Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
Thanks for all the replies. I’ll try George K’s approach and respond to all the replies in one place. Volker Greimann wrote:
Why should "Top brands" receive better protection than any other (lesser known) brands?
Volker, I’m not sure all marks really need or indeed even benefit from Sunrise. Certainly in our market 1 – 500 employees I can’t think of a company, including ones which trade around the world rather than just their domestic market, for which Sunrise would serve any useful purpose. Quite simply they are just not on the radar for abuse that Microsoft, PayPal and Apple etc. have to put up with. If ICANN had taken a different approach to new gTLDs say allowing a quite limited number of new gTLDs in each round then Sunrise may have remained more critical, however it seems each release of new gTLDs generates a lower level and lower level of initial demand for which Sunrise is targeted. George, thanks for the links to the Melbourne IT proposal article at Domain Incite. I think the Melbourne IT (High At-Risk Marks (HARM) has a number of failings the largest of which is suggesting dictionary words should be treated differently. It if is deemed Microsoft warrants additional protections then Apple should enjoy the same level of protection. John, I agree the really high profile non-profits and IGOs like UNHCR would need to be included. On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Paul,
I am not sure this method of selection is all inclusive, and thus I am afraid we won't be able to use it (TMCH is not only for top companies).
Sincerely Yours,
Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID
m. +7 916 6761580 <+7%20916%20676-15-80>(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger
Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On Aug 11, 2017, at 16:58, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote:
Could we use a list of the top brands to establish eligibility for sunise to remove gaming once and for all?
Here's a list of 500 as an example. http://brandirectory.com/league_tables/table/global-500-2012
Best regards,
Paul.
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Volker Greimann < vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
I will not dispute the effectiveness of Sunrise periods for rights holders, however there may be better options that provide just as much protection but have less impact on the release of a new TLD.
For example, sunrise could be run concurrently with the general launch of a TLD simply by removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names. Rights holders could still use their TMCH-tokens to register these semi-reserved strings as domain names but the release of the TLD to the general public would not be held back. Other potential registrants would merely receive a notice that this string is reserved until date X due to claimed rights of third parties (which could double as an abbreviated claims notice), or even opt to queue their registration request until the reservation period is over.
This would actually solve many of the existing issues.
Best,
Volker
Am 11.08.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Nahitchevansky, Georges:
I was not going to engage in yet more back and forth on sunrise, but in reading your email, and those of several others, I feel compelled to say something on this by the numbers discussion. This type of metric driven approach is very much akin to driving down a road with blinders on either side. It's a tad pedantic and as we know from history these types of approaches (many times pushed by bureaucrats) can often lead to disastrous decisions (e.g. Soviet style five year plans). You need to look at the overall situation and what is going on, as opposed to just getting caught up in the numbers -- which after all can get sliced and diced any number of ways. The reality is that brand owners are using sunrise to protect their brands in the key extensions that relate to their businesses. The numbers may not be huge per se, but the new gTLD program has pretty much, by all accounts, not been the success that ICANN had hoped for. Moreover, we all know that the success of the extensions has been quite uneven. Some are barely breaking even, some have been a great success, others have failed and yet others have only experienced lackluster results. What all of this means is that some extensions are simply not worth registering in.
That being said, sunrise does have an important value. If there are up to 100,000 plus registrations based on bona fide brands, and some on the most valuable brands in the world, then the system is working as it is preventing a significant amount of cybersquatting . If we go by he metrics you love, then it is not rocket science to figure out that a landrush approach is going to lead to a large spike of abuse (as we have seen in the past in no sunrise situations). This in turn leads to significant costs of investigating and pursuing infringements, all of which ultimately leads to more costs to consumers and loss of faith in the integrity of the system -- particularly if consumers get tricked or defrauded by a domain name that appears to be related to a brand (e.g., Gucci.shoes) and which could have been registered during a sunrise period.
So while I understand that brand owners are not making sunrise registrations across 1000 plus extensions, the point is that they are generally picking the most logical extensions and are not abusing the sunrise system. So whether the number is one percent or less or ten percent, that number doesn't really tell the story. 100,000 plus sunrise registrations prevents a ton of abuse, which benefits everyone in the end. The numbers only approach really misses the mark. It's like saying that if a disease affects less that 1% of the world population, we should not waste money on finding a cure for it and stop all funding on such research (even though the costs of treating the disease for the less than 1% will be staggeringly high).
So in closing, I again urge you to concentrate on trying to find a fix to address the limited speculator issue as opposed to beating a dead horse on the sunrise issue.
Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 12:22 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
Hello,
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't see the math that created your "talking point" of a "99%+ reduction in sunrise." Can you show your work please?
The post at:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002321.html
showed numerous sunrise statistics, ranging from 15,000 on the low end for .mobi (.co was slightly lower, although that's a ccTLD, not a TLD that ICANN is involved with in any way), 32,000 for .asia, 80,000 for .biz/.xxx, and who knows what it was for .info?
Even taking the lowest of those (15,000) as the base, 130 (average new gTLD sunrise from The Analysis Group report) divided by 15,000 = 0.0087 = 0.87%, which is less than 1%, i.e. a 99%+ reduction. Of course, if one chose a higher base (.asia, .xxx, .biz, .etc.), or an average of those other sunrises, the reduction is even greater than if one had used the lowest sunrise (from .mobi).
As for your other statement:
We can't expect Sunrise registrations to outperform the New gTLD Program
generally."
While the new gTLD program has been a disaster, it hasn't been an underperformance of 99%+ of expectations (perhaps more like 80% to 90% underperformance). Thus, while it's obvious that both have been failures, sunrise usage is an even greater failure than new gTLDs overall. So, even on that relative scale, the sunrise period should be eliminated.
Since I know you'll ask "George, why do you say there's been an 80% or 90% underpeformance for new gTLDs?" let me answer that now to save time. I'll use as my reference (besides the obvious general observations of most informed observers) ICANN's own stats:
http://domainincite.com/18857-new-gtld-sales-miss-icann-esti mates-by-a-mile
where the numbers came in at just 18% of ICANN's original 2014 expectations. For the math-challenged, 100% - 18% = 82% as the level of underperformance.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-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 <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> 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 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 <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> 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 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-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Paul, which I see that famous brands face additional risks, any proposal to limit protection would open an endless can of worms that I think we should avoid, if only for simplicities sake. Where would one draw the line? Is a brand that just did not qualify really that different from a brand that barely qualifies? How to mitigate the legal risks for those that do not qualify? Etc, etc. Essentially, this would propose that a new class of trademarks be created: Those that deserve special protection. But that is really not ICANNs role, but a regulatory problem. Best, Volker Am 12.08.2017 um 18:35 schrieb Paul Tattersfield:
Thanks for all the replies. I’ll try George K’s approach and respond to all the replies in one place.
Volker Greimann wrote:
Why should "Top brands" receive better protection than any other (lesser known) brands?
Volker, I’m not sure all marks really need or indeed even benefit from Sunrise. Certainly in our market 1 – 500 employees I can’t think of a company, including ones which trade around the world rather than just their domestic market, for which Sunrise would serve any useful purpose. Quite simply they are just not on the radar for abuse that Microsoft, PayPal and Apple etc. have to put up with.
If ICANN had taken a different approach to new gTLDs say allowing a quite limited number of new gTLDs in each round then Sunrise may have remained more critical, however it seems each release of new gTLDs generates a lower level and lower level of initial demand for which Sunrise is targeted.
George, thanks for the links to the Melbourne IT proposal article at Domain Incite. I think the Melbourne IT (High At-Risk Marks (HARM) has a number of failings the largest of which is suggesting dictionary words should be treated differently. It if is deemed Microsoft warrants additional protections then Apple should enjoy the same level of protection.
John, I agree the really high profile non-profits and IGOs like UNHCR would need to be included.
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com <mailto:m.alzoba@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello Paul,
I am not sure this method of selection is all inclusive, and thus I am afraid we won't be able to use it (TMCH is not only for top companies).
Sincerely Yours,
Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID
m. +7 916 6761580 <tel:+7%20916%20676-15-80>(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger
Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On Aug 11, 2017, at 16:58, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com <mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com>> wrote:
Could we use a list of the top brands to establish eligibility for sunise to remove gaming once and for all?
Here's a list of 500 as an example. http://brandirectory.com/league_tables/table/global-500-2012 <http://brandirectory.com/league_tables/table/global-500-2012>
Best regards,
Paul.
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote:
I will not dispute the effectiveness of Sunrise periods for rights holders, however there may be better options that provide just as much protection but have less impact on the release of a new TLD.
For example, sunrise could be run concurrently with the general launch of a TLD simply by removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names. Rights holders could still use their TMCH-tokens to register these semi-reserved strings as domain names but the release of the TLD to the general public would not be held back. Other potential registrants would merely receive a notice that this string is reserved until date X due to claimed rights of third parties (which could double as an abbreviated claims notice), or even opt to queue their registration request until the reservation period is over.
This would actually solve many of the existing issues.
Best,
Volker
Am 11.08.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Nahitchevansky, Georges:
I was not going to engage in yet more back and forth on sunrise, but in reading your email, and those of several others, I feel compelled to say something on this by the numbers discussion. This type of metric driven approach is very much akin to driving down a road with blinders on either side. It's a tad pedantic and as we know from history these types of approaches (many times pushed by bureaucrats) can often lead to disastrous decisions (e.g. Soviet style five year plans). You need to look at the overall situation and what is going on, as opposed to just getting caught up in the numbers -- which after all can get sliced and diced any number of ways. The reality is that brand owners are using sunrise to protect their brands in the key extensions that relate to their businesses. The numbers may not be huge per se, but the new gTLD program has pretty much, by all accounts, not been the success that ICANN had hoped for. Moreover, we all know that the success of the extensions has been quite uneven. Some are barely breaking even, some have been a great success, others have failed and yet others have only experienced lackluster results. What all of this means is that some extensions are simply not worth registering in.
That being said, sunrise does have an important value. If there are up to 100,000 plus registrations based on bona fide brands, and some on the most valuable brands in the world, then the system is working as it is preventing a significant amount of cybersquatting . If we go by he metrics you love, then it is not rocket science to figure out that a landrush approach is going to lead to a large spike of abuse (as we have seen in the past in no sunrise situations). This in turn leads to significant costs of investigating and pursuing infringements, all of which ultimately leads to more costs to consumers and loss of faith in the integrity of the system -- particularly if consumers get tricked or defrauded by a domain name that appears to be related to a brand (e.g., Gucci.shoes) and which could have been registered during a sunrise period.
So while I understand that brand owners are not making sunrise registrations across 1000 plus extensions, the point is that they are generally picking the most logical extensions and are not abusing the sunrise system. So whether the number is one percent or less or ten percent, that number doesn't really tell the story. 100,000 plus sunrise registrations prevents a ton of abuse, which benefits everyone in the end. The numbers only approach really misses the mark. It's like saying that if a disease affects less that 1% of the world population, we should not waste money on finding a cure for it and stop all funding on such research (even though the costs of treating the disease for the less than 1% will be staggeringly high).
So in closing, I again urge you to concentrate on trying to find a fix to address the limited speculator issue as opposed to beating a dead horse on the sunrise issue.
Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 12:22 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
Hello,
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
I don't see the math that created your "talking point" of a "99%+ reduction in sunrise." Can you show your work please?
The post at:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002321.html <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002321.html>
showed numerous sunrise statistics, ranging from 15,000 on the low end for .mobi (.co was slightly lower, although that's a ccTLD, not a TLD that ICANN is involved with in any way), 32,000 for .asia, 80,000 for .biz/.xxx, and who knows what it was for .info?
Even taking the lowest of those (15,000) as the base, 130 (average new gTLD sunrise from The Analysis Group report) divided by 15,000 = 0.0087 = 0.87%, which is less than 1%, i.e. a 99%+ reduction. Of course, if one chose a higher base (.asia, .xxx, .biz, .etc.), or an average of those other sunrises, the reduction is even greater than if one had used the lowest sunrise (from .mobi).
As for your other statement:
We can't expect Sunrise registrations to outperform the New gTLD Program generally."
While the new gTLD program has been a disaster, it hasn't been an underperformance of 99%+ of expectations (perhaps more like 80% to 90% underperformance). Thus, while it's obvious that both have been failures, sunrise usage is an even greater failure than new gTLDs overall. So, even on that relative scale, the sunrise period should be eliminated.
Since I know you'll ask "George, why do you say there's been an 80% or 90% underpeformance for new gTLDs?" let me answer that now to save time. I'll use as my reference (besides the obvious general observations of most informed observers) ICANN's own stats:
http://domainincite.com/18857-new-gtld-sales-miss-icann-estimates-by-a-mile <http://domainincite.com/18857-new-gtld-sales-miss-icann-estimates-by-a-mile>
where the numbers came in at just 18% of ICANN's original 2014 expectations. For the math-challenged, 100% - 18% = 82% as the level of underperformance.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500 <tel:404%20815%206500>, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> 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-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-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.
participants (2)
-
Paul Tattersfield -
Volker Greimann