<div dir="ltr">Volker, I would add that the type of skewing you are suggesting has already been seen in the RrSG when it came out in support of VI...</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr">Stéphane Van Gelder<br>
Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur<br><span style="font-size:small;font-family:arial">Milathan LTD</span><div>"Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice"<font face="arial"><br></font><br>T (FR): <a value="+33620405589" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">+33 (0)6 20 40 55 89</a><br>
T (UK): <a value="+447583457053" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">+44 (0)7583 457053</a><br>Skype: SVANGELDER<br><a href="http://www.stephanevangelder.com/" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">www.Milathan.com</a><div>
----------------<br>Discover The Milathan Post on <a href="http://post.milathan.com" target="_blank">http://post.milathan.com</a></div></div></div></div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 11 June 2014 10:24, Volker Greimann <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" target="_blank">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi stephane,<br>
<br>
even being able to chose where to vote may be problematic, actually.
If for example a vertically integrated registry with a small
registrar operation choses to vote as registrars, as their interests
are already well maintained within the RySG without their vote, that
would skeqw the balance between the groups. Similarly, a dotBrand
operator opting to vote as a registry as the IPC "does not need"
another voter would extend the influence of one stakeholder group
into another.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Volker<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>Am 10.06.2014 23:58, schrieb Stephane
Van Gelder:<br>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">I don't believe this is an issue as I think all SGs
in the CPH and all constituencies in the NCPH have rules that
prohibit a voting member from being a voting member of another
group in the GNSO.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Can staff perhaps enlighten us on this?</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Stéphane Van Gelder<br>
Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur<br>
<span style="font-size:small;font-family:arial">Milathan LTD</span>
<div>
"Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice"<font face="arial"><br>
</font><br>
T (FR): <a value="+33620405589" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">+33 (0)6 20 40 55 89</a><br>
T (UK): <a value="+447583457053" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">+44 (0)7583 457053</a><br>
Skype: SVANGELDER<br>
<a href="http://www.stephanevangelder.com/" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">www.Milathan.com</a>
<div>----------------<br>
Discover The Milathan Post on <a href="http://post.milathan.com" target="_blank">http://post.milathan.com</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 10 June 2014 19:48, Michele Neylon -
Blacknight <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:michele@blacknight.com" target="_blank">michele@blacknight.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
It's something that probably needs to be addressed if it
hasn't been already.<br>
<br>
I'd be quite disturbed if a single company was voting in
multiple places on policies etc., that benefited them<br>
<br>
I don't have an issue with companies / organisations having
membership (of some kind) in multiple groups. If, for
example, we were to start selling more transit etc., then
we'd probably want to follow the ISPs more closely. But
voting is a different matter.<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Michele<br>
<br>
--<br>
Mr Michele Neylon<br>
Blacknight Solutions<br>
Hosting & Colocation, Domains<br>
<a href="http://www.blacknight.co/" target="_blank">http://www.blacknight.co/</a><br>
<a href="http://blog.blacknight.com/" target="_blank">http://blog.blacknight.com/</a><br>
<a href="http://www.technology.ie/" target="_blank">http://www.technology.ie/</a><br>
Intl. <a href="tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072" value="+353599183072" target="_blank">+353 (0) 59 9183072</a><br>
Direct Dial: <a href="tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090" value="+353599183090" target="_blank">+353 (0)59 9183090</a><br>
Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/mneylon" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mneylon</a><br>
-------------------------------<br>
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside
Business Park,Sleaty<br>
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845<br>
<div><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org" target="_blank">owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org" target="_blank">owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org</a>]
On Behalf Of James M. Bladel<br>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 6:44 PM<br>
To: Avri Doria; <a href="mailto:gnso-review-dt@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-review-dt@icann.org</a><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional
input on 360 Assessment Questions<br>
<br>
<br>
I know some structures (like the RrSG) have either
adopted changes to their bylaws, or are working to, that
would prohibit members from voting if they are voting
members in other SGs. But it is not clear to me how
this is enforced on a community-wide basis.<br>
<br>
J.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 6/10/14, 12:28 , "Avri Doria" <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
><br>
>Hi,<br>
><br>
>I thought there was already a rule somewhere in the
SIC documents about<br>
>being able to vote in only one SG. Of course a
company with many<br>
>divisions could find a way to be a member of
several. Or could have<br>
>staff members join multiple Constituencies or SGs as
individuals.<br>
><br>
>But how would one prevent that? Of course one way
to start is the<br>
>requirement that all SGs list all of their members
on a public web site.<br>
> I think wee already have that requirement,
somewhere, but I am not<br>
>sure it is followed by all with equal fervor.<br>
><br>
>Perhaps we should also have a question about the
degree to which the<br>
>various SGs and Cs follow SIC rules.<br>
><br>
>avri<br>
><br>
><br>
>On 10-Jun-14 19:07, Volker Greimann wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> One further issue the DT may want to look at is
if it is necessary to<br>
>> devise policies that avoid "double dipping"
i.e. representation of<br>
>> one entity within multiple constituencies.<br>
>> Without such policy one could argue that there
is a risk for the<br>
>> entire structure of ICANN being hollowed out or
dominated by<br>
>> specialized interest groups that happen to fit
more than one constituency.<br>
>><br>
>> This is not necessarily a structural, but
rather an organizational<br>
>> issue, i.e. of defining which constituency best
represents an entity.<br>
>><br>
>> Best,<br>
>><br>
>> Volker<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Am <a href="tel:06.06.2014%2023" value="+33606201423" target="_blank">06.06.2014
23</a>:44, schrieb Ron Andruff:<br>
>>> Dear Chuck, James and all,<br>
>>><br>
>>> As I catch up on this string reading
through the posts since my last<br>
>>>one I am seeing a lot of parsing of words
rather than an<br>
>>>understanding of what I believe Avri and I
are trying to bring to<br>
>>>the fore. What I am saying is that the
structure we have now<br>
>>>appears to be serving only two groups -
Registries and Registrars -<br>
>>>within all of ICANN. Those of us who were
not contracted parties<br>
>>>were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting
similar to how<br>
>>>Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we all
know what happened to<br>
>>>that mashup...<br>
>>><br>
>>> If there is commonality (and here I take
issue with your comment<br>
>>> James, re:<br>
>>> the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT
the case in our view) it<br>
>>> is commonality around ICANN issues such as
public interest, user's<br>
>>> interests, as examples. Otherwise the
memberships in the various<br>
>>> bodies that make up the NPCH could not be
further from one another<br>
>>> in their interests and actions.<br>
>>><br>
>>> So we are saying -- as members of this WP
-- the discord within the<br>
>>> NCPH is palpable. It is not dislike of
each other, rather different<br>
>>> views as constituencies. Thus, we should
give the house structure a<br>
>>> serious review to see if there are other
ways to structure the<br>
>>> organization so that it better serves the
institution and likewise<br>
>>> the community.<br>
>>><br>
>>> While Chuck has pointed to some results
that have occurred over the<br>
>>>years, the few positive examples pale in
comparison to all of the<br>
>>>other issues, big and small, that have
failed more often than not<br>
>>>locked in stalemates, e.g.<br>
>>> Vertical Integration. One result of VI is
new registries<br>
>>>handpicking even trademarked names and
putting them into their own<br>
>>>registrar to sell for $1000's as premium
names... Was that the<br>
>>>intended result the Board thought would
happen when they took that<br>
>>>over from the GNSO WG or was that just an
outcome of a failure of<br>
>>>the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...? I don't
know the answer, but I<br>
>>>do believe that things we have yet to see as
a result of VI will<br>
>>>haunt ICANN for decades to come. Some may
see this example as<br>
>>>conflating issues, but it is not so much
that as an example of what<br>
>>>happens when the GNSO doesn't work as it
could.<br>
>>><br>
>>> In my view, we should stop parsing words
with explanations and get<br>
>>> on with a full - 360 degree - review of the
entire GNSO...<br>
>>> stakeholder groups, houses, NCAs, voting,
how to manage new entrants<br>
>>> (constituencies, communities, brands, geos)
etc.<br>
>>><br>
>>> We need new ideas to build a structure that
meets today's and<br>
>>> tomorrow's (as far as we can anticipate
them) needs. The survey<br>
>>> respondents will give us the data to
construct the 'new GNSO'. We<br>
>>> just have to figure out how to put a survey
together that asks all<br>
>>> of these critical questions.<br>
>>><br>
>>> A fresh idea for selecting Board members
(as that discussion has<br>
>>>also come up on this thread) is needed if
we want to populate the<br>
>>>ICANN Board with the most highly-qualified
representatives. When I<br>
>>>consider how much vetting prospective Board
members go through via<br>
>>>the Nom Com (as a result of my
participation in 2013 and again this<br>
>>>year) I am amazed and appalled at how very
little vetting those<br>
>>>Board members that come through the SG's
get...<br>
>>> Why would the community choose such an
uneven and illogical<br>
>>>methodology?<br>
>>> Given an opportunity to utilize a better
process, I am sure the<br>
>>>community would seize on it for all the
good reasons one can<br>
>>>imagine. So what quality of Board would
we get if each<br>
>>>constituency/stakeholder group were to put
forward three candidates<br>
>>>for the Nom Com to vet and select one from?<br>
>>> Would<br>
>>> that raise the bar? Would such a vetting
process remove from the<br>
>>>Board those whose first interest may not be
the good of ICANN? Radical, yes.<br>
>>> Workable, maybe. Raise the quality of the
ICANN Board of Directors,<br>
>>>absolutely...<br>
>>><br>
>>> Everyone on this WP should be thinking
outside of the box if we hope<br>
>>>to generate a GNSO review/improvement from
the bottom up.<br>
>>>Otherwise, we will see change coming from
the top down, whether we<br>
>>>like it or not. And then what?<br>
>>><br>
>>> Kind regards,<br>
>>><br>
>>> RA<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Ron Andruff<br>
>>> dotSport LLC<br>
>>> <a href="http://www.lifedotsport.com" target="_blank">www.lifedotsport.com</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>> From: <a href="mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org" target="_blank">owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org</a><br>
>>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org" target="_blank">owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org</a>]<br>
>>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria<br>
>>> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11<br>
>>> Cc: <a href="mailto:ntfy-gnso-review-dt@icann.org" target="_blank">ntfy-gnso-review-dt@icann.org</a><br>
>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional
input on 360 Assessment<br>
>>> Questions<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>>>> Can you give me an example where
the House structure has caused a<br>
>>>>> problem with regard to policy
development, which is the GNSO's<br>
>>>>> primary role?<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>> The inability of the NCPH to perform
any of it functions without<br>
>>>> months of garbage processing. It just
does not work. We have<br>
>>>> great trouble electing a vice-chair and
we have failed completely<br>
>>>> in electing a Board member this time.<br>
>>><br>
>>> [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this<br>
>>>> has impacted policy development but it
is still a very good point of<br>
>>>> an issue that needs to be dealt with.
I would like to think (maybe<br>
>>>> naively) that this should be able to be
solved within the existing<br>
>>>> structure. If the two houses cannot
resolve it among themselves,<br>
>>>> then maybe it should be discussed by
the full Council.<br>
>>> It can't be. If anything it has gotten
worse over the three years<br>
>>> and gets worse all the time.<br>
>>><br>
>>> And I certainly can't see discussing it in
council. What is the<br>
>>>difference between discussing it in the
house and in council. the<br>
>>>other house is going to give us advice on
how to get along. Not<br>
>>>too likely.<br>
>>> In all my years of studying counseling and
group dynamics that has<br>
>>>never been a workable formula.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix
the marital problems of<br>
>>> their neighbors.<br>
>>><br>
>>> And before you suggest we go to a
counselor, we did. And indeed<br>
>>>when it gets too tough the Ombudsman can
help us iron our a<br>
>>>compromise, but that is not way to live.<br>
>>><br>
>>>> Additionally, and I can see why the CPH
would not mind, it is<br>
>>>> obvious that the differences inside the
NCPH will keep use from<br>
>>>> ever being able to elect a Chair from
our side of the GNSO. That<br>
>>>> is a kind of dysfunction that rots most
organizations sooner or later.<br>
>>><br>
>>> [Chuck<br>
>>>> Gomes] I think this is kind of an
unfair statement. The reality<br>
>>>> is that the NCPH did not put forward a
candidate in the last round.<br>
>>>> If you think it is impossible, maybe
the Council should explore<br>
>>>> ways to rotate the position among the
two houses. I haven't<br>
>>>> discussed this with others in the CPH
but I personally would be<br>
>>>> fine with that as long as the
candidates have good leadership<br>
>>>> skills and are able to commit the time.<br>
>>> Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names
withheld, I have even have CPH<br>
>>> people tell me this that they realized
there was no way we could<br>
>>> ever put up a candidate that could win
because our vote would always<br>
>>> split.<br>
>>> Though the idea of us putting up a
candidate we agreed on is rather<br>
>>> funny.<br>
>>> Pathetic humor, but funny.<br>
>>><br>
>>>>> Is the adversarial problem you
observed in the Council or the GNSO<br>
>>>>> in general? I am not on the
Council so I cannot speak to that directly.<br>
>>> On council we can actually sometime agree
on some issues. We mostly<br>
>>>all know how to behave professionally in
council most of the time.<br>
>>><br>
>>>> The Council is not sperate form the
GNSO. The dysfunction is in<br>
>>>> both on the NCPH side.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Additionally the house structure makes
it impossible to ever<br>
>>>> consider adding new SGs, and with the
growth of the new gTLD space,<br>
>>>> that looks like a possible limitation.<br>
>>><br>
>>> [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly<br>
>>>> be complicated but I don't think it
should be impossible.<br>
>>> That would imbalance the house which would
be complicated.<br>
>>> Whereas without house, we could just add
some more council members.<br>
>>>> But I am not suggesting we add SGs at
this point in time.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> What I am arguing for is gathering
information. Maybe my<br>
>>>> perception is mine alone. The fact
that people aren't intersted in<br>
>>>> gathering information strikes me as
sort of problematic, though.<br>
>>><br>
>>> [Chuck Gomes]<br>
>>>> As I think I have said several times, I
am not opposed to gathering<br>
>>>> the information but just question
whether we should do it in this<br>
>>>> exercise, i.e., the timing.<br>
>>> I do not understand the timing issue. This
is the time. next time<br>
>>> is in 3 years. There is one survey, one
chance for the SIC to find<br>
>>> out what needs to be done.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>> If everything is as wonderful as you
think it is, asking the<br>
>>>> questions won't hurt anything, we will
find out that everything is<br>
>>>> wonderful and I am wrong.<br>
>>><br>
>>> [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask<br>
>>>> questions about structure, I won't
fight. And I didn't say<br>
>>>> everything is wonderful. Everything is
far from wonderful but I am<br>
>>>> not convinced that is largely a factor
of structure.<br>
>>> There we have a difference of opinion. I
think structure is a key<br>
>>> component to things working out well or
purely, not the only one,<br>
>>> but a critical one.<br>
>>> You either accentuate the differences with
sets of oppositions, or<br>
>>> you put together a structure that allows
many different alliances to<br>
>>> form, with these alliance changing over
time. Because of the strict<br>
>>> diremption in the voting structure, house
versus house, SG versus<br>
>>> SG, alliances are much more difficult.
When I compare the days in<br>
>>> the council my last time, with this time,
the alliance making was<br>
>>> far more dynamic in the past.<br>
>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> As I say, at this point I am advocate
gathering info.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> But yes, I beleive we could eliminate
the houses and keep almost<br>
>>>> everything else the same, rather
simply, all we would need to do is<br>
>>>> figure out how to elect vice chairs and
Board members. But for the<br>
>>>> NCPH it would remove a limitation.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> As for electing the Board, I consider
it a real democracy problem<br>
>>>> that one person is elected by 8 people,
while the other is elected<br>
>>>> by<br>
>>>> 5 people.<br>
>>><br>
>>> [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me.<br>
>>><br>
>>> (: that is far too few people for a voting
population. The idea<br>
>>>that one board seat is elected by a group
of 7 voters in one<br>
>>>instance and by<br>
>>> 13 in another is a problem in
accountability. 21 voters is small<br>
>>>enough. I would actually like to see us
take a page out of the<br>
>>>AT-Large book and add the SG chairs to the
voting group for a bit<br>
>>>more depth.<br>
>>> But I know that is a structural change too
far. The point is a<br>
>>>large more diverse representative voting
populations makes for<br>
>>>better democracy, aka it is better for
accountability<br>
>>><br>
>>>> Finally I think having a homeless
voteless NCA is a real limitation<br>
>>>> on the community's influence on the
GNSO.<br>
>>> BTW, I think this was intentional on the
part of the GNSO committee<br>
>>> (which i was one but dissented from) that
came up with this<br>
>>> mishigas*.<br>
>>> They wanted to decrease the influence of
the NCAs.<br>
>>><br>
>>> [Chuck Gomes] I need some<br>
>>>> help understanding this. BTW, the
homeless, voteless NCA is<br>
>>>> providing some excellent service for
the GNSO in leading this group<br>
>>>> and representing the GNSO with SIC on
GNSO Review. To me that is<br>
>>>> much more valuable than any vote would
be.<br>
>>> Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our
last meeting. And she<br>
>>>could do just as well if she had a vote.
Many people do good jobs<br>
>>>in the council without needing to give up
their vote to do so.<br>
>>>Jonathan provides great service as a
neutral chair, yet he retains<br>
>>>his vote. The two issues are not related.
The community selects<br>
>>>three people to contribute to the decisions
making. Voting is part<br>
>>>of that.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Would it make sense for us all to give up
our votes and just manage<br>
>>> teams?<br>
>>> We would be contributing just as much.<br>
>>><br>
>>> avri<br>
>>><br>
>>> * yiddish word for a special kind of
craziness<br>
>>><br>
>><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div><div><div class="h5"><pre cols="72">--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: <a href="tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901" value="+4968949396901" target="_blank">+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901</a>
Fax.: <a href="tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851" value="+4968949396851" target="_blank">+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851</a>
Email: <a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" target="_blank">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>
Web: <a href="http://www.key-systems.net" target="_blank">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a href="http://www.RRPproxy.net" target="_blank">www.RRPproxy.net</a>
<a href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com" target="_blank">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a href="http://www.BrandShelter.com" target="_blank">www.BrandShelter.com</a>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems" target="_blank">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a>
<a href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems" target="_blank">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
<a href="http://www.keydrive.lu" target="_blank">www.keydrive.lu</a>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: <a href="tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901" value="+4968949396901" target="_blank">+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901</a>
Fax.: <a href="tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851" value="+4968949396851" target="_blank">+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851</a>
Email: <a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" target="_blank">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>
Web: <a href="http://www.key-systems.net" target="_blank">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a href="http://www.RRPproxy.net" target="_blank">www.RRPproxy.net</a>
<a href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com" target="_blank">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a href="http://www.BrandShelter.com" target="_blank">www.BrandShelter.com</a>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems" target="_blank">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a>
<a href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems" target="_blank">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
<a href="http://www.keydrive.lu" target="_blank">www.keydrive.lu</a>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
</pre>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>