<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    + 1 <br>
    <br>
    Thanks Becky.  It really is time to agree this and move on.<br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 05/02/2016 10:34, Paul Rosenzweig
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:023901d16043$e73e9a50$b5bbcef0$@redbranchconsulting.com"
      type="cite">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
        charset=windows-1252">
      <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]-->
      <title>Information Security Program Charter</title>
      <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:12.0pt;
        font-family:"Calibri",sans-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;}
span.EmailStyle18
        {mso-style-type:personal-reply;
        font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
        color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
        {mso-style-type:export-only;
        font-size:10.0pt;
        font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@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]-->
      <div class="WordSection1">
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Very much +1.  Well
            said Becky.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">P<o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
        <div>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><span
              style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Paul Rosenzweig<o:p></o:p></span></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><span
              style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><a
                moz-do-not-send="true"
                href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com"><span
                  style="color:#0563C1"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a></span></a>
              <o:p></o:p></span></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><span
              style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">O: +1 (202)
              547-0660<o:p></o:p></span></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><span
              style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">M: +1 (202)
              329-9650<o:p></o:p></span></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><span
              style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">VOIP: +1 (202)
              738-1739<o:p></o:p></span></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><span
              style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Skype:
              paul.rosenzweig1066<o:p></o:p></span></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal"
            style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span
              style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><a
                moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=19&amp;Itemid=9"><span
                  style="color:#0563C1">Link to my PGP Key</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=speakers-us2016"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;text-decoration:none"><img
                  id="Picture_x0020_7"
                  src="cid:part3.05010202.03030004@cdt.org" border="0"
                  height="87" width="578"></span></a><span
              style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
        </div>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="font-size:11.0pt;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">From:</span></b><span
                style="font-size:11.0pt"> Burr, Becky
                [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>] <br>
                <b>Sent:</b> Friday, February 5, 2016 1:03 PM<br>
                <b>To:</b> Accountability Community
                <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">&lt;accountability-cross-community@icann.org&gt;</a><br>
                <b>Subject:</b> [CCWG-ACCT] Responses to Rafael's
                Questions<o:p></o:p></span></p>
          </div>
        </div>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
        <div>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><span
              style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">I</span><span
              style="font-family:&quot;Times New
              Roman&quot;,serif;color:black"> am going to attempt to
              respond to Rafael’s questions, below.  This is a long
              post, so apologies in advance.  <o:p></o:p></span></p>
        </div>
        <div>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New
              Roman&quot;,serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
        </div>
        <div>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New
              Roman&quot;,serif;color:black">I’d like to start out by
              saying that my proposal does not in any way prevent the
              GAC from participating in any community discussion
              whatsoever, or from continuing to provide advice on public
              policy matters whenever and however it chooses.  Rather,
              the compromise would limit the GAC’s ability to
              participate as a <i>decision-maker</i> in the very
              limited situation in which the community takes exception
              to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice and a
              community discussion is initiated to explore use of a
              community power to challenge the Board’s action.  Even in
              those limited situations where the carve out would apply,
              the GAC is still able to participate in discussion, to
              engage in advocacy, to persuade, to issue more advice,
              etc.  The only impact is that at the end of the day the
              GAC would not count towards the thresholds necessary to
              block or support exercise of the relevant power.  So
              please, do not say that anyone is trying to silence the
              GAC or to in any way limit its current authority.  <o:p></o:p></span></p>
        </div>
        <div>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New
              Roman&quot;,serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
        </div>
        <div>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New
              Roman&quot;,serif;color:black">Rafael’s questions appear
              in </span><i><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New
                Roman&quot;,serif;color:blue">blue italic</span></i><span
              style="font-family:&quot;Times New
              Roman&quot;,serif;color:black"> below, and my answers
              follow:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
        </div>
        <div>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New
              Roman&quot;,serif;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
        </div>
        <div>
          <div>
            <blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in">
              <blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in">
                <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:blue">1. We
                      have previously discussed it, but we still fail to
                      understand why this “carve-out” is only applicable
                      to the GAC. If this measure is foreseen to avoid
                      the “two-bites-at-the-apple” situation, for
                      instance the GNSO is as well in a position of
                      being “judge and part” when it comes to decisions
                      of the Board based on a PDP. In these cases, the
                      GNSO is part (has proposed a policy and the Board
                      has accepted it) and judge (through its
                      participation in the EC, it can participate
                      through its vote in the rejecting of the challenge
                      to this policy). This situation is unfair to the
                      rest of SO/ACs. What are the reasons for such a
                      privilege? In this vein, although the GAC has a
                      “mutually agreeable procedure to TRY to find a
                      solution”, it CANNOT force the Board to act
                      according to its advice, therefore a Board
                      decision based on GAC Advice is as free as a Board
                      decision based on GNSO or CCNSO PDP or GNSO
                      Guidance (all three with a 2/3 threshold for
                      rejection by ICANN Board). Why is the GAC singled
                      out then?</span></i><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
              </blockquote>
            </blockquote>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><span
                style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">I have
                previously explained this, as have others on the calls
                and in the chat.  My previous response follows.  The
                fact is that the Board’s obligation to work to try to
                find a mutually agreeable solution before rejecting GAC
                Advice gives the GAC both a formidable and unique power
                to stop a process in its tracks and compel the Board to
                negotiate.  The fact that in the end a mutually
                acceptable solution may not be found does not change the
                 nature of that power.  And GAC advice is not
                constrained in any material way – it can involve any
                topic with “public policy” implications, and it can be
                issued at any time before, during, or after a policy
                development process has concluded, and indeed midway
                during implementation of such policy.  No other SO or AC
                has that authority.   <b>The GAC is singled out because
                  it, and it alone, has this authority.</b> </span><span
                style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">My
                  previous response to this same question from Jorge
                  follows:</span></b><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Jorge asks
                why I am drawing a distinction between GAC Advice and
                the output (e.g., a policy developed through a PDP) of a
                supporting organization or this new “GNSO Guidance." The
                differences between a PDP (or Guidance on implementation
                of a PDP) and GAC Advice are both structural and
                substantive.   In short, the process for issuing GNSO
                policy and guidance has built-in safeguards to prevent
                Mission creep and promote transparency and public
                consultation.  For many reasons, including some that I
                consider entirely appropriate, that’s not the case with
                GAC Advice.  </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><span
                style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">On the one
                hand, the GAC can give Advice </span><i><span
                  style="color:blue">on any topic</span></i><span
                style="color:black"> it likes.  Yes, technically it must
                relate to “public policy” - but as we know that is a
                very broad concept.  The GAC can also give that Advice </span><i><span
                  style="color:blue">at any time</span></i><span
                style="color:black"> it likes - before, during, or well
                after a PDP or even the Board’s acceptance of a PDP.    
                There is no rule that says that GAC Advice must relate
                to a topic within ICANN’s Mission or that such Advice
                must be consistent with ICANN’s Bylaws.  Both the
                flexibility with respect to topic and timing mean that
                GAC Advice can be disruptive to ongoing policy
                development and/or implementation. And, under Rec. 11 as
                currently proposed, the Board must accept that Advice
                unless 66% of the Board opposes it.  That’s the case no
                matter what that Advice is and </span><i><span
                  style="color:blue">even if a majority of the Board
                  thinks it would violate ICANN’s Bylaws to implement
                  that Advice</span></i><span style="color:black">.  </span><span
                style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><span
                style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">A PDP, on the
                other hand, takes place in a highly structured
                environment that is strictly controlled both by subject
                matter and sequencing.  Even before the PDP really gets
                off the ground it is subject to review by ICANN’s
                General Counsel as to whether or not it is within
                ICANN’s Mission.  That is a critical structural
                safeguard against scope creep that distinguishes a PDP
                from GAC Advice.  </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><span
                style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">The PDP
                process is highly structured, with numerous safeguards
                that protect against scope creep and ensure
                transparency:</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><span
                style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">a.  Final
                Issue Report requested by the Board, the GNSO Council
                ("Council") or Advisory Committee. The issue report must
                affirmatively address the following issues:</span><span
                style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"
              style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in"><span
                style="color:black">The proposed issue raised for
                consideration;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"
              style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in"><span
                style="color:black">The identity of the party submitting
                the request for the Issue Report;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"
              style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in"><span
                style="color:black">How that party is affected by the
                issue, if known;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"
              style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in"><span
                style="color:black">Support for the issue to initiate
                the PDP, if known;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"
              style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in"><span
                style="color:black">The opinion of the ICANN General
                Counsel regarding whether the issue proposed for
                consideration within the Policy Development Process is
                properly within the scope of the ICANN's mission, policy
                process and more specifically the role of the GNSO as
                set forth in the Bylaws.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"
              style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in"><span
                style="color:black">The opinion of ICANN Staff as to
                whether the Council should initiate the PDP on the issue<o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">b. Formal
                initiation of the Policy Development Process by the
                Council;</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">c.  Formation
                of a Working Group or other designated work method;</span><span
                style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">d.  Initial
                Report produced by a Working Group or other designated
                work method;</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">e.  Final
                Report produced by a Working Group, or other designated
                work method, and forwarded to the Council for
                deliberation;</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">f.  Council
                approval of PDP Recommendations contained in the Final
                Report, by the required thresholds;</span><span
                style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">g.  PDP
                Recommendations and Final Report shall be forwarded to
                the Board through a Recommendations Report approved by
                the Council]; and</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">h.  Board
                approval of PDP Recommendations.</span><span
                style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><span
                style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
            <blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in">
              <blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in">
                <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:blue">2. If
                      this “carve-out” were to be accepted, how would
                      the exclusion of the GAC from a community
                      decision-making process be triggered? Who would
                      decide on such things? Who would control the
                      legality of such a decision? The carve-out refers
                      generically to “Board decisions” to “implement GAC
                      advice”. But we need to bear in mind that Board
                      decisions very often rely on many different inputs
                      for any decision (a PDP, advice from advisory
                      committees, including the GAC, legal advice,
                      etc.), and rarely only stem exclusively from GAC
                      advice. Would this “carve-out” mean that where
                      there is a Board decision based on such multiple
                      sources, only one of them being a GAC advice, the
                      GAC would be excluded from any community power
                      related to such a Board decision? How do we make
                      sure that if such a “carve-out” is accepted it has
                      not these effects, and ONLY applies when the Board
                      acts based ONLY on GAC advice?</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
              </blockquote>
            </blockquote>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">This seems
                fairly straightforward.  The GAC keeps a “scorecard”
                regarding the Board’s handling of GAC Advice.  GAC
                Advice is listed and tracked.  ICANN tracks its
                responses formally.  See, for example, <a
                  moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gac-advice-scorecard-07oct15-en.pdf"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gac-advice-scorecard-07oct15-en.pdf">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gac-advice-scorecard-07oct15-en.pdf</a></a>.
                   To the extent that other organizations have provided
                similar advice, they have not had the opportunity to
                compel the Board to the negotiation table with respect
                to that advice.  In such cases, they could still
                participate in the decision making process in an effort
                to block exercise of a community power challenging the
                Board’s implementation of GAC Advice if, for example,
                they happened to agree with that Advice and/or thought
                the way the Board implemented that Advice was
                appropriate, etc.  </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
            <blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in">
              <blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in">
                <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:blue">3. What
                      happens if a Board decision is based on GAC advice
                      which in turn is based on international law,
                      relevant national law and/or important reasons of
                      public policy? We should remember that under Rec11
                      GAC will be obliged to act under a “no formal
                      objection rule” (full consensus). Should the
                      community be able to overturn such a Board
                      decision without giving the possibility to the GAC
                      to intervene in such a process (based on a GAC
                      consensus)?</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
              </blockquote>
            </blockquote>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><span
                style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">It is not the
                case now, nor has it ever been the case that the
                position of the GAC will prevail simply because it
                asserts that its views are mandated by international
                law, relevant national law, and/or important reasons of
                public policy.  </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><br>
                <br>
              </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Now, and in
                the future, the Board must make this call in the first
                instance, subject to applicable law and in light of
                ICANN’s Mission, Commitments &amp; Core Values.  If
                enough of the community thinks the Board got it wrong,
                it has the right to challenge the Board’s implementation
                action – e.g., by rejecting a proposed Bylaws change, by
                bringing an IRP, or ultimately, by recalling the Board.
                 Throughout this, the Board, the GAC, SOs, other ACs,
                etc. will have the opportunity to make their respective
                cases.  The thresholds for the exercise of community
                powers have been deliberately set to require broad
                support.    </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><br>
                <br>
              </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Let me repeat
                again what I said at the outset – nothing prevents the
                GAC from “intervening” through debate, discussion,
                persuasion, advice or any other non-decisional role.  </span><span
                style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
          </div>
          <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12.0pt"><b><span
                style="font-size:9.0pt;color:black">J. Beckwith Burr</span></b><b><span
                style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#262626"> </span></b><b><span
                style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#3366FF"><br>
              </span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#008656">Neustar,
                Inc.</span></b><b><span
                style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#068658"> </span></b><span
              style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#7D7D7D">/</span><b><span
                style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#068658"> </span></b><span
              style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#7D7D7D">Deputy General
              Counsel &amp; Chief Privacy Officer<br>
              1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006</span><span
              style="font-size:9.0pt;color:gray"><br>
            </span><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#008656">Office:</span></b><b><span
                style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#7D7D7D"> </span></b><span
              style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#7D7D7D">+1.202.533.2932  </span><b><span
                style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#008656">Mobile:</span></b><b><span
                style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#7D7D7D"> </span></b><span
              style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#7D7D7D">+1.202.352.6367 </span><strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif;color:#7D7D7D">/</span></strong><span
              style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#068658"> </span><span
              style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black"><a
                moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.neustar.biz"><b><span
                    style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#008656">neustar.biz</span></b></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
        </div>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <br>
      <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 

Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy &amp; Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy &amp; Technology | cdt.org
E: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org">mshears@cdt.org</a> | T: +44.771.247.2987

CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner.</pre>
  
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
        <tr>
                <td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
                        <a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">
                                <img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
                        </a>
                </td>
                <td>
                        <p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
                                This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
                                <br><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
                        </p>
                </td>
        </tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>