<div dir="ltr">This proposal does not in any way curtail the ability of the GAC to change the threshold for decision-making from consensus (by the current GAC definition) to some other, lower threshold. The GAC is free to do so, and to make some decisions or all decisions by majority rule rather than GAC consensus The proposal merely states that, if the GAC issues advice to the Board that was approved by a method with a lower threshold than current GAC consensus, such advice will not be given the same level of deference as consensus GAC <a href="http://advice.is">advice.is</a> given under Section XI.2.1.j of the ICANN Bylaws (excerpted below). The Board will still be free to consider and to adopt such non-consensus advice; it just won't have to follow the rubric of XI.2.1.j. Specifically, it could reject such advice by majority vote, and would not need to go into consultation to find a "mutually acceptable solution." Notably, while this would require a change to the ICANN Bylaws, it would not require any change to the GAC's own procedures.<div><br></div><div>There is ample precedent for this two-tier approval structure in the Bylaws. Specifically, in Annex A, Section 9.a (also excerpted below) sets a higher threshold (2/3 against) for the Board to reject a GNSO policy recommendation approved by a Supermajority vote of the GNSO Council, and a lower threshold (majority against) for the Board to reject a GNSO policy recommendation approved by less than a Supermajority vote of the GNSO Council. (Note that, in either case, the Working Group that prepared the policy recommendation would have approved it by consensus.)</div><div><br></div><div>Given the above, it would seem odd for the GAC to expect the same level of deference for non-consensus advice as it enjoys for consensus advice. As such, this proposal should not be especially surprising, even if it may not be especially welcome.</div><div><br></div><div>Clearly, we should get feedback from the GAC, through their members and participants in this CCWG on this and other proposals (whether or not they have any effect on the GAC), and we should keep in mind that the GAC is a chartering organization of this CCWG, and thus an organization whose approval of any final proposal is highly desirable. However, given that this is not a proposed change to GAC procedure but rather a proposed change to the ICANN Bylaws, I do not think that a formal opinion of the GAC is needed.</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Greg</div><div><br></div><div><div><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.3999996185303px">XI.2.1.j:</span><br></div><div><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.3999996185303px">j. The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the </span><abbr title="Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers" class="" style="direction:ltr;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.3999996185303px">ICANN</abbr><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.3999996185303px"> Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. The Governmental Advisory Committee and the </span><abbr title="Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers" class="" style="direction:ltr;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.3999996185303px">ICANN</abbr><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.3999996185303px"> Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.</span><br></div></div><div><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.3999996185303px"><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.3999996185303px">Annex A, 9.a:</span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.3999996185303px"><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.3999996185303px">a. Any </span><abbr title="Policy Development Process" style="direction:ltr;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.3999996185303px">PDP</abbr><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.3999996185303px"> Recommendations approved by a </span><abbr title="Generic Names Supporting Organization" style="direction:ltr;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.3999996185303px">GNSO</abbr><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.3999996185303px"> Supermajority Vote shall be adopted by the Board unless, by a vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board, the Board determines that such policy is not in the best interests of the </span><abbr title="Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers" class="" style="direction:ltr;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.3999996185303px">ICANN</abbr><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.3999996185303px"> community or </span><abbr title="Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers" style="direction:ltr;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.3999996185303px">ICANN</abbr><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.3999996185303px">. If the </span><abbr title="Generic Names Supporting Organization" style="direction:ltr;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.3999996185303px">GNSO</abbr><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.3999996185303px"> Council recommendation was approved by less than a </span><abbr title="Generic Names Supporting Organization" style="direction:ltr;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.3999996185303px">GNSO</abbr><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.3999996185303px"> Supermajority Vote, a majority vote of the Board will be sufficient to determine that such policy is not in the best interests of the </span><abbr title="Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers" style="direction:ltr;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.3999996185303px">ICANN</abbr><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.3999996185303px">community or </span><abbr title="Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers" class="" style="direction:ltr;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.3999996185303px">ICANN</abbr><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.3999996185303px">.</span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.3999996185303px"><br></span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Dear All,</div><div>Please carefully consider what we are proposing,</div><div>Please be prudent and do not hurry up to change one of the most critical, delicate and vital issue changing b" Consensus" tp " Majority" </div><div>This is a GAC issue and you need to clearly and specifically seek formal opinion of GAC.</div><div>Regards</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div>Kavouss </div></font></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">2015-02-18 13:03 GMT+01:00 Roelof Meijer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl" target="_blank">Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl</a>></span>:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5">
<div>
<div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px">
Steve,</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px">
<br>
</div>
<div><font face="Calibri,sans-serif">"<span style="font-size:16px">What you describe is the situation in the GAC today”.. Exactly, but the GAC can still provide (non-consensus) advice that ICANN must consider and respond to.</span></font></div>
<div><font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:16px">With the suggested amendment we risk getting into a situation, that can only be broken by the alternative: </span></font><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:16px">giving
the community standing to veto a board decision:</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:16px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:16px">example stress test:</span></div>
<ul>
<li><font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:16px">The GAC provides sound (in the public interest) but non-consensus advice on an important matter;</span></font></li><li><font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:16px">The ICANN board, referring to the (now amended) bylaws decides not to consider nor to respond to the advice, and /or uses the fact that the GAC has no consensus on its position, to take a decision on
the matter that is contrary to the GAC advice;</span></font></li><li><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:16px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:none">Community veto needed to remedy</span></li></ul>
<div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:16px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:none"><br>
</span></div>
<div><font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:16px">So in the end I wonder if the bylaws amendment and community veto are alternatives, as it would seem that with the bylaw amendment we still need community veto in „opposite” situations (good
GAC advice vs bad GAC advice). If that is true, we might as well forget about the amendment </span></font></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px">
<div><font color="#000000"><font face="Calibri">Roelof</font></font></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px">
<br>
</div>
<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px">
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) currentColor currentColor;padding:3pt 0in 0in;text-align:left;color:black;font-family:Calibri;font-size:11pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>Steve DelBianco <<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org" target="_blank">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>woensdag 18 februari 2015 12:09<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>Roelof Meijer <<a href="mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl" target="_blank">roelof.meijer@sidn.nl</a>><span><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span>"<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org" target="_blank">acct-staff@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org" target="_blank">acct-staff@icann.org</a>>, "<a href="mailto:wp1@icann.org" target="_blank">wp1@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:wp1@icann.org" target="_blank">wp1@icann.org</a>><br>
</span><div><div><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [Party1] additional bylaws change for your Community Empowerment document<br>
</div></div></div><div><div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:16px">
<div>
<div>Roelof,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What you describe is the situation in the GAC today, where a single government can object and thereby deny consensus. The GAC presently uses this definition: “consensus is understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in
the absence of any formal objection.” </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Indeed, this has occurred during GAC debate on several new gTLD objections, moving some in the GAC to suggest they change to majority voting instead of consensus. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We are considering amending ICANN bylaws so that due deference is reserved for GAC advice that is truly consensus. If we did, let’s understand that the GAC might still send over advice that is supported by many but not a consensus. ICANN would not be
obliged to give due deference, but ICANN could still implement the advice if it were supported by the broader community. So I don’t see that good advice would go to waste. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div>Steve</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) currentColor currentColor;padding:3pt 0in 0in;text-align:left;color:black;font-family:Calibri;font-size:12pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>Roelof Meijer<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 5:59 AM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>Steve DelBianco<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span>"<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org" target="_blank">acct-staff@icann.org</a>", "<a href="mailto:wp1@icann.org" target="_blank">wp1@icann.org</a>"<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [Party1] additional bylaws change for your Community Empowerment document<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px">
<div>
<div>
<div>Steve,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I assume you did consider that the option of amending ICANN's bylaws to give due deference only to GAC consensus advice might also work against the public interest, if the advice is in the public interest but not a consensus advice? The amendment introduces
the risk of „capture” of GAC advice by a single GAC member</div>
<div>
<div><font color="#000000"><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000"><font face="Calibri">Best,</font></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000"><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000"><font face="Calibri">Roelof</font></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) currentColor currentColor;padding:3pt 0in 0in;text-align:left;color:black;font-family:Calibri;font-size:11pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>Steve DelBianco <<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org" target="_blank">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>maandag 16 februari 2015 21:52<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>Jordan Carter <<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span>"<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org" target="_blank">acct-staff@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org" target="_blank">acct-staff@icann.org</a>>, "<a href="mailto:wp1@icann.org" target="_blank">wp1@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:wp1@icann.org" target="_blank">wp1@icann.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>[Party1] additional bylaws change for your Community Empowerment document<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:16px">
<div>
<div>
<div>Jordan — while applying a stress test, we discovered a community empowerment measure that was in the Inventory, but wasn’t yet reflected in your Community Empowerment document. </div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This item could go into the table of Community Powers for Consideration:</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;padding:0px;border:currentColor">
<div>Amend ICANN bylaws (Section XI 1j) to give due deference only to GAC consensus advice, and add a definition of “consensus”, such as “consensus is understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection.”
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>This item was prompted by stress test #18 in Category IV, regarding GAC Advice:</div>
<span>
<div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:16px">
<font face="Calibri,sans-serif">
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;padding:0px;border:currentColor">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>18. Governments in ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee (GAC) amend their operating procedures to change from consensus decisions to majority voting for advice to ICANN’s board. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Consequence: Under current bylaws, ICANN must consider and respond to GAC advice, even if that advice were not supported by consensus. A majority of governments could thereby approve GAC advice that restricted free online expression, for example.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;padding:0px;border:currentColor">
<div>Existing Accountability Measures:</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;padding:0px;border:currentColor">
<div>Current ICANN Bylaws (Section XI) give due deference to GAC advice, including a requirement to try and find “a mutually acceptable solution.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This is required for any GAC advice, not just for GAC consensus advice.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Today, GAC adopts formal advice according to its Operating Principle 47: “consensus is understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection.” But the GAC may at any time change its procedures
to use majority voting instead of consensus.</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;padding:0px;border:currentColor">
<div>CCWG Proposed Accountability Measures:</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;padding:0px;border:currentColor">
<div>One proposed measure is to give the community standing to veto a board decision. If ICANN board acquiesced to GAC advice that was not supported by GAC consensus, the community veto could enable reversal of that decision.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Another proposed measure is to amend ICANN bylaws (Section XI 1j) to give due deference only to GAC consensus advice, and add a definition of “consensus”.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The GAC could change its Operating Principle 47 to use majority voting for formal GAC advice, but ICANN bylaws would require due deference only to advice that had GAC consensus. </div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</font></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:16px">
Best,</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:16px">
Steve</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:16px">
<div>
<div>
<div>—</div>
<div>
<div>Steve DelBianco</div>
<div>Executive Director</div>
<div>NetChoice</div>
<div><a href="http://www.netchoice.org/" target="_blank">http://www.NetChoice.org</a> and <a href="http://blog.netchoice.org/" target="_blank">http://blog.netchoice.org</a></div>
<div><a href="tel:%2B1.703.615.6206" value="+17036156206" target="_blank">+1.703.615.6206</a></div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
</div></div></span>
</div>
<br></div></div><span class="">_______________________________________________<br>
WP1 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:WP1@icann.org" target="_blank">WP1@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1</a><br>
<br></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Ccwg-accountability3 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ccwg-accountability3@icann.org">Ccwg-accountability3@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability3" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability3</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:12pt;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#17365d">Gregory S. Shatan </span></b><b><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#17365d">ï</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#17365d"> </span></b><b><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#c0504d">Abelman
Frayne & Schwab</span></b><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:12pt;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><b><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#365f91">Partner</span></b><span><b><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#4f81bd"> </span></b></span><b><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#4f81bd">| IP |
Technology | Media | Internet</span></b><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:12pt;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><b><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#17365d">666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621</span></b><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:12pt;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><b><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">Direct</span></b><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy"> <span> </span></span><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1155cc">212-885-9253<span> </span><b>|<span> </span></b></span><b><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">Main</span></b><span><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy"> </span></span><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1155cc">212-949-9022</span><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:12pt;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><b><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">Fax</span></b><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy"> <span> </span></span><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1155cc">212-949-9190<span> </span><b>|</b><span> </span></span><b><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">Cell<span> </span></span></b><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1155cc">917-816-6428</span><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:12pt;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><b><i><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy"><a href="mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com" target="_blank">gsshatan@lawabel.com</a></span></i></b><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:12pt;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><b><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">ICANN-related:<span> </span><i><a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a></i></span></b><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:12pt;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><b><i><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy"><a href="http://www.lawabel.com/" target="_blank">www.lawabel.com</a></span></i></b><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"></span></p></div></div>
</div>