Received: from PMBX112-E1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.26) by PMBX112-E1-VA-2.pexch112.icann.org (162.216.194.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3 via Mailbox Transport; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 02:57:50 -0800 Received: from PFE112-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.16) by PMBX112-E1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 02:57:48 -0800 Received: from ppa3.lax.icann.org (192.0.33.78) by PFE112-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 02:57:48 -0800 Authentication-Results: ppa1.lax.icann.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rds-whois2-rt-bounces@icann.org; dmarc=pass header.from=icann.org Received: from pps.reinject (ppa3.lax.icann.org [127.0.0.1]) by ppa3.lax.icann.org (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with ESMTPS id x0UAvlMU017258 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 10:57:47 GMT Received: from ppa3.lax.icann.org (ppa3.lax.icann.org [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x0UAscRP015366 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 10:57:47 GMT Received: from pechora1.lax.icann.org (pechora1.icann.org [192.0.33.71]) by ppa3.lax.icann.org with ESMTP id x0UAvk83017255 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 30 Jan 2019 10:57:47 +0000 Received: from smtp01.icann.org (smtp01.icann.org [192.0.46.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pechora1.lax.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 938411E00EA; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 10:57:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm.icann.org (mm.icann.org [192.0.32.100]) by smtp01.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D764EE04E1; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 10:57:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm.icann.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E936EE0444; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 10:57:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: rds-whois2-rt@mm.icann.org Delivered-To: rds-whois2-rt@mm.icann.org Received: from pechora1.lax.icann.org (pechora1.icann.org [192.0.33.71]) by mm.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F3EBEE00DA for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 10:57:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out.east.pexch112.icann.org (out.east.pexch112.icann.org [162.216.194.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pechora1.lax.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF1271E00EA for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 10:57:43 +0000 (UTC) X-CrossPremisesHeadersFilteredBySendConnector: PMBX112-E1-VA-2.pexch112.icann.org Received: from PMBX112-E1-VA-2.pexch112.icann.org (162.216.194.26) by PMBX112-E1-VA-2.pexch112.icann.org (162.216.194.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 02:57:40 -0800 Received: from PMBX112-E1-VA-2.pexch112.icann.org ([162.216.194.26]) by PMBX112-E1-VA-2.pexch112.icann.org ([169.254.2.124]) with mapi id 15.00.1367.000; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 02:57:40 -0800 From: Jean-Baptiste Deroulez To: RDS WHOIS2-RT List Thread-Topic: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] ICANN org input Thread-Index: AQHUt7JJpYSc9wbV5Eyt4wRlHBHH8Q== Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 10:57:40 +0000 Message-ID: <1BC60199-F7FB-440A-B3E1-B9E19BE6C4B2@icann.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.14.0.181208 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [192.0.47.234] X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: PMBX112-E1-VA-2.pexch112.icann.org Subject: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] FW: ICANN org input X-BeenThere: rds-whois2-rt@icann.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rds-whois2-rt-bounces@icann.org Sender: RDS-WHOIS2-RT X-CLX-Shades: MLX X-CLX-Response: 1TFkXGxIdEQpMehcYHBMRCllEF2dleUFFcHAZBWVzEQpZTEMXaUxnT0RoGEd ybhkRCllDF2ljGUVyS2VDYxxTEQpZTRdnZnIRCllJFxpxGhAadwYbHB1xHhwQGncGGBoGGhEKWV 4XaG55EQpJRhdDSUtERHVaWEVOX0leQ0VEB1xHEQpDThdbGGBNZWZmRFATQ1lGYUccQXh4XhN7Z 1liaF9hWXh7cBEKWFwXHwQaBBscGwceGksYThJPHwUbGgQbGhoEHhIEGxAbHhofGhEKXlkXfkJT TG0RCk1cFx4dHBEKTFoXaG1CTVIRCk1OF2gRCkxGF01raxEKQ1oXGxMYBBoEHhwEEhsRCkJeFxs RCkRYFxseEQpCRhdkH09EcnpuRmhSZBEKQkcXekBBYlxcfUVaYX0RCkJcFxoRCkJFF2ZTQH5BeG ZaUmBnEQpCThdgfEJCckhDS2IBHhEKQkwXb3l4YWgcf05Pc0MRCkJsF25IfgF8BX9bXW4SEQpCQ BdvUl0ZAUNGbXtlYxEKWlgXHxEKcGcXbwF5Gn98W11vbn8QGhEKcGgXbXwbBX9hQktgTGkQGhEK cGgXY0cbHmJtRxxDTwUQGhEKcGgXY0tPekhNWG9seBgQGhEKcGgXaXpyT0Voe0RdHm0QGhEKcGg XaGBOb0hkHGxGXlkQGhEKcGcXZWVafFhgfWZAUngQGhEKcH8XYkVaH1N8U3NbUHkQBxkeEQpwXx dha2wdZWV5aFhkexAaEQpwfRdjGERIGWVFGHtmHRAaEQpwfxdnQAVLc2RaEh1PaBAbGhgRCnBfF 2VGa1tIU2VfeFBmEBsaGBEKcH0XYm9PbHlnZWdifWsQGhEKcF8Xbh1IGH5+TH5kb2sQGhEKcH0X Z24cBXwfU00ZRxgQGhEKcH0Xa0YTEl8dRUxARn0QGhEKcF8XbWNGbm5cY1t9QloQEh8RCnB9F2N IYWx+R1ltWm5BEBoRCnB9F2ETS1xSZnISZl1DEBoRCnB9F2VYGF9zBX5tEmZLEBoRCnBsF21ZWm d/cB4ebn1jEBoRCnBDF2hYaRhhZmFOT0kdEB4SEQptfhcaEQpYTRdLESA= X-Proofpoint-SPF-Result: pass X-Proofpoint-SPF-Record: v=spf1 ip4:192.0.32.0/20 ip4:199.91.192.0/21 ip4:64.78.40.0/27 ip4:162.216.194.0/27 ip6:2620:0:2d0::0/48 ip6:2620:0:2830::0/48 ip6:2620:0:2ed0::0/48 include:salesforce.icann.org -all X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-01-30_08:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-DMARC-Result: pass X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=269 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=187 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=2 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1901300088 Return-Path: rds-whois2-rt-bounces@icann.org X-MS-Exchange-Organization-Network-Message-Id: 4caaceda-f8a1-4ae3-034a-08d686a1c5c1 X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AVStamp-Enterprise: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: PFE112-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="B_3632237189_1231865990" MIME-Version: 1.0 --B_3632237189_1231865990 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3632237189_1771671087" --B_3632237189_1771671087 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear review team members, =20 Following up on your plenary call #47 discussion on draft report updates, p= lease find below the ICANN org input shared on your draft report recommendat= ions and the action items that resulted from the email below and discussion= at the face-to-face meeting. =20 In preparation for the call for consensus, please review asap the following= action items identified at the last face-to-face meeting and confirm that e= ach recommendation addressed these: =20 Recommendations (All) Action item: Instead of trying to assign a high, medium or low priority, de= scribe when this recommendation should be implemented and what the target co= mpletion date should be. Include a description of an ideal completion date r= ecognizing some of the ongoing dependencies, and consideration should be gi= ven to resources (costs, community resources) that would be needed.=20 =20 R1.1 | R1.2 (Cathrin) Action item: Implementation note =E2=80=9Creview should be implemented as soon as= possible and at the latest within 6 months=E2=80=9D should be reviewed to factor = in section 4.6 of the ICANN Bylaws where the ICANN Board has six months wi= thin receipt of the final report to consider the review team=E2=80=99s recommendat= ions.=20 Action item: Recommendation refers to reports covering all the ongoing legi= slative initiatives, but in fact, should also identify previous legislative = efforts across the globe. =20 R1.3 (Cathrin) Action item: Implementation note =E2=80=9Creview should be implemented as soon as= possible and at the latest within 6 months=E2=80=9D should be reviewed to factor = in section 4.6 of the ICANN Bylaws where the ICANN Board has six months wi= thin receipt of the final report to consider the review team=E2=80=99s recommendat= ions.=20 =20 R4.2 (Susan) Action item: Remove =E2=80=9CSanctions should be applied if significant deficienc= ies in RDS (WHOIS) data validation or verification are identified.=E2=80=9D Or mak= e it clear that we are talking about sanctions that are on the books. =20 Law Enforcement Needs Section (Cathrin) Action item: Clarify what regular refers to in the recommendations, and pot= entially refine the scope of the envisioned survey so that its purpose is we= ll defined. =20 LE.1 (Cathrin) Action item: Implementation note =E2=80=9Creview should be implemented as soon as= possible and at the latest within 6 months=E2=80=9D should be reviewed to factor = in section 4.6 of the ICANN Bylaws where the ICANN Board has six months wi= thin receipt of the final report to consider the review team=E2=80=99s recommendat= ions. Action item: Review this recommendation and specify what we mean by regular= , by perhaps clarifying recommendation itself and also adding a little ratio= nale to explain the two reasons that review team see for conducting such su= rveys and studies, which are, A, to do an ex-ante impact assessment of proje= cted new policies or prepare a review team, or B, to evaluate new policies o= nce they are in place.=20 Action item: Bring the above and survey questions to the EPDP (Alan) and GA= C (Cathrin) =20 LE.2 (Cathrin) Action item: Implementation note =E2=80=9Creview should be implemented as soon as= possible and at the latest within 6 months=E2=80=9D should be reviewed to factor = in section 4.6 of the ICANN Bylaws where the ICANN Board has six months wi= thin receipt of the final report to consider the review team=E2=80=99s recommendat= ions. and to consider he review team=E2=80=99s recommendations. =20 SG.1 (Alan) Action item: Alan to add clarification as well as a reference to the RAA 20= 13 section 3.2. =20 CM.1 (Susan) Action item: Rephrase the recommendation so that the board decide how to be= st implement this recommendation. =20 CM.3 (Susan) Action item: Review team to use the GAC term, which is underserved regions,= as there are some conflicting views on Global South. =20 CM.5 (Susan) Action item: Clarify in recommendation what a =E2=80=9Crisk base approach is=E2=80=9D. = Stephanie provided: =E2=80=9CA risk-based approach simply means that you do a risk= assessment before you take an action to determine whether it=E2=80=99s really nec= essary.=E2=80=9D =20 Kind regards, =20 Jean-Baptiste =20 From: RDS-WHOIS2-RT on behalf of Jean-Bap= tiste Deroulez Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 8:32 AM To: RDS WHOIS2-RT List Subject: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] ICANN org input =20 Dear RDS-WHOIS2, =20 ICANN Org has reviewed the 23 recommendations in the draft report and would= like to highlight areas that would benefit from clarification, as you work = toward finalizing the recommendations. The input you will find below is not= intended to discuss the merit of recommendations, but rather identifies ele= ments for your consideration as you process public comment and shape your fi= nal recommendations.=20 =20 We note that you have assigned priority levels to each recommendation. In a= bsence of a definition of what these entail, we would recommend factoring th= e impact of EPDP, GDPR, and need for community input etc. into the establis= hment of priority levels.=20 =20 In the context of your strategic priority related recommendation 1.1, we wo= uld like to call your attention to an initiative ICANN launched in April 201= 8 =E2=80=93 see https://www.icann.org/news/blog/improving-our-planning-and-prepara= tion [icann.org] that seeks to =E2=80=9Cidentify legislative efforts across the = globe early-on to raise awareness within ICANN and consider potential impact= s, including how these legislative initiatives may have unintended consequen= ces, which may be avoided=E2=80=9D. The reports issued to date can be found at: ht= tps://www.icann.org/legislative-report [icann.org]. Additional context can = be found at: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-08-30-en [icann.o= rg]. We believe this may be in alignment with the improvements you suggested= . =20 On recommendation 3.1 (outreach), a clarification from the review team on w= hether it has insights into the user requirements for web documentation and = what these are would be a great addition to the report to help determine sp= ecific needs. A review and feedback of current compliance related webpages w= ould also be useful to evaluate any potential improvements needed. =20 On recommendation 11.1 (common interface), based on the review team=E2=80=99s sug= gested implementation, it appears that the metrics and SLAs asked for in the= recommendation are intended for use by ICANN org as mechanisms to proactiv= ely identify compliance issues. ICANN org would like to note that there are = multiple reasons queries could return blank fields, or no results. It is not= possible programmatically to determine the causes of these results. Additio= nally, per the Temporary Specification, gTLD registration data results coul= d differ between registry and registrar outputs. Therefore, inconsistencies = in registrar and registry gTLD registration data outputs are not necessarily= compliance issues. ICANN org would also like to inform the RDS-WHOIS2 revi= ew team that the existing WHOIS look-up tool at whois.icann.org will be upda= ted in the coming months with a new tool built on RDAP. It is possible and i= ntended that the new tool would function in such a way that no data would b= e collected by ICANN org. =20 On law enforcement recommendations (LE.1 =E2=80=93 LE.2), indication from the rev= iew team on what =E2=80=9Cregular=E2=80=9D refers to would constitute helpful guidance o= n timing of data gathering efforts. In addition, we would encourage the rev= iew team to refine the scope of the surveys to bring additional clarity to t= heir purpose. =20 On safeguarding registrant data (SG.1), we would recommend clarifying how t= he recommended action would differ from Principle 1(f) of Article 5 of the G= DPR, and whether the review team meant to refer to baseline requirements (v= s. uniform requirements). ICANN Org notes that section 3.2 of the 2013 RAA c= urrently requires Registrars to notify ICANN within 7 days of any unauthoriz= ed access to or disclosure of registrant account information or registration= data. =20 With respect to compliance related recommendations, we would remind the rev= iew team for 4.1 and 4.2 that actions to mitigate are contracted parties=E2=80=99 = prerogative and sanctions are unfeasible based on the current policies/cont= racts. On CM.1 we also wish to flag that the WHOIS Accuracy Program Specific= ation of the 2013 RAA states that if Registrar does not receive an affirmati= ve response from the Registered Name Holder, the Registrar shall either veri= fy the applicable contact information manually or suspend the registration,= until such time as Registrar has verified the applicable contact informatio= n. On CM.3, we would also would recommend using the GAC terms of =E2=80=9Cunderse= rved regions=E2=80=9D instead of =E2=80=9Cglobal south=E2=80=9D, as some stakeholders may vie= w global south as not representative of their region and there are conflicti= ng views on the use of the term Global South outside of ICANN. In addition, = we believe clarifications on the following would be helpful to provide furth= er detail and context: =C2=B7 On CM.1, How would the review team expect the determination of t= he best path forward to be made? =C2=B7 On CM.3, What does =E2=80=9Cregions=E2=80=9D refer to =E2=80=93 i.e. registered do= main name holder, registrar/record, or reporter? How is it anticipated that = the review of registration data for a sample of names will yield insight in= to awareness of reporting tools in each of the regions? =C2=B7 On CM.5, what would be the envisioned timeline, form (e.g. initi= ated PDP), and topic a potential PDP would be expected to address? Could the= review team clarify what a =E2=80=9Crisk-based approach=E2=80=9D refers to? What new R= DS policies is the review team referring to? How would the GNSO be expected = to incorporate these requirements for measurement, auditing, tracking, repor= ting and enforcement in all new RDS policies? Per Section 4.6 [icann.org]of ICANN Bylaws, the ICANN Board has six month= s within receipt of the final report to consider the review team=E2=80=99s recomm= endations. We would suggest factoring this into implementation details you i= nclude in your recommendations (see 1.1 =E2=80=93 1.2 =E2=80=93 1.3 =E2=80=93 15.1 =E2=80=93 LE.1 =E2=80= =93 LE.2).=20 =20 We hope you find this feedback helpful and welcome any follow-up questions = or comments you may have. We thank you for all of your efforts in finalizing= your recommendations and in supplementing them with additional detail. Thank you, Best regards =20 ICANN org =20 =20 --B_3632237189_1771671087 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear review team me= mbers,

 

Following up on you= r plenary call #47 discussion on draft report updates, please find below th= e ICANN org input shared on your draft report recommendations and the actio= n items that resulted from the email below and discussion at the face-to-face meeting.

 

In preparation for = the call for consensus, please review asap the following action items ident= ified at the last face-to-face meeting and confirm that each recommendation= addressed these:

 

Recommendations = (All)

Action item: Instead of trying to assign a high, medi= um or low priority, describe when this recommendation should be implemented and what th= e target completion date should be. Include= a description of an ideal completion date recognizing some of the ongoing = dependencies, and consideration should be given to resources (costs, community resources) that would be needed. <= /span>

 

R1.1 | R1.2 (Cat= hrin)

Action item: Implementation note =E2=80=9Crevie= w should be implemented as soon as possible and at the latest within 6 mont= hs=E2=80=9D should be reviewed to factor in section 4.6 of the ICANN Bylaws where  the ICANN Board has six months within rece= ipt of the final report to consider the review team=E2=80=99s recommendatio= ns.

Action item: Recommendation refers to reports c= overing all the ongoing legislative initiatives, but in fact, should also i= dentify previous legislative efforts across the globe.

 

R1.3 (Cathrin)

Action item: Implementation note =E2=80=9Crevie= w should be implemented as soon as possible and at the latest within 6 mont= hs=E2=80=9D should be reviewed to factor in section 4.6 of the ICANN Bylaws where  the ICANN Board has six months within rece= ipt of the final report to consider the review team=E2=80=99s recommendatio= ns.

 

R4.2 (Susan)

Action item: Remove =E2=80=9CSanctions should b= e applied if significant deficiencies in RDS (WHOIS) data validation or ver= ification are identified.=E2=80=9D Or make it clear that we are talking about sanctions that are on the books.

 

Law Enforcement = Needs Section (Cathrin)

Action item: Clarify what regular refers to in = the recommendations, and potentially refine the scope of the envisioned sur= vey so that its purpose is well defined.

 

LE.1 (Cathrin)

Action item: Implementation note =E2=80=9Crevie= w should be implemented as soon as possible and at the latest within 6 mont= hs=E2=80=9D should be reviewed to factor in section 4.6 of the ICANN Bylaws where  the ICANN Board has six months within rece= ipt of the final report to consider the review team=E2=80=99s recommendatio= ns.

Action item<= span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt">: Review this recommendation and specify wh= at we mean by regular, by perhaps clarifying recommendation itself and also= adding a little rationale to explain the two reasons that review team see for conducting such surveys and studi= es, which are, A, to do an ex-ante impact assessment of projected new = policies or prepare a review team, = or B, to evaluate new policies once they are in place. 

Action item: Bring the above and survey questio= ns to the EPDP (Alan) and GAC (Cathrin)

 

LE.2 (Cathrin)

Action item: Implementation note =E2=80=9Crevie= w should be implemented as soon as possible and at the latest within 6 mont= hs=E2=80=9D should be reviewed to factor in section 4.6 of the ICANN Bylaws where  the ICANN Board has six months within rece= ipt of the final report to consider the review team=E2=80=99s recommendatio= ns. and to consider he review team=E2=80=99s recommendations.

 

SG.1 (Alan)=

Action item: Alan to add clarification as well = as a reference to the RAA 2013 section 3.2.

 

CM.1 (Susan)

Action item: Rephrase the recommendation so tha= t the board decide how to best implement this recommendation.

 

CM.3 (Susan)

Action item: Review team to use the GAC term, w= hich is underserved regions, as there are some conflicting views on Global = South.

 

CM.5 (Susan)

Action item: Clarify in recommendation what a = =E2=80=9Crisk base approach is=E2=80=9D. Stephanie provided: =E2=80=9CA risk-based approach simply means that you do a risk assessmen= t before you take an action to determine whether it=E2=80=99s really necess= ary.=E2=80=9D

&n= bsp;

Kind re= gards,

&n= bsp;

Jean-Ba= ptiste

 

From: RDS-WHOIS2-RT <rds-whois2-rt-bounces@icann.org&g= t; on behalf of Jean-Baptiste Deroulez <jean-baptiste.deroulez@icann.org= >
Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 8:32 AM
To: RDS WHOIS2-RT List <RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org>
Subject: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] ICANN org input

 

Dear RDS-WHOIS2,

https://www.icann.org/ne= ws/blog/improving-our-planning-and-preparation [icann.org] that seeks to =E2=80=9Cidentify legislative efforts across the globe early-on to raise awareness within ICANN and consider potential impa= cts, including how these legislative initiatives may have unintended conseq= uences, which may be avoided=E2=80=9D. The reports issued to date can be fo= und at: https://www.icann.org/legislative-report [icann.org]. Additional context can be= found at: https://www.icann.org/news/announceme= nt-2018-08-30-en [icann.org]. We believe this may be in= alignment with the improvements you suggested.

 

Section 4.6  [icann.org]of ICANN Bylaws, the ICANN Board has six mo= nths within receipt of the final report to consider the review team=E2=80=99s recommendations. We would suggest factoring this into imple= mentation details you include in your recommendations (see 1.1 =E2=80=93 1.= 2 =E2=80=93 1.3 =E2=80=93 15.1 =E2=80=93 LE.1 =E2=80=93 LE.2). =

 

ICANN org=

 

 

--B_3632237189_1771671087-- --B_3632237189_1231865990 Content-Type: text/plain; name="ATT00001.txt"; x-mac-creator=4F50494D Content-ID: <061446D5A619C24781F54992CC3A95F6@pexch112.icann.org> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ATT00001.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NClJEUy1XSE9J UzItUlQgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQpSRFMtV0hPSVMyLVJUQGljYW5uLm9yZw0KaHR0cHM6Ly9tbS5p Y2Fubi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9yZHMtd2hvaXMyLXJ0DQo= --B_3632237189_1231865990 Content-Type: text/plain; name="ATT00001.txt"; x-mac-creator=4F50494D Content-ID: <4E86451F8D11D4458172E691FDA62653@pexch112.icann.org> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ATT00001.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NClJEUy1XSE9J UzItUlQgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQpSRFMtV0hPSVMyLVJUQGljYW5uLm9yZw0KaHR0cHM6Ly9tbS5p Y2Fubi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9yZHMtd2hvaXMyLXJ0DQo= --B_3632237189_1231865990--