<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Currently, our document states that rules and procedures will be developed as follows (Section 13) : A "</font><font face="verdana, sans-serif">CCWG
sub group, assisted by counsel and appropriate experts, will continue to work
on implementation details and will work with initial panel and the IRP provider
on rules of procedure, etc. as part of WS2." So, there will be input from the initial [standing] panel in the rules and procedures (if the optimistic assumption that an initial panel will be in place early enough to work with WS2 holds true).</font><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">We could move the issue of filing deadline into WS2. That will allow for much more deliberate consideration, and draw in the panelists as you suggest. While the current IRP Bylaw states the filing deadline, this is not a requirement. The new Bylaw could simply state that a filing deadline will be set forth in the IRP Rules and Procedures. (It could also be added to revised Bylaws as part of WS2, should we care to give it that extra protection).</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Beyond the immediate question, I think David's email raises the question whether the "standing panel" is merely a list of names, or is it a body that can take actions (outside of sitting panels and <i>en banc</i> appeals)? The language from Section 13 contemplates some administrative action, but our proposal is silent on anything else. The current IRP had all the administration taking place with the outside provider; we may not want to stick with that paradigm (or if we do, we may want a more ministerial role for the outside provider, and a more substantive role for the panel as an administrator). If the standing panel is an administrative body, then it could be empowered to recommend (to the community, possibly with approval by the Board) revisions to the Rules and Procedures on its own initiative and as part of a periodic review. Right now, we have no procedure for revising the Rules and Procedures (other than an ATRT-style periodic review). This may all be WS2, but it's worth highlighting now for future thought.<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:51 AM, David Post <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com" target="_blank">david.g.post@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<br>
To me, the question is: why do we think <i>we're </i>in a better
position, now, to determine what an appropriate limitations period should
be, than the IRP itself will be, when it sees how the process works in
practice? <br><br>
There's an awful lot we don't (and can't) know about how this process
actually will work, all of which bears upon the question of what a
reasonable limitations period should be: will the IRP be flooded with
claims, or will it have little to do? will there be lots of
frivolous claims, or few? lots of claims asking it to do
things/decide cases it's not authorized to hear, or few? what kind
of "pleading requirements" is it going to impose on claimants
before a case can be opened? <br><br>
Perhaps there's a concern that the IRP will make the "wrong"
decision - that it will adopt a too-short period (because it doesn't want
additional work) or a too-long period (because it's power-hungry and
wants to involve itself in ICANN affairs more than is appropriate).
I can see that - though it hearkens back to my views about the importance
of making the IRP a true institution within ICANN rather than just a
faceless collection of arbitrators who are mostly concerned with other
things; I think part of the WG's task is to design an IRP that will make
sensible decisions, including decisions about its own procedures and
processes, down the road. <br><br>
I share the concern about claims being open forever - but a 30 day period
swings much too far, in my opinion, in the other direction. It's an
alarmingly short period of time - particularly if there are complicated
filing requirements (as there well may be). if there's going to be
a limit stated in the bylaws, i'd suggest making it a long period to
start with (no claims after 1 year, or even 2 years), subject to the
IRP's power to revise. <br><br>
[If I remember correctly, the IRP's own rules/procedures have to be
approved by the Community - is that right? If not, it should be -
that's a better way to protect against ill-advised IRP
procedures/processes than having us try to spell them out in advance,
imo.<br><br>
David<span class=""><br><br>
At 05:08 PM 7/27/2015, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
</span><blockquote type="cite"><span class="">The IRP can determine whether a
limitation period bars an IRP, but they need to be applying some defined
period, and this period needs to be consistent for all
complainants.<br><br></span>
If there is no time period (or formula for arriving at a time period) for
IRPs stated in the bylaws (or in the rules and procedures, if we want to
punt a little bit), no IRP will be barred. There would be no basis
for a bar. Instead, it will be available to a complainant for all
time.<span class=""><br>
<br>
I don't think that sounds good to me.<br><br>
Greg<br><br>
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Malcolm Hutty
<<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net" target="_blank">malcolm@linx.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
</span><dl><br><br>
<dd><span class="">On 27/07/2015 21:43, Burr, Becky wrote:<br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">> That seems sensible to me<br><br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">So do you intend to remove the existing limit, and specify that the
IRP<br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">can itself determine a reasonable time-bar?<br><br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">That seems quite a big piece of discretion to hand it: what it
decides<br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">will affect the way the IRP looks quite a lot.<br><br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">For my part, whatever the time limit should be, it is very
important<br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">that the clock only start ticking when the applicant has
experiencd<br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">whatever it is they wish to complain about, or is aware that they
are<br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">likely to experience it. The present approach - starting the clock
when<br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">the Board takes its decision - is no longer fit for purpose. It
was<br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">designed for when IRP cases were effectively limited to contracted
parties.<br><br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">We do not want our time limit to effectively debar
non-contracted<br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">parties who know nothing about ICANN from ever bringing a
complaint.<br><br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">I think this should be specified in the Bylaws.<br><br>
</span></dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> J. Beckwith Burr<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd><span class="">> *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy
Officer<br>
</span></dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd><span class="">> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006<br>
</span></dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> Office: <a href="tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932" target="_blank">+
1.202.533.2932</a>Â Mobile:<br>
</dd><dd>> <a href="tel:%2B1.202.352.6367" target="_blank">+1.202.352.6367</a>Â /
<a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a><br>
</dd><dd>>
<<a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">
mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz</a>> /
<a href="http://www.neustar.biz" target="_blank">www.neustar.biz</a><br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> From: David Post
<<a href="mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com" target="_blank">david.g.post@gmail.com</a>
<<a href="mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com" target="_blank">
mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com</a>>><br>
</dd><dd><span class="">> Date: Monday, July 27, 2015 at 4:28 PM<br>
</span></dd><dd>> To: Becky Burr
<<a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a>
<<a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">
mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz</a>>><br>
</dd><dd><span class="">> Cc: Bruce Tonkin
<<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au" target="_blank">
Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a><br>
</span></dd><dd>>
<<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au" target="_blank">
mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>>>,
"<a href="mailto:WP2@icann.org" target="_blank">WP2@icann.org</a><br>
</dd><dd>>
<<a href="mailto:WP2@icann.org" target="_blank">
mailto:WP2@icann.org</a>>"
<<a href="mailto:WP2@icann.org" target="_blank">WP2@icann.org</a>
<<a href="mailto:WP2@icann.org" target="_blank">
mailto:WP2@icann.org</a>>><br>
</dd><dd><span class="">> Subject: Re: [WP2] current state of IRP checklist plus sample
bylaws<br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">> language and the comment summary<br>
</span></dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd><span class="">> Isn't this something that we could leave for the IRP itself to
deal with<br>
</span></dd><dd>> in its processes/procedures? Why do we have to specify a
limitations<br>
</dd><dd>> period in advance?<br>
</dd><dd>> David<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd><span class="">> At 12:42 PM 7/25/2015, Burr, Becky wrote:<br>
</span></dd><dd>>> Content-Language: en-US<br>
</dd><dd>>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;<br>
</dd><dd>>>Â Â Â Â Â
boundary="_000_D1D9347138C0Ebeckyburrneustarbiz_"<br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd><span class="">>> The more I think about this 30 day thing, the more concerned
I get –<br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">>> we need to provide for tolling the period for the pre filing
mediation/CEP<br>
</span></dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>> J. Beckwith Burr<br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd><span class="">>> *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy
Officer<br>
</span></dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd><span class="">>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006<br>
</span></dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>> Office: <a href="tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932" target="_blank">+
1.202.533.2932</a>Â Mobile:Â
<a href="tel:%2B1.202.352.6367" target="_blank">+1.202.352.6367</a>Â /<br>
</dd><dd>>>
<a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a>
<<a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">
mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz</a>> /<br>
</dd><dd><span class="">>> <a href="http://www.neustar.biz" target="_blank">www.neustar.biz</a>
<<a href="http://www.neustar.biz/" target="_blank">
http://www.neustar.biz/</a>><br>
</span></dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd><span class="">>> From: Bruce Tonkin
<<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au" target="_blank">
Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a><br>
</span></dd><dd>>>
<<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au" target="_blank">
mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>>><br>
</dd><dd><span class="">>> Date: Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 3:31 AM<br>
</span></dd><dd>>> To: "<a href="mailto:WP2@icann.org" target="_blank">WP2@icann.org</a>
<<a href="mailto:WP2@icann.org" target="_blank">
mailto:WP2@icann.org</a>>"
<<a href="mailto:WP2@icann.org" target="_blank">WP2@icann.org</a><br>
</dd><dd>>>
<<a href="mailto:WP2@icann.org" target="_blank">
mailto:WP2@icann.org</a>>><br>
</dd><dd><span class="">>> Subject: Re: [WP2] current state of IRP checklist plus
sample bylaws<br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">>> language and the comment summary<br>
</span></dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>> Hello Becky,<br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd><span class="">>> The proposed bylaws language change with respect to the
timing of an<br>
</span></dd><dd>>> IRP proceeding:<br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>> “A request for A request for independent review must be
filed within<br>
</dd><dd><span class="">>> thirty days of the posting<br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">>> of the minutes of the Board meeting (and the accompanying
Board Briefing<br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">>> Materials, if available) thatthe requesting party becoming
aware of<br>
</span></dd><dd>>> the action<br>
</dd><dd><span class="">>> that it contends demonstrates that ICANN violated its Bylaws
or<br>
</span></dd><dd>>> Articles of<br>
</dd><dd><span class="">>> Incorporation. Consolidated requests may be appropriate when
the causal<br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">>> connection between the circumstances of the requests and the
harm is<br>
</span></dd><dd>>> the same<br>
</dd><dd>>> for each of the requesting parties.†<br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>> How would you determine when a “requesting partyâ€
becomes aware of an<br>
</dd><dd>>> action?   I expect it would be hard to
determine when that event<br>
</dd><dd>>> would happen – so this feels a little like that a party caan
file at<br>
</dd><dd>>> any time after a decision – potentially years
later.  This could<br>
</dd><dd>>> have quite negative effect on a third party.  E.g if
a new gTLD was<br>
</dd><dd><span class="">>> allocated to an applicant, and then the requesting party
complains<br>
</span></dd><dd>>> years later.<br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>> Shouldn’t there be some limit based on what is reasonable
– e.g 30<br>
</dd><dd>>> days after the requesting party would reasonably become
aware … etc<br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>> Alternatively – maybe leave the current language and
increease the time<br>
</dd><dd><span class="">>> period – e.g. from 30 to 60 or 90 days.<br>
</span></dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>> Regards,<br>
</dd><dd>>> Bruce Tonkin<br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>> _______________________________________________<br>
</dd><dd>>> WP2 mailing list<br>
</dd><dd>>> <a href="mailto:WP2@icann.org" target="_blank">WP2@icann.org</a>
<<a href="mailto:WP2@icann.org" target="_blank">
mailto:WP2@icann.org</a>><br>
</dd><dd>>>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2</a><br>
</dd><dd>>>
<<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_wp2&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=KHtNBFAfs2Wsc0WBFs8uEwqFYvujsUnnN7VF0NWZxXM&s=45ha7ijUSShcMnUJqDwfzDUnJjMkMmkR1KbGauQJpno&e=" target="_blank">
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_wp2&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=KHtNBFAfs2Wsc0WBFs8uEwqFYvujsUnnN7VF0NWZxXM&s=45ha7ijUSShcMnUJqDwfzDUnJjMkMmkR1KbGauQJpno&e=</a>
><br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> *******************************<br>
</dd><dd><span class="">> David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New
America<br>
</span></dd><dd>> Foundation<br>
</dd><dd><span class="">> blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post" target="_blank">
http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post</a><br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">>
<<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.washingtonpost.com_people_david-2Dpost&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=KHtNBFAfs2Wsc0WBFs8uEwqFYvujsUnnN7VF0NWZxXM&s=xaEAsKtTS7zpk7-yKBnscwHrcrjC9EVm7Oh262_h49M&e=" target="_blank">
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.washingtonpost.com_people_david-2Dpost&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=KHtNBFAfs2Wsc0WBFs8uEwqFYvujsUnnN7VF0NWZxXM&s=xaEAsKtTS7zpk7-yKBnscwHrcrjC9EVm7Oh262_h49M&e=</a>
>book<br>
</span></dd><dd>> (Jefferson's Moose)Â
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n</a><br>
</dd><dd>>
<<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_c327w2n-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=KHtNBFAfs2Wsc0WBFs8uEwqFYvujsUnnN7VF0NWZxXM&s=uM7352AWlE5xVa8yoG0L-5mdpe1x-SSRtiX76IYGO50&e=" target="_blank">
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_c327w2n-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=KHtNBFAfs2Wsc0WBFs8uEwqFYvujsUnnN7VF0NWZxXM&s=uM7352AWlE5xVa8yoG0L-5mdpe1x-SSRtiX76IYGO50&e=</a>
><br>
</dd><dd><span class="">> music
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic" target="_blank">
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic</a><br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">>
<<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_davidpostmusic-25A0&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=KHtNBFAfs2Wsc0WBFs8uEwqFYvujsUnnN7VF0NWZxXM&s=-hz2E2fMrdSb7NY0HOElRP-1Pij5y19kvB47QkcD5J4&e=" target="_blank">
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_davidpostmusic-25A0&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=KHtNBFAfs2Wsc0WBFs8uEwqFYvujsUnnN7VF0NWZxXM&s=-hz2E2fMrdSb7NY0HOElRP-1Pij5y19kvB47QkcD5J4&e=</a>
>publications<br>
</span></dd><dd>> etc.Â
<a href="http://www.davidpost.com" target="_blank">http://www.davidpost.com</a><br>
</dd><dd>>
<<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.davidpost.com-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0_&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=KHtNBFAfs2Wsc0WBFs8uEwqFYvujsUnnN7VF0NWZxXM&s=Orueb-zlDxfxaAOPf-NA3gwoi716R30h9Po7O6LtYEY&e=" target="_blank">
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.davidpost.com-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0_&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=KHtNBFAfs2Wsc0WBFs8uEwqFYvujsUnnN7VF0NWZxXM&s=Orueb-zlDxfxaAOPf-NA3gwoi716R30h9Po7O6LtYEY&e=</a>
><br>
</dd><dd>> *******************************<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> _______________________________________________<br>
</dd><dd>> WP2 mailing list<br>
</dd><dd>> <a href="mailto:WP2@icann.org" target="_blank">WP2@icann.org</a><br>
</dd><dd>>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2</a><br>
</dd><dd>><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br><br>
</font></span></dd><dd><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">--<br>
</font></span></dd><dd><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">Â Â Â Â Â Â Malcolm Hutty | tel:
<a href="tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523" target="_blank">+44 20 7645 3523</a><br>
</font></span></dd><dd><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">Â Â Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs
blog<br>
</font></span></dd><dd><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">Â London Internet Exchange |
<a href="http://publicaffairs.linx.net/" target="_blank">
http://publicaffairs.linx.net/</a><br><br>
</font></span></dd><dd><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
London Internet Exchange Ltd<br>
</font></span></dd><dd><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">Â Â Â Â Â Â 21-27 St Thomas Street,
London SE1 9RY<br><br>
</font></span></dd><dd><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">Â Â Â Â Â Company Registered in England No.
3137929<br>
</font></span></dd><dd><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">Â Â Â Â Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough
PE1 1DA</font></span><span class=""><br><br>
<br>
</span></dd><dd>_______________________________________________<br>
</dd><dd>WP2 mailing list<br>
</dd><dd><a href="mailto:WP2@icann.org" target="_blank">WP2@icann.org</a><br>
</dd><dd><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2</a><br><br>
</dd></dl></blockquote><span class=""><br>
*******************************<br>
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
Foundation<br>
blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post" target="_blank">
http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post<br>
</a></span><span class="">book (Jefferson's Moose)
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0" target="_blank">
http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n </a> <br>
music
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0" target="_blank">
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic </a> publications etc.
<a>
http://www.davidpost.com
</a> <br>
******************************* </span></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>