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

[Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]

Debbie,
thanks for your comments and looking forward for your email about Task 2.
have a nice weekend.
Olga

2010/4/9 <HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>  All,
>
> I have been traveling internationally for the past two weeks and I regret
> missing the call last week and this week.  I am about to take off right now
> and I cannot call in but, for what it is worth, I support recommending term
> limits for to Constituency/SG officers, Executive Committees and Council
> Representatives.
>
>
>
> I will send an email to the Task 2 team early next week with some of my
> preliminary thoughts.
>
>
>
> Debbie
>
> *Debra Y. Hughes** l** Senior Counsel*
> *American Red Cross*
>
> Office of the General Counsel
> 2025 E Street, NW
> Washington, D.C. 20006
> Phone: (202) 303-5356
> Fax: (202) 303-0143
> HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx]
> *On Behalf Of *Rafik Dammak
> *Sent:* Friday, April 09, 2010 4:06 AM
> *To:* Olga Cavalli
> *Cc:* Claudio Di Gangi; Victoria McEvedy; Gomes, Chuck; Harris, Anthony;
> Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
>
>
>
> Hi Olga,
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, I am not going to attend today conf call, I would like to
> comment the document which be reviewed, later.
> just for clarification, my understanding is that we recommend term limit
> for Constituency/SG officers, Executive Committees and Council
> Representatives as suggested previously as compromise by Chuck. I still
> believe that for such positions there will be enough candidates and
> volunteers,.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
> 2010/4/9 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
>
>
>
>
>