<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Personal Closed Generic Contribution
- To: comments-closed-generic-05feb13@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Personal Closed Generic Contribution
- From: Kristina Macaulay <kristinamac@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 23:19:26 +0000
<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html
charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;
"><br><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate;
color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
border-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><br>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Template>Normal.dotm</o:Template>
<o:Revision>0</o:Revision>
<o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime>
<o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Words>1509</o:Words>
<o:Characters>8604</o:Characters>
<o:Company>Mac iD</o:Company>
<o:Lines>71</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>17</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>10566</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
<o:Version>12.0</o:Version>
</o:DocumentProperties>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment--><p class="MsoNormal">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Template>Normal.dotm</o:Template>
<o:Revision>0</o:Revision>
<o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime>
<o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Words>1508</o:Words>
<o:Characters>8601</o:Characters>
<o:Company>Mac iD</o:Company>
<o:Lines>71</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>17</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>10562</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
<o:Version>12.0</o:Version>
</o:DocumentProperties>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment--><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-weight: normal; ">I am a
member of the Non-Commercial Users
Constituency (NCUC), however I am submitting my personal contribution on the
ICANN public comment request over the new ‘closed generic’ gTLD application
process. As Managing Director of Global Identity Ltd, Scotland, my role is
setting up authentication protocols between different members and the discovery
service through semantic querying of its members’ ontological tags. I am
also a representative with the acting remit of setting up a gTLD Scottish
Governance Board.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-weight:
normal; ">I understand that there has been considerable
controversy over the remit with regards to the ‘closed generic’ TLD application
process. While I fully support the development of the Internet and need to
extend the gTLD process, I am also cautious of the long-term implications once
a motion has been set in place. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span lang="EN-US">I
recognize
that it has been the long-standing aim of ICANN to encourage competition
amongst registry operators and that the current model on the sales of second
level domain name registrations is widely accepted. It is my view that the
introduction of the ‘closed generic’ model, would be the enablement of a new
model. As such I consider that there has not been an informed evaluation on how
this new model would affect or even possibly diminish the current ‘working’
model. It is my view that this proposed new model could potentially diminish
the objective set by ICANN to encourage competition at the compromise of the
existing business model.</span> </p><p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span lang="EN-US">Akin
to the
introduction of a new species in a stable eco-system, I remain to be persuade
as to what evaluation process was carried out to determine the type of business
impact this will have on the existing ICANN domain name
eco-system.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-weight: normal;
margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span lang="EN-US">While ICANN
may not profess to be a regulatory or investigatory body with the authority to
evaluate how the DNS affects competition law of consumer law, with the
integration of “closed generic” gTLD application, it is devising new policies
and has a new dispute resolution process, which will have an affect and change
the balance of what will become the new acceptable practice for managing brands
and registered TM over a global reach. Thereby showing its long-term competence
in mandating how the visible element to search and find on the Internet should
unfold, ICANN is also in this capacity, asserting and assuming its Global
authority over DNS monopoly concerns.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span lang="EN-US">The
lack of
clarity how certain closed registries will operate their DNS monopoly with
search engine operators, is an understandable concern to the existing
eco-system and this type of innovation sets an unprecedented global dominance
in favor of a small number of existing dominant market organizations, over what
I perceive to be the defining point of origin within the protocol (DNS
architecture) of the Internet.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span lang="EN-US">Within this
context, it cannot be argued that consumer choice will not be compromised, by a
new form of <b>DNS architecture</b>, that looks to dominate entire market
sectors. Nor
can the difference between a “generic product dot com” and a “dot generic
product” be equate as having a similar market value, when the latter has the
possibility of commanding an entire suite of “generic product dot generic
product”.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-weight: normal;
margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span lang="EN-US">I
understand that there are also concerns expressed over what would be the
distinctive difference between “dot brand” and a “dot generic”, my view is that
the current ecosystem has granted due to the TM registration process and
existing market prominence recognition for the purpose of business continuity,
the means for TM registered brands to secure a gTLD. However, the criteria “for
the purpose of business continuity and the means for TM registration”, while
not explicitly defined in the Application Guide Lines, was the defining factor
for granting “dot brand”. However on the basis of a common assumption ill
defined, further “dot generic” registry operators sought to benefit and exploit
the common understanding held reading between the lines, to gain unfair
advantage without the need to provide evidence of their market presence under
the “generic” term, nor stand the test of time or have a TM.</span></p><p
class="MsoNormal" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span
lang="EN-US">I believe
that the remit of ICANN is to continually evaluate in the “publics interest”,
(without having to re-evaluate annually what the definition of “public
interest” or “rights” are), how the gTLD and DNS continues to provide a stable
Internet of services. It is therefore my view, that the current proposed
“closed generic” model, has the means of upsetting the existing stability of
services and creating unfair advantage, by wielding a new form
of <b>Industry
Directory Model</b> in favor of the exclusive interests of the existing
few. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-weight: normal;
margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; ">The
investment required to engage in the gTLD application process and
sustainability means that every business will be operating exclusively for its
own benefit to ensure it secures profits, to not operate at a loss.</p><p
class="MsoNormal" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span
lang="EN-US">While we
don’t know how consumers will adapt to the new gTLD role out, the level of
consumer awareness to the existing likely changes are poor, what we do
know is that the predominant
use of search engines is a defining factor how the majority of consumers search
the Internet. Therefore if a new Industry
Directory Model, is to be introduced, then surely this is a “public
interest” and a Governmental matter.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span
lang="EN-US">Further more,
if a new Industry Directory Model were to be introduced, then the value of a
“generic words” becomes a recognizable new ‘premium’ and I cannot see how
that means of granting a premium with the means of international exclusive
rights without cross- examination between different languages, could take place
without creating a long-term disorganized <b>International
Directory</b>.</span> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-weight: normal;
margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span lang="EN-US">Considering
that ICANN will be facilitating the means of operating a mass <b>New
International Directory Model </b>granting
the “closed generic” application extension.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p
class="MsoNormal" style="font-weight: normal; "><span lang="EN-US">Surely in
this instance ICANN has also developed and
expanded its current role and remit, by introducing if not under its own
authority the need to create a <b>Directory
Regulatory Body</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-weight: normal; "><span lang="EN-US">It is my view that the
Internet has challenged the
basis of International and national laws, especially in the area of
jurisdiction and that ICANN effectively granted the means for international
visibility and reach in the interest of continuity through the gTLD application
process.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-weight: normal;
">I understand the commercial
necessity of the gTLD process, I ask therefore, if the
ICANN Code of Conduct mandates still holds regarding:</p><p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-weight: normal; "><o:p></o:p></p><p
class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="font-weight: normal; text-indent:
-18pt; "><!--[if !supportLists]-->1. <!--[endif]-->The
exemption’s second prong mandates that: “Registry Operator [shall] not sell,
distribute or transfer control or use of any registrations in the TLD to any
third party that is not an Affiliate of Registry Operator.” Notably, the prior
ICANN definition of “affiliate,” refers to relationships solidly grounded in
joint management, joint ownership and employees.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref"
title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if
!supportFootnotes]-->[1]<!--[endif]--></span></a>
</p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="font-weight: normal;
text-indent: -18pt; "><!--[if !supportLists]-->2.
<!--[endif]-->The
Registry may not: Register domain names in (their) own right.<a href="#_ftn2"
name="_ftnref" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if
!supportFootnotes]-->[2]<!--[endif]--></span></a></p><p
class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="font-weight: normal; text-indent:
-18pt; "><!--[if !supportLists]-->3. <!--[endif]-->The
Registry must provide non-discriminatory access to Registry Services to all
ICANN accredited registrars.<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref" title=""><span
class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if
!supportFootnotes]-->[3]<!--[endif]--></span></a></p><p
class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="font-weight: normal; text-indent:
-18pt; "><!--[if !supportLists]-->4. <!--[endif]-->The
Registry Operator may request exemption to this Code of Conduct, and such
exemption may be granted by ICANN in ICANN’s reasonable discretion, if Registry
Operator demonstrates to ICANN’s reasonable satisfaction that … application of
this Code of Conduct to the TLD is not necessary to protect the pubic
interest.<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref" title=""><span
class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if
!supportFootnotes]-->[4]<!--[endif]--></span></a></p><p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-weight: normal; "><br></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-weight:
normal; ">Then the following
areas remain to be addressed with purposeful guidelines to safe guard the
further extension of the current gTLD application guidelines, Code of Conduct
and New Registry Agreement:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst"
style="font-weight: normal; text-indent: -18pt; "><!--[if
!supportLists]-->1. <!--[endif]-->If
generic words are registered by TM owners, who are not the lawful owner of that
generic word or has a TM registration over it, then the current intent and
purpose for the ‘closed generic’ gTLD is currently not appropriately accounted
for in policy or guidelines, (interjection) if it was in the first instance
acceptable to register a ‘closed generic’ gTLD. This suggests that there
has been an abuse and extension of
the current New gTLD guidelines, which must be accounted for.<o:p></o:p></p><p
class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="font-weight: normal; text-indent:
-18pt; "><!--[if !supportLists]-->2. <!--[endif]-->The
current purpose and intent of the ‘walled garden’ approach for each ‘closed
generic’ gTLD, for the sole use of the applicant, has not been defined in the
current guidelines. Therefore as with the initial intent and use of existing
gTLD’s, the code of conduct of ‘sole and perpetuity rights’ have yet to be
evaluated, discussed and decided within the ICANN stakeholder
model.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="font-weight:
normal; text-indent: -18pt; "><!--[if
!supportLists]-->3. <!--[endif]-->The
privatisation at the exclusion of public access or future right of access to
the Domain space of the gTLD, and/or is in the ‘public’s interest’ will need to
be explained by the applicant.<o:p></o:p></p><p
class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="font-weight: normal; text-indent:
-18pt; "><!--[if !supportLists]-->4. <!--[endif]-->How
will the search engines react to a predominance of gTLD’s under the
pre-dominance of certain key organisations for example, if they dominate under
every domain content regarding the list of goods and services.<o:p></o:p></p><p
class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="font-weight: normal; text-indent:
-18pt; "><!--[if !supportLists]-->5. <!--[endif]-->How
in the ‘public interest’ will there be a balanced non-bias representation in
the page listings under each search term made in the URL, for good and services
pertaining to baby, hair, cloud services, book etc… if exclusive rights are
exercised by a predominant Registry.<o:p></o:p></p><p
class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="font-weight: normal; text-indent:
-18pt; "><!--[if !supportLists]-->6. <!--[endif]-->What
will be the economic impact on non-commercial not-for profit organisations and
NGO’s within the market space allocated to the ‘closed generic’ terms gTLD’s.
Has this impact assessment report been made publically available, in the
“public interest”. This is especially important in relation to areas pertaining
to babies health, vaccines appropriate to babies which relates Global aid for
children and awareness campaigns issues. <o:p></o:p></p><p
class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="font-weight: normal; text-indent:
-18pt; "><!--[if !supportLists]-->7. <!--[endif]-->A
list of ‘closed generic’ gTLD was not readily available and there is ambiguity
of the extent of ‘closed generic’ gTLD applications, how is this still an
out-standing issue.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast"
style="font-weight: normal; text-indent: -18pt; "><!--[if
!supportLists]-->8. <!--[endif]-->Certain
assumptions of usage have been drawn for the known ‘closed generic’ gTLDs, how
can a fair and informed public comment be made based on assumptions over the
assignation or privatisation of ‘generic’ words.</p><p
class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="font-weight: normal; text-indent:
-18pt; "><span style="text-indent: 0px; "><br></span></p><p
class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="font-weight: normal; text-indent:
-18pt; "><span style="text-indent: 0px; ">In light of
the foregoing concerns, I respectfully ask that there should be a review
process:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-weight: normal;
margin-left: 18pt; "><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst"
style="font-weight: normal; text-indent: -18pt; "><!--[if
!supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->To establish whether the current ICANN guidelines
were defined enough regarding the means for “closed generic” gTLD application
to be submitted.</p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="font-weight:
normal; text-indent: -18pt; "><!--[if
!supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->Of all the ‘closed generic’ gTLDs applications
and their individual intent, purpose and usage, to determine whether they
should either be open or withdraw for a full refund.</p><p
class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="font-weight: normal; text-indent:
-18pt; "><span style="text-indent: 0px; ">I also
propose that the economic impact assessment report on the “closed generic” new
terms of use, to be made available.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-weight: normal; margin-left: 18pt; "><o:p></o:p></p><p
class="MsoNormal" style="font-weight: normal; margin-left: 18pt; "> </p>
<div style="font-weight: normal; font-family: Helvetica; "><!--[if
!supportFootnotes]--><br clear="all">
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" style="font-size: medium; ">
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="ftn"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size: 11px;"><a
href="#_ftnref" name="_ftn1" title=""><span
class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if
!supportFootnotes]-->[1]<!--[endif]--></span></a><span style="font-family:
Calibri; "> See New
Registry Agreement, Section 2.9 (c): ‘Affiliate’ means a person or entity that,
directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controls, is
controlled by, or is under common control with, the person or entity specified,
and (ii) “control” (including the terms “controlled by” and “under common
control with”) means the
possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or cause the
direction of the management or policies of a person or entity, whether through
the ownership of securities, as trustee or executor, by serving as an employee
or a member of a board of directors or equivalent governing body, by contract,
by credit arrangement or otherwise. (<span class="MsoHyperlink"><a
href="http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/";>http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/</a></span>
applicants/
agb/baseagreement- specs-04jun12-en.pdf)</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size: 11px;"><a
href="#_ftnref" name="_ftn2" title=""><span
class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if
!supportFootnotes]-->[2]<!--[endif]--></span></a> Section
1<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size: 11px;"><a
href="#_ftnref" name="_ftn3" title=""><span
class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if
!supportFootnotes]-->[3]<!--[endif]--></span></a> Section
2.9<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size: 11px;"><a
href="#_ftnref" name="_ftn4" title=""><span
class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if
!supportFootnotes]-->[4]<!--[endif]--></span></a> Section 6</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<!--EndFragment--></p><br> </span></div><div><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
border-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">Respectfully
Submitted,<br><br> <br><br>Kristina Macaulay<br><br>Managing
Director<br>07969991505<br><a
href="mailto:kristinamac@xxxxxxx";>kristinamac@xxxxxxx</a><br>www.globalidentity.eu<br></span><span><img
height="210" width="192" id="6da10368-a2ad-47e5-a199-0b916c4dc5cc"
apple-width="yes" apple-height="yes"
src="cid:A6B489BD-3BEF-4521-A955-AA81F6172117"></span><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px;
"><br><br><br>Global Identity Ltd. Is a company registered in Scotland no.
407802<br><div style="font-family: Helvetica; ">Registered office: 1/1 30
Edgemont Street - Glasgow - G41 3EL<br><br>This e-mail has been scanned for all
known viruses. Please note that this e-mail has been created in
the knowledge that the Internet e-mail is not a secure communications
medium. We advise that you understand and observe this lack of security
when e-mailing us.<br><br>The Service Provider retains the right to use IP
content for marketing use.<br><br>Unless otherwise agreed in writing, all
intellectual property rights arising out of this email shall vest in
the Service Provider: Global Identity Ltd (GIL). The intellectual property
is owned by Kristina Macaulay and the content of the email is also owned
by Kristina Macaulay. <br><br></div>Save a tree...please do not print
this e-mail unless you really need to (think before you
print) <br><br></span>
</div>
<br></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|