<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching
- To: "Angie Graves" <angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching
- From: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:36:23 +0100
I do agree that the council might be the right entity to following-up .
Although I think in doing this the council has to refer again to the SGs/Cs to
bring their respective rules (if there are any) into a coordinated form.
FYI here is an excerpt of the ISPCP constituency Operating Procedures:
<<...
Applicants will be asked to declare whether the entity is a member of another
GNSO constituency or will participate in ICANN policy formulation in ways other
than their ISPCP membership.
Applicants representing entities which do participate elsewhere are required to
demonstrate that their ISPCP membership will be divisionally oriented meaning
that separate individuals will represent those divisions in ICANN affairs, and
that the entity will only represent ISP and Connectivity Providers perspectives
within the ISPCP.
In the interest of transparency, members are required to provide information to
the secretariat whenever there are any material changes to their status or that
of their organisation.
...>>
This looks more or less like a code of conduct with criteria to be talked about
on a case by case.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Angie Graves
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 1:13 AM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Cc: Mary Wong ; mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx ; Ron Andruff
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching
Dear all,
If 6.1.2(j) is mentioned in the response to Martin, the mention should be in
the context of acknowledgement that 6.1.2(j) is the source of the loophole that
Martin discovered.
Also, as refresher, here is an excerpt from Martin's email to the SCI:
"The point in question is in relation to the ability for a member of multiple
SGs and Cs to regularly switch their voting rights between these groups in a
tactical manner, so as to apply votes for elections/decisions where they may
have concerns with lack of representation within a specific group, at a
specific time. Whilst they may only vote in one of the SGs or Cs, there is no
restriction as to when and how frequently they may switch their voting power
between these groups. This could be too flexible and potentially allow the
system to be exploited."
Regarding raising this to the GNSO Council, mention of 6.1.2(j) by the SCI
should be accompanied by mention of 6.2.6(d), as they are composed of identical
language: "No legal or natural person should be a voting member of more than
one Group."
Regards,
Angie
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Mary,
Our response to Martin should definitely include a reference to GNSO
Operating Procedure 6.1.2(j) and Martin can take this up with the BC. We
should not omit a relevant GNSO Operating Procedure when responding to this
question.
Thank you,
Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel
Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP |
One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725
AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx | www.LRRLaw.com
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 4:26 PM
Cc: <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>; Ron Andruff
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching
Thanks for the detailed feedback, Greg. I will amend the note to reflect
your suggestions, including to take up the matter with the Council directly
rather than with individual SG/Cs.
On the question of whether the BC’s question raises the broader question of
the effectiveness of Section 6.1.2(j), this may be something the SCI can
include in its review plan should the Council choose not to refer the topic to
the SCI at this time. As such, while we may not include it in the note to the
BC, the SCI can certainly add it to its list of potential topics for
further/future review at the appropriate time.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, March 16, 2015 at 17:07
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>,
Ron Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching
I am not entirely in agreement with the note or its underlying premises.
I do agree that this is not an SCI issue in the sense that we cannot
generate our own issues, and that our issues can only come from the Council or
from a "group chartered by the Council." The Business Constituency is neither,
since it is chartered by ICANN.
However,I believe this is an issue relating to the effectiveness and
functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures, and specifically, Section
6.1.2(j), which states that"No legal or natural person should be a voting
member of more than one Group." The BC is questioning whether this Section of
the GNSO Operating Procedures is effective as currently drafted, given the
increasing number of stakeholders eligible to join multiple SGs. The GNSO
Operating Procedures are maintained by the GNSO Council. Therefore, this seems
to me to be an issue that is within the remit of the Council and which the
Council could the refer to the SCI after appropriate deliberations. I think it
goes too far to say that this is outside the Council's purview because each
SG/C is responsible for its own charter. As you acknowledge later on in the
note, the Charters are subject to a number of principles in the GNSO Operating
Procedures. To the extent that this relates to one of those principles (and it
does) this is appropriate for the Council to take up.
Furthermore, the Council, which meets regularly, would seem to be a better
forum for shepherding this issue, as opposed to the leaderships of the SG/C's,
which do not meet regularly. If the leaderships did meet and decide that a
common rule for all GNSO SG/C needed to be adopted to guard against
vote-switching, the natural method for creating and adopting such a rule would
be for the GNSO Council (and by extension, the SCI) to amend GNSO Operating
Procedures Section 6.1.2(j). Sending this issue through the SG/C leaderships
would just delay consideration.
It seems to me that, at the very least, we should include in this letter
(or email) as one of the suggestions that the BC bring this up before the
Council. We should also not simply say we are unable to take up the issue. We
should say that we are unable to take up the issue unless it is referred to us
by the Council.
I am also not particularly enthusiastic about suggesting that the BC
consult with other SG/C's on a piecemeal basis. This is the kind of problem
that cries out for a GNSO-wide solution, so that there are consistent rules and
results, and we don't have certain SG/C's that are friendly to "vote-switchers"
and others that are not. In any event, I don't think this should be premised
in any way on whether other SG/C's are undergoing a charter review. This issue
is timely because this is an increasingly realistic problem, not because an
SG/C is revising its charter.
Overall, I just think this should be more neutral in terms of the options,
and include the Council (and a review of 6.1.2(j)) as one of those options. If
the BC chooses to consult with leaderships, that should be fine. If the BC
chooses to take that route, that should be fine, too.
Greg
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello everyone,
Since we have received no objections from anyone, and both Amr and Angie
agreed that the SCI should proceed with a reply to Martin Sutton as sketched
out by Angie and me, we have drafted the following email that Anne as SCI chair
can send if it meets the purpose. Since we thought it would make sense to keep
the note brief, we thought that sending it in the form of an email rather than
as a separate letter would work too.
On Amr’s question about SG/C charter revisions, our understanding is that
each SG/C – in the current GNSO structure – is obliged to include procedures
for amending their charters therein. However, under the previous structure, and
more specifically in the transitional period to the current structure with four
new SGs largely supplanting the old Constituency structure, each SG Charter had
to be submitted to and approved by the ICANN Board. This took place between
July 2009 and June 2011. Similarly, each existing Constituency had to be
renewed and reconfirmed by the Board – this took place in early 2009.
Our suggested draft text for a reply to Martin follows below.
Dear Martin,
Thank you for reaching out to me and the GNSO’s Standing Committee on
Improvements Implementation (SCI) on 26 February 2015. The SCI has discussed
the question that the Business Constituency (BC) raised concerning the
possibility of vote-switching across different GNSO groups, and while we agree
that this situation is not currently addressed by the GNSO’s rules or
procedures, we have also concluded that this specific issue lies outside the
remit of the SCI.
The SCI was chartered by the GNSO Council to review and assess the
effectiveness and functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working
Group Guidelines. As such, questions relating to Stakeholder Group/Constituency
(SG/C) operations are beyond the scope of our charter, for the simple reason
that the ICANN’s bottom-up community structure is based on each SG/C defining
its own governance rules. The drafting, scoping, adoption, review and amendment
of each group’s charter is therefore a matter for that group’s internal
deliberations and decision, with a light oversight exercised by the ICANN Board
which (under the current Bylaws) retains the discretion to prescribe periodic
reviews of each group’s charter (see Article X, Section 5.3 of the ICANN
Bylaws).
Although the SCI is unable to take up consideration of the issue raised by
the BC, we recognize the potential problem that this could cause were it to
happen and would therefore like to offer a few options for your and the BC’s
consideration. As the question arose during the BC's discussion of a revision
of its Charter, it may be helpful for the BC - as part of its internal
deliberations and process - to determine whether to seek external input and
also how suggestions for mitigation received can assist in its decision as to
the best way to proceed. For instance, BC leadership could reach out to other
SG/C leaders to see if a common GNSO position can be developed around the
issue. While we do not ourselves know if other SG/Cs are going to be reviewing
their charters at this time, we note that each SG/C charter is supposed to
specify the process for charter amendment. It may therefore turn out to be
timely for the BC to raise this issue within the broader GNSO community.
In this regard, it may be helpful to note that the GNSO Operating
Procedures prescribe that SG/C rules be based on common general principles that
ensure representativeness, openness, transparency and accountability.
Specifically, while groups are not required to maintain identical rules, their
participation principles should be objective, standardized and clear (see
Section 6.1.1 and generally Section 6 of the GNSO Operating Procedures). In
line therefore with the concept of community–based bottom–up governance, if a
substantial part of the GNSO community were to agree on a need to solve the
potential voting problem, this could result in the development of a GNSO norm
or principle that could, if appropriate, be added to the GNSO Operating
Procedures.
Additionally, given the ongoing structural review of the GNSO, the BC may
also wish to consider bringing up the issue with the GNSO Working Party that is
coordinating this effort on the community’s behalf, perhaps through the BC
representatives on the group. We understand also that the initial report of the
independent examiner will be published for public comment in mid-2015, so there
will be additional opportunities for public comments that can include
suggestions for further structural improvements to the GNSO as well.
I hope that these suggestions from the SCI will be useful to the BC. Should
you or the BC have any additional questions concerning the functioning of the
GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines, please do not hesitate
to contact me. The SCI will be pleased to support the community’s efforts to
better understand and improve these rules and processes.
With best regards,
Anne Aikman-Scalese
2015 Chair, SCI
From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 06:43
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>,
Ron Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching
Hi,
I haven’t commented on this thread, mainly because I thought the
discussion was headed in an agreeable direction.
I think Martin has raised an interesting point, and hope this issue
doesn’t become a problem in the near or distant future. However, as noted by
others, I don’t see this as an SCI issue. Since this isn’t a policy issue, I
honestly don’t see this as something necessarily being within the scope of the
GNSO Council either. Having said that, I don’t think it would be harmful for
the council to discuss the issue. Ideally, this would have been picked up
during the GNSO review, but should be individually tackled by the GNSO’s SGs/Cs.
Isn’t the Board SIC involved in the process of SG/C charter revisions as
well? I tried searching for a process description, but couldn’t find one. May
be helpful to reference that in any response we send Martin, if that is indeed
the case. I seem to remember them being involved in the NCSG charter revision.
Thanks.
Amr
On Mar 9, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Angie and everyone,
Thanks very much for the thoughtful comments – I think we are both saying
very similar things! Essentially, the BC (like all other GNSO SG/Cs) defines
its own charter and scope, which is one reason why (as well as more general
reasons having to do with the fundamental community consensus-based bottom-up
ICANN structure) staff suggested that this is an issue best determined by the
BC itself. This can include all the considerations mentioned by Angie, and the
BC may also decide it wishes to discuss the question with other GNSO SG/Cs. As
we also noted, to the extent that a substantial or discrete part the GNSO
community then believes a more uniform or coherent approach is needed, either
the BC or another GNSO SG/C can bring it up as part of the ongoing GNSO Review
- a point that was noted by Avri as something that can be done through each
SG/C’s representatives on the GNSO Working Party, including the BC's.
Anne has requested that staff draft a response to Martin and the BC,
which we propose to do along these lines. Although we do not think this is
necessarily the type of matter that the SCI Charter was intended to cover,
nonetheless it may be helpful to see if this is a shared SCI view. Please reply
therefore if you have an objection to the proposed approach. If none is
received by 23:59 UTC on Wednesday 11 March, we will proceed as noted herein.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
From: Angie Graves <angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, March 9, 2015 at 11:52
To: Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>,
"<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>, Ron Andruff
<randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Fwd: Request to the SCI - Vote switching
Dear Anne, Mary and SCI,
I am writing to share my thoughts with the SCI as a member of both the
BC and the SCI. If any of my thoughts expressed below conflict with Mary
Wong's pending response, I defer to her.
I am inclined to think that I am speaking for more than just myself
when I say that the SCI recognizes, too, the importance of this issue Martin
has raised, and that we would like to be able to provide answers and resolution
to the potential for abuse of voting rights.
Unfortunately, the SCI's charter directs us to consider GNSO Council
processes and procedures and Working Group guidelines that have been identified
either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council as needing
discussion (e.g. a WG). As the Business Constituency is one of the
Constituencies within the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) referred to in
Article X.5 of the ICANN bylaws, and as the BC's charter review is not at the
request of the GNSO Council, Martin's request lies outside of the SCI's scope.
I am available to talk about this issue with Martin and/or with the BC
Charter Review Drafting Team, and maybe determine together the optimal way
forward. My suggestion is for the SCI to recommend that Martin raise this
issue first inside the BC following the Drafting Team's completion of its first
order of business--the charter review. In seeking BC consensus on the issue,
requests for outside review will be thoroughly considered by the constituency,
ideas for mitigation will be collected, and the best path forward with the
issue will be determined and agreed upon by the BC membership.
Thoughts?
Thank you,
Angie
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <martinsutton@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:26 AM
Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching
To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Angie Graves <angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>, Julie
Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, Ron Andruff
<randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear Anne,
Thank you for your helpful response and suggestion - all noted.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin C SUTTON
Manager, Group Fraud Risk & Intelligence
Global Security & Fraud Risk
Level 8,1 Canada Square,Canary Wharf,London,E14 5AB,United Kingdom
__________________________________________________________________
Phone
+44 (0)207 991 8074
Mobile
+44 (0)777 4556680
Email
martinsutton@xxxxxxxx
Website
www.hsbc.com
__________________________________________________________________
Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to!
From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC@HSBC
Cc: 'Mary Wong' <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, Julie Hedlund
<julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>, "<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>"
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>, 'Ron Andruff' <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
'Angie Graves' <angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 07/03/2015 22:20
Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin,
Although SCI has not met, there has been some discussion on the list
regarding your request on behalf of the BC Charter subteam.
Staff (Mary Wong) is drafting a response to your request for SCI and
will be circulating that response to SCI members for purposes of developing a
consensus on the recommended approach for BC in this fact situation. At
present we have no calls scheduled. If SCI members are not in agreement with
the approach described in the draft response that staff is preparing, we will
likely need to schedule a call to discuss in more detail than achieved to date
on the list. In this regard, you may want to alert and brief the BC members of
SCI as to this particular issue since, to my knowledge, neither one of the BC
SCI appointees has commented in the discussion of this matter on the SCI list.
Thank you,
Anne
<ATT00001.gif>
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel
Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP |
One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725
AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx | www.LRRLaw.com
From: martinsutton@xxxxxxxx [mailto:martinsutton@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 9:17 AM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching
Dear Anne,
As a follow-up, could you please let me know when the SCI is next due
to meet/discuss the item raised below? I just want to manage expectations with
the BC Charter group, so an indicative time would be helpful.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin C SUTTON
Manager, Group Fraud Risk & Intelligence
Global Security & Fraud Risk
Level 8,1 Canada Square,Canary Wharf,London,E14 5AB,United Kingdom
__________________________________________________________________
Phone
+44 (0)207 991 8074
Mobile
+44 (0)777 4556680
Email
martinsutton@xxxxxxxx
Website
www.hsbc.com
__________________________________________________________________
Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to!
From: Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC
To: "Anne Aikman-Scalese" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 26/02/2015 23:21
Subject: Re: Request to the SCI - Vote switching
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Anne, much appreciated.
Martin Sutton
Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence
Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074
Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680
Sent from my BlackBerry
*********************************
HSBC Holdings plc
Registered Office: 1 Canada Square, London E14 5AB, United Kingdom
Registered in England number 617987
*********************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" [AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 26/02/2015 20:31 GMT
To: Martin C SUTTON
Subject: RE: Request to the SCI - Vote switching
Thanks Martin. I will bring this before SCI.
Anne
<ATT00002.gif>
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel
Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP |
One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725
AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx | www.LRRLaw.com
From: martinsutton@xxxxxxxx [mailto:martinsutton@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:30 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Subject: Request to the SCI - Vote switching
Dear Anne,
I am a member of the Business Constituency and currently working with
the BC Charter Review team. During our recent discussions, we identified a
potential issue that may affect GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SGs) and
Constituencies (Cs) which may warrant the attention of the SCI, which I
understand you currently chair.
With the introduction of New gTLDs, an increasing number of
organisations now meet the criteria of membership within multiple groups, even
across the contracting and non-contracting parties divide. The point in
question is in relation to the ability for a member of multiple SGs and Cs to
regularly switch their voting rights between these groups in a tactical manner,
so as to apply votes for elections/decisions where they may have concerns with
lack of representation within a specific group, at a specific time. Whilst they
may only vote in one of the SGs or Cs, there is no restriction as to when and
how frequently they may switch their voting power between these groups. This
could be too flexible and potentially allow the system to be exploited.
I am pleased to say that there is no evidence that this is occurring
but as new members continue to increase, it seems sensible to consider
preventative measures be put in place to protect the GNSO for the future. As
an example, a multi-member organisation could be obliged to commit holding
it's voting rights within one group for a minimum term of 12 months before
switching to another group. Of course, this would need to be uniform across
all of the SGs and Cs, hence, we think it is appropriate to raise this issue
with the SCI for consideration.
I would be happy to discuss further and interested to know if you feel
this would be appropriate and worthwhile for the SCI to assess.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin C SUTTON
Manager, Group Fraud Risk & Intelligence
Global Security & Fraud Risk
Level 8,1 Canada Square,Canary Wharf,London,E14 5AB,United Kingdom
__________________________________________________________________
Phone
+44 (0)207 991 8074
Mobile
+44 (0)777 4556680
Email
martinsutton@xxxxxxxx
Website
www.hsbc.com
__________________________________________________________________
Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT!
This E-mail is confidential.
It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may
not copy,
forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this
message in error,
please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender
immediately by
return E-mail.
Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure, error
or virus-free.
The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message
or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender.
The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be
privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the
intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
************************************************************
HSBC Holdings plc
Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom
Registered in England number 617987
************************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT!
This E-mail is confidential.
It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may
not copy,
forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this
message in error,
please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender
immediately by
return E-mail.
Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure, error
or virus-free.
The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message
or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender.
The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be
privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the
intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
************************************************************
HSBC Holdings plc
Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom
Registered in England number 617987
************************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT!
This E-mail is confidential.
It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may
not copy,
forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this
message in error,
please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender
immediately by
return E-mail.
Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure, error
or virus-free.
The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions.
<ATT00001.gif><ATT00002.gif>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message
or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender.
The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be
privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the
intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|