RE: [ga] Tasting and other errant or illegal registration activity, was: Re: [ga] List Rules

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you for this.

 

FYI, Tim Ruiz, who is in senior management at GoDaddy was on the
drafting committee and supports the motion.  The motion proposes to end
the types of abuses Bob is talking about.  However, I will note for the
record that what Bob calls kiting is not actually kiting, but rather
tasting.  Big difference.

 

My question still remains.  If the motion goes through and is
implemented, what evidence is there that this will not stop the AGP
abuses?

 

With respect to your questions:

1.  There has been very little tasting going on in .biz or .us.  Any
tasting that has occurred did not start until last year.  So no, I was
not part of anything related to this prior to when the issues were
brought forward by the ALAC in their draft issues report.

 

2.      It is my belief that all known abuses to the AGP will be
eliminated by the proposal.   Will tasting be eliminated?  Tougher
question, but the answer is the same whether this motion is adopted or
the AGP is eliminated.  In other words, eliminating the AGP will not
sole any more problems in my view that the current version.  It will
create additional problems with respect to legitimate deletes.
3.      Registrars have abused the AGP, however, the motion should cure
the known abuses.
4.      And no, I do not believe personally that the response to the
abuses has been as quick as it should have been either from ICANN or by
the Registrars.  That said, I believe NeuStar's implementation will
solve the known issues with the AGP.

 

Also, I believe you asked whether I believe registrars just made up
reasons for legitimately using the AGP to benefit from tasting or
something like that.  The answer is no.  Most of the reasons for keeping
the AGP were submitted by companies like GoDaddy and others that do not
engage in tasting or have ever abused the AGP.

 

Sorry if I missed some questions, but I hope I got most of them.  If I
did not, feel free to ask again.  (Although maybe we can start a new
chain...this one got long and hard to follow).

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services  & 

Business Development 

NeuStar, Inc. 
e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>  

________________________________

From: chris@xxxxxx [mailto:chris@xxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 12:50 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Jeffrey A. Williams; Elisabeth Porteneuve
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ga] Tasting and other errant or illegal registration
activity, was: Re: [ga] List Rules

 

Here is a letter written to ICANN in 2004 from Bob Parsons.
http://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/pdf/100804_letter_iyd.pdf
<http://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/pdf/100804_letter_iyd.pdf> 

 

This is from april of 2006 

 

"35 million names registered in April. 32 million were part of a kiting
scheme. A serious problem gets worse. 

 

In a nutshell, here's how domain kiting works.
Domain kiting registrars put up mini-Web sites - loaded with search
engine links - for domains names for which they never pay. When people
land on these Web sites and click on the links, money is made. It's easy
to spot one of these registrars as the number of total registrations
they make often far exceed the number of permanent registrations - or
names for which they actually pay. This is why during the month of April
2006, out of 35 million registrations, only a little more than 2 million
were permanent or actually purchased. The vast majority of the rest were
part of the domain kiting scheme. 

Now let's drill down a little further into domain kiting 101.
A registrar who participates in this scheme - Go Daddy and its
affiliates do not participate in this scheme - makes a large deposit -
sometimes a huge deposit - at a registry. Then the registrar registers
as many domain names as the deposit will allow. For example, if the
registrar makes a $600,000 deposit at VeriSign Registry, they could
register 100,000 .COM domain names as .COM names cost $6.00 per year."

 

Now if registrars are engaged in domain kiting how do you assume that
registrars and registries opinion of how to solve this issue should
carry more weight than any user on this list or any user on the web for
that matter. Since it is the very industry doing the domain kiting, why
should recommendations from that industry be taken seriously regarding
this issue?

 

It's not like it just now happened and your industry is taking
progressive steps to police it. It was going on since before 2004. So
where were the other registries and registrars, excluding Bob Parsons,
who did speak out, when it was going on then? Where was your outrage at
a few rogue registrars abusing the AGP? It was ignored because there was
no public outrage. Now that there is, the registries and registrars step
up and tell us that they will take the lead to solve this problem and
that we should all just trust you. As you said our mistrust of the
registries and registrars and ICANN is no reason to suggest the
elimination of the AGP.

 

Had all of the "legitimate" registries and registrars stepped up to
solve this issue in 2004, maybe it would be different. Maybe you could
raise the issue that you should be trusted to come up with a solution.
But that did not happen did it? And as far as trusting ICANN to solve
the domain kiting and tasting issue, why are we just now addressing
this? Where were they then? Where have they been on every single issue?
On the side of big business and registrars and registries and never on
the side of users. 

 

The abuse of the AGP has hurt small business owners and users by
creating a false shortage of domain names. The registries and registrars
and ICANN allowed it to happen. Now we should just trust them to fix it?
Why? What evidence or prior good acts can you point to that suggests
that this industry or ICANN deserves that trust?

 

More from Bob Parsons;

 

Domain kiting registrars abuse the 5 day refund period to work their
scheme.
After a domain name is registered, a registrar has five days to cancel a
domain name registration - i.e. drop the name - and get their money
back. Domain kiting registrars abuse this rule and cancel the lion's
share of the names they register just before the five day period expires
- so they get their money back. But then something unexpected happens.
After names are cancelled or dropped, the domain kiting registrar goes
out and immediately registers the same names again. The domain kiting
registrar will then put the same simple Web site back up for each domain
name, wait another five days and then cancel all the names again - just
in time to get a full refund. And for most names caught up in the domain
kiting scheme, this process will repeat itself over and over and over. 

 

Meet DirectNIC.
You might find the registration statistics of DirectNIC somewhat
interesting. DirectNIC <http://www.directnic.com/>  registered more than
8.4 million domain names in April 2006, but only permanently registered
- or paid for - 51.4 thousand of those. The trend was the same in March,
when DirectNIC registered 7.6 million names and only permanently
registered - or paid for - 52.5 thousand. Whatever could DirectNIC be
doing? Why are they dropping and re-registering all those names - again
- and again - and again? And why doesn't ICANN care?

But wait, there's more - many more.
And the list of registrars, that register many more domain names than
they actually purchase, goes on and on. 

ICANN fiddles while the Domain system burns.
I will point out that at this time, unlike check kiting - there is
nothing illegal about domain kiting. Of course, domain kiting should be
illegal. ICANN <http://www.icann.org/>  is perfectly happy with the
practice. In spite of many complaints they have done nothing to put an
end to it. 

ICANN's favorite comment.
Since my last blog article a number of people have contacted ICANN and
quite predictably, but sadly, ICANN has had no comment. 

Domain kiting is out of control and must be stopped.
This domain kiting practice needs to be stopped. It benefits only those
few organizations that are pillaging the domain name system. It takes
millions of good names off the system, and makes them unavailable for
the purposes for which those names were originally intended. It places
an unnecessary burden on every registry. 

You said that "There are a lot of conclusory statements made in the
e-mails calling for the abolishment of the AGP. Yet, there is little
evidence behind those conclusions."

 

When has there not been evidence? None of the above statements by Bob
Parsons refers to evidence of registrars engaging in domain kiting?

 

You also said, "evidence was presented by the Registrars on how the AGP
was used for legitimate purposes."

 

And you do not expect them to come up with reasons to keep the AGP when
some of them benefit from it in non-legitmate ways?

 

You say "Neither the registries nor the registrars will support the
abolishment of the AGP because of these legitimate purposes."

 

Are you sure that is the reason? Do you ask us to believe that only
"legitimate reasons motivate the registrars to keep the AGP? None of
them want to keep it for other reasons? Where does Bob Parsons stand on
the issue?

 

Then you say "The fact that your gut tells you there could in theory be
issues or that you general distrust registries, registrars and ICANN is
NOT a basis to call for the abolishment of the AGP, where legitimate
uses have been demonstrated."

 

Questions

 

Where has this trust been earned in regards to the issue of domain
tasting and domain kiting? 

 

Did you write the proposal you speak of in 2004 or just recently since
this has gotten more public attention? 

 

Do you think domain kiting and domain tasting is a theory? 

 

Do you think that it is only a theory that registrars have engaged in
this practice? 

 

Do you believe ICANN has addressed these issues in a timely fashion? 

 

Do you think the registrars and registries have acted to police their
own industry in regards to these issues in a timely fashion?

 

I'm really curious as to your answers to those questions. It may be a
matter of perception. If you perceive that ICANN and the registrars and
registries have acted in a timely fashion then your idea of timely is
much different than it is for many of us. Had those actions in your
proposal been suggested when this was first brought to everyone's
attention, then they woiuld definitely have been taken more seriously
and more drastic action might not have been called for.

 

Chris McElroy

 

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> >

To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >; "Elisabeth Porteneuve"
<elisabeth.porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:elisabeth.porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >

Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >

Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 11:29 AM

Subject: RE: [ga] Tasting and other errant or illegal registration
activity, was: Re: [ga] List Rules

 

> 
> I feel an obligation to respond, since my comments are quoted here.  
> 
> There are a lot of conclusory statements made in the e-mails calling
for
> the abolishment of the AGP. Yet, there is little evidence behind those
> conclusions.
> 
> I will be the first to state the process followed in getting this
motion
> together has been less than stellar....IN short, there were lots of
> flaws.  I have pointed this out on a number of occasions.  That said,
> evidence was presented by the Registrars on how the AGP was used for
> legitimate purposes.  As a registry, I have personally seen how the
AGP
> has been used in cases where a reseller or registrant has attempted to
> defraud a registrar.  Just because you may not have personally
> benefitted from the AGP, does not mean that other registrants have
not.
> Neither the registries nor the registrars will support the abolishment
> of the AGP because of these legitimate purposes.  Let me also state
for
> the record, there is no financial or other benefits NeuStar will
receive
> by keeping an AGP.  In fact, one might argue that eliminating the AGP
> will result in NeuStar getting more money because no refunds will ever
> be issued.  However, we do see the benefits of the AGP if used
properly
> and therefore, despite the possibility of making more money, we do
> support keeping a limited AGP (as you saw in our proposal).  
> 
> What I have not seen from anyone in support of eliminating the AGP is
> evidence as to (i) why the proposed motion will not solve the abuses
of
> the AGP, and (ii) more importantly, if the solution does solve these
> abuses of the AGP, as NeuStar believes, why is eliminating the AGP
> necessary.  The fact that your gut tells you there could in theory be
> issues or that you general distrust registries, registrars and ICANN
is
> NOT a basis to call for the abolishment of the AGP, where legitimate
> uses have been demonstrated.
> 
> If you believe I am wrong, please provide EVIDENCE....not gut
feelings,
> disbelief, conjectures, distrust and conspiracy theories.  I really do
> want to see this evidence.  
> 
> Like Roberto said earlier (or something like this), why do you need a
> bazooka to kill a mosquito.
> 
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
> Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services  & 
> 
> Business Development 
> 
> NeuStar, Inc. 
> e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>  
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Jeffrey A. Williams
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 10:37 AM
> To: Elisabeth Porteneuve
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ;
dstansell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dstansell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ;
> aheineman@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:aheineman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> ;
greg.abbott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:greg.abbott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ;
> board-review-tor@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:board-review-tor@xxxxxxxxx> ;
jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx> ; twomey@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:twomey@xxxxxxxxx> ;
> public.information@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:public.information@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> Subject: [ga] Tasting and other errant or illegal registration
activity,
> was: Re: [ga] List Rules
> 
> 
> Elisabeth and all,
> 
>  Thank you for your thoughtful and somewhat detailed
> response.  Very much welcomed by me anyway, and I hope 
> by others of the GA members.  Perhaps you would be
> so kind as to forward this, your response to the ALAC as
> well.  I am sure it would be of interest to some on
> that forum as well.  I shall be sure to forward mine
> in response!  >:)
> 
>  The remainder of my remarks, thoughts, concerns in 
> response will be interspersed below elisabeths and
> are intended to be very general and applied to the
> GA members as a whole or other perhaps interested
> parties and addressed to/cc.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <elisabeth.porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:elisabeth.porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >
>>Sent: Apr 1, 2008 6:45 AM
>>To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:roberto@xxxxxxxxx> >,
'Danny Younger'
> <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> >, 'Hugh
Dierker' <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx> >,
> debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ,
ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
>>Cc: Elisabeth Porteneuve <elisabeth.porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:elisabeth.porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >
>>Subject: Re: [ga] List Rules
>>
>>
>>I went through PPT presentations attached to the quoted message (via
> Danny) 
>>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg05626.html,

>>re-read Jeff Neuman's quotes from New Delhi (via Dominik) 
>>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg01071.html ,
> Ross 
>>Rader's note 
>>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg01300.html ,
> but 
>>also browsed contractual reports ICANN receives from registries at 
>>http://www.icann.org/tlds/monthly-reports/ , especially com-net ones.
> 
> I did a quick review of this report and found it very interesting.
> I would like to ask if it could be acceuented on the GNSO web
> site more promonantly for others whom have recently ask, to review.
>>
>>
>>
>>At the end of my reading, I think I understand better.
>>
>>First of all, I understand the AGP serves the large spectra of non
> written 
>>purposes, for the benefit of registrars and their resellers. My blunt 
>>perception from PPTs is that a number of registrars run insecure
> software, 
>>and let their uneducated resellers to do as much mess as possible -
all
> that 
>>is on the dark side of the moon, because outside of ICANN's contracts,
> AGP 
>>is a kind of insurance to fix unspoken disasters.
> 
>  Your first sentance here really get's to the central aspect of the
> AGP's existance and or need/lack there of.  Non written purposes
> for the existance of the AGP has a "Gaming" aspect that seems to
> be central to the problem of Tasting, warehousing, kiting, and
> other related errant registration activity.  As such, the only 
> method or means by which those aspects of the AGP can be addressed 
> is to either document what does and does not constitute the AGP's use
> for those now unwritten benifits to registrants, or the elimination
> of the AGP, which I Chris, and Dominik proposals/motions outline
> and call for, becomes necessary.  Chris and myself have doubts as
> to wheather of not such specifics in modification of the AGP to
> provide for the desired flexability or the now non written benifits
> can be adaquately accomplished, and I personally am of the opinion
> the policing of same would be a huge burden of responsibility on
> the ICANN staff that is obviously desired to be eliminated.  Some
> of those oversite functions I know can be automated programatically
> in the registration software, but given that less than secure
> registration software in used a additional security level requirement
> would than also become necessary.  I have frequently suggested such
> be done long ago, but was sarimoniously ignored.  Now that chicken
> has come home to roost!
>>
>>Secondly, VeriSign's reports clearly indicate that some registrars -
> very 
>>few - delete N (big N)  times more domains than add or renew, and that
> is a 
>>permanent situation. VeriSign's benefit is that their servers'
> performances 
>>are permanently benched and able to withstand a lot.
> 
> Yes but Verisign in not necessarly respectively comparative to
> other registries as far as server performance ability is concerned,
> and does not apply to registrars at all.
>>
>>Third, I do not see much AGP benefit to registrants, they do not have
> EPP 
>>access to anything, and IMHO cannot make many mistakes (typo happens,
> of 
>>course).
> 
>  I fully agree.  What is and has for years now been necessary is
> that registrants have EPP access to their own registered domain name
> records at both the registrar level and registry level so as to
> keep them accurate and up to date.  Both registries and registrars
> have been particularly resistant to providing for this function,
> and as such errors in both registry/registrar data for any particular
> Domain name information remain, AND Whois listing data.  This poses at
> least one, and I would be glad to argue at any time in any setting,
> several other significant legal and criminal activity directly related
> to this lack of ability and oversite of domain name registration
> data.  As such, ICANN by way of the RAA contracts is liable to a
> limited degree in complicity of such illegal activity accordingly.
> 
>  However anyone of reasonable sensibilities can understand a
> typo error, but as Chris has pointed out those should not occur
> after the second opt-out has been sent to the registrant and
> recieved accordingly.
>>
>>
>>
>>Eventually I concur with proposed GNSO (Council?) motion - 50 deletes
> or 
>>10% - to discriminate between occasional mistakes or incompetence of
> the 
>>dark side and permanent tasting by some registrars.
> 
>  Plain and simple, registrars that have shown a short history
> of Tasting or other errent and possibly illegal activity should
> immediately have their ICANN accreditation revoked and their
> Domain Name taken down.
>>
>>Last, I think ICANN's should compile tendencies of monthly reports to
> show 
>>to the Board any new piggyback services happening in registrations.
> 
>  I fully agree.  Additionally if such activity is recognized, the
> offender should be immediately notified and given no longer than
> 10 calender days to correct the problem or face whatever legal
> consequences that may and should insue.
> 
> My final and personal concerns regarding Tasting and registration
> of Domain Names:
> 
>  As I have repeatedly stated for a number of years, along with
> Dr. Joe Baptista, my single biggest concern regarding the Domain
> name registration is similar to the assingment of IP addresses,
> that being that many, too many Domain Names that are registered
> are used for illegal activities, such as spam, phishing, and
> more importantly Child Ponrnography solicitiation or direct
> Child Ponography activity.  This must be STOPPED and ICANN
> can and has the direct ability to STOP it if it so chooses.
> Currently it does not choose to do so, or is unable to do
> so due to lack of staff and technical ability.  Those are
> not reasonable excuses IMHO!  Yet the user, just like myself,
> cannot by themselves stop this errant or illegal activity.
> But we can, and I persoanally do, just like Dr. Joe, Chris,
> and Dominik have, object strongly to this lack of responsibility
> by ICANN!
> 
>  As a matter of practicality and legal liability, passing
> along to LEA's, court systems in any and all countries,
> judicial systems of same due to a lack of responsibility
> by the ICANN Bod and legal staff is an unecessary burden
> upon those LEA's, judicial systems, court systems and an
> affront to the public that I am sure they do not appriciate
> at all.  Nor do I! >:(
>>
>>
>>
>>My 2 euro-cents
>>
>>Elisabeth Porteneuve
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>>To: "'Danny Younger'" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> >; "'Hugh Dierker'" 
>><hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx> >;
<debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >;
> <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
>>Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:04 PM
>>Subject: RE: [ga] List Rules
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, Danny, that could be really helpful in trying to sort this
> issue
>>> out. At least for me.
>>> RG
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
>>>> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Danny Younger
>>>> Sent: Monday, 31 March 2008 21:49
>>>> To: Hugh Dierker; debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
>>>> Subject: Re: [ga] List Rules
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello Eric,
>>>>
>>>> As much as I like motions, we would in a better position if
>>>> we could draft an issues paper laying out the pros and cons
>>>> of the AGP.  I note that the registrars have already created
>>>> a powerpoint on the benefits of the AGP -- you can view it by
>>>> clicking on the attachment at this url:
>>>>
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg05626.html
<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg05626.html> 
>>>>
>>>> By this way, this powerpoint was quite convincing (at least
>>>> to Board director Steven Goldstein that referenced this
>>>> presentation at the Washington JPA session), so our
>>>> counterpoint arguments must necessarily be of equal or
>>>> greater caliber if we are to convince both the GNSO and the
>>>> Board over the objections of the registrars.
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> Danny
>>>>
>>>> --- Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > The list has run along very smoothly for several months. The main
>>>> > reason is voluntary compliance with the rules. Once this concept
>>>> > breaks down so does the list. We are not talking about
>>>> individual one
>>>> > time lapses. For constant repeat violations we must stand
>>>> strong and
>>>> > enforce the rules.
>>>> >
>>>> >   We are at a point for the first time in months, that the list
is
>>>> > coalescing into the form of producing a statement/motion. The AGP
>>>> > issue seems to have come to a head and more formal resolution
>>>> > procedures may be appropriate. I believe it is at a motion
>>>> stage with
>>>> > 4 seconds. If the desire is to move forward in a constructive
>>>> > effective matter, we should hear that from the members.
>>>> >
>>>> >   Eric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
> Regards,
> 
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!)
> "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
>   Abraham Lincoln
> 
> "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
> very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
> 
> "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> ===============================================================
> Updated 1/26/04
> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
> div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
> ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
> jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> My Phone: 214-244-4827
>