than disclosure or publication, e.g. an opportunity to cancel the registration instead (i.e. what some WG members have mentioned as a “takedown”)? 3. What are provider “standards" for determining disclosure to third parties? 4. Can providers give the WG some general information about the percentage of requests for disclosure that are successful 5. For Q4, do providers also have information about the type of claims those relate to e.g. If they are from LEA, 3P IP claim etc.? As also noted on the call, the Chairs will discuss some of the responses and suggestions that were made, with a view toward hopefully offering some kind of summary or recommendation in time for the call next week. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
Hi All, In preparing for today's call, a few of us had a question: how do P/P Providers handle UDRP filings. Does that become a Disclosure, Publication, depends...? Quick answers welcome. Tx! Kathy
I'll jump in (first time!). We disclose privacy/proxy-protected WhoIs records in the event of a UDRP. We do not remove the P/P service on the public WhoIs but we provide the masked data in response to the 'request for registrar verification' email. This is covered in our Terms at https://www.aplus.net/policy/whois. -- Best regards, Sarah Wyld Domain Registry Manager Phone: 800 322 9438 Ext. 6832 Fax: 877 966 4397 Skype: sarah.wyld.hostopia Email: swyld@hostopia.com Note: The information contained in this electronic message may be confidential information and is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any use, distribution, transmission or forwarding of information contained in this e-mail by persons who are not intended recipients may be a violation of law and is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 9:37 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Another question Hi All, In preparing for today's call, a few of us had a question: how do P/P Providers handle UDRP filings. Does that become a Disclosure, Publication, depends...? Quick answers welcome. Tx! Kathy _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Hi Kathy, We did not offered this service ourselves until very recently. But we have dealt with several cases where at the time of the registrar verification request, the P/P provider lifted their services. In every one of those cases, we reverted the whois details in the public database as well. I understand that filing UDRP proceedings could be a somehow easy route to circumvent the protection granted by a P/P service, but I also trust that if a complaint is blatantly frivolous it wouldn’t pass the UDRP provider administrative check. As to the anti-abuse provision I mentioned in the chat it’s actually in the UDRP rules. But contrary to my belief there is no sanction in case of abuse or so it seems… https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rules-be-2012-02-25-en 15. (e) […] If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. Luc On 23 Sep 2014, at 15:40, Sarah Wyld <swyld@hostopia.com<mailto:swyld@hostopia.com>> wrote: I'll jump in (first time!). We disclose privacy/proxy-protected WhoIs records in the event of a UDRP. We do not remove the P/P service on the public WhoIs but we provide the masked data in response to the 'request for registrar verification' email. This is covered in our Terms at https://www.aplus.net/policy/whois. -- Best regards, Sarah Wyld Domain Registry Manager Phone: 800 322 9438 Ext. 6832 Fax: 877 966 4397 Skype: sarah.wyld.hostopia Email: swyld@hostopia.com<mailto:swyld@hostopia.com> Note: The information contained in this electronic message may be confidential information and is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any use, distribution, transmission or forwarding of information contained in this e-mail by persons who are not intended recipients may be a violation of law and is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. -----Original Message----- 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 Kathy Kleiman Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 9:37 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Another question Hi All, In preparing for today's call, a few of us had a question: how do P/P Providers handle UDRP filings. Does that become a Disclosure, Publication, depends...? Quick answers welcome. Tx! Kathy _______________________________________________ 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg ________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone. Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. --------------------------------------------------------
participants (7)
-
Graeme Bunton -
Kathy Kleiman -
Keith Kupferschmid -
Luc SEUFER -
Mary Wong -
Sarah Wyld -
Williams, Todd