<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
Hi,<br>
<br>
I agree about turning them into objective question. I think most
of the are indeed neutral at the moment, but in a few places the
wording is strong. I think some of the wording indicates how deeply
some feel about what has been happening. While that does not mean
that we need to include those feelings in our request, it does show
the way some people see what has been done to date and points to the
importance of the questions. So while I am happy to see the wording
neutered, I would hope the essence of the question to be answered is
not lost.<br>
<br>
I look forward to reading your neutral expression of these
questions.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 30-Mar-15 14:27, Jeff Neuman wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:38BAC4E89FFC2C48AF6119A83CEAF0E4D032F5@ORD2MBX15C.mex05.mlsrvr.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:#330033;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:#330033;}
span.EmailStyle18
{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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
name="_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Thanks
Avri. One of the things I will be doing this week and
beyond is to try and take the subjective statements and
make them into objective questions. I think we need to
help refrain from making subjective determinations like
“creating war machines” and other statements. Our job, I
believe is to just ask the questions and let the eventual
working group(s) deal with the substance. So the question
on whether the number of applications by one group is an
objective question and one that should be included, but
perhaps the commentary on any individual applicant and/or
motives should be left out.<o:p></o:p></span></a></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">I
know that you are just the messenger on these Avri, so this
is not directed at you, but I have seen elsewhere in the
document that subjective statements or statements of opinion
are in there and I will try to mark those up with some of my
own suggestions on objective wording as well.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><br>
Thanks and keep them coming.<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"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#0F9347"
lang="EN-GB">Jeffrey J. Neuman</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#0F9347"
lang="EN-GB">Senior Vice President </span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#4F4F4F"
lang="EN-GB">|</span><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#C39209"
lang="EN-GB">Valideus USA</span></b><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#C32830"
lang="EN-GB">
</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#4F4F4F"
lang="EN-GB">| </span><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#C32830"
lang="EN-GB">Com Laude USA</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#4F4F4F"
lang="EN-GB">1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#4F4F4F"
lang="EN-GB">Mclean, VA 22102, United States<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#4F4F4F"
lang="EN-GB">E:
</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#00B050"
lang="EN-GB">jeff.neuman@valideus.com</span></a><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#595959"
lang="EN-GB"> or </span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#00B050"
lang="EN-GB">jeff.neuman@comlaude.com</span></a><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#00B050"
lang="EN-GB">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#4F4F4F"
lang="EN-GB">T: +1.703.635.7514<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#4F4F4F"
lang="EN-GB">M: +1.202.549.5079<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#4F4F4F"
lang="EN-GB">@Jintlaw<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"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Avri Doria<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 30, 2015 1:11 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Fwd: RE: [] Comments
to the Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi,<br>
<br>
Some of the questions/comments I have received passed on
without attribution. I asked people to send them in directly
if they wished. But just so the points aren't missed.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i>IG
F</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">Was
community contention resolution efficient? What improvements
could be made to improve efficiency for all parties? Impacts
on efficiency included: CPE could only begin once all
contention set applications had cleared initial and/or
extended evaluation (this was later changed). CO was
extremely expensive and in Euros. CPE took up to six months.
Nearly all community applications resulted in some form of
Ombudsman/DIDP/RfR/CEP/IRP action. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i>IG
H
</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">What
alternative processes – e.g. qualitative assessments – apart
from or in tandem with a points or scoring system for
assessing the existence of a community and the community
relationship with applicant could yield more fulsome and
accurate results?
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">Could
community experts, e.g. sociologists, anthropologists,
economists, etc. be engaged in the development and
implementation of this recommendation?
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">Were
the goals & intent of the community priority process
clearly communicated to prospective applicants? Could
clearer communication result in better quality applications
(i.e. non-election by parties likely to fail and increased
election by parties likely to prevail). <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i>IG
P
</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">Are
these the correct criterion for assessing the existence of a
community? <o:p>
</o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">Are
they based on research? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">Could
they have been peer-reviewed by a panel of academic and
community experts? <o:p>
</o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">What
other approaches for verifying community could exist? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">and<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">GENERAL
THOUGHT ON GTLD NEW ROUND</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">1. Put
a ceiling to the applications submitted by a single
group (group and not company, because we have seen
Afilias and M & M using subsidiaries or other
signposts...</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">This
because the slate applications create war machines where
the economy of scale makes irrelevant if not convenient
to use all degrees of possibles claims just to
filibustering competitors;</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">2.
Create for community based applications some simple
rules as was made for geo names. The clarity and
simplicity of the rules for geo names, discourage the
vultures (not all of them) to apply for geo names when
the appropriate legal entities applied. The unclarity of
the rules for the other non-geo communities pushed many
gTLD to defy community based similar strings. In most of
the case they were right in doing so.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">For
instance for sector where exist associations recognized
at regional level (such as .bank, insurance, lawyers,
etc.) this give a legitimacy as a community, even if
such associations don't exist in all continents.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">For
"political" and "civil liberties" associations the
criteria of geographic coverage need to be lifted and
adapted to existing situation. Asking. Gay to be
supported in countries where still homosexuality is a
crime is an evident nonsense. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">3.
Clear criteria to create positive discrimination for
developing countries and poorer regions of the world .</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Any
application that is expression or get support from LDC
and underdeveloped regions need to receive an incentive
and a priority. If this will not happen, even the next
round will be characterized by a predominance of the
western applicants. Of course the support have to be
expressed by real and existing bodies, not from mirror
entities of multinationals or local offices of Western
companies….</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">4.
Clear rules against filibustering</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Norms
need to be issued to prevent the abuse of dominant
position. Those that make opposition without solid
ground and multiple opposition to any competitor and
that loose the claims need to be penalized. For instance
imposing a growing deposits of sums in case of multiple
oppositions that will be lost in case of defeat.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">At
the moment to go into RfR, CEP, IRP cost a fortune only
to those that don’t have a permanent staff of lawyers
under contract. For these latter, at a marginal cost,
they could blackmail everybody oppose them.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">5.
Protections for the weaker subjects in case of dispute</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Because
of the disparity of forces, it is absolutely unfair to
have disputes opposing self-funded voluntary based
organization (such as .gay) to DOT.companies. ICANN
needs to set aside a fund or a group of experts to
assists the weaker subjects when they have to oppose
this kind of adversary. A sort of asymmetric treatment
need be established: lesser fees, no deposit, and other
measure to ensure equality of chances also to the poorer
and farer from Californians beaches…</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">6.
Clear rules to preserve democracy within ICANN</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Having
accepted that 3 companies specialized in DOT.economy
could apply for hundreds of TLDs risk to have a
longlasting effects on the democratic process within
ICANN. How to prevent that the Big 3 or 5 take over the
whole gNSO constituency (achieving a practical
possibility of veto of any decisions of ICANN they
dislike or that could hamper their interests ?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">SPECIFIC
CONSIDERATION ON CPE</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">A. The
attribution of the points is very much questionable and
too much left to the discretion of the evaluators;</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">B. The
selection of the body in charge of the CPE needs to be
made taking in account the specificity of the scope. Ask
the EIU to judge about community is like asking a
carnivore to judge about the best vegetarian dish.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">If the
scope is to evaluate communities, then ICANN has to ask
to association on NGOS or of Charity funds or to UN
bodies in charge of humanitarian issues, because they
can understand the representativity of the applicants,
its relations with the territorial entities, and so on;</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">C.
the minimum score of 14 points out of sixteen is a total
nonsense. There is no reason to have such a high score
to be recognized as a community. The natural suspect is
that the bar has been put so high to boycott the
community applicants and to keep them out of the door.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">D.
The decisions about the future TLD’s round concerning
communities need to be established in partnership with
the community TLDs. Their interest cannot be represented
by RySG that is mainly populated by people that pursue a
totally different scope: to make money out of it</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">E. The
impossibility to contact the evaluator has left grey
areas where mistakes could happen. We had no possibility
to verify who (among the supporting organizations) has
been called and who was not. There was no way to
communicate changes of names (the responsible people
change within democratically elected bodies) of the
person to contact within the supporting organizations.
ICANN has to create a special task force that could act
as go between the future EIU and the applicants</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">F. Has
to be made clear if the evaluator has to verify EACH
letter of support (as it seems from the guidelines) or
if it can go only checking some samplers…</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center">
<hr style="color:#909090" align="center" noshade="noshade"
size="3" width="99%">
</div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse"
border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com/"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img
moz-do-not-send="true" id="_x0000_i1026"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3D4D5A">This
email has been checked for viruses by Avast
antivirus software.
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<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="http://www.avast.com/">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" />
</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="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>