<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status report
- To: Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status report
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:57:18 -0700
<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>Bob,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In the RAA ICANN dictates what data is to be collected, how it may be
used, when and how to share it, when and how it is to be escrowed, grants
rights to certain portions of it to the registrar, etc. For all practical
purposes that sounds like they own it to me :)<BR></div>
<div><BR></div>
<div>Tim </div>
<div> </div>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 8px; FONT-FAMILY:
verdana; COLOR: black; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=replyBlockquote
webmail="1">
<DIV id=wmQuoteWrapper>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: Re:
[gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status report<BR>From: Bob Bruen <<a
href="mailto:bruen@xxxxxxxxxxxx";>bruen@xxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><BR>Date: Thu,
September 27, 2012 12:50 pm<BR>To: "Mike O'Connor" <<a
href="mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx";>mike@xxxxxxxxxx</a>><BR>Cc: Ray Fassett <<a
href="mailto:ray@xxxxxxxxx";>ray@xxxxxxxxx</a>>, "'Metalitz, Steven'" <<a
href="mailto:met@xxxxxxx";>met@xxxxxxx</a>>, <BR>"'Volker Greimann'" <<a
href="mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>>,
"'Drazek,<BR>Keith'" <<a
href="mailto:kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx";>kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx</a>>, <a
href="mailto:Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx</a><BR><BR><BR>Hi,<BR><BR>There
is serious underlying problem in that ICANN does not own the whois <BR>data
nor does have it have any authority over it. This problem came to the
<BR>forefront several years ago with the RegisterFly incident. The whois data
<BR>was then escrowed for a while (Iron Mountain), but only with the
<BR>cooperation of the registrars/registries. I am not sure, but I think the
<BR>escrow program is no longer happening.<BR><BR>The registrars/registries
appear to be the authority over the data, not <BR>because of their relationship
with their customers, but just because they<BR>are the
authority.<BR><BR>--bob<BR><BR>On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Mike O'Connor
wrote:<BR><BR>> hi Ray,<BR>><BR>> i think i agree -- i was thinking
the word in the database/technical way <BR>> when Tim originally raised the
point -- whereas there is indeed a <BR>> broader definition relating to who
has authority over the data. i can <BR>> imagine a scenario where the
authoritative data store (in a database <BR>> sense) is with the registry,
but the registrars are the entities that <BR>> have authority over that data
due to their relationship with customers.<BR>><BR>> i think we need
clearer words, and we also need to pick which one we <BR>> intend. i'm stuck
on what those clearer words would be, but i think <BR>> that may be because
of my unfamiliarity with the nuance here. are there <BR>> two good words
that highlight the difference?<BR>><BR>> once we've got the right words,
we've then got an interesting choice to <BR>> make as to which one. clearly,
a key "scope" discussion that needs to <BR>> get resolved before we wrap up
the chartering.<BR>><BR>> thanks,<BR>><BR>>
mikey<BR>><BR>><BR>> On Sep 27, 2012, at 10:48 AM, "Ray Fassett"
<<A href="http://ray@xxxxxxxxx";>ray@xxxxxxxxx</A>>
wrote:<BR>><BR>>> It seems to me that Mikey’s suggestion of “adding
something like this”: <BR>>> Other implications of migrating the
"authoritative" repository for <BR>>> registrant data from Registrars to
the Registry has had the effect of <BR>>> us identifying a “vast
majority” vs. those not part of the vast <BR>>> majority. If so, I think
this means the scope of the issues may have <BR>>> the result of the WG
segregating a minority of gTLD’s from the majority <BR>>> of gTLD’s in
going about their work on the issues. Personally, I think <BR>>> the word
“authoritative”, and trying to fit this word into the Charter <BR>>> in
some common and understood context, has complicated
things.<BR>>><BR>>> Ray<BR>>><BR>>> From: <a
href="mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx</a>
[<a
href="mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx</a>]
On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven<BR>>> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012
10:44 AM<BR>>> To: 'Volker Greimann'; Drazek, Keith<BR>>> Cc: <A
href="http://Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx</A> PDP
DT<BR>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status
report<BR>>><BR>>> Volker makes the important point that this issue
already exists, it is <BR>>> not created by a move to thick Whois. And
what Keith says about a <BR>>> registry that “has always had thick whois”
is equally true about any <BR>>> registry that “has not always had thick
Whois” – “The registrants in <BR>>> those TLDs gave their consent for the
data transfer upon registration <BR>>> of their domain name(s).” This is
true of every single gTLD domain name <BR>>> in existence, because of the
RAA provision that requires registrars to <BR>>> obtain this
consent.<BR>>><BR>>> Similarly, the issue of “authoritativeness” of
Whois data in the thick <BR>>> registry setting already exists in the
vast majority of gTLD <BR>>> registries. I appreciate Tim’s view that
perhaps registrars that <BR>>> service thick registries should not be
required to maintain Whois data <BR>>> any more, but that would require a
change in the RAA and clearly seems <BR>>> out of scope for this
PDP.<BR>>><BR>>> In sum I think the draft adequately captures the
scope of the issues that the Working Group needs to
address.<BR>>><BR>>> Steve
Metalitz<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> From: <a
href="mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx</a>
[<a
href="mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx</a>]
On Behalf Of Volker Greimann<BR>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012
4:23 AM<BR>>> To: Drazek, Keith<BR>>> Cc: <A
href="http://Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx</A> PDP
DT<BR>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status
report<BR>>><BR>>> Hi Keith,<BR>>><BR>>> I agree that
cross-border transfers of data would be an issue for <BR>>> registries
switching to a thick model, however all registrants have <BR>>> allready
agreed to the publication of the data, and in many cases also <BR>>> to a
transfer abroad due to many registrar policies having been written <BR>>>
with both thick and thin models in mind. Registrants also agreed to be
<BR>>> bound by policy changes. Still, the issue is not negligible. Maybe
it <BR>>> could be solved by the registry by setting up data centers in
such <BR>>> jurisdictions where data transfer would be problematic, and
the central <BR>>> register only pointing to the geographic location of
the domain, just <BR>>> as currently they point to the individual
registrars?<BR>>><BR>>> This is an issue that needs more
thought.<BR>>><BR>>> Volker<BR>>><BR>>> Hi
Volker,<BR>>><BR>>> Thanks for the insight. It sounds like there
could be multiple models <BR>>> of Whois Data authority, which seems
appropriate.<BR>>><BR>>> Another question around the
“authoritative” issue concerns privacy laws <BR>>> and anticipated
cross-border transfers of data.<BR>>><BR>>> For a TLD that has
always had Thick Whois, the rules were established <BR>>> (and presumably
accepted by the registrants in their registration <BR>>> agreement with
the registrar) from their initial launch date. The <BR>>> registrants in
those TLDs gave their consent for the data transfer upon <BR>>>
registration of their domain name(s).<BR>>><BR>>> However,
transferring personal Whois data for 100+ million <BR>>> registrations
from scores of international jurisdictions to a single <BR>>> entity
could raise additional privacy concerns. The question of which <BR>>>
entity in which jurisdiction has “authority” over the Whois data may
<BR>>> need to be considered by the WG and should not necessarily be
presumed <BR>>> to be the registry in every case, dependent upon national
laws and the <BR>>> range of service offerings across various
registries.<BR>>><BR>>> Thanks,
Keith<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> <<A
href="http://image001.gif/";>image001.gif</A>><BR>>> Keith
Drazek<BR>>> Director of Policy<BR>>> <a
href="mailto:kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx";>kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx</a><BR>>><BR>>>
m: +1-571-377-9182<BR>>> 21345 Ridgetop Circle Dulles, VA
20166<BR>>><BR>>> <a
href="http://VerisignInc.com";>VerisignInc.com</a><BR>>> <<A
href="http://image003.gif/";>image003.gif</A>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>
From: Volker Greimann [<a
href="mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>]<BR>>>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 1:05 PM<BR>>> To: Drazek,
Keith<BR>>> Cc: <A
href="http://Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx</A> PDP
DT<BR>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status
report<BR>>><BR>>> Hi Keith,<BR>>><BR>>> I see your
point, but I do not believe it to be as much of an issue as <BR>>> you
make of it. The registry in any thick whois TLD is the central <BR>>>
repository of all whois data, regardly of where it was registered. The
<BR>>> registrar is responsible to provide the data to the registry.
<BR>>> Verification can be assumed and performed by either. In the new
RAA, <BR>>> registrars will most likely assume some of the
responsibility, but the <BR>>> launch of .XXX has show this can also be
performed on a registry level. <BR>>> In fact, some ccTLDs such as .US
also perform routine validations on <BR>>> the registration
requirements.<BR>>><BR>>> On the other hand, we have now seen cases
where a "thick registry" has <BR>>> made modifications to the
registration based on court orders or other <BR>>> events, which were not
always notified to the registrar, i.e. left the <BR>>> registrar database
out of synch with the registrar database, yet these <BR>>> changes were
authoritative as far as the ownership of the domain is <BR>>> concerned.
Whereas registrars must always update the registry to effect <BR>>> a
change of data in a thick TLD. In other words, as the registry <BR>>>
database is the last word on the data, it should be the authoritative
<BR>>> source.<BR>>><BR>>> Best,<BR>>><BR>>>
Volker<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> Tim raises an important point,
including the question of whether registries or registrars are authoritative
for Whois data.<BR>>><BR>>> I have concerns about a registry being
authoritative for Whois data <BR>>> when it has no direct connection to
the registrant. As discussed on our <BR>>> last call, the registry
receives Whois data from the Registrar, not <BR>>> from the registrant.
As such, the registry has no way of independently <BR>>>
confirming/verifying/validating that the data is accurate. I think this
<BR>>> distinction becomes more of an issue if there’s a future
requirement <BR>>> for validation or verification of registrant Whois
data, as requested <BR>>> by the GAC.<BR>>><BR>>> Ultimately,
having a Thick Whois database at the registry level only <BR>>>
centralizes the data…it doesn’t make it any more accurate, validated,
<BR>>> verified, etc. since registries simply accept what is submitted by
the <BR>>> registrars.<BR>>><BR>>> I understand that some of
the existing thick registries may already be <BR>>> authoritative for
their TLD’s Whois data, so perhaps we can benefit <BR>>> from their
experience.<BR>>><BR>>> This issue may or may not fit into the
draft charter, but it’s probably worth discussing further on our next
call.<BR>>><BR>>> Thanks, Keith<BR>>><BR>>> <<A
href="http://image001.gif/";>image001.gif</A>><BR>>> Keith
Drazek<BR>>> Director of Policy<BR>>> <a
href="mailto:kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx";>kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx</a><BR>>><BR>>>
m: +1-571-377-9182<BR>>> 21345 Ridgetop Circle Dulles, VA
20166<BR>>><BR>>> <a
href="http://VerisignInc.com";>VerisignInc.com</a><BR>>> <<A
href="http://image003.gif/";>image003.gif</A>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>
From: <a
href="mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx</a>
[<a
href="mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx</a>]
On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz<BR>>> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 12:27
PM<BR>>> To: Mike O'Connor; <A
href="http://Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx</A> PDP
DT<BR>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status
report<BR>>><BR>>> Thanks Mikey,<BR>>><BR>>> Sorry I
haven't been able to make the calls, one thing or another has <BR>>> come
up. I think the current draft and changes look good but I do have <BR>>>
one comment/concern.<BR>>><BR>>> It seems to assumes if all
regitries are thick that registrars will <BR>>> still be required to
maintain a set of WHOIS data themselves. However, <BR>>> if the
registries are all thick and authoritative for WHOIS data then I <BR>>>
see no reason why a registrar should continue to be required to <BR>>>
maintain a duplicate set of the data, especially since it will also be
<BR>>> escrowed by the registry. I would think a number of registrars
would <BR>>> find it useful and cost effective to simply use a registry's
<BR>>> authoritative data instead of trying to maintain it themselves.
And I <BR>>> can easily see an effort by registrars to change the RAA
and/or <BR>>> policies to reflect that. So I don't think the PDP group
should assume <BR>>> that both registrars and registries will continue to
maintain the data. <BR>>> It may be good to note that possibility. Or
alternatively, that may be <BR>>> a question they want to consider. I
don't think it would necessarily be <BR>>> out of scope since it is
tightly associated with whether all registries <BR>>> are thick or not,
but others may have a different opinion. Best, Tim<BR>>><BR>>>
-------- Original Message --------<BR>>> Subject: [gnso-thickwhois-dt]
weekly status report<BR>>> From: "Mike O'Connor" <<A
href="http://mike@xxxxxxxxxx";>mike@xxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR>>> Date: Sat,
September 22, 2012 10:03 am<BR>>> To: "<A
href="http://Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx</A> PDP
DT"<BR>>> <<A
href="http://Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx</A>><BR>>><BR>>>
hi all,<BR>>><BR>>> here's the status report for this week. i
*think* we're wringing out <BR>>> the last issues in the draft. so this
would be a good time to take a <BR>>> look at the latest version. what
seems to be working well is to run <BR>>> your ideas through the list so
then we can work through them on the <BR>>> call. here's a link to the
draft i pushed out after the last call.<BR>>><BR>>> <a
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-thickwhois-dt/doc3QzSkLIUIQ.doc";>http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-thickwhois-dt/doc3QzSkLIUIQ.doc</a><BR>>><BR>>>
and here's the status report. i'm hoping we can get to a draft we can push out
for a consensus call by the end of the meeting on
Thursday.<BR>>><BR>>> thanks,<BR>>><BR>>>
mikey<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> -
- - - - - - - -<BR>>> phone 651-647-6109<BR>>> fax
866-280-2356<BR>>> web <a
href="http://www.haven2.com";>http://www.haven2.com</a><BR>>> handle
OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
etc.)<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>
--<BR>>> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.<BR>>><BR>>> Mit freundlichen
Grüßen,<BR>>><BR>>> Volker A. Greimann<BR>>> -
Rechtsabteilung -<BR>>><BR>>> Key-Systems GmbH<BR>>> Im
Oberen Werk 1<BR>>> 66386 St. Ingbert<BR>>> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 -
9396 901<BR>>> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<BR>>> Email: <a
href="mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a><BR>>><BR>>>
Web: <a href="http://www.key-systems.net";>www.key-systems.net</a> / <a
href="http://www.RRPproxy.net";>www.RRPproxy.net</a><BR>>> <a
href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com";>www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a
href="http://www.BrandShelter.com";>www.BrandShelter.com</a><BR>>><BR>>>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:<BR>>>
<a
href="http://www.key-systems.net/facebook";>www.key-systems.net/facebook</a><BR>>>
<a
href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems";>www.twitter.com/key_systems</a><BR>>><BR>>>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin<BR>>> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835
- Saarbruecken<BR>>> Umsatzsteuer ID.:
DE211006534<BR>>><BR>>> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP<BR>>> <a
href="http://www.keydrive.lu";>www.keydrive.lu</a><BR>>><BR>>> 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.<BR>>><BR>>>
--------------------------------------------<BR>>><BR>>> Should you
have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact
us.<BR>>><BR>>> Best regards,<BR>>><BR>>> Volker A.
Greimann<BR>>> - legal department -<BR>>><BR>>> Key-Systems
GmbH<BR>>> Im Oberen Werk 1<BR>>> 66386 St. Ingbert<BR>>>
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<BR>>> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396
851<BR>>> Email: <a
href="mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a><BR>>><BR>>>
Web: <a href="http://www.key-systems.net";>www.key-systems.net</a> / <a
href="http://www.RRPproxy.net";>www.RRPproxy.net</a><BR>>> <a
href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com";>www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a
href="http://www.BrandShelter.com";>www.BrandShelter.com</a><BR>>><BR>>>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
updated:<BR>>> <a
href="http://www.key-systems.net/facebook";>www.key-systems.net/facebook</a><BR>>>
<a
href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems";>www.twitter.com/key_systems</a><BR>>><BR>>>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin<BR>>> Registration No.: HR B 18835 -
Saarbruecken<BR>>> V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534<BR>>><BR>>> Member
of the KEYDRIVE GROUP<BR>>> <a
href="http://www.keydrive.lu";>www.keydrive.lu</a><BR>>><BR>>> 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.<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>
--<BR>>> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.<BR>>><BR>>> Mit freundlichen
Grüßen,<BR>>><BR>>> Volker A. Greimann<BR>>> -
Rechtsabteilung -<BR>>><BR>>> Key-Systems GmbH<BR>>> Im
Oberen Werk 1<BR>>> 66386 St. Ingbert<BR>>> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 -
9396 901<BR>>> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<BR>>> Email: <a
href="mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a><BR>>><BR>>>
Web: <a href="http://www.key-systems.net";>www.key-systems.net</a> / <a
href="http://www.RRPproxy.net";>www.RRPproxy.net</a><BR>>> <a
href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com";>www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a
href="http://www.BrandShelter.com";>www.BrandShelter.com</a><BR>>><BR>>>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:<BR>>>
<a
href="http://www.key-systems.net/facebook";>www.key-systems.net/facebook</a><BR>>>
<a
href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems";>www.twitter.com/key_systems</a><BR>>><BR>>>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin<BR>>> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835
- Saarbruecken<BR>>> Umsatzsteuer ID.:
DE211006534<BR>>><BR>>> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP<BR>>> <a
href="http://www.keydrive.lu";>www.keydrive.lu</a><BR>>><BR>>> 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.<BR>>><BR>>>
--------------------------------------------<BR>>><BR>>> Should you
have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact
us.<BR>>><BR>>> Best regards,<BR>>><BR>>> Volker A.
Greimann<BR>>> - legal department -<BR>>><BR>>> Key-Systems
GmbH<BR>>> Im Oberen Werk 1<BR>>> 66386 St. Ingbert<BR>>>
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<BR>>> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396
851<BR>>> Email: <a
href="mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a><BR>>><BR>>>
Web: <a href="http://www.key-systems.net";>www.key-systems.net</a> / <a
href="http://www.RRPproxy.net";>www.RRPproxy.net</a><BR>>> <a
href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com";>www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a
href="http://www.BrandShelter.com";>www.BrandShelter.com</a><BR>>><BR>>>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
updated:<BR>>> <a
href="http://www.key-systems.net/facebook";>www.key-systems.net/facebook</a><BR>>>
<a
href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems";>www.twitter.com/key_systems</a><BR>>><BR>>>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin<BR>>> Registration No.: HR B 18835 -
Saarbruecken<BR>>> V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534<BR>>><BR>>> Member
of the KEYDRIVE GROUP<BR>>> <a
href="http://www.keydrive.lu";>www.keydrive.lu</a><BR>>><BR>>> 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.<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>><BR>> - - - - - - - -
-<BR>> phone 651-647-6109<BR>> fax 866-280-2356<BR>> web <a
href="http://www.haven2.com";>http://www.haven2.com</a><BR>> handle
OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
etc.)<BR>><BR>><BR><BR>-- <BR>Dr. Robert Bruen<BR>Cold Rain Labs<BR><a
href="http://coldrain.net/bruen";>http://coldrain.net/bruen</a><BR>+1.802.579.6288<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|
![http://image001.gif/"](http://image001.gif/"){kind=link}
![http://image003.gif/"](http://image003.gif/"){kind=link}