John, I believe your ad-hominem attacks are unwarranted. They are
certainly unwelcome.
Really? Having an interest in providing a legitimate service makes us accessories to whatever people do online now?To which I agree. We should certainly look at those who have a direct revenue stream in this have an interest in maintaining as many people owning domains for as long as possible to maintain said income stream regardless of the harms externalized by their actions.I do not think anyone suggested any organization would not be legitimate enough to participate. Anyone with an opinion on the matter can (and should) participate. I merely suggested that I see it as obvious that the source of an argument has an impact on the interpretation of the argument and should not be disregarded.
Directly to the ad-hominem attack. Stop injecting those into this discussion. I made a valid point that there is value in differentiating between the original definition of fake news and actual fact-based news.
No one cares about your inane political viewpoints. Stop injecting them into this discussion.Or would anyone in his right mind consider a Breitbart news article or a Trump tweet as similarly trustworthy, significant and helpful as they would a researched and vetted WSJ article?
I do not think providing registration services constitutes a conflict of interest. Providing harvesting services of whois data (which current whois use policies already albeit ineffectively prohibit) does.
Yes. Tell me, where do you stand on economic conflicts of interest and how they play out in this policy discussion?Anyone with something to say can and should contribute, but we should be free to look at where this argument is coming from as well. Sometimes what is not being said is as informative as what is being said, after all.
If you look at the EWG recommendations that form the basis for our PDP, you will find these questions at the basis of what our group is tasked to discuss. You may want to have a look at our WG charter documents.
Many disagree with this premise that there is such a need to decide who gets what and that this group should be the one making that decision if so.
I also have not seen much issue with legitimate investigative use cases. If law enforcement in the pursuit of their duty has a legal right to access the data, they will in all likelyhood still be able to get at that data, and I support that in general. Admittedly, under such a regime, private organizations with no formal law enforcement powers would have a harder time, and that is something we should look at once we reach that part of the deliberation. I personally think that finding the exact "line in the sand" of who gets what how will be a daunting task, but worthwhile.
Nonetheless valid as they touch upon the same legal question. Who should have access to what information and under which requirements. If you want a closer comparison, look at what law enforcement has to do to get the basically identical, but non-public customer data from a hosting company.All analogies uninformed by the actual reality of the subject at hand.
It is a known fact that the right to privacy of individuals makes the job of law enforcement harder. That is why each jurisdiction has tried to define the acceptable borders and intrusions into the individual privacy necessary to fight specific crime. Law enforcement has specific rights that may ever vary with the crime that is being investigated. For example, law enforcement looking at terror suspects may have significantly more rights to intrude on the privacy of the suspects than law enforcement fighting traffic violations. Police may wire-tap a suspect but only after going through the appropriate process (which will usually require the approval of a judge).
And obviously, as an example, private organizations fighting traffic violations (for example private parking companies trying to find and fine those illegally using their parking spaces) have even less rights than state organizations doing the same for public parking spaces.
I take offense at this attempt to characterize my argument in this manner. This comment is so far out of bounds, it does not deserve a response other than: registrants provide data to us for provision in the whois that we cannot check and have to take at face value unless we are informed differently. We are not aiding and abetting criminal activity or allowing customers to violate our or ICANNs policy. If informed of such violations, we will take appropriate action.I want to focus on this because it's such a bald statement of moral turpitude. Let's take a look at what you're actually saying here. You have a customer who wants privacy but instead of paying a few bucks for whois privacy protection because you guys MONETIZED privacy and doing it the right way, you are letting them violate your policies and ICANNs KNOWINGLY. This is no "technical violation", it's a conscious and direct one. You COULD simply offer whois privacy protection as a check box on registration and NOT monetize it. Then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But instead you created an income stream, people don't want to pay into it, so instead of following your own policies and ICANN's you knowingly violate it. All the while criminals do the same thing and use junk data. This enables them to KEEP BEING CRIMINALS longer making this not a "victimless crime"... what it makes it is you are systematically aiding criminals all to protect the whois privacy income stream.
With regard to your comment on accuracy and privacy, I think this is misplaced here. I think it is faily clear to anyone in this group that whois data that is accurate constitutes PII whereas trash data probably does not (it might be PII for someone else if the data was stolen). In many cases I have seen over the years, legitimate users of domain names have used trash data in what they saw as self defense as they did not wish their private details to be published in the whois. While they technically violated their registration agreements, nearly all felt this was justified and a "victimless crime" as they could not see and harm in doing that. And guess what: No one was actually harmed (except the registrar saddled with the man-hour cost trying to convince them to update the data "or else").
Then report them!
We've known there are bad registrars and registries out there.
Namecentral was just disaccredited because it was nothing more than a front for DDoS for hire services.So the system actually works.
There are entire ccTLDs that operate as criminal service providers.Do you have evidence or is this something that Trump would tweet?
We've by and large stopped bothering to report must of it because complaints of this sort or systematically ignored most of the time anyway.So you are aiding and abetting criminal activity or violations that you know about by not taking action?
Now I see why it persists, because anything that doesn't victimize you is "victimless".If a private individual uses a domain name for a legitimate purpose but does not want to reveal his personal information and choses to violate our policies and risk suspension, where is the victim? Other than the registrar who has to use resources to convince him to update or else?
This conversation is starting to feel like having a debate with tobacco lobbyists on whether cigarettes cause cancer. Breitbart level credibility indeed.Registering domain names causes crimes now? What are you advocating here? Banning domain name registrations?
j
Am 07.03.2017 um 02:35 schrieb allison nixon:
The level of resistance here against investigative use cases is very interesting.
People claim to care about privacy and then attempt to shut down a major aspect of combating cybercrime, which is a bigger violator of privacy than all the whois spam put together and multiplied by a million.
To see an individual person denouncing an organization of many people as somehow not legitimate enough to participate, while oneself participates- that's also interesting.
Claims that WHOIS data is sensitive and accurate PII despite common use of trash data and WHOIS privacy, also interesting.
Something does not add up.
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Patrick Lenihan via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> wrote:
+1 Stephanie; as a former USA law enforcement officer.______________________________
---- Original Message ----
From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca >
To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>
Sent: Mon, Mar 6, 2017 11:36 am
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] international law enforcement association resolution regarding domain registration data
______________________________I hesitate to even venture a comment on this topic, lest it generate another 20 comments, but I am very puzzled about this whole discussion. I am admittedly much more familiar with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, a lobby group/professional association which is remarkably similar to this organization, only on a national level. OF course any of the police lobby associations are free to join us, but is anyone suggesting that we do not have adequate representation of law enforcement interests at ICANN? Do we not have several representatives of police agencies on this working group? Law enforcement organizations regularly form part of GAC delegations, certainly our RCMP are often part of the Canadian delegation to the GAC. Law enforcement officials have formed a public safety working group.....any of these representatives are presumably capable of drafting papers for their national organizations and indeed I suspect someone has drafted this document for the International Association, given the specificity of the resolutions. I am sure many national associations will endorse it and bring it to their own national governments, who in turn will forward it to their GAC delegations.
Police organizations regularly lobby for legislative change to facilitate their work. (it is nevertheless interesting that this international organization has a link for contacting your congressman, http://capwiz.com/theiacp/issues/ right under the drop down menu for what we do). It is not surprising that they have prepared a resolution on WHOIS, those of us who have followed the impact of technology on police work have seen many similar resolutions on different issues. Police face problems of time and expense, not to mention constitutional protection. However, It is not like law enforcement has not had its views very well represented at ICANN over many years. Given, as Michele has pointed out, that the bar for membership on this working group is exceedingly low (show up) it seems to me the issue we need to worry about is, who does not have the time and money to show up.
Stephanie Perrin
On 2017-03-05 10:57, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
ChuckThat seems a lot saner and more scalable.RegardsMichele--Mr Michele NeylonBlacknight SolutionsHosting, Colocation & DomainsIntl. +353 (0) 59 9183072Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,SleatyRoad,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com>
Date: Sunday 5 March 2017 at 15:56
To: Michele Neylon <michele@blacknight.com>, "icann@ferdeline.com" <icann@ferdeline.com>
Cc: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>
Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] international law enforcement association resolution regarding domain registration dataI’m concerned that this could turn into an unending administrative workload for staff and would like them to focus their time in helping us do our deliberations. I am now sorry I made the suggestion.Marika has made a good suggestion on the leadership list that we encourage all members to send our latest WG update to any organizations that may have a stake in what we are doing and invite them to join as members or observers.ChuckFrom: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2017 8:12 AM
To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>; Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>
Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] international law enforcement association resolution regarding domain registration dataAydenIf you supply the names and contact details for organisations who you think should be invited to contribute in some form then I’m sure that we can deal with it.
However so far you haven’t.As others have pointed out, the ICANN processes are open to everyone. The barrier to entry is incredibly low. All you need to do is turn up.Input is always welcome and encouraged.RegardsMichele--Mr Michele NeylonBlacknight SolutionsHosting, Colocation & DomainsIntl. +353 (0) 59 9183072Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,SleatyRoad,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org > on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>
Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>
Date: Saturday 4 March 2017 at 19:44
To: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com>
Cc: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] international law enforcement association resolution regarding domain registration dataIf the invitation to this association will be going out on ICANN letterhead and facilitated by ICANN staff, I consider it only fair that other invitations be sent out in the same manner.
Thank you,
Ayden-------- Original Message --------Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] international law enforcement association resolution regarding domain registration dataLocal Time: 4 March 2017 7:40 PMUTC Time: 4 March 2017 19:40From: cgomes@verisign.comI suggest you invite them Ayden. If you are bothered by the fact that I asked staff to contact the association I will cancel my request of staff and encourage others to do that.ChuckFrom: Ayden Férdeline [mailto:icann@ferdeline.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2017 2:15 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>
Cc: gregshatanipc@gmail.com; vgreimann@key-systems.net; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] international law enforcement association resolution regarding domain registration dataIf we are going to send an invite letter to this organisation requesting their participation, I am happy to provide a list of other organisations whose voices are missing from this WG so that ICANN staff can invite them to participate as well. Thanks.- Ayden-------- Original Message --------Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] international law enforcement association resolution regarding domain registration dataLocal Time: 4 March 2017 7:10 PMUTC Time: 4 March 2017 19:10From: cgomes@verisign.comVery well said Greg.It seems to me that we should reach out to them and invite them to have a representative or representatives join our WG.Marika/Lisa – Would one of you please prepare an invitation letter and identify who and where we should send it.ChuckFrom: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org ] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2017 11:13 AM
To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>; Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] international law enforcement association resolution regarding domain registration data"They can ask for anything they like, it is not like it has legal binding status. It is a wish list, nothing more..."This is no different than any other stakeholder (or group of stakeholders). Even GAC members. So their input should be accepted on an equal footing with any other input. There seems to be a curious amount of effort devoted to discounting this input, much of it based on identity (or opinions about that identity) rather than substance.On top of giving due consideration to their input, it may also be appropriate to engage in outreach and engagement with this organization. Participation in the multistakeholder process would be more useful in the long run vs. issuing resolutions. Useful for them, useful for all of us, and useful for the process.As an INGO of LE professionals, there may be no existing SO/AC that would be an appropriate "home" for the IOCP, which makes it all the more important that they understand they are welcome to participate, as well as to communicate in other ways (such as resolutions).GregOn Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:54 AM Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> wrote:+1 Volker- Ayden-------- Original Message --------Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] international law enforcement association resolution regarding domain registration dataLocal Time: 3 March 2017 9:21 AMUTC Time: 3 March 2017 09:21Good thing that police are law "enforcement" not legislators. They can ask for anything they like, it is not like it has legal binding status. It is a wish list, nothing more...Am 02.03.2017 um 19:35 schrieb Greg Aaron:The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has issued an official resolution regarding domain name registration data.The resolution requests that ICANN and related parties provide “continued access to publicly available databases concerning the allocation of Internet resources, and in situations where the maintenance of these databases may conflict with privacy regulation, business concerns, or data-mining prevention efforts, fully consult with the International law enforcement to assist in the resolution of these potential conflicts before removing or restricting law enforcement access to this critical information; and… that IACP membership coordinate the above efforts to achieve the goal of providing consistent, equal, and uniform access to the above-referenced resources for all of the international law enforcement community.”Founded in 1893, the IACP (www.iacp.org) is the professional association for law enforcement officers, with members in 133 countries worldwide, primarily leadership-level personnel in national, state/provincial, and local agencies. "The Association's goals are to advance the science and art of police services; to develop and disseminate improved administrative, technical and operational practices and promote their use in police work; to foster police cooperation and the exchange of information and experience among police administrators throughout the world....and to encourage adherence of all police officers to high professional standards of performance and conduct."The text of the full resolution is below and contains the rationales. It notes that loss of access to the currently available data “would severely cripple or eliminate the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct investigation in a timely manner.”The document is attached, and also at: http://www.theiacp.org/Resolutions I kindly request that this be added to our bank of reference materials. (Thanks, Lisa and Michelle.)Support for Law Enforcement Access to Publicly Available and Accurate Internet Address Registration Data to include privacy protected registrant information and related Forensic Resources to facilitate investigation of Cybercrime and Cyber Enabled CrimeSubmitted by: Communications and Technology CommitteeCTC.06.t16WHEREAS, this is an updated version of an expired 2005 adopted resolution then submitted by the Communications and Technology Committee as CT23.a05 and adopted at the 112th Annual Conference; andWHEREAS, the lawful investigation of Internet communications is one of the most valuable tools available to law enforcement in identifying both the perpetrators and victims of crime; andWHEREAS, the Internet is global in nature, and as such, poses challenges when conducting multiagency international investigations, including delays imposed when obtaining international legal process; andWHEREAS, electronic or digital evidence associated with the Internet is fleeting in nature, and law enforcement officials must obtain timely access to this information to fulfill law enforcement duties; andWHEREAS, criminals use the anonymity and international nature of the Internet, and the fleeting nature of electronic or digital evidence, to thwart law enforcement investigations; andWHEREAS, publicly available databases containing information involving the allocation of Internet resources and who they are assigned to, such as Internet Protocol address space and domain names, are a critical tool used by law enforcement, and because these databases are public in nature, allow law enforcement agencies access to conduct investigations in the most timely manner possible; andWHERAS, allocation of Internet resources is expanding rapidly due to impending exhaustion of Internet Protocol Version 4 address space and the subsequent and simultaneous implementation of Internet Protocol Version 6 as well as the implementation of numerous new top level domains by the Internet Corporation for the Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), accurate and easily accessible registrant information is now even more important to law enforcement than in 2005 when the original resolution was adopted; andWHEREAS, ICANN and its International members involved in the creation of policy consensus and administration of this information currently are considering new registrant data policy which may seek to restrict or eliminate fluid public access due to business, privacy, or data-mining concerns; andWHEREAS, the elimination or restriction of easy fluid access to this information would severely cripple or eliminate the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct investigation in a timely manner; now therefore be itRESOLVED, that the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) strongly urges the related Internet administration communities, including governments, regional Internet registries, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Internet Service Providers, domain-name registries, domain-name registrars, and Internet service providers to assist law enforcement by providing continued access to publicly available databases concerning the allocation of Internet resources, and in situations where the maintenance of these databases may conflict with privacy regulation, business concerns, or data-mining prevention efforts, fully consult with the International law enforcement to assist in the resolution of these potential conflicts before removing or restricting law enforcement access to this critical information; and be itFURTHER RESOLVED, that the IACP membership coordinate the above efforts to achieve the goal of providing consistent, equal, and uniform access to the above-referenced resources for all of the international law enforcement community.********************************** Greg AaronVice-President, Product ManagementiThreat Cyber Group / Cybertoolbelt.commobile: +1.215.858.2257********************************** The information contained in this message is privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer._______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing listgnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://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 GmbHIm Oberen Werk 166386 St. IngbertTel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851Email: vgreimann@key-systems.netWeb: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.comFolgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systemsGeschäftsführer: Alexander SiffrinHandelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - SaarbrueckenUmsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUPwww.keydrive.luDer 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 GmbHIm Oberen Werk 166386 St. IngbertTel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851Email: vgreimann@key-systems.netWeb: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.comFollow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systemsCEO: Alexander SiffrinRegistration No.: HR B 18835 - SaarbrueckenV.A.T. ID.: DE211006534Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUPwww.keydrive.luThis 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 mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/ listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/ listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@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@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 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@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 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@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 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@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 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@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.