Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT: Modified Option 7

[Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Chuck – I think could recommend this since it is an exceptional case. 
Alternatively, it could perhaps open the week after our call with the GNSO and 
the GAC on Friday and before Costa Rica?

Konstantinos

From: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 13:37:54 +0000
To: Konstantinos Komaitis 
<k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Jeff Neuman 
<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>, 'Lanre Ajayi' 
<lanre@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lanre@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Gregory Shatan 
<GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT: Modified Option 7

Considering the very tight time crunch, I wonder if a GNSO public comment 
period could be opened this coming week?  I understand that this would be 
unique but considering the circumstances, it might be the only way to have a 
public comment period and still get a recommendation approved at least for the 
top level prior to the end of the application period.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 8:30 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Gomes, Chuck; 'Lanre Ajayi'; Gregory Shatan; gnso-
iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT: Modified Option
7

Thanks Jeff!

To a certain extent I do appreciate the need for speed given the very
short deadlines this group has been given to produce its
recommendations. However, my understanding has been that we had not
determined when the public comment period will take place rather than
if it will take place. I would like to urge this group to ask for a
public comment period but, since this is an exceptional case, we let
the Council decide at what stage of the process this period will
commence and how long it lasts. Entities and individuals, other than
the GNSO stakeholders, must be given the opportunity to comment on this
issue should they wish to.

This is also  why I think it is  important the Council to be provided
with as much information as possible, I.e.along with the option that
will end up receiving rough consensus, we need to submit the ones that
have received minimum support.

Cheers,

Konstantinos
From: Jeff Neuman
<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx><mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 13:10:11 +0000
To: Konstantinos Komaitis
<k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>,
 Chuck Gomes
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
'Lanre Ajayi'
<lanre@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lanre@xxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:lanre@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
Gregory Shatan
<GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>,
 "gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" <gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT: Modified Option
7

Konstantinos,

Given the need to address prior to the end of the application period
for the first round at the top level, the plan is to present our
recommendations to the Council and hopefully the Council will present
to the Board in Costa Rica.  These proposals have been out in the open
from the very beginning and we have all been soliciting comments
throughout the past several weeks/months from our constituencies and
stakeholder groups as I know you have been soliciting comments from
your own.  These proposals are also out for comment now. We are all
working under significant time constraints to get these implementation
issues addressed in this first round while the application round is
open so that applicants can have some predictability and transparency.
Obviously, we cannot control what the Council or Board will do once
they get our recommendations.

This is the process we have discussed on each of the calls for the past
month or two and I trust that this is the message you all have been
delivering to your stakeholder groups/constituencies/ACs.  There were
no objections voiced by the group during these calls to the process.

My personal hope, and not as the chair, but rather on a personal level,
is that we can demonstrate that our processes are nimble enough so as
to show that if an AC like the GAC makes an urgent time sensitive
request like this one, that we can demonstrate that we do have the
ability to address without sacrificing the very tenets of openness and
transparency.   We still have a couple of weeks prior to Costa Rica, so
hopefully to the extent there are additional comments, we can get them
in the next two weeks.


I am only speaking from my own individual viewpoint here and not in any
formal capacity as the chair or as a Council member.   The Council and
the Board will have to make their own calls with what to do with our
recommendations when they get them.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.


Sent with Good (www.good.com)


-----Original Message-----
From:   Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent:   Sunday, February 26, 2012 05:54 AM Eastern Standard Time
To:     Neuman, Jeff; Chuck Gomes; 'Lanre Ajayi'; Gregory Shatan; gnso-
iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject:        Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT:
Modified Option 7

Dear all,

I have a procedural question which my constituency asks and I have seen
it also being posed in other places: what is the process we will be
following after these recommendations are sent to the Council? Most
importantly will there be time for public comments before these
recommendations are sent to the Board and the GNSO gets to decide
whether to implement them?

Thanks

Konstantinos

From: Jeff Neuman
<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx><mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx><mailto:Jeff.Neum
an@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:an@xxxxxxxxxx>>>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 13:29:46 +0000
To: Konstantinos Komaitis
<k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:k.komai
tis@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>>, Chuck Gomes
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:cgomes@verisign
.com>>, 'Lanre Ajayi'
<lanre@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lanre@xxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:lanre@xxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:lanre@xxxxxxxxx.n
g>>, Gregory Shatan
<GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:GShatan@Ree
dSmith.com>>, 
"gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" <gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>>>
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT: Modified Option
7

Konstantinos,

On the language issue, I still owe the status report and will get that
out today/tomorrow.  Sorry for the piecemeal way these are coming out,
but doing my best to get everything out,

Thanks for your patience.


Sent with Good (www.good.com)


-----Original Message-----
From:   Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent:   Saturday, February 25, 2012 05:49 AM Eastern Standard Time
To:     Gomes, Chuck; Lanre Ajayi; Neuman, Jeff; Gregory Shatan; gnso-
iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject:        Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT:
Modified Option 7

Attempt to override and Lanre's language seem much better.

I would also like to hear from the IOC on the issue I have requested
during the call, which I think  is vital for our discussions with the
GNSO and the GAC next week - how does IOC foresee the process regarding
the letter of non-objection? We have heard from the Red Cross that they
will not be imposing any fees should they decide to provide a letter of
non-objection. Can we please have the views of the IOC on this issue?

I will be seeking feedback on this option 7 from NCUC/NCSG. Also, am I
missing something, but the issue of languages is not included in Jeff's
email; and there are still various concerns that I hope we will
continue to address.

Thanks

Konstantinos

From: Chuck Gomes
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:cgomes@verisign
.com><mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:40:29 +0000
To: Lanre Ajayi
<lanre@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lanre@xxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:lanre@xxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:lanre@xxxxxxxxx.n
g><mailto:lanre@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Jeff Neuman
<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx><mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx><mailto:Jeff.Neum
an@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:an@xxxxxxxxxx>><mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>, Gregory 
Shatan
<GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:GShatan@Ree
dSmith.com><mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, "gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" <gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT: Modified Option
7

Lanre's suggested change seems okay to me.

Chuck

From: Lanre Ajayi [mailto:lanre@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 6:09 PM
To: 'Neuman, Jeff'; 'Shatan, Gregory S.'; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT: Modified Option
7

Fine with me but will like to suggest that the next paragraph
"Attempting to obtain a letter of non-objection from the IOC or the
RCRC, as applicable" should then be replaced with "Seek a letter of
non-objection from the IOC or the RCRC, as applicable"

Lanre

From: 
owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>><mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:owner-gnso-
iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 10:27 PM
To: Shatan, Gregory S.; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT: Modified Option
7

I think that works.  Does anyone object to adding those words "attempt
to" before  override?

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs

________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential
and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient
you have received this e-mail message in error and any review,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately and delete the original message.


From: Shatan, Gregory S. [mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 4:26 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Gomes, Chuck; 
gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-
iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT: Modified Option
7

Perhaps we should say "attempt to override."  Otherwise it sounds like
the applicant can unilaterally discard the String Similarity failure.

Greg

________________________________
From:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>><mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:owner-gnso-
iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 4:23 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 
gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT: Modified Option 7
Thanks Chuck.


-          We chose override over "appeal" because the word "appeal"
made a number of the IP attorneys nervous in that it was basically
implying that the string similarity panel had some sort of legal
standing or could set precedent.  So, override was something that they
all could agree to.

-          As far as who hears it, that is an implementation detail we
will leave to ICANN staff.   Too controversial for us to discuss in the
working group (I believe).


In the last paragraph, remember, if it is on the Modified Reserved
Names list, no one other than the IOC or the RC can register.  You
don't even get to the stage of getting a letter of non-objection
because it is an identical match.  So, by definition, the names on the
Modified Reserved Names list will be available to the IOC /RC.

Hopefully that helps.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs

________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential
and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient
you have received this e-mail message in error and any review,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately and delete the original message.


From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 3:02 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; 
gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT: Modified Option 7
Importance: High

Thanks Jeff.  I have a  couple questions that I inserted below.

Chuck

From:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>><mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:owner-gnso-
iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 2:41 PM
To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT: Modified Option 7

All,

Pursuant to the call on Wednesday, please find enclosed the Modified
Option 7 as revised.  I have highlighted 2 areas where I have added
some language to address a couple of the points that were raised during
the call that would be unwanted unintended consequences to the existing
language.  The first is that in order to be consistent with (a) below
(allowing the IOC  or RCRC to apply for their own names), it did not
make sense to run a string similarity review on applications by the IOC
or RCRC, so language has been added in (b) to address this point.  The
second, is what appears now as (c)(ii)(4) which is the point that if
the IOC or RCRC grant a letter of non-objection or a similar string
does get through in this round because they were able to show a
legitimate interest, etc., then that should not preclude the IOC or the
RCRC from obtaining one of the Modified Reserved Names in this or any
subsequent round.

Please distribute this option to each of your constituencies,
stakeholder groups, ACs, etc. to get some feedback. I am really hoping
that we can obtain consensus on this option for the top-level to be
able to address with the GAC and Council next week and in Costa Rica.

*******************************************************************

Option 7:  Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as "Modified
Reserved Names," meaning:

a)      The Modified Reserved Names are available as gTLD strings to
the International Olympic Committee (hereafter the "IOC"),
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (hereafter "RCRC")
and their respective components as applicable.

b)      Applied-for gTLD strings, other than those applied for by the
IOC or RCRC, are reviewed during the String Similarity review to
determine whether they are similar to these Modified Reserved Names. An
application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a
Modified Reserved Name will not pass this initial review.


c)      If an application fails to pass initial string similarity
review:


                                     i.            And the applied-for
TLD identically matches any of the Modified Reserved Names (e.g.,
".Olympic" or ".RedCross"), it cannot be registered by anyone other
than the IOC or the RCRC, as applicable.

                                   ii.            If the applied-for TLD
is not identical to any of the Modified Reserved Names, but fails
initial string similarity review with one of Modified Reserved Names,
the applicant may override the string similarity failure by:
[Gomes, Chuck]  (1) This makes it sound like the applicant has the
power to override the string similarity review rejection on their own
and I don't think that is the case; I wonder if it would be better to
say something like "the applicant may appeal the string similarity
failure by".  (2) Who would process the appeal and make a decision as
to whether the appeal was approved?


1.      Attempting to obtain a letter of non-objection from the IOC or
the RCRC, as applicable; or

2.      If it cannot obtain a letter of non-objection, the applicant
must:

a.       claim to have a legitimate interest in the string, and
demonstrate the basis for this claim; and
b.      explain why it believes that the new TLD is not confusingly
similar to one of the protected strings and makes evident that it does
not refer to the IOC, RCRC or any Olympic or Red Cross Red Crescent
activity.

3.      A determination in favor of the applicant under the above
provision (ii)(2) above would not preclude the IOC, RCRC or other
interested parties from bringing a legal rights objection or otherwise
contesting the determination.

4.      The existence of a TLD that has received a letter of non-
objection by the IOC or RCRC pursuant to (ii)(1), or has been approved
pursuant to (ii)(2) shall not preclude the IOC or RCRC from obtaining
one of the applicable Modified Reserved Names in any round of new gTLD
applications.
[Gomes, Chuck] I may be missing something here but, in the case where
another applicant was allowed to register one of the Modified Reserved
Names, it seems to me that name would not be available to the IOC or
RCRC in the future.  If I am correct in my understanding, would a
change in wording like the following work: "The existence of a TLD that
has received a letter of non-objection by the IOC or RCRC pursuant to
(ii)(1), or has been approved pursuant to (ii)(2) shall not preclude
the IOC or RCRC from obtaining one of the other applicable Modified
Reserved Names in any round of new gTLD applications." Or "The
existence of a TLD that has received a letter of non-objection by the
IOC or RCRC pursuant to (ii)(1), or has been approved pursuant to
(ii)(2) shall not preclude the IOC or RCRC from obtaining one of the
available Modified Reserved Names in any round of new gTLD
applications."


Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
Office:+1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax:
+1.703.738.7965/jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:+1.703.738.7965/jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:+1.703.738.7965/jeff.neu
man@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:man@xxxxxxxxxxx>><mailto:+1.703.738.7965/jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx><mailto
:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>> 
/www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>
________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential
and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient
you have received this e-mail message in error and any review,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately and delete the original message.


* * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and
may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you
are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-
mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy
it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
person. Thank you for your cooperation.
* * *
To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform
you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is
not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose
of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable
state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending
to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
Disclaimer Version RS.US.1.01.03
pdc1