<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: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=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.p1, li.p1, div.p1
{mso-style-name:p1;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;}
p.p2, li.p2, div.p2
{mso-style-name:p2;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:#424242;}
p.p3, li.p3, div.p3
{mso-style-name:p3;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:#424242;}
p.p4, li.p4, div.p4
{mso-style-name:p4;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:#103FFB;}
p.p5, li.p5, div.p5
{mso-style-name:p5;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:7.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:#FFA827;}
p.p6, li.p6, div.p6
{mso-style-name:p6;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:7.5pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:#424242;}
span.s1
{mso-style-name:s1;
color:black;}
span.s2
{mso-style-name:s2;
color:#FF9324;}
span.s3
{mso-style-name:s3;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.s4
{mso-style-name:s4;
color:#424242;}
span.s5
{mso-style-name:s5;
color:#0000EE;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.s6
{mso-style-name:s6;
color:#FFA827;}
span.s7
{mso-style-name:s7;
color:#6C6C6C;}
span.s8
{mso-style-name:s8;
color:#103FFB;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle33
{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=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Chris is right … nothing in the Charter requires unanimity.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>On the other hand, the NTIA has insisted that this be a consensus proposal and that if there were “objections” to it by a chartering organization then the NTIA would not consider this to be consensus.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>While the NTIA’s reaction to a non-consensus proposal transmitted by the Board is to be determined, I think it near certain that the Board would not transmit a non-consensus proposal in the first place. It might choose to transmit a proposal with, say, 4 concurrences and 1 “neutral” or “non-vote” (I would recommend it do so), but the Board will quite likely choose not to submit a proposal with a component to which one of the chartering SO/ACs has registered a formal objection. And if it did, my prediction is that NTIA would reject such a submission.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Paul Rosenzweig<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com"><span style='color:#0563C1'>paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>O: +1 (202) 547-0660<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>M: +1 (202) 329-9650<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9"><span style='color:#0563C1'>Link to my PGP Key</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;text-decoration:none'><img border=0 width=578 height=87 id="Picture_x0020_7" src="cid:image001.png@01D15A78.8F79E200"></span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo@auda.org.au] <br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, January 29, 2016 1:40 AM<br><b>To:</b> Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com><br><b>Cc:</b> accountability-cross-community@icann.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#666666'>Hello All,<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#666666'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#666666'>I also thought there was something like that in the charter but I have just gone to look at it again and could not find it either.<o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#666666'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#666666'>That is indeed correct. The relevant part of the charter (excising the supplementary proposal bit) is:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#666666'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:17.0pt'><em><u><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'>"SO and AC support for the Draft Proposal(s)</span></u></em><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-top:7.5pt;line-height:17.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'>Following submission of the Draft Proposal(s), each of the chartering organizations shall, in accordance with their own rules and procedures, review and discuss the Draft Proposal(s) and decide whether to adopt the recommendations contained in it. The chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the co-chairs of the WG of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:17.0pt'><em><u><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'>Submission Board Report</span></u></em><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-top:7.5pt;line-height:17.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'>After receiving the notifications from all chartering organizations as described above, the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability shall, within 10 working days after receiving the last notification, submit to the Chair of the ICANN Board of Directors and Chairs of all the chartering organizations the CCWG-Accountability Board Report, which shall include at a minimum:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-top:7.5pt;line-height:17.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'>a) The (Supplemental) Proposal as adopted by the CCWG-Accountability; and<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-top:7.5pt;line-height:17.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'>b) The notifications of the decisions from the chartering organizations<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-top:7.5pt;line-height:17.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'>c) Documentation of the process that was followed, including, but not limited to documenting the process of building consensus within the CCWG-Accountability and public consultations.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style='margin-top:7.5pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:17.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333'>In the event one or more of the chartering organizations do(es) not support (parts of) the (Supplemental) Proposal(s), the Board Report shall also clearly indicate the part(s) of the (Supplemental) Final Proposal(s) which are fully supported and the parts which not, and which of the chartering organizations dissents, to the extent this is feasible." <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#666666'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#666666'>So technically there is nothing to prevent the CCWG from submitting The Proposal adopted only by 3 or 2 or 1 of the Chartering Organisations. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#666666'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#666666'>I think the only reference to the requirement for adoption by at least most if not all chartering organisations has been Larry Strickling’s various comments about expecting to receive a consensus proposal and that a proposal with ‘objections’ or ‘expressions of concern’ would not be likely to be be deemed a consensus proposal. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=p1><span style='color:#666666'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=p2>Cheers,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=p3><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=p2>Chris Disspain<span class=s1> </span><span class=s2>|</span><span class=s1> </span>Chief Executive Officer<o:p></o:p></p><p class=p2>.au Domain Administration Ltd<o:p></o:p></p><p class=p2>T: <span class=s3>+61 3 8341 4111</span><span class=s1> </span><span class=s2>|</span><span class=s1> </span>F: <span class=s3>+61 3 8341 4112</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=p4><span class=s4>E:</span><span class=s1> <a href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au"><span class=s5>ceo@auda.org.au</span></a> </span><span class=s6>|</span><span class=s1> </span><span class=s4>W:</span><span class=s7> <a href="http://www.auda.org.au/"><span class=s8>www.auda.org.au</span></a></span><span class=apple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=p2>auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator<o:p></o:p></p><p class=p5><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=p6><span class=s6><b>Important Notice</b></span><span class=s1><b> </b></span><b>- </b>This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#666666'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#666666'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#666666'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#666666'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#666666'>On 29 Jan 2016, at 17:25 , Seun Ojedeji <<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#666666'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#666666'>Good question, actually for some reason I also thought there was something like that in the charter but I have just gone to look at it again and could not find it either.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#666666'><a href="https://community.icann.org/m/mobile.action#page/50823977">https://community.icann.org/m/mobile.action#page/50823977</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#666666'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#666666'>On 28 Jan 2016 10:33 p.m., "Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva" <<a href="mailto:pedro.ivo@itamaraty.gov.br">pedro.ivo@itamaraty.gov.br</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#666666'>Dear Keith,<br><br>>>> "My understanding is that the CCWG proposal can be finalized and approved with 4 of 5 chartering organizations in support. "<br><br>Thanks for sharing your understanding. However, could you point to the specific text in the CCWG Charter where this threshold (4 out of 5) is defined? I couldn't find it.<br><br>Thanks!<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva<br>Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI)<br>Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil<br>T: <a href="tel:%2B%2055%2061%202030-6609">+ 55 61 2030-6609</a><br><br>Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva<br>Division of Information Society (DI)<br>Ministry of External Relations - Brazil<br>T: <a href="tel:%2B%2055%2061%202030-6609">+ 55 61 2030-6609</a><br><br><br><br>-----Mensagem original-----<br>De: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] Em nome de Drazek, Keith<br>Enviada em: quinta-feira, 28 de janeiro de 2016 19:05<br>Para: Andrew Sullivan; <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>Assunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing<br><br>Hi Andrew,<br><br>My understanding is that the CCWG proposal can be finalized and approved with 4 of 5 chartering organizations in support. So, a single organization in opposition *should* not scuttle the package.<br><br>It's unclear to me what happens if one chartering organization is silent and another opposed, leaving only 3 in support. Probably a question for the Co-Chairs.<br><br>Regards,<br>Keith<br><br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan<br>Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 3:58 PM<br>To: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing<br><br>Dear colleagues,<br><br>I was going to make a comment on the call today, but in the interests of time I took myself out of the queue. This note replaces what I wanted to say.<br><br>For those chartering organizations and individuals that wish to reject the compromise, I have a question. If the proposed compromise position on recommendation 11 is rejected, there is a good reason to suppose that at least one important part of the community (the GAC) will reject the accountability proposal. That will conceivably scuttle the transition; and in the absence of a consensus on the accountability measures, there is no reason to suppose we'll get the additional powers that are in the current text (incuding the Empowered Community). Is it worth it to give up those additional powers to prevent the 2/3 board threshold, given that the additional powers provide a way to foil truly bad decisions anyway?<br><br>As I understand things, we are in a trap. On the one hand, the GAC has produced a consensus position that the board must reject GAC advice by a supermajority. And indeed, as things are, the ICANN board has a difficult time even under the current arrangements when it decides to reject GAC advice. Yet the GAC is currently free to rearrange its own procedures such that it could lower its own threshold for decisions. Therefore, the consensus position of the GAC represents a grave threat to the transition. The current state of affairs is in any case not that hot; and the GAC could unilaterally make that current state of affairs worse.<br><br>The compromise proposal does a few things. It is true that it increases the threshold for the board to reject GAC advice. But in exchange for that, it enshrines the GAC's responsibility to the rest of the ICANN community as to how the GAC will reach decisions. This means that, in exchange for the increased threshold -- a threshold that I think will be easy to reach regardless of the actual numbers on the board in any case that counts -- the GAC is giving up independent control over its decision-making procedures when exercising that threshold. In that way, it is actually an improvement of GAC's covenant with the ICANN community.<br><br>Moreover, let us suppose that the GAC produced advice that the board decided to accept, but the rest of the community found that objectionable. In that case, the rest of the community could force the board not to take the advice _anyway_, because of the additional accountability measures that this CCWG wants to put in place.<br><br>The compromise proposal is not perfect -- I too would prefer not to have the 2/3 rule -- but one does not expect complete satisfaction from a compromise. And it should be surprising to no-one that it came rather late: each side wants something pretty big, and both appear to be dug in. This means that each will need to give something up.<br>That's what deals look like. And we need a deal, and soon, because we need to move ahead with the IANA transition.<br><br>Best regards,<br><br>A<br><br>--<br>Andrew Sullivan<br><a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#666666'>_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#666666'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></div></body></html>