Phil,<div><br></div><div>Thanks for these helpful thoughts.</div><div><div><br></div><div>I wanted to put a marker down because I wasn’t on the call and the decision-making obviously needs to be inclusive, utilize the list, etc. - so that’s was the intend of the note last night. But yes, of course I can provide further thinking to support my position on next steps.</div><div><br></div><div>From my point of view, this proposal shouldn’t create an iota of controversy, as it helps address an ongoing problem (the malicious bulk registration of domains, including some used for DNS Abuse), it represents an improvement over the status quo, and helps the URS serve it’s intended purpose while helping all parties in the process save resources.</div><div><br></div><div>More specifically, to address the bad-faith registration of domains under a very limited and specific fact pattern, the exact contours of which shall be determined by the jurisprudence of the policy (in other words, the panelist should have some limited discretion to hear the case and the current rule should not be baked into the URS Procedures (preventing these cases from ever being considered) - where it stands out like a sore thumb. </div><div><br></div><div>That’s all the proposal seeks to unwind - a rigid rule that is currently hard-coded into the URS Procedures, and to provide the URS Providers</div><div>options to address these cases, where they feel appropriate, in a unified manner when they occur (as similarly under the UDRP).</div><div><br></div><div>A hard-coded rule like the current rule baked into the URS Procedures, restricting all and every “unrelated” complainant from ever bringing a unified complaint - no matter what the factual circumstances of the case is simply counter-logical and counter-productive.</div><div><br></div><div>The public comments reflect the URS Providers are open to the proposal (I understand you quote WIPO, who is not a URS Provider), so I think we should hear more from the URS Providers after changes are made to the proposal.</div><div><br></div><div>In practice, the proposal would apply to a very limited set of factual circumstances (which is why I referenced Paul’s quote and the appearance of his potential misunderstanding) and why this should be further discussed and considered for WG adoption.</div><div><br></div><div>The proposal, as drafted now, is subject to broad over-interpretation and misunderstanding - I believe this is reflected in some of the public comments themselves. </div><div><br></div><div>It’s intended applicability is actually quite limited, but to an observer that is not clear from the direct text of the proposal itself, hence the need for revisions.</div><div><br></div><div>Also, I’m not sure if your summary of the public comments is your personal summary, or something more formalized, but in either case, I think it overstates the counting of the jelly beans and what inferences should be drawn from that exercise.</div><div><br></div><div>The contracted party stakeholder groups do not oppose, as this can bring potential efficiencies for them; the BC and IPC support, the URS Providers appear open and other individual companies also support (in fact, more than than the one company that you named that expressed some reservation.)</div><div><br></div><div>Please allow me some time and I can revert back with a deeper analysis of the public comments, if needed, but I hope that is not necessary to move things forward.</div><div><br></div><div>Based on the merits, this proposal should not be discarded out of hand; some edits/changes can be made to bring much needed clarity, then it should be discussed further by the WG at that time.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Claudio</div><div><br><br>On Friday, June 26, 2020, Corwin, Philip <<a href="mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com">pcorwin@verisign.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Claudio:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Thank you for your input.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">URS Individual Proposal #6 seems quite clear, with little room to misunderstand its intent and purpose—<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">URS Individual Proposal #6</span></i></b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The recommendation is to
<b>permit multiple unrelated Complainants to bring a single Complaint jointly against a single domain name registrant (or related registrants) who has registered multiple domain names</b>, by deleting the following procedural element within Section 1.1.3 of
the URS Procedure: <u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">"One Complaint is acceptable for multiple related companies against one Registrant, but only if the companies complaining are related.” (emphasis added)<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">About 30% of the 55 individuals/entities that provided public comments did not do so on this proposal. Of the 70% that did comment, about 45% opposed and about 25% supported
in some fashion, about a 2-1 ratio of opposition to support (I realize that we don’t count these comments as if they are votes, and that we also consider where entities speak for multiple individuals and/or companies – but still, the proposal appears to lack
broad support while garnering substantial opposition) . WIPO expressed significant concern; Com Laude and MARQUES opposed outright; and, as you noted, individuals strongly identified with trademark rights advocacy opined that the proposal should go no further
during the full WG discussion that you missed.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Personally, I do not see the slightest scintilla of a prospect that this proposal as framed can gain consensus support in our coming consensus call; and the procedure we are
now operating under is designed to identify those proposals which can go to that call without change, those which may clear the hurdle if proponents can come back with significant changes that take community and WG member views into account, and those that
have no prospect of gaining consensus even with modifications and should not take any more of the WG’s limited time between now and our mid-September/October target date. This proposal clearly fell into the third category.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">In your email you state, “this experience leaves me with the sense that if a proponent isn’t on a call for an individual proposal discussion, and it’s easy to skip on to the
next, it probably a good idea to do so.” I would agree completely that WG members who are strongly for or against a proposal should strive to participate in the meeting that discusses it, and that is why we give substantial advance notice of which proposals
are scheduled for discussion, and then send reminders with the same information as the meeting approaches.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">If you believe that there is some way in which this proposal to let multiple unrelated complainants bring a single joint complaint against a single registrant can be revised
in a manner to achieve that purpose and have a substantial prospect of gaining consensus support within the WG I invite you to share such revision for consideration. Short of that, in the opinion of this co-chair Proposal 6 is DOA and will not be discussed
further per the decision agreed to by WG members on the call in which it was discussed.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Best, Philip
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Philip S. Corwin<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Policy Counsel<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">VeriSign, Inc.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><a href="https://www.google.com/maps/search/12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190?entry=gmail&source=g">12061 Bluemont Way</a><br>
Reston, VA 20190<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">703-948-4648/Direct<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">571-342-7489/Cell<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></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">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> GNSO-RPM-WG <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a><wbr>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>McGrady, Paul D.<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, June 26, 2020 9:19 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> claudio di gangi <<a href="mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com" target="_blank">ipcdigangi@gmail.com</a>>; Ariel Liang <<a href="mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org" target="_blank">ariel.liang@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Public Comment Analysis Summary Document - URS Proposals 1-3, 6, 11, 13, 15, 22, 26<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Claudio, thanks for your email.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">All, here is a link to the proposal that Claudio is talking about:
</span><a href="https://secure-web.cisco.com/1IkSoeYzRg6yqq6TErYGKUl5isAlETMCrSMQxARc704XEimSOM95epvciw6Hcf1R5D_CZiBgFv-Rfh9SXbJbC4TzDTbL7QiYROe-9syv1_pjI93Qg8is6SmVwO07BXhae1DspDOYFLLDlgCRjvSa2pSq4UlaGau4GU-zL6G8UWyrkpb0Qaz8MJYCyB8AC_qroaT3EpviXpJYMcJ8HEKZb42ZsDS-15eWmx7aVYK_206YlcDPn-vqSK_xF4MYg4af2QT6rT8v2DPQeHHWbdD0y6A/https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fdisplay%2FRARPMRIAGPWG%2FURS%2BIndividual%2BProposal%2B%25236" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/<wbr>display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+<wbr>Individual+Proposal+%236</a><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Three Co-chairs, while I do not believe it is a good idea to revisit items already handled because their proponent was not on a call, that choice is yours. However, please do not feel pressure to reopen it based
upon Claudio’s assertion that I misunderstood the proposal. I assure you that I understand it.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Best,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Paul<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></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" target="_blank"><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" target="_blank"><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"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> GNSO-RPM-WG <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a><wbr>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>claudio di gangi<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, June 26, 2020 12:21 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Ariel Liang <<a href="mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org" target="_blank">ariel.liang@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Public Comment Analysis Summary Document - URS Proposals 1-3, 6, 11, 13, 15, 22, 26<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi all,<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I wasn’t on this call when Proposal #6 was discussed by the WG for potential preservation for further WG consideration. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">From my reading of the transcript, and the summary of the public comments as produced/reviewed by staff and the sub-teams, there appears to be a major misunderstanding of the intent of proposal #6. I have a sense that folks think the proposal
is seeking to do a lot more than what it is actually seeking to accomplish (perhaps based on the wording of the proposal).<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am basing my interpretation of this confusion on the following: 1) my personal review of the public comments; 2) the apparent assessment made by Paul McGrady that the proposal should “die on the vine” - based on a rationale that I believe
reflects a misunderstanding of the proposal (in contrast, it terms of the CSG constituencies, the proposal is supported by the IPC and BC); and 3) during this last WG meeting, the analysis comments made by Phil as co-chair concerning the analysis of the public
comments (which, as I stated above, many of the public comments appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the proposal); and 4) the comments made by Lori along the lines of “let’s put this proposal out it’s misery” (in contrast, the proposal is supported
by the IPC and BC, and is based on a previous INTA recommendation).<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">As an aside, this experience leaves me with the sense that if a proponent isn’t on a call for an individual proposal discussion, and it’s easy to skip on to the next, it probably a good idea to do so.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In conclusion, I am expecting/hoping to get a chance to clarify the confusion on this proposal on the next call and for the time being to leave this item open for further review.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cheers,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Claudio<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thursday, June 25, 2020, Ariel Liang <<a href="mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org" target="_blank">ariel.liang@icann.org</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Dear Working Group members,
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Please find a public comment analysis document which encapsulates/summarizes the Working Group’s deliberations on the public comments
for individual proposals: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Pnqor6rHjvowH66GPQG9XI23n8H2mgkbf39-jA4KlFc/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/<wbr>document/d/<wbr>1Pnqor6rHjvowH66GPQG9XI23n8H2m<wbr>gkbf39-jA4KlFc/edit?usp=<wbr>sharing</a>
<span style="color:black">The updated content for URS Proposals #1, #2, #3, #6, #11, #13, #15, #22, and #26 are on pages 1-12, 14-17.</span></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Brief introduction:</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">
</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black">This document is not meant to replace the Working Group’s transcripts/recordings/chat records, which include the full details of each meeting.
<u></u><u></u></li></ul>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black">Tue, 23 June session:
<span style="color:windowtext"><a href="https://secure-web.cisco.com/1YKmLSYneNE70gSOgCjl20_iNrE1zoaCjgAiOrHMeYh9lUh1o-zlR0ABEzeYFANFUd8aG1GL8z0pU6UThIUMLUfAY1ghIbwxCF92o5ZV6SHQQ3hRnEs5fld7fzLSRO8OGz6q6MeJ6iJ9c-wSVXG88aqGMluqmMrT-TpageeMrakr5bJOqKUgt-nLTQiiETl0O6bj2JW82cPjJesqU19TKH2czwFxlnBwLEnYkILuQDkd8zOCa2NDocbL878MzjEs7G0DIVTVxUtUf_TFABm2gTahuprc-3Oqly0YPEKdOtnA/https%3A%2F%2F68.schedule.icann.org%2Fmeetings%2F4h27u2A9rBqt8annP" target="_blank">https://68.schedule.icann.org/<wbr>meetings/4h27u2A9rBqt8annP</a></span><u></u><u></u></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black">Thu, 25 June session:
<a href="https://secure-web.cisco.com/1HL2IMgGT-AJjLUzSoMDHGgboFoj-H2bD4EJur3eGlMQMyM6atEq3Pi9kIrGa9FG9ecOoI4qoNNIlRWcbar8-9zRO8PdK2wuzZFiEb1V1rrEbPh2XhmIaoQ0fV4MEKre35M9pnlmZHU4ZjMoWC3gPyBAg9tykG7IBbFbN4fLp747BfvSFbGBeKZEhScIdSIBL2bU9vU2vP9KVGVQZFNiZBJcGqcOjJXYJdcmVrXUFQsJ2GMvCxXAeD_axlKQvKq8nXMF-3mr7nfwSMOblT4J3Cw/https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2F9YBIC" target="_blank">
https://community.icann.org/x/<wbr>9YBIC</a><u></u><u></u></li></ul>
</ul>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black">Each proposal section includes its full language (in the yellow box), as well as the rationale provided by the original proponent.
<u></u><u></u></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black">Under each proposal, there are two sections:
<u></u><u></u></li></ul>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">
<span style="color:black">1) Public Comment Deliberation Summary: </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black">“WG Initial Deliberation Summary” contains the summary of the current round of public comment review by the WG, including any action item/decision by the WG regarding the individual proposal.
<u></u><u></u></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black">If the WG decides
<u>not</u> to preserve the proposal for further deliberation/consensus call, the summary is recorded under “WG Final Deliberation Summary”. <u></u><u></u></li></ul>
</ul>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">
<span style="color:black">2) Final Recommendation Language Derived from the Individual Proposal (If Applicable): this section will include the recommendation language if an individual proposal gains consensus to become a WG final recommendation.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">The update of this document will be ongoing. You are welcome to provide input/feedback and point out any error/mischaracterization/<wbr>missing
content on list. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Best Regards,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Mary, Julie, Ariel
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div>