<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: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="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:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@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:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
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
{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;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
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;}
p.imprintuniqueid, li.imprintuniqueid, div.imprintuniqueid
{mso-style-name:imprintuniqueid;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Times New Roman",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="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1F497D">Hi all,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1F497D">I just want to point out that it is possible the Board could approve a next round while prohibiting certain practices in relation to policy issues as to which
we have a “lack of consensus”. This morning Jeff pointed out that we make recommendations and it’s up to GNSO Council to determine whether they will follow them or not. He said this in the context of GNSO Council replacing the WG deliberations and recommendations
on the constitution of the SPIRT. His point was that despite the deliberations on the constitution of the SPIRIT, it is possible that Council will elect to restrict the participants to a smaller, more select group. (Some in the WG have pushed for this all
along despite the public comment in favor of a “Standing IRT”.) <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1F497D">In relation to the context of “ultimate authority”, I note that in the EPDP Phase I, the ICANN Board approved implementation of all the EPDP recommendations
except one. The point here is that while we in the WG have relied on the default position in relation to several issues, the Board is not required to follow the GNSO Council recommendation as to what constitutes the default position in relation to either
the String Contention Private Resolution process or the issue of Closed Generics. Under the ByLaws, it takes a 2/3 vote of the directors to overturn GNSO Council recommendations, but the Board could simply prohibit both or allow both by the votes of each
director acting in his/her fiduciary capacity in relation to the Core Values. The Board could even delay the entire program until these major policy issues are resolved. (ICANN’s 5 year plan has NO new gTLD revenues figured into the plus side of the budget.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1F497D">On the call this morning, there were several comments about the “default position” for the contentious issues as to Private Resolution of Contention Sets and
as to Closed Generics. It was stated that the default position for private resolution is that it’s permitted, but this does not take into account the Board’s comment on this matter. In the Closed Generics discussion, there were also lots of arguments presented
that the “default position” ought to be that they are allowed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1F497D">In the same sense that GNSO Council is not bound by our recommendations, neither is the Board bound by what the WG and the Council think is the “default position”.
So the bottom line is it’s important for us to seek the compromise positions Jeff is urging rather than backing into the extreme corners. If we don’t, we face another big “bottleneck” at the Board level since we know already that these are issues of concern
to the Board. (I still don’t think there is anything that prohibits an application for the model that George and his group have proposed. It’s not a Closed Generic. And I don’t think the proposal by Kurt et al is realistic because it ignores standing GAC
Advice.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1F497D">Accordingly, I look forward to Jeff’s proposed model for Closed Generics and I look forward to changes that need to be made to Model 5 for Private Resolution
of String Contention in order for the WG to reach compromises that have a better chance of making it through to both GNSO Council level action and Board level action.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1F497D">This morning’s discussion on Private Resolution of String Contention was very focused on brands. One business model for a major player might say go ahead
and file for the .brand for a lot of the brands you sell and then offer them lots of services associated with running the TLD. This would be a good faith application for sure and would at least get you to the negotiating table with the trademark holder, who
likely does not want to file an LRO (complainants generally don’t win) but who also likely does not want to lose out on having its own TLD.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1F497D">So based on the concerns expressed by Paul and Susan, maybe the resolution of the issues relative to required disclosures in the case of private resolution
of string contention sets should be different for .brands than for other types of TLDs.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1F497D">In this regard, Phil’s question about tracing each separate type of application through the process would likely be useful.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1F497D">Anne<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",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>From:</b> Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>McGrady, Paul D.<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 27, 2020 7:07 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Additional thoughts on Proposal 5<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">[EXTERNAL]</span></strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</span></div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Thanks Jim. Comments in line with your notes below.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#97999B">To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, </span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#A22831"><a href="https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe"><span style="color:#A22831">subscribe
here</span></a></span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#97999B">. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19
</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#A22831"><a href="https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit"><span style="color:#A22831">Resource Toolkit</span></a></span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#97999B">.</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#97999B"><br>
<br>
This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please
notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#816D5C"><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>From:</b> Gnso-newgtld-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Jim Prendergast<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 27, 2020 6:28 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Additional thoughts on Proposal 5<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Apologies in advance. I will not be able to join the call later today as I am cohosting a workshop at RightsCon at the same time. I will review the notes and recording and respond on list as necessary.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">As Jeff noted during the last call, this is complicated because we are now allowing the resolution of contention sets in ways that were not allowed in the 2012 round. A very simple, clean way to settle contention
sets without these measures is to have them all go to an ICANN auction of last resort or a random draw. But some people insist that losers should get paid so those are off the table.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I also believe that we have to address BOTH Board concerns -
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Board Concern #1 - applications submitted for the sole purpose of receiving a payout for losing private auctions</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">We have made good progress in addressing #1 and I think we can get there with some tweaks.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Transparency requirements are good but they should not be rolled back for the creation of JVs. Not suggesting trade secrets be divulged but we should know who the operator of the JV is and we should also
know the circumstances around what caused members of the contention set who are not part of the JV to drop out.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">The operator of the JV will be in the application update, so that is a red herring. As for parties that are not in a JV, there is no way for a JV to know
why other applicants dropped out and no way for the JV or its constituent elemental parties to issue discover to determine why a third party dropped out.
<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I also believe that the Bona Fide proffers should be reviewed and enforced by ICANN, not just the outside evaluators. Rationale is that at some point, the evaluators will disappear. They are temporary help.
ICANN has the ultimate responsibility to administer this program so they should be the ones reviewing theses Bona Fide requirements.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">I don’t disagree, but unless we want to create the entire framework now instead of having the IRT do it (as Jeff suggested) we need to build out details around
how ICANN would enforce these.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">And along these lines – ICANN should oversee all auctions, not just the Auction of Last resort. As currently constructed in Paul’s edit – there are too many steps for revealing the results of private auctions.
With ICANN overseeing this, it’s a much cleaner process. ICANN involvement also adds a level of assurance that these auctions are being conducted in an aboveboard manner.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">This has been debated extensively. ICANN overseeing private auctions makes them ICANN auctions not private auctions. There is no stomach for the elimination
of private auctions.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">As far as penalties for violations of the Bona Fide requirements – loss of registry has to be there. That is a major deterrent and should not be cast aside.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">This doesn’t make any sense. If the concern is that a party is losing to get money, how do you take away a registry from a party that didn’t win it in an
auction? Even if you could, the disruption to any second level registrants would be intense.
<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Board Concern #2 - gaming for the purposes of financing other applications.</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">The base Proposal 5 does nothing to address Concern #2. Donna stated that she’s “not convinced that means we have to address it.” I couldn’t disagree more.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Proposal 5 does address this by requiring a bona fide intention to run the registry.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">If we fail to address this now, there is a strong likely hood that the Board will either 1) come back to us and ask us to develop a plan (slowing things down again) or 2) develop a solution themselves. Neither
is an ideal outcome so we have to do something to stop the gaming for purposes of financing other applications. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Perhaps, but there are other items, such as Closed Generics, where the Board instructed us to find a solution and we aren’t going to do so. Also, sometimes
the Board doesn’t get what it wants – that is what the bottom up process is all about.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I and others believe that the Bona Fide requirements do not go far enough here. Others believe my sealed bid requirement goes too far. So what are alternative solutions that are enforceable and prevent this
type of activity?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Auction proceeds held in escrow? All auction conducted at once?
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">All auctions conducted at once won’t work as all contention sets aren’t on the same timeframe (objections, etc.). Holding auction proceeds in escrow hurts
smaller players who may not be able to borrow against the escrowed funds in time, sure, but would do nothing to hinder large corporations. These ideas sound good, but don’t actually accomplish anything other than ICANN interfering in private auctions.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Timing on when these auctions happen is the key to stop this gaming and that is why I proposed the submission of all bids upfront. With bids upfront, auctions could be conducted whenever but there is a constraint
on the ability to roll funds over and over.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">All bids up front has been discussed extensively and rejected repeatedly. It doesn’t work. Applicants cannot know the bid amounts until all public comments,
GAC Early warnings, objections, etc. are over. We can’t deconstruct the entire New gTLD program to solve a problem that only a fraction of the WG even think is a problem.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ICANN’s right to refer to competition authority.
<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">We never got around to discussing why Paul felt the need to delete this section completely and since the call there was a brief discussion on list about whether ICANN has this as an inherent right or whether
it should be spelled out.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">My proposal was based upon the RSEP process which is already in force of all registry operators and will be required for all future operators. It specifically calls out competition authority referral if ICANN
makes a determination such referral is necessary. I was surprised how representatives of contracted parties reacted so negatively to that since it is in existing registry agreements.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">My rationale for including this provision and calling it out specifically is simple – if a JV or other form of private resolution raises competition concerns for ICANN, they should have the right to refer
it to relevant competition authorities to ensure they are ok with it. This protects ICANN the institution from charges that it is fostering anticompetitive behavior.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">We actually discussed this for a large portion of a call that you were on. I deleted it from the draft because we came to a conclusion on the call that there
will be a general notice in the AGB that ICANN can refer whatever it wants whenever it wants to whatever competition authority it chooses – and not just for private auctions. So, this comment leaves me befuddled.
<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Jim Prendergast<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">The Galway Strategy Group<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">+1 202-285-3699<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<br>
<hr>
<font face="Arial" color="Gray" size="1"><br>
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message
or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying
to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>