<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:22 PM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class="">
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div>On Tuesday 16 August 2016 08:45 PM,
Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Whether or not ICANN is
a "public governance" body is largely irrelevant to the issue
of ICANN's transparency obligations. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
There is 'transparency' and there is 'transparency'. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I have no idea what this means.</div><br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">Standards
expected from corporations (and they do exist) are quite different
from non profit bodies, </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">This is not necessarily true. Many if not most non profit bodies are corporations and subject to transparency standards that are quite similar.</div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">which is quite different from that expected
from public bodies (or bodies involved in public governance). Which
standards are ICANN expected to uphold. I dont see any reasons that
they should be any lower than that for instance are upheld by
government of US, and of India. One thing they can take form US gov
is their standards of public transparency. <br>
<br>
I ask you; do you agree or not that ICANN should uphold these
transparency standards that are upheld by public bodies?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">I think ICANN should uphold transparency standards that are appropriate to its mission and working methods. It's improper to treat ICANN as if it were a governmental body. In some ways, I think ICANN's transparency standard should be higher than those of public bodies (which vary wildly, even within the USG). In other ways, those standards would be burdensome and counterproductive. So, no, I don't think we should borrow standards from some other entity, whatever its status. We can use all of them as points of departure, but it would be a mistake to be beholden to any of them. That said, ICANN must uphold the transparency standards that come with its status as a California public benefit corporation. </div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"></div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
If your answer is yes, the question arises why should ICANN uphold
transparency level higher than normally required for for profit
corporations or evne for non profit bodies. And the reason is that
ICANN undertakes functions of a 'public governance' nature. That is
the only rationale I can see, unless you tell me a better one.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">It never ceases to amaze me how some people find so many answers within their own logic and so few elsewhere.</div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">The reasons that underpin ICANN's transparency standards should come from its functions and its working methods -- and this relates to both the corporation and the ICANN structures (e.g., SO/ACs). Since ICANN does not undertake functions of a public governance nature, this cannot form the basis for ICANN's transparency standards. Since your rationale cannot be used to defend the premise that it is based on -- that is the essence of circular reasoning.</div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class="">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"> ICANN's transparency
obligations are an integral part of its method of operation as
a corporation and a community. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
So, this is the rationale you offer.... But then why have ICANN
transparency standards been so pathetic, if they are actually
inherent to it (can one state a clearer self-contradiction). This is
the familiar ICANN sovereignty and exceptionalism thing, coming from
Internet exceptionalism.... <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">I don't think ICANN's transparency <i>standards</i> have been pathetic. I think that ICANN's transparency <i>execution</i> has been lacking (I would not go quite so far as to say pathetic). This is no no way contradictory. Indeed it forms the core of our need to get ICANN to improve its execution on certain transparency fronts. This has nothing to do with any "sovereignty" argument. As for "exceptionalism," the essence of exceptionalism is not merely that something is different, it is that it is <u>better</u> and thus deserves to be treated differently. We would like to help ICANN be better, but that in no way means that I (or others) are arguing for "exceptionalism" no matter how many times you try to pin that label on. Whatever one thinks of "internet exceptionalism" generally (and I don't think one can think about monolithically), ICANN is an unusual organization with an unusual role, and trying to bang it into a round hole doesn't make it any less of a square peg.</div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class="">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Yet there are times
when ICANN falls short on transparency. As a general matter,
this concern is significant enough that we have a Transparency
Subgroup for WS2 (which is where this discussion should
continue in earnest). </div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The specific case of
transparency (or lack thereof) on expenditures (and
particularly lobbying, "light lobbying," and "non-lobbying
lobbying" related expenditures) is a significant example of
those concerns. I agree that a claim about following ordinary
commercial practice does not resolve the issue. But there is
no need to attempt to recast ICANN as a "public governance"
body -- we need look no further than ICANN's internal
"governance" concepts. To say they are atypical or unique is
not a claim to "Internet exceptionalism" (not something I'd
heard before this thread, but whatever) -- it is merely to
acknowledge that ICANN is sufficiently different from
"ordinary practices" that ordinary practices shouldn't apply.
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
That is called 'exceptionalism' when ordinary extant ideas and
concepts are taken not to apply to a phenomenon... As for 'internet
exceptionalism', there are many scholarly articles and at least one
book on it... Just look up google .</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">See above.</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class=""><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">More specifically,
ICANN's contracts with vendors need to build in levels of
transparency that exceed ordinary practices, because ICANN's
transparency obligations exceed ordinary transparency
obligations.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
Where are these obligations? Can you show me where they exist, so
that we can directly challenge their non fulfilment.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">I'll leave that to the Transparency subgroup, on both counts</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class="">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"> One need look no
further than the method by which counsel to the CCWG (Sidley
and Adler firms) work with the CCWG. Ordinarily,
attorney-client privilege is maintained by keeping
communications between attorney and client confidential --
this applies to meetings and attorney advice. Instead,
consultations with counsel and counsel's advice are both done
in an open and transparent fashion, on recorded and
transcribed calls and in documents that are publicly posted.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
'Ordinarily' for whom, what class of organisations....? </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Ordinarily for any organization receiving legal advice.</div></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">I ask for
'public governance bodies' level standards. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Then you would have gotten no transparency on legal advice in this case. That seems counterproductive. And counterintuitive.</div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">That would be a clear
basis to work from. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Clear, perhaps, though the idea that public governance bodies have anything close to a common set of standards is both unsupported and unsupportable. There's as much variation there as in any grouping, if not more.</div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">Otherwise it is always a slippery and arbitrary
argument. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">I disagree on both counts. It does not have to be arbitrary in any way. We are dealing with a lot of known quantities; we just need to work from there and do so in a thoughtful manner. Mindlessly applying some mythical "public governance bodies level standards" would be far more arbitrary. As for "slippery," I don't think that has any meaning here, other than to sound vaguely objectionable. "Slippery" is usually used in the context of a "slippery slope" argument, i.e., one that claims that another person's argument or proposal starts with reasonable cases but then leads down the slippery slope to unreasonable or bizarre cases. I don't see how that applies.</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<br>
parminder <br></font></span><div><div class="h5">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Transparency regarding
lobbying and other vendors and service providers should be
handled in a similar fashion. To the extent it's not (and
it's not...), it's fair to cry "foul" and to demand
improvement.</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">This can all be done in
the context of ICANN as it is.</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">For the record, I
disagree with the attempt to characterize ICANN as a "public
governance" body, for reasons substantially the same as those
already expressed. In the interests of bandwidth (mine and
yours) and avoiding rehashing, I have added my thoughts to the
matter. In any event, for the reasons stated above, it is
irrelevant to the transparency question to which this thread
is devoted.</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg </div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 9:43 AM,
parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><font face="Verdana">To these important posers I may
add, is ICANN considering making it clear to the
vendors at the contracting stage itself that it has
strong transparency obligations and would be bound by
them (as governments typically do, which is why this
discussion went into whether ICANN's functions are of
a 'public governance' nature). parminder</font><br>
</p>
<div>
<div> <br>
<div>On Monday 15 August 2016 08:38 PM, Schaefer,
Brett wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Kavouss,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Thank
you for re-raising this issue, which appears
to have been lost. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Xavier,
I also asked for additional clarifications
that, I think, need to be answered to inform
he work of the Transparency Working Group in
WS2. Specifically, in your response, you said
that “ICANN enters into confidentiality
obligations as a result of bilateral
negotiations with vendors” and that they
prevent ICANN from publicly disclosing further
details than those provided in your e-mail. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Would
this confidentiality obligation prevent
disclosure through the DIDP process?</span></li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Would
this confidentiality obligation prevent
individual Directors from obtaining this
information through their Right of
Inspection?</span></li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Would
this confidentiality obligation prevent an
individual Decisional Participant from
obtaining this information if they requested
it under their Right of Inspection of ICANN
accounting books and records pursuant to the
provisions of Section 6333 of the CCC?</span></li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Would
this confidentiality obligation prevent the
Empowered Community from obtaining the
information through its right to launch a
third-party, independent investigation if
three Decisional Participants determine that
there is a credible allegation that ICANN
has committed fraud or that there has been a
gross mismanagement of ICANN’s resources? </span></li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Finally,
I did not see where you clarified whether
ICANN engaged vendors to perform similar tasks
– “lobbying” or educational/engagement – that
may not have been captured by the
Congressional database, such as at the state
level in the U.S. (particularly California),
the U.S. Executive Branch, or in non-US
countries. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Best,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Brett
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community<wbr>-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:accountability-cross-c<wbr>ommunity-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Kavouss Arasteh<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, August 15, 2016 10:36 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Xavier J. Calvez<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community<wbr>@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT]
[community-finance] IANA Stewardship
Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Xavier </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have sent you the
following question to which I have not
received any reply</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Perhaps you have been
very busy and overlooked my questions</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I still awaiting for
clarifications</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">KAVOUSS </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Copy of questions raised
many weeks ago</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Xavier</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you for all info.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Pls clarify the following</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">1.What is prfessional
advice :;this advice is given to whom ,on
what subject and why is needed</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2. what is lobbing here.
who lobbies for whom and on what and the
need for such lobbies</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">3 Who checks and confirm
the legal costs by three legal entities, who
decide that there was a need for such legal
advice and who checks and control ther tme
spent..Many of these advice were repeatation
of previous adfvices and just cut and p[aste
from one advice to others .Please review all
advices given from the begining of 2015 till
now</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">We neeed all these
detailed info .</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kavouss</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2016-08-15 16:25
GMT+02:00 avri doria <<a href="mailto:avri@apc.org" target="_blank">avri@apc.org</a>>:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
On 15-Aug-16 06:43, parminder wrote:<br>
> I just said that an Antigua based
betting company will be ill-advised<br>
> to try to take up a closed gTLD in its
name and conduct its business<br>
> under it, because it is liable to be
seized whenever US authorities<br>
> want to do so (by their jurisdiction
control over ICANN) . Same is<br>
> true of a drug company, say from India,
planning global e-com trade of<br>
> generic drugs. It will also be
ill-advised to risk a closed gTLD in<br>
> its name to do such global business,
for the same reason.<br>
<br>
I thought that this has to do with the
jurisdiction of the registry and<br>
the rregistrar itself. And while it may
cause concern because there are<br>
not as many registries and registrars in non
US jurisdictions, there are<br>
some and could be more in time. It may also
mean that greater efforts<br>
should be taken to inform people of the
jurisdiction their registration<br>
is under and whose laws they are subject to,
but I do not see how the<br>
location of ICANN main office or place of
incorproation affects this issue.<br>
<br>
In any case aren't the issues relatiing to
the jurisdiction of<br>
registries and registrars among the ones
being discussed in the Juris<br>
sub group?<br>
<br>
But the conversation has been quite far
ranging so could well be missing<br>
the point of the disagreement.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
---<br>
This email has been checked for viruses by
Avast antivirus software.<br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antiviru<wbr>s</a></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr align="left" color="#58595b" width="200"> <span style="font-size:x-small;color:#004b8d;font-weight:bold">Brett</span><span style="font-size:x-small;color:#004b8d;font-weight:bold"></span> <span style="font-size:x-small;color:#004b8d;font-weight:bold">Schaefer</span><span style="font-size:x-small;color:#58595b;font-weight:normal;font-style:italic"><br>
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in
International Regulatory Affairs</span><span style="font-size:x-small;color:#58595b;font-weight:normal;font-style:italic"></span><span style="font-size:x-small;color:#58595b;font-weight:normal;font-style:italic"><br>
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis
Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy</span><br>
<font color="#58595b" size="2">The Heritage
Foundation<br>
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE<br>
Washington, DC 20002</font><span style="font-size:x-small;color:#58595b"><br>
<a href="tel:202-608-6097" value="+12026086097" target="_blank">202-608-6097</a></span><br>
<font color="#004b8d" size="2"><a style="COLOR:#004b8d;TEXT-DECORATION:none" href="http://heritage.org/" target="_blank">heritage.org</a><br>
<span style="font-size:x-small"></span><span style="font-size:x-small"></span> </font>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing
list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community<wbr>@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/accountability-cross-c<wbr>ommunity</a></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community<wbr>@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/accountability-cross-c<wbr>ommunity</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div></div></div>
______________________________<wbr>_________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community<wbr>@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/accountability-cross-c<wbr>ommunity</a>
</blockquote></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>