<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello all,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Working Session
<span style="color:#1F497D">3</span> / ICANN 53 – 2<span style="color:#1F497D">5</span> June will be available here:
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><a href="https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG-ACCT+Working+Session+3+%2825+June%29+Buenos+Aires">https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG-ACCT+Working+Session+3+%2825+June%29+Buenos+Aires</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kim<o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Notes<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">CCWG-Accountability Working Session 3 -- 25 June 2015<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1. Welcome, SoI, Roll Call<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">2. Discussion of refined accountability mechanism<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">3. Responding to NTIA letter<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">4. Concluding remarks<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Intense discussion yesterday, trying to recap this and the proposals on<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the table for us to consider.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">XPLANE have a visualization of yesterday's and last Friday's discussion.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Discussion around requirements: the CWG, the budgets issues, the Board,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">about openness and the ability to adjust as the community evolves. And<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the notion of leverage if needs be.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Concerns - esp to involve the courts as little as possible. While<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">retaining our community powers. But we had problems.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Stemming from there statutory rights of members and derivative actions.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Legal complexities and formalities. And concern of capture by a SO/AC<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">that obtained legal personhood first that might then capture ICANN.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Community powers should go in the bylaws. We seem to have agreement on<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">this. But how to actualize them. But there are even more rights that are<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">available through statutory rights, that come with the members model. See<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the issues under the member model are complex, and some we wanted and some<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">we didn't have on our radar and need some to way to limit those powers.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Status quo. Work on the assumption we will keep the status quo, and that<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the community can exercise their powers based on the status quo. But,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">how, if a need for it, do we get from the status quo, to a different model<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">with more powers.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So where do we go in the hybrid model.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Some consider that the dismissal of the board would be a sufficient<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">remedy. Interventions yesterday, about budget issues for the IANA<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">function being enshrined in the bylaws removes one of the weaknesses of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the designator model. So we may have an empowered designator model.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The model doesn't have all the nuances of the earlier designs. The<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">graphics show a Community "power bar". Giving the designators the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">possibility to remove their director, and the collective ability to recall<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the board. Add the proposal to enshrine the IANA budget.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If we need to go to court to have the board honor an IRP, then the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">relationship would have soured so much to reach that point they would have<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">left.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">With the power bar approach, we don't have problems with derivative<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">actions, no risk of capture. As we move from the voluntary model to the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">designator, the power can only be invoked by more than one SO and AC.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Email from the RIR community hadn't expressed preference for any model,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">they believe we need to reach resolution as soon as possible and simply.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hear concern about enforceability. Taking a matter before a court is an<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">extreme situation. Is this small possibility worth delaying the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">transition, and creating complexity and misunderstanding?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Makes us recommend and push for the designator model. And consistent with<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the model just presented. At a phase in our WG where we must move<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">forward, so ask what can be added to or removed. Enhance the proposal.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">First question for the meeting: does this describe what was presented<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">yesterday - the table describes the community powers developed by WP1, but<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">WP2 an important part of our work and WP2 needs legal remedies for its<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">recommendations, for example, what could be done if IRP not implemented,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">this should be part of the analysis.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Having heard that removal of the board, the nuclear option, as the only<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">power, is unwise.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Comments: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Clarity. If the member model is off the table then say so. What is meant<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">by hybrid? May need to re-think the thresholds, give clarity about<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">participation of SO/AC that do not appoint a director<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The status quo, which is the working model, with transformation for<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">designator model when some event triggers the need for greater authority.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Statutory legal rights are needed. For example access to documents.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Derivative actions: the right of members to sue ICANN to remedy a rogue<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">board. Some have concerns with other statutory rights, some are<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">supportive. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The presentation gives a stark view of the member model and rosey view of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">designator. And the ultimate backstop of the designator model is still<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the courts. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hybrid. Staring point is what we have now and how to improve on this, and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">we are along the road to do that with IRP and reconsideration. There are<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">already proposals before the board for document transparency from the ATRT<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">process. Removal of the board is not so nuclear. And concern about<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">capture is worse with member than designator.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Statement from Counsel, June 16, says they are unsure if the designator<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">needs to be legal persons, and need clarity on this.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The good thing about the model is that the SO/AC are exercising the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">powers, until some eventually that necessitates legal measures.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The second proposal should have the consensus of the group. NTIA<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">requirement that must represent consensus of the community. All the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">models are good. But learning from the CWG approach won't work, they had<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">more discussion of the issues first.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Pragmatic. Take into account dependencies of CWG and make every effort<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">before Paris to address them. e.g the budget of PTI. What else is<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">absolutely necessary. Move the rest to WS2.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And this approach is what we are trying to do. We are focusing on<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">requirements and towards a consensus proposal.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The member model is incomplete as a multi-stakeholder model if GAC cannot<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">participate. We mention a rogue board, what about other rogue community<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">members? Need to work toward a balanced model.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Both models would work. And satisfy our requirements. But when I listen<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">to the community I don't think the member model will be accepted. I think<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the designator model has a high chance of getting accepted. Now it's time<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">to drop our personal ideas and listen to each-other. Agree with Avri that<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">dismissing the board is not the end of the world. May never need to use<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the power of removing the board.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Not acceptable to interrupt the speakers. Not acceptable to extend<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">meetings on short notice. Not acceptable to tell members they are off<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">topic. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There was a basic consensus around the community powers. So now concerned<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">that statutory legal rights as something we want, when they have not been<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">discussed internally or with the community.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As someone who has sought legal enforceability, recognize that there are<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">degrees of accountability, and wish to move towards consensus.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">3-4 weeks to revise our next proposal. Our powers and core values and AoC<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">are well developed and the same for whichever model we choose. The other<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">challenge is to reach agreement on authority/empowerment perhaps as a<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">sub-group.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Need to compromise, and not loose the window of opportunity. Use the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">opportunity between now and Paris to compromise. We would like to use<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">this comparison, further refine it. Looking for external counsel for<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">support on this.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">SWAT analysis - define the model, looks at strengths and weaknesses and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">also creates opportunities and threats.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The models need to be fleshed out to have a fully informed discussion in<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Paris. And we all need to all work on grasping the subtleties between the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">models. And we will ask legal counsel to better flesh this out.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We have drafting to do. We have substantial discussion to have about<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">topics raised in public comment. Discussions needed of WS1 and WS2. And<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">begin organizing this on our call next Tuesday.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We have sufficient progress so we can go for legal advice. We have made<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">good progress since arriving in BA.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Responding to NTIA letter<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Letter from Larry Strickling asking about the timeline of CCWG work,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">noting unlikely to complete work before the end date of the NTIA/ICANN<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">IANA functions contract. Also asked the ICG chairs. There are extension<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">options available.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Our timeline is a second draft for 2nd public comment of 40 days. A<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">review of comments and if no major changes then will ask the Chartering<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">organizations to review at the Dublin meeting. That is the goal.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">How much time do we need to finalize our proposals, and have them ready<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">for implementation. We hear the other groups are aiming for<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">June/September next year.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We have been asked to factor in community accountability. Jan our Advisor<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">has warned us on this. So work actively on this going forward.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">At least need to say how it will be addressed in WS2. Perhaps need to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">create a WP3 to begin thinking about this.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the reply - 2 assumptions, there's no magic to the date as NTIA and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">ICANN can mutually cancel. And that US Congress has kept away from<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">arbitrary dates and requirements. A relatively short period of time after<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">completed or work for the transition to go forward.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Discretion, but within limits, L Strickling told us he needs 4 months, and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">don't slip by more than a year. Need to move the bar on stakeholder<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">accountability, and also recall the recommendation about human rights in<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the bylaws. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">ICG is debating, and some request that they don't send until coordinated<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">with the CCWG. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We have to finalize our proposal to get it to SO/AC charter organization<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">for Dublin. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We will be crucified if we are not ready in Dublin.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So let's not add new issues like community accountability.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The CRISP team responsible for the numbers part of the ICG proposal is<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">targeting Implementation is September of this year, not next year.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Develop the models so we can have meaningful discussion in Paris. New<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">topics to discuss, inc community accountability, they are critical, and we<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">need to consider. We need volunteers to step up on this. WP1 and WP2 will<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">have a great deal of work in the coming weeks.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Co-chairs will coordinate response to NTIA<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Acknowledge Bruce's comments on the bylaws drafting. And will look at<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">blocks that are ready, and the AoC incorporation will be first of these we<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">think.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Reconvene as early as Tuesday 30 June for CCWG call at 06:00 UTC<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We are making progress in surfacing underlying concerns.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">AoB<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Fiona - About the AoC reviews public comment. Need to move forward in<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">synchronize with other work. In this review process they are looking at<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the future of reviews, the schedule and structure of them, both the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">organizational reviews of the bylaws and also the AoC reviews. Bring them<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">in to our discussions about review mechanisms. Synchronize their<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">contribution with the CCWG.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Staff are cognizant of overlap of work and we are coordinating and the are<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">following the CCWG work. A comment from from the CCWG to the review<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">process would be helpful.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you all. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>