<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:p="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s="uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z="#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" xmlns:ss="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" xmlns:c="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" xmlns:odc="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:odc" xmlns:oa="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:q="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:rtc="http://microsoft.com/officenet/conferencing" xmlns:D="DAV:" xmlns:Repl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/repl/" xmlns:mt="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/meetings/" xmlns:x2="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" xmlns:ppda="http://www.passport.com/NameSpace.xsd" xmlns:ois="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" xmlns:udc="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sub="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/2002/1/alerts/" xmlns:ec="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#" xmlns:sp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/" xmlns:sps="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcs="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/soap" xmlns:udcxf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" xmlns:udcp2p="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/parttopart" xmlns:wf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/" xmlns:dsss="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig-setup" xmlns:dssi="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig" xmlns:mdssi="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/digital-signature" xmlns:mver="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns:mrels="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships" xmlns:spwp="http://microsoft.com/sharepoint/webpartpages" xmlns:ex12t="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/types" xmlns:ex12m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/messages" xmlns:pptsl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/SlideLibrary/" xmlns:spsl="http://microsoft.com/webservices/SharePointPortalServer/PublishedLinksService" xmlns:Z="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" xmlns:st="" 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 12 (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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{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 style='word-wrap: break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;-webkit-line-break: after-white-space'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Thanks Steve for all the hard work on this.<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'>Re batching of applications, even if the premise is accepted that ICANN may be unready for volume at 500 applications (though I do not accept that premise), how does the BC propose that ICANN implement the recommendation to limit the first batch to “significantly fewer” than 500? Is there a specific number or specific criteria as to which applications get into the first batch? Without answers to those questions, the BC recommendation is less than helpful. Also, hasn’t the GAC letter of Sept 2010 been superceded by recent GAC and ICANN consultations re the new TLD program? So that reference should be removed from bottom of page 3. Also would be helpful to cite to the other report mentioned there.<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'>Agree we should drop the request for further economic studies.<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'>Re Module 3, we should continue to push for more detail from ICANN re definitions and process for Limited Public Interest Objections.<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'>Re Single Registrant TLDs, our position is very well stated and I support the definition, but we could further emphasize the full definition, including all three bullet points. The latest Specification 9 (Code of Conduct) does not have a very clear definition, though it is a step in the right direction.<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'>Also the language in blue in Module 5, Section 2.9 is not sufficient to carveout Single Registrant TLDs from the ‘non-discriminatory access’ provision of the base contract. They are specifically accepted out of the Code of Conduct, which is a Specification of the base contract that also includes a non-discriminatory access provision, but section 2.9 within the contract itself has not caught up with the drafting. We should call this out to be fixed. <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'>Similarly wrt section 4.5, as that language should be consistent, it should mention single-registrant TLDs which are already properly defined (if our advice is accepted), rather than introduce a different definition. Staff has the concept right, but again the drafting needs to be tightened.<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'>Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Mike<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'>Mike Rodenbaugh<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>RODENBAUGH LAW<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><a href="http://rodenbaugh.com/"><span style='color:blue'>http://rodenbaugh.com</span></a><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 #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><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"'> owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Steve DelBianco<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 11, 2011 8:39 AM<br><b>To:</b> 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list'<br><b>Subject:</b> [bc-gnso] LAST CALL: Draft v2 of BC comments on latest gTLD Guidebook<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>On 27-Apr I circulated draft BC comments on the latest Applicant Guidebook (original email at bottom)<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>Since then, here are comments and edits received:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>- Philip Sheppard amended module 5 section on criteria for marks entering TM Clearinghouse.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>- 3 members (Jarkko, Jon Nevett, Mike Rodenbaugh) want to remove the BC recommendation for an initial batch smaller than the 500 application batch planned by ICANN. Note that the batch size does not limit the applications in the upcoming UNLIMITED round of new gTLDs. This batch is an operational concept introduced by ICANN to recognize capacity limitations in application processing. The BC recommendation is: "The BC believes this first batch should be significantly fewer than 500 applications, in order to test the operational readiness of newly designed application processing and objection / contention systems." With that understanding, I do not see why the BC should remove that comment.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><div><blockquote style='margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>- Per Jarkko, I changed summary page to avoid implication that GAC Scorecard agrees with all remaining BC concerns.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>- Phil Corwin suggested that our comment on URS is outdated, since URS is much improved. Phil also objects to the BC recommendation for transfer of domains through a URS process. Is there more support for Phil's view?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>These comments are due 15-May. Members are invited to address remaining questions (in red) in the attached draft. Namely:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>- p.2 includes our previous request for further economic studies. I suggest we delete this.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>- p.6 includes our previous request for definitions in limited public interest process, proposed by John Berard. John — do we still need these definition requests?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>- p. 9 includes a suggested definition for single-registrant TLD: a TLD where the Registry Operator is the registrant of record for all domain names in the TLD. Any objections?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>- pages 10 and 11 include our prior recommendations for flexibility for single-registrant TLDs. I do not think these comments are still needed any longer. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>- p. 12 shows a change to the carve-out for single-registrant TLDs. Any objections?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>- p.14 includes our prior comment on PDDRP. What are our specific recommendations given the latest PDDRP process?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>Please reply to list with specific answers. However, please don't add new issues -- the time for that has passed.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>Steve<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>---<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>On 4/27/11 2:57 PM, "Steve DelBianco" <<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>Per discussion on our 21-Apr member call, here is a draft framework for BC comments on the 15-Apr-2011 Guidebook.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>This comment period and docs are described at <a href="http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-6-en.htm">http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-6-en.htm</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>These comments are due 15-May, giving us 18 days for edits, review, and approval.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>For this initial draft, I updated our Dec-2010 Guidebook comments in several ways:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>- Acknowledged areas where ICANN made changes consistent with BC recommendations.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>- Moved all our RPM concerns to Module 5<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>- Asked several questions for BC members (in red) <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>- Added a proposed definition for "Single-Registrant TLD". We may hold a separate call on this.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>All BC members are invited to suggest edits. Please use track changes and circulate to BC list. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>I will assemble another draft version with all changes received as of May 1. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>Below are the primary contributors from our Dec-2011 comments, organized by module. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div><blockquote style='margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>Module 1: Introduction to New gTLD Application Process and Fees. (Berry Cobb, Ron Andruff )<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>Module 2: Evaluation Procedures. (Philip Sheppard, Jon Nevett, Adam Palmer, Zahid Jamil, Sarah Deutsch )<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>Module 3: Dispute Resolution. ( John Berard, Ron Andruff )<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>Module 4: String Contention. ( Ron Andruff )<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>Module 5: Transition to Delegation; Registry Agreement, Code of Conduct, RPMs<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>( Philip Sheppard, Fred Fellman, Berry Cobb, Jon Nevett, Sarah Deutsch )<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote></div><blockquote style='margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>Other notes:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>In our SFO comments, the BC said the new gTLD communications plan should help the world's businesses and users understand changes coming in the DNS. But I didn't see anything in the latest Guidebook about the Communications Plan. So that comment was not reflected in the attached draft. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>Steve DelBianco<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>vice chair for policy coordination<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in;border-width:initial;border-color:initial'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>