RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Public Comments on CSG Work Team Recommendations

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Annex A contains the existing GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP).  A
separate working team is currently working on recommendations to revise
the PDP under the direction of the Policy Process Steering Committee
(PPSC), the counterpart of the OSC.  Annex A applies when the Council
initiates a PDP.  The GNSO improvements efforts are not PDPs but rather
efforts to development recommendations for implementation of Board GNSO
improvement recommendations.  At the same time, to the extent
applicable, principles of Annex A are applied.  It should be noted
though that Annex A is terribly outdated and the GNSO has been moving to
a more open and flexible process for several years.

 

Chuck

 

From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 4:47 PM
To: Victoria McEvedy; Julie Hedlund; Rafik Dammak; Gomes, Chuck
Cc: gnso-osc-csg
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Public Comments on CSG Work Team
Recommendations

 

Would someone kindly answer the questions as to the Council's own
reforms and Board approval also explain where we might find guidance on
when Annex A is and is not applied in relation to GNSO policy. Thank
you.   

 

 

From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Victoria McEvedy
Sent: 22 July 2010 17:57
To: Julie Hedlund; Rafik Dammak; Chuck Gomes
Cc: gnso-osc-csg
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Public Comments on CSG Work Team
Recommendations

 

 

If ICANN wants to be a limited liability company -things will have to be
actioned by the Board to have any legal effect.  These are
constitutional changes and warrant Board approval in my view
-particularly as Chuck says that the GNSO has no jurisdiction or power. 

 

I note that Art. X of the Bylaws also say the GNSO is responsible for
developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies
relating to generic top-level domains. 

 

These recommendations are policy -not that dissimilar to the GNSO's
recent reforms of its own Council processes -what happened with those as
to Board approval?  

 

It seems that the following Procedure should apply -as appropriate. See
Annex A to the Bylaws. 

 

11. Council Report to the Board

The Staff Manager will be present at the final meeting of the Council,
and will have five (5) calendar days after the meeting to incorporate
the views of the Council into a report to be submitted to the Board (the
"Board Report"). The Board Report must contain at least the following:

a. A clear statement of any Successful GNSO Vote recommendation of the
Council;

b. If a Successful GNSO Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all
positions held by Council members. Each statement should clearly
indicate (i) the reasons underlying each position and (ii) the
constituency(ies) or Stakeholder Group(s) that held the position;

c. An analysis of how the issue would affect each constituency or
Stakeholder Group, including any financial impact on the constituency or
Stakeholder Group;

d. An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to
implement the policy;

e. The advice of any outside advisors relied upon, which should be
accompanied by a detailed statement of the advisor's (i) qualifications
and relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts of interest;

f. The Final Report submitted to the Council; and

g. A copy of the minutes of the Council deliberation on the policy
issue, including the all opinions expressed during such deliberation,
accompanied by a description of who expressed such opinions.

12. Agreement of the Council

A. Successful GNSO Vote of the Council members will be deemed to reflect
the view of the Council, and may be conveyed to the Board as the
Council's recommendation. In the event a GNSO Supermajority Vote is not
achieved, approval of the recommendations contained in the Final Report
requires a majority of both houses and further requires that one
representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the
recommendations. Abstentions shall not be permitted; thus all Council
members must cast a vote unless they identify a financial interest in
the outcome of the policy issue. Notwithstanding the foregoing, as set
forth above, all viewpoints expressed by Council members during the PDP
must be included in the Board Report.

13. Board Vote

a. The Board will meet to discuss the GNSO Council recommendation as
soon as feasible after receipt of the Board Report from the Staff
Manager.

b. In the event that the Council reached a GNSO Supermajority Vote, the
Board shall adopt the policy according to the GNSO Supermajority Vote
recommendation unless by a vote of more than sixty-six (66%) percent of
the Board determines that such policy is not in the best interests of
the ICANN community or ICANN.

c. In the event that the Board determines not to act in accordance with
the GNSO Supermajority Vote recommendation, the Board shall (i)
articulate the reasons for its determination in a report to the Council
(the "Board Statement"); and (ii) submit the Board Statement to the
Council.

d. The Council shall review the Board Statement for discussion with the
Board within twenty (20) calendar days after the Council's receipt of
the Board Statement. The Board shall determine the method (e.g., by
teleconference, e-mail, or otherwise) by which the Council and Board
will discuss the Board Statement.

e. At the conclusion of the Council and Board discussions, the Council
shall meet to affirm or modify its recommendation, and communicate that
conclusion (the "Supplemental Recommendation") to the Board, including
an explanation for its current recommendation. In the event that the
Council is able to reach a GNSO Supermajority Vote on the Supplemental
Recommendation, the Board shall adopt the recommendation unless more
than sixty-six (66%) percent of the Board determines that such policy is
not in the interests of the ICANN community or ICANN.

f. In any case in which the Council is not able to reach GNSO
Supermajority vote, a majority vote of the Board will be sufficient to
act.

g. When a final decision on a GNSO Council Recommendation or
Supplemental Recommendation is timely, the Board shall take a
preliminary vote and, where practicable, will publish a tentative
decision that allows for a ten (10) day period of public comment prior
to a final decision by the Board.

14. Implementation of the Policy

Upon a final decision of the Board, the Board shall, as appropriate,
give authorization or direction to the ICANN staff to take all necessary
steps to implement the policy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

 

From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 22 July 2010 17:36
To: Rafik Dammak; Chuck Gomes
Cc: Victoria McEvedy; gnso-osc-csg
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Public Comments on CSG Work Team
Recommendations

 

Chuck and Rafik,

Rob Hoggarth has helpfully provided the following relevant guidance from
the BGC report:

Page 46;

"Proposed Action Item: The Board requests: (i) The GNSO constituencies,
with assistance from Staff as needed, to develop a set of participation
rules and operating procedures, consistent with the principles outlined
above, which all constituencies should abide by. The ICANN Board should
ask the constituencies to develop and publicize common principles within
six months; and to implement operating rules and procedures consistent
with those principles at that time." 


He also noted that Staff will likely be asked to notify the Board of the
GNSO's decisions, but no Board approval is required.

Best regards,

Julie


On 7/22/10 12:26 PM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thanks Chuck,

Rafik

2010/7/23 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

No Rafik.  Board approval is not required.  The SIC and Board will
simply be informed of the action.  Of course, the SIC and Board could
always come back and say that that the recommendations do not satisfy
the Board's recommendations and ask for more work. 
 
Chuck
 

From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 12:12 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Victoria McEvedy; gnso-osc-csg; Julie Hedlund


Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Public Comments on CSG Work Team
Recommendations
 

Hi Chuck,

just for clarification, after adoption of the motion and recommendation
by GNSO council, the document will be passed to SIC and board for
approval?

 

Rafik

 

2010/7/23 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Please see below Victoria.
 
Chuck
 

From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 8:58 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: gnso-osc-csg; Julie Hedlund


Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Public Comments on CSG Work Team
Recommendations
 
Chuck -if that is the case then perhaps the BGC should be tasked with
determining compliance/enforcement instead of the GNSO Council?  It
certainly cannot be fair to put Staff in the position of enforcers for
some of the structural and other reasons already aired. 
[Gomes, Chuck] That is not a typical Board member responsibility.  That
it is the kind of task that Directors would assign to staff.  Compliance
enforcement by ICANN has been a very important concern in recent years;
that has mostly related to registrar agreements but it would seem to me
to apply to SG/Constituency charters as well.

 
What models are there within ICANN for follow up and enforcement of
changes and what routes for stakeholders to raise complaints as to
compliance (other than the Ombudsman)?  
[Gomes, Chuck] There are specific mechanisms in place for complaints
about registrars and Whois problems, but I am not aware of one for these
kind of complaints.  Maybe Julie can comment on that. 

 
I do think a deadline should be given for the Charters to be amended by.

[Gomes, Chuck] That is not in the Council's hands.  It is in the Board's
court.

 
Best,    
 

 
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 <http://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: 21 July 2010 00:44
To: Victoria McEvedy
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Public Comments on CSG Work Team
Recommendations
 
Victoria,
 
The Council is not a governing body; it is a manager of the policy
development process.  The Council has the task of approving the
Constituency & SG Operating Procedures but has no responsibility to
enforce them.  The Board has the responsibility of approving the
Constituency and Stakeholder Group charters so it will ultimately be up
to the Board, with staff support, to decide whether the charters
appropriately reflect the Procedures as well as to enforce compliance of
the charters.  If the motion was worded as you suggested, it could
guarantee that certain members of the GNSO community would be up in
arms.
 
Chuck
 

From: victoria@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 7:19 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Public Comments on CSG Work Team
Recommendations
 
But these are all GNSO constituencies and stakeholder groups ---so
within that SO ---in relation to which the Council is the governing
body. Please explain.
Sent from my BlackBerry(r) wireless device

________________________________

From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:35:52 -0400

To: Victoria McEvedy<victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>; Julie Hedlund<
julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>; Olga Cavalli<olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>

Cc: gnso-osc-csg<gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>

Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Public Comments on CSG Work Team
Recommendations

 
Sorry Victoria.  This will not work because the Council has no authority
over SGs and Constituencies.  
 
Julie - I suggested one word amendment choices that I think would work.
 
Chuck
 

From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Victoria McEvedy
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 5:15 PM
To: Julie Hedlund; Olga Cavalli
Cc: gnso-osc-csg
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Public Comments on CSG Work Team
Recommendations
 
Julie -suggested amendment:
 
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council approves [the CSG-WT majority
recommendations [and/or] the minority recommendations].   GNSO
Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies are to implement mandatory
recommendations and any non-mandatory recommendations as adopted by
their general body on a vote by the full membership and shall
incorporate the changes in Charters and any other relevant documents, if
any, within two months of the date of this resolution. Compliance with
this recommendation to be within the jurisdiction of and supervised by
the GNSO Council:   
*         Recommended Common Operating Principles and Participation
Guidelines for GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies; and  <
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-csg-recommendations-task-27may10-en.p
df> 
Recommendations on a GNSO Database of Community Members <
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-csg-recommendations-task-27may10-en.p
df>  
 
 

 
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 <http://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: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 20 July 2010 16:28
To: Victoria McEvedy; Olga Cavalli
Cc: gnso-osc-csg
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Public Comments on CSG Work Team
Recommendations
 
Dear Victoria,

Please do suggest language.  Staff language was merely a suggestion.

Best,

Julie


On 7/20/10 11:15 AM, "Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx <
http://victoria@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
Thank you Julie. 
 
The obvious issue with that language is that it renders every single
recommendation entirely optional and non-voluntary-and the whole
exercise nothing more than advisory or for reference-despite the fact
that after much discussion particular recommendations were agreed by the
majority as "must" recommendations and the balance 'should'
recommendations. 
 
It's currently a motion for each group to carry on as these please and a
recommendation for the status quo.  I don't think that's an acceptable
outcome after our 18 months of work. 
 
I would suggest that the recommendations should be accepted as the
'musts' or 'shoulds' as recommended in each case.   
 
I would be happy to provide some language ---or perhaps the Staff would
like to do that in the first instance.  
 
Best, 

 
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 <http://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: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 20 July 2010 16:03
To: Victoria McEvedy; Olga Cavalli
Cc: gnso-osc-csg
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Public Comments on CSG Work Team
Recommendations

Dear Victoria,

Staff included that suggested language for consideration in the motion
since Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups may need to amend their
charters based on the recommendations in the report.

Thanks,
Julie    


On 7/20/10 10:54 AM, "Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx <
http://victoria@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
Dear WT, 
 
Could someone explain what "for evaluation in amending their charters,
as appropriate" means? What is the origin of this language? 
 
Thank you and 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 <http://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 <http://owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: 20 July 2010 14:54
To: Olga Cavalli
Cc: gnso-osc-csg
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Public Comments on CSG Work Team
Recommendations

Dear Olga,

Here is a draft motion for you to consider.  Please feel free to edit
it, of course.  Let me know if I can help in any way.

Best regards,

Julie

DRAFT RESOLUTION:  Final Council Action on GCOT & CSG Deliverables

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council, at its 23 June 2010 meeting in Brussels,
accepted a set of deliverables submitted by the GNSO Council Operations
Work Team (GCOT) <
https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?gnso_operations_team>  and the
Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team (CSG-WT) <
https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_operations_team> ;
 
WHEREAS, a twenty-one (21) day Public Comment Forum <
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gcot-csg-recommendations>
completed between 28 June 2010 and 18 July 2010 and a Staff Summary and
Analysis <
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gcot-csg-recommendations/msg00001.html> has
been published; 
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council agreed to take action on the these
deliverables as soon as possible after the end of the public comment
period;

WHEREAS, there were no public comments submitted that would amend any of
the GCOT or CSG-WT recommendations; 
  
NOW, BE IT THEREFORE:
 
RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the following set of GCOT
documents, without further modification, and directs Staff to publish a
new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) containing these
sections and chapters: 
*         Section 2.1-Council Member Term Limits <
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-gnso-op-procedures-term-limits-24may1
0-en.pdf>  
*         Section 2.4-Board Seat Elections <
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-gnso-op-procedures-board-seat-electio
ns-24may10-en.pdf>  
*         Section 3.8-Absences and Vacancies <
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-gnso-op-procedures-absences-vacancies
-11jun10-en.pdf>  
*         Chapter 4.0-Voting <
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-gnso-op-procedures-voting-11jun10-en.
pdf>   
*         Chapter 5.0-Statements and Disclosures of Interest <
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-gnso-op-procedures-soi-doi-11jun10-en
.pdf>   
o   Note that two sections, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3, are not approved pending
further Staff action to be determined.  These sections are footnoted in
the document as "inactive" until subsequently approved by the OSC and
Council. 
 
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council approves the following CSG-WT
deliverable and directs Staff to provide these recommendations to GNSO
Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies for evaluation in amending their
charters, as appropriate:  
*         Recommended Common Operating Principles and Participation
Guidelines for GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies; and  <
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-csg-recommendations-task-27may10-en.p
df> 
Recommendations on a GNSO Database of Community Members <
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-csg-recommendations-task-27may10-en.p
df>  

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GCOT has successfully completed its
assignments, as chartered by the Operations Steering Committee (OSC);
therefore, the GNSO Council hereby discharges the GCOT with its
gratitude and appreciation for the team's dedication, commitment, and
thoughtful recommendations.  




On 7/19/10 4:36 PM, "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx <
http://cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
Sounds good.  Hopefully a Councilor will make the motion and another
Councilor on the WT will second it.
 
Chuck
 

From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx <http://owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 3:27 PM
To: Olga Cavalli
Cc: gnso-osc-csg
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Public Comments on CSG Work Team
Recommendations

Dear Olga,

I will forward the draft motion to you as soon as it is ready.  I think
we can get it to you by tomorrow.

Best,

Julie


On 7/19/10 3:05 PM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx <
http://olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
Thanks Julie, let me know once the  motion is ready so we can move it.
Best
Olga

2010/7/19 Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx <
http://julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> >
Dear Work Team members,

The public comment forum on the Task 1 recommendations ended yesterday.
There was only one comment and it was not substantive.  I have produced
a summary and analysis that is available here: 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gcot-csg-recommendations/msg00001.html.  In
particular, the comment did not address the Work Team's report.  It
related to the ICANN comment process in general.

The next step is for the GNSO Council to approve the report.  Staff will
prepare a draft motion for consideration.

Best regards,

Julie 




__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 5295 (20100720)__________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 5295 (20100720)__________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 5295 (20100720)__________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 5295 (20100720)__________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 5295 (20100720)__________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 5296 (20100720)__________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 5296 (20100720) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 5297 (20100721) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com
 

 



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 5301 (20100722) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 5301 (20100722) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 5301 (20100722) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 5303 (20100722) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 5303 (20100722) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com