<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Title" content="">
<meta name="Keywords" content="">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.msoIns
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:underline;
color:teal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Dear Work Track members,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Please find below notes and action items from the call today. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript
or the recording.<b><i> </i></b>You can find the chat transcript and call recording here:<b> </b>
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/RQxyB">https://community.icann.org/x/RQxyB</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Emily<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border:none;padding:0cm"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Notes/Action Items:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">1. Welcome & Review of Agenda<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">2. Updates to SOI<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- no updates<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">3. Plenary Update<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Call yesterday (Monday) focused on TLD types. WG members received "homework" regarding proposed additional TLD types <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Additional homework: propose use case scenarios to apply to the Predictability Framework, one of the other overarching issues. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">4. Review of Work Plan for WT3 through March 2018 <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- The plan is to present sections of the report from this WT to the Plenary on March 9. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">5. Conclude Review of CC2 on “Community” Applications<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- 3.3.4 - Were the rights of communities infringed by the New gTLD Program?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- RySG, BRG, and Afilias did not believe that the rights of communities were infringed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Freedom of association and freedom of speech are referenced in this question. There has been some discussion that community applications should serve the public interest, but we should also consider that freedom of association is in the public interest. ICANN should not be making judgements about content. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chat excerpt:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Jim Prendergast: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Does anyone have any idea on when the Review of CPE will be completed? I would think that should inform this work.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Alan Greenberg (ALAC): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I asked Manal about the status of the GAC paper on Community applications. She said that the paper had been discussed but not approved - yet. BUt she noted that her recollection is that the paper is mostly factual not opinion.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Jamie Baxter | dotgay: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Jim .. there has still been no further announcement or publishing of the FTI findings since scope 1 & 2 have been delived to ICANN. Not sure what the delay is or what the planned timing is of this being released. I concur that it is most important for ICANN to get this out for further discussion by this group and others.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">thanks Alan <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Jim Prendergast: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@jamie - its takign forever. Been well over a year since the board asked for it<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Jon Nevett: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">i agree with Anne -- one person's terrorists is another person's freedom fighter<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Jamie Baxter | dotgay: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Jim ... problem noted and we are just as confused and concerned<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">well noted Jim, perhaps we can ask staff to follow up on the credit status.... <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Jon Nevett: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">.pot could it go to medical marijuana growers in California? Or are they drug dealers?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Jamie Baxter | dotgay: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">CPE cost is also linked to predictability for applicants<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Anne Aikman-Scalese: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">great example Jon - does it depend on the governing law of the community's jurisdiction? Colorado, CA and others okay<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- 3.3.5 - Are there other aspects of the New gTLD Program related to communities that should be considered in a more holistic fashion?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- vTLD Consortium and NABP supported communities having registration policies requiring verification that registrants are members of the community.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- RySG and Afilias addressed potential implications of the model for subsequent procedures.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- We may have skipped over discussion during the last call regarding costs. The actual cost ended up being double the estimated cost. If there is information published in the AGB regarding estimated costs, this
information needs to be more accurate. if the information in the AGB ends up being far from actual costs, ICANN should chip in to cover the costs. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- If community applications are going to be given priority or receive other incentives, it is important to be able to review and have certain assurances about the business or management model going forward. You don't want ICANN to do granular content oversight, but if a registry is getting priority, some assurances are common sense as there are risks of gaming. There should be a way to confirm the community is legitimate and that the community registry will run differently than a generic registry.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- There have been concerns about gaming with community applications. A structure with some level of verification would attract those who are seeking to represent a bona fide community.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Staff clarification on system for the 2012 round -- Registration requirements that applicants put into their application were included in Spec 12 of the agreement, regardless of whether CPE applies. If an
application was presented as a community application and there was no contention and therefore no CPE, the claim to being a community application was taken at face value.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Support expressed for having evaluation criteria for all community applicants, not just those that are in contention.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- In the last round, if there was no contention, the application was not evaluated under CPE, but there were also no special privileges to be gained by the designation. If we decide for the next round that the rules will be different for communities and extra benefits are provided
for these TLDs, then there could be additional requirements. But if the rules stay the same, it is unnecessary to add requirements.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chat excerpt:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Jon Nevett: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Spec 12 requirements are in the contract <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Jon Nevett: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">community applicants are now going through a process to see how to change their Spec 12 requirements if they want to tweak them<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Jeff Neuman: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Jon is correct. There is no process yet for changing Spec 12. But there needs to be <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Jim Prendergast: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Shoudl also note that those community applicants who were not in contention and didnt have to go through CPE are still bound by the promises made in Q20 of application.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Jamie Baxter | dotgay: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Jim .. that is also my understanding<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Steve Chan: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Jim, thanks, that's essentially what I was trying to convey in my comment<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">6. Review of CC2 on “Objections”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- 3.1.1 <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- INTA, Nominet, RySG, BRG, and Afilias believe that the existing recommendation do not need to be revised.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- RySg, BRG, and Afilias recommended clarifying "a significant portion of the community" in Recommendation 20.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- ALAC suggested changing recommendation 2.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- The concern regarding language of recommendation 20 is important and needs to be looked at more closely. There is a potential to misunderstand what a "significant portion" means. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Agree that there is some clarification needed. Where there is some type of organization related to a community, the organization will have officers or directors that are authorized to act. If there is a determination made by that organization
and authority is conferred upon them, do they at that point in time represent a significant portion of the community? For a community that is not established in a corporate form, there may be a legitimate basis for representing a significant part of a community
where the applicant is stepping into a void, and there is evidence that the community would flock to the TLD once established. Panelists likely need more guidance on this issue. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- How do you count a community that is invisible? Can you rely on organizations that are visible? Or do you require the community to make itself visible? It needs to be more predictable. Applicants can interpret the text differently as it is currently written.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chat excerpt: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Jon Nevett: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">how you define the community is another issue -- depends on the string that is applied for -- does the American Bar Association apply for .ABA as a community or .LAW as a community?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Gg Levine (NABP): </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Jon: I would think they could apply for either name as a community<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Jon Nevett: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Right, but the review might be different as to level of support, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">3.1.2<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Jannik Skou, BC, RySG, BRG, and Afilias suggested string confusion needs to be improved.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Jannik Skou and ALAC suggested that Legal Rights Objections need to be improved.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- RySG, BRG, and Afilias suggested that Community Objections need to be improved.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- BC suggested developing a process to appeal decisions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- RySG, BRG, and Afilias suggested specific procedural improvements to the objections process.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Where the AGB is vague, there should be more flexibility on the evaluation side. Otherwise the AGB needs to be clear. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-The panel should be able to remediate a decision. This is important for predictability. The panelists should not take loose interpretations and then apply them rigidly without communicating this to others. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chat excerpt:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Jamie Baxter | dotgay: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Alan .. +1<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Jon Nevett: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Alan +1<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Phil Buckingham: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Alan + 1 <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Alan +1, +1<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-One possible change: there could be an intervening step in the process in the objections process for parties to work out issues. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- The panelists would have to allow the application to be changed in the case of mediation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- One way that we allowed for changes in applications in the 2012 round was PICs. We are talking about community applications serving the public interest. Could the change in the applications as a result of mediation be reflected in PICs?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- PICs were only used “on the fly” in the last round because they were introduced late in the process. In subsequent procedures this may not be the case, as they will already be an established mechanism.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- A big issue for the entire application process is whether and how applications can be changed after they are submitted. This should be addressed directly. If the goal is to be flexible and maximize the number of successful applications, there needs to be an opportunity to change applications. The other side of the issue is gaming. The topic of whether and how applications can be changed should be considered carefully by the Working Group.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chat excerpt:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Susan Payne: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">+1 Greg<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Donna Austin, Neustar: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Greg, would that include new letters of support for an application that come in after the closing date for applications?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Donna, my gut reaction is yes.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- 3.1.3<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- The RySG, BRG, and Afilias had concerns with the standing requirements for Recommendation 20.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- When we talk about standing, it's important to establish standing before the objection moves forward. Otherwise community applicants must defend against objections that do not have standing. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- 3.1.4<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-BC, RySG, BRG, and Afilias pointed to inconsistencies.<br>
- If all examples of inconsistencies are examples of singular/plural issues and we are addressing that issue with a specific rule, then that concern about inconsistency is addressed<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- INTA provided additional suggestions on this topic<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-3.1.5 <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- dotgay provided evidence of gaming.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- dotgay, RySG, and Afilias made suggestions to reduce gaming.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- There is evidence that some parties worked to derail community applications. Recommendations in CC2 feedback should be considered carefully to prevent similar actions from occurring in subsequent procedures.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chat excerpt:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Donna Austin, Neustar: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">what's the status of ICANN's review of CPE? isn't that looking at inconsistencies?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Jim Prendergast: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@donna - no one knows - been over a year.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Jim Prendergast: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Jamie probably has the best read as he is directly impacted<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Donna Austin, Neustar: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">@Jim, what was the SLA for finishing?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Jamie Baxter | dotgay: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">it would be great if staff could help in providing an update on the status of the CPE investigation and the FTI findings that ICANN has been holding onto for several weeks now.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Jamie Baxter | dotgay: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">for the record it has been 1 year and 4 months since the Board directed the CEO to launch the CPE investigation<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">- Proposal from the registries on string similarity got traction on previous calls. The document will be addressed in the new year on upcoming calls.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Emily Barabas
</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">| Senior Policy Specialist<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">ICANN</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>