Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly

[Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
thanks for the exchange of ideas in this list.
I encourage those who expressed different views and concepts to think of
possible texts to be included into our document.
Remember please that we have a due date to finish at least Task 1, our goal
is to review the rest of the document in our conference call tomorrow.
Looking forward to talking to you soon.
Best regards
Olga

2010/4/8 Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>

>  http://www.ipconstituency.org/officers.htm
>
>
>
> *From:* Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 08, 2010 10:12 AM
> *To:* Claudio Di Gangi; Gomes, Chuck; Harris, Anthony; Rafik Dammak
>
> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
>
>
>
> The bylaw---which I read in detail, did not answer my questions.
>
>
>
> I’d be happy to direct them to the secretary –who is that?
>
>
>
> Victoria McEvedy
>
> Principal
>
> McEvedys
>
> *Solicitors** and Attorneys *
>
> [image: cid:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC]
>
>
>
> 96 Westbourne Park Road
>
> London
>
> W2 5PL
>
>
>
> T:    +44 (0) 207 243 6122
>
> F:    +44 (0) 207 022 1721
>
> M:   +44 (0) 7990 625 169
>
> * *
>
> *www.mcevedy.eu  ***
>
> Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority #465972
>
> This email and its attachments are confidential and intended for the
> exclusive use of the addressee(s).  This email and its attachments may also
> be legally privileged. If you have received this in error, please let us
> know by reply immediately and destroy the email and its attachments without
> reading, copying or forwarding the contents.
>
> This email does not create a solicitor-client relationship and no retainer
> is created by this email communication.
>
>
>
> *From:* Claudio Di Gangi [mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* 08 April 2010 15:08
> *To:* Victoria McEvedy; Gomes, Chuck; Harris, Anthony; Rafik Dammak
> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
>
>
>
> Victoria,
>
>
> I refer you to the IPC bylaws:
>
>
>
> as I indicated yesterday the Officers either put out a call for volunteers
> when new issues are posted for public comment or sometimes refer back to
> teams or individuals that have expressed interest in ongoing policy issues,
> such as new gTLDs, RAA, and GNSO Improvements.
>
>
>
> When submitting comments the IPC does not publish the names of
> authors/contributors. Should you request additional details I refer you to
> the IPC secretary.
>
>
>
> claudio
>
>
>
> *From:* Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 07, 2010 4:49 PM
> *To:* Claudio Di Gangi; Gomes, Chuck; Harris, Anthony; Rafik Dammak
> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
>
>
>
> How many teams are there? Could you tell us their names?  How often is
> membership refreshed?
>
>
>
> I’m actually on that Committee of the Future ---there was one call and
> nothing further was heard of it.
>
>
>
> This raises the question as to where the real Policy work does happen?
>
>
>
> I’m afraid it seems to me that it occurs behind closed doors—in some magic
> inner circle.
>
>
>
> It is correct that a day before a submission a paper will be circulated
> ---but with no briefing or discussion/explanation of the options or reasons
> for strategy.
>
>
>
> Recently and following my request –we are advised who drafted them –but not
> the name of the Committees.  The process of allocation of work to a
> Committee is also not disclosed.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
> Victoria McEvedy
>
> Principal
>
> McEvedys
>
> *Solicitors** and Attorneys *
>
> [image: cid:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC]
>
>
>
> 96 Westbourne Park Road
>
> London
>
> W2 5PL
>
>
>
> T:    +44 (0) 207 243 6122
>
> F:    +44 (0) 207 022 1721
>
> M:   +44 (0) 7990 625 169
>
> * *
>
> *www.mcevedy.eu  ***
>
> Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority #465972
>
> This email and its attachments are confidential and intended for the
> exclusive use of the addressee(s).  This email and its attachments may also
> be legally privileged. If you have received this in error, please let us
> know by reply immediately and destroy the email and its attachments without
> reading, copying or forwarding the contents.
>
> This email does not create a solicitor-client relationship and no retainer
> is created by this email communication.
>
>
>
> *From:* Claudio Di Gangi [mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* 07 April 2010 21:34
> *To:* Victoria McEvedy; Gomes, Chuck; Harris, Anthony; Rafik Dammak
> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
>
>
>
> Yes, there are teams that work on ongoing policy matters & issues. All
> final outcomes/work products are shared for approval within the
> constituency, usually without voting. For example, the IPC has a Committee
> on the Future that is responsible for issues such as GNSO improvements, etc.
>
>
>
> *From:* Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 07, 2010 4:04 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Harris, Anthony; Claudio Di Gangi; Rafik Dammak
> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
>
>
>
> Both the NCUC and the IPC have them –I believe—based on the tables we
> prepared. Perhaps Claudio can confirm as to the IPC. Its membership and
> actions are not published --even within the Group.
>
>
>
>
>
> Victoria McEvedy
>
> Principal
>
> McEvedys
>
> *Solicitors** and Attorneys *
>
> [image: cid:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC]
>
>
>
> 96 Westbourne Park Road
>
> London
>
> W2 5PL
>
>
>
> T:    +44 (0) 207 243 6122
>
> F:    +44 (0) 207 022 1721
>
> M:   +44 (0) 7990 625 169
>
> * *
>
> *www.mcevedy.eu  ***
>
> Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority #465972
>
> This email and its attachments are confidential and intended for the
> exclusive use of the addressee(s).  This email and its attachments may also
> be legally privileged. If you have received this in error, please let us
> know by reply immediately and destroy the email and its attachments without
> reading, copying or forwarding the contents.
>
> This email does not create a solicitor-client relationship and no retainer
> is created by this email communication.
>
>
>
> *From:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* 07 April 2010 20:47
> *To:* Victoria McEvedy; Harris, Anthony; Claudio Di Gangi; Rafik Dammak
> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
>
>
>
> We are spending a lot of time talking about 'policy committees'.  I
> understand that within the broader GNSO context (PDP WGs, DTs, WTs).  In the
> case of the RySG I don't believe we have ever formed a group called a policy
> committee.  We often solicit volunteers to draft a first cut of a policy
> statement for SG review and consideration but the whole SG then provides
> input and expresses support or lack of support or provides minority
> statements, all of which are recorded in any policy statements the RySG
> submits.  Do other SGs or Constituencies actually have standing 'policy
> committees'?
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:28 PM
> *To:* Harris, Anthony; Claudio Di Gangi; Gomes, Chuck; Rafik Dammak
> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
>
> Thanks Tony –I don’t think anyone here fails to understand what a Policy
> Committee is and isn’t.  Again –I don’t think repeating the volunteers point
> improves it.
>
>
>
>
>
> Victoria McEvedy
>
> Principal
>
> McEvedys
>
> *Solicitors** and Attorneys *
>
> [image: cid:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC]
>
>
>
> 96 Westbourne Park Road
>
> London
>
> W2 5PL
>
>
>
> T:    +44 (0) 207 243 6122
>
> F:    +44 (0) 207 022 1721
>
> M:   +44 (0) 7990 625 169
>
> * *
>
> *www.mcevedy.eu  ***
>
> Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority #465972
>
> This email and its attachments are confidential and intended for the
> exclusive use of the addressee(s).  This email and its attachments may also
> be legally privileged. If you have received this in error, please let us
> know by reply immediately and destroy the email and its attachments without
> reading, copying or forwarding the contents.
>
> This email does not create a solicitor-client relationship and no retainer
> is created by this email communication.
>
>
>
> *From:* Anthony Harris [mailto:harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* 07 April 2010 17:56
> *To:* Claudio Di Gangi; Victoria McEvedy; Gomes, Chuck; Rafik Dammak
> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
>
>
>
> Claudio,
>
>
>
> Thanks for this clear response, which I support in it's
>
> entirety. ICANN's impressive growth since the days
>
> of it's launching in 1999, has been possible *because*
>
> interest groups were allowed leeway to self-organize
>
> within a framework of constituencies in the manner
>
> tha worked best for them. Rigid and bureaucratic
>
> straightjackets have never been the norm in the
>
> ICANN environs, and I hesitate to conclude that
>
> this has changed today.
>
>
>
> Two things caught my attention in the recent e-mail
>
> exchange flow:
>
>
>
> I noticed a certain skepticism about the question of
>
> difficulty in unearthing volunteers in constituencies,
>
> who would replace officers obliged to step down to
>
> comply with term limits. Well, be as it may, this is
>
> frequently a fact of life. Companies and entities may
>
> be willing to participate in a constituency as members,
>
> but not many would commit their representatives to
>
> engage as officers (sit on Council, Stakeholder Group
>
> Executive Committee, or Constituency Executive
>
> Committee). The reason? Simple - hours of workload,
>
> F2F meetings, teleconferences at unseemly hours for
>
> some, etc.
>
>
>
> With regards to comments that emphasize the need for
>
> "proposed standard rules to Policy committees", perhaps
>
> we should venture a reminder that, within a Constituency,
>
> an Executive Committee is *not a Policy Committee*, but
>
> simply a steering group that coordinates the ongoing
>
> functions of the Constituency, and ensures the membership
>
> has all due opportunities to discuss ICANN issues, and
>
> provide consensus input to the Councillors, and as of now
>
> the Stakeholder Group Executive Committee, on policy matters
>
> as they emerge in the GNSO.
>
>
>
> Tony Harris
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>
>
> *To:* 'Victoria McEvedy' <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx> ; Gomes, 
> Chuck<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Rafik
> Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> ; 
> gnso-osc-csg<gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 07, 2010 11:38 AM
>
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
>
>
>
> I think the issue is not just limited to the number of willing volunteers
> but also about the level of experience, knowledge, understanding and
> expertise volunteers have of ICANN and the evolving & complex issues under
> consideration. There is also the question of the potential impact of rules
> restricting participation on the effectiveness and efficiency of a group’s
> operations, and the issue of the right to self-determination in group’s
> setting their own operating rules on these issues to reflect their unique
> aspects, characteristics, communities, etc. – as long as consistent with the
> ICANN bylaws and the common principles the group’s agree to as identified in
> GNSO improvements.  In this regard, a one-size-fit-all rule on participation
> may produce disparate impact since the groups represent completely different
> interests and communities, etc.
>
>
>
> So while I think it may be easy to just say impose term limits on all
> aspects, the impact of such rules need to be considered against the
> potential need or benefit of term limits.
>
>
>
> That’s being said, we came to agreement on setting term limits consistent
> with the BGC recommendations for the executive leadership, i.e. the elected
> officers. In outside parlance, term limits are often limited to the
> executive branch only in many cases. For example, see efforts to impose term
> limits on the Congress in the United States.
>
>
>
> Hope helpful.
>
>
>
> claudio
>
>
>
> *From:* Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 07, 2010 4:43 AM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Rafik Dammak; Claudio Di Gangi
> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
>
>
>
> Chuck –while people have talked about the shortage of volunteers generally
> – this applies to all committees/and Groups generally.
>
>
>
> Based on objections raised on WT calls it seems there are views that Policy
> Committees involve special concerns as to transparency and now to term
> limits and I don’t believe there has been any real discussion on the
> distinguishing features of the Policy Committees in relation to these.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
> Victoria McEvedy
>
> Principal
>
> McEvedys
>
> *Solicitors** and Attorneys *
>
> [image: cid:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC]
>
>
>
> 96 Westbourne Park Road
>
> London
>
> W2 5PL
>
>
>
> T:    +44 (0) 207 243 6122
>
> F:    +44 (0) 207 022 1721
>
> M:   +44 (0) 7990 625 169
>
> * *
>
> *www.mcevedy.eu  ***
>
> Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority #465972
>
> This email and its attachments are confidential and intended for the
> exclusive use of the addressee(s).  This email and its attachments may also
> be legally privileged. If you have received this in error, please let us
> know by reply immediately and destroy the email and its attachments without
> reading, copying or forwarding the contents.
>
> This email does not create a solicitor-client relationship and no retainer
> is created by this email communication.
>
>
>
> *From:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* 07 April 2010 00:34
> *To:* Victoria McEvedy; Rafik Dammak; Claudio Di Gangi
> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
>
>
>
> Victoria,
>
>
>
> It is not true that reasons have not been given.  It would be more accurate
> to say that you disagree with the reasons that have been given.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 06, 2010 9:42 AM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Rafik Dammak; Claudio Di Gangi
> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
>
> There has been repeated objection to the application of any proposed
> standard rules to Policy committees ---but no reasons for this have been
> articulated and I for one do not support their exclusion. They lie at the
> heart of the work of the Groups.
>
>
>
>
>
> Victoria McEvedy
>
> Principal
>
> McEvedys
>
> *Solicitors** and Attorneys *
>
> [image: cid:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC]
>
>
>
> 96 Westbourne Park Road
>
> London
>
> W2 5PL
>
>
>
> T:    +44 (0) 207 243 6122
>
> F:    +44 (0) 207 022 1721
>
> M:   +44 (0) 7990 625 169
>
> * *
>
> *www.mcevedy.eu  ***
>
> Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority #465972
>
> This email and its attachments are confidential and intended for the
> exclusive use of the addressee(s).  This email and its attachments may also
> be legally privileged. If you have received this in error, please let us
> know by reply immediately and destroy the email and its attachments without
> reading, copying or forwarding the contents.
>
> This email does not create a solicitor-client relationship and no retainer
> is created by this email communication.
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx]
> *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck
> *Sent:* 06 April 2010 14:33
> *To:* Rafik Dammak; Claudio Di Gangi
> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
>
>
>
> It may be helpful to realize that the concept of Executive Committees is
> now embedded in all the SG charters so there is a particularly significant
> role for these committees. Also, the concept of Executive Committees was not
> previously built in to the Constituency concept except indiviudally by some
> constituencies so the BGC probably didn't directly focus on these committees
> when recommending term limits.
>
>
>
> With that understanding, a reasonable compromise might be to apply term
> limits to Constituency/SG officers, Executive Committees and Council
> Representatives and recommend them as a best practice for other committees
> and subgroups.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 06, 2010 4:56 AM
> *To:* Claudio Di Gangi
> *Cc:* Gomes, Chuck; Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meeting
>
> Hi Claudio,
>
>
>
> I am in favor of more strong wording, best practice looks really optional
> and I am afraid that there won't be willingness to apply it in groups.
>
> for policy committees, they should be temporary by their nature if my
> understanding is correct.
>
> to apply term limit has to be applied for executive committees.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
> 2010/4/6 Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>
>
> Rafik,
>
> thanks, i appreciate your response.
>
> would you recommend the best practice for term limits apply only to the
> group's executive committee or to which group committees?
>
> under what basis is that distinction made?
>
> claudio
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Rafik Dammak [rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 10:40 PM
>
> To: Claudio Di Gangi
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meeting
>
> Thanks Claudio for your explanation, but I think that we need to improve
> the current situation and recommend common best practices. I may understand
> that few constituencies can face problem to have people volunteering (even
> if I have real doubts about those facts), I think that those constituencies
> have to work internally to improve the situation and not asking for lowering
> standards.
> I am not sure how the WT will handle that point, but I am clearly not in
> favor of what you suggest.
> @Olga @Michael I think that we need to make decision about this point and
> not block the on going review of the rest of document because the tight
> schedule  we have
>
> Regards
>
> Rafik
>
> 2010/4/2 Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx<mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>>
>
> Rafik,
>
> Just to further expand on my last reply to you:
>
> In light of the complexities of the issues that fall under ICANN’s remit,
> it may be necessary or of great value to a Group to have a volunteer serve
> on the executive committee or policy committee for several consecutive terms
> before they have enough experience and knowledge etc. to serve as Chair or
> in another similar leadership position. That is if the Group is fortunate
> enough to have such volunteers who are willing and able to dedicate the time
> and energy necessary to serve in these positions in the first instance.
>
> No matter how representative a group may be of its community, one cannot
> assume that there will be endless pool of willing volunteers to serve in
> these positions. On the contrary, what likely matters more is what community
> or interest is being represented by these Groups and how directly or
> indirectly ICANN’s policies impact them. Each group represents significantly
> varying interests that are impacted by ICANN’s policies is a markedly
> different way, so this directly impacts participation. Therefore rules
> restricting participation on committees can impact Groups very unequally,
> and this is separate and aside from the issue of representativeness.
>
> Therefore, I believe we need to thread very carefully here. We have agreed
> to establishing term limits for constituency officers, which implements the
> BGC recommendation we were tasked with addressing. If groups want to expand
> term limits to other areas of their operations based on their specifics,
> that is of course something they are always able to do through their
> charters. If it’s an issue our work team feels very strongly about, then I
> suggest we consider including it as a best practice.
>
> Hope this was helpful.
>
> claudio
>
> From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:
> rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]
>
> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 3:36 AM
> To: Claudio Di Gangi
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meeting
>
> Hi Claudio,
> I am confused about your suggestion as the limit will be meaningless if it
> is not applied to executive committee.
> if there is fears about volunteering, that issue is more linked to
> representativeness level of Group.
>  "but I would not extend the term limit to policy and executive committees.
> This is consistent with the BGC recommendation which we are tasked with
> implementing, which states: “"There should be term limits for constituency
> officers, so as to help attract new members and provide everyone with the
> chance to participate in leadership positions."
>  and after the effort done for II.8 I am not in favor of deletion.
> Regards
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5004 (20100406) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5004 (20100406) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5005 (20100406) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5005 (20100406) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5007 (20100407) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5007 (20100407) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5008 (20100407) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5008 (20100407) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5008 (20100407) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5008 (20100407) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5010 (20100408) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5010 (20100408) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>