RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary:

[Victoria McEvedy <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Claudio, I would be grateful for a reply --I will need this information for my 
minority report. Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Victoria McEvedy
Sent: 20 April 2010 10:32
To: Victoria McEvedy; '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

Hi Claudio, I would be grateful for a response to my questions below--which you 
may have overlooked given all the back and forwards. Thanks and best, Victoria

-----Original Message-----
From: Victoria McEvedy
Sent: 12 April 2010 11:08
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

Thanks for clarifying Claudio.

Does the IPCC (the IPC's Executive Committee) not deal with Policy issues?

Is there no fora at all for discussion of the IPC's stances?

Regards,


Victoria McEvedy
Principal
McEvedys
Solicitors and Attorneys


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.


-----Original Message-----
From: Claudio Di Gangi [mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: 10 April 2010 00:56
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,

my response to Chuck's query from the other day was not accurate. the IPC does 
not function with Policy committees.

volunteers step forward when policy issues arise, and all their final outcomes 
are shared with the full constituency. these opportunities are open to all.

in terms of the IPC Committee on the Future that you serve on, that is not 
Policy Committee but a special committee formed in light of IPC and GNSO 
improvements efforts

claudio
________________________________________
From: Victoria McEvedy [victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 1:46 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

Just to add a last comment -while waiting for more information from the IPC on 
this issue, Claudio I wonder if you could explain how the IPC makes these ad 
hoc arrangements transparent?

Certainly despite having been a member for nearly two years I don't know what 
Policy Committees exist, nor their membership nor their work product or 
decisions.

Regards,

Victoria McEvedy
Principal
McEvedys
Solicitors and Attorneys
[cid:image001.jpg@01CAD7B0.6544E3F0]

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 15:14
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

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
[cid:image001.jpg@01CAD7B0.6544E3F0]

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
[cid:image001.jpg@01CAD7B0.6544E3F0]

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
[cid:image001.jpg@01CAD7B0.6544E3F0]

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
[cid:image001.jpg@01CAD7B0.6544E3F0]

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<mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>
To: 'Victoria McEvedy'<mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx> ; Gomes, 
Chuck<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> ; Rafik Dammak<mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Julie Hedlund<mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> ; 
gnso-osc-csg<mailto: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
[cid:image001.jpg@01CAD7B0.6544E3F0]

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
[cid:image001.jpg@01CAD7B0.6544E3F0]

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<mailto: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<mailto: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><mailto: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><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


__________ 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 5011 (20100408) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 5011 (20100408) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 5019 (20100412) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 5019 (20100412) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 5021 (20100412) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 5036 (20100417) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 5042 (20100419) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 5042 (20100419) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 5050 (20100422) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 5058 (20100425) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 5058 (20100425) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com