Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document
Hello everyone – just to note that the GNSO Council has been discussing a possible approach for the provision of GNSO feedback pertaining to issues that may be raised or impacted by points made in GAC Communiques. Note that, since the GAC provides its advice via Communique directly to the Board, the Council’s discussions have largely centered on developing a structured method of providing GNSO input to the Board as well. It may be that the GIP could be an appropriate mechanism for some items in the future, but we thought this WG might like to know that the Council is also discussing this specific topic (while also aware of the recommendations our group is making). Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 14:29 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>, 'Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez' <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document > Thanks for the good feedback Anne. The clarification on the GAC communiques > makes sense. > > Chuck > > > From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 2:08 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez' > Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review > document > > Hi Chuck, > I would defer to Amr on the question of the proposed change in language about > GNSO challenges to implementation measures. We should also see what Alan, > Cheryl, Carlos, and others have to say, however. > > Regarding reaction to GAC communiques, I was not suggesting that one of the > new processes be deployed to respond. I was suggesting that when the GAC > identifies implementation issues in its communique, the GNSO should determine > on an issue-by-issue basis ( and advise the Board in writing) whether it can > treat the GAC concerns best by > 1. Not responding or responding that the issue was already treated thoroughly > in a PDP. > 2. Responding that IRT and staff should deal with the issue > 3. Initiating a GIP > 4. Initiating a GGP or > 5. Initiating an EPDP. > > I just think it would be very helpful for GNSO to put each of the GAC issues > in one of these “buckets” because very often it is a GAC communique that > triggers the need for issue resolution – and very often there is time pressure > on the issue for one reason or another. > > Thank you, > Anne > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel > Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | > One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 > AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/> > > > > > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 4:44 PM > To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez' > Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review > document > > Thanks very much for the very thoughtful comments. Please see my responses > below. > > Chuck > > > From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 1:14 PM > To: 'Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez'; Gomes, Chuck > Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review > document > > Carlos and Chuck, > I have been following this thread to some degree and wanted to make some > comments before tomorrow’s call: > > 1. I do not think that the WG proposals expand GNSO “discretionary > powers” in any way. As I understand it, we are simply providing more > standardized mechanisms for providing GNSO input and > policy-making/implantation processes so that the processes that get followed > are not so “ad hoc” (as were those that we studied at the beginning of our > work). In my view, increasing the standardization of the processes will lead > to more trust in the community. In other words, these processes themselves > create “checks and balances” in the system (per Carlos’ comment) because it is > assumed that one of the three standard processes will in fact fit the changed > circumstances or need to address issues during the implementation phase. As > we all know, some of these “changed circumstances” arise due to late-breaking > facts (e.g. name collision) or to late-breaking advice (e.g. in the case of > the GAC.) Our assumption must be that these things will occur and we need to > be prepared to address them in a systematic fashion as they arise. > > [Chuck Gomes] Makes sense to me but I would be surprised (and pleased) if the > one of the three processes covered all changed circumstances. > > > 2. Per my comments on the last call, I still think the WG should not > continue to pretend that only the GNSO makes policy. One need only look at > issues like GAC Safeguards, IGO/NGO, and two letter registrations at the > second level to develop a full appreciation of how policy really works in > ICANN. GNSO is the primary policy-making body but the policy GNSO makes is a > matter of recommendations. If this were not so, there would not be a > provision in the By-Laws which states that there is a Board voting threshold > for acting against a GNSO policy recommendation. We are not going to change > this through the efforts of our WG because we cannot stop the special position > of GAC advice under the By-Laws or stop the fact that governments legislate > and SOs and Committees other than the GAC do not make binding laws. Then > there is the fact that certain groups, e.g. ALAC, do not have a vote on the > GNSO, but certainly have the ability to influence policy and make policy > recommendations directly to the Board (e.g. with respect to a letter to the > Board recommending “freezing” certain gTLDs that carry higher consumer risk.) > Either the WG is recommending processes in which the entire community can > participate or it is acting in a GNSO “vacuum”. I had thought the intent of > our WG was to supply work that would be helpful to the entire community. > (Thus, I do not like the suggested RySG proposed change in principles which > states that the GNSO reserves the right to challenge implementation, rather > than the principle that the community reserves the right to challenge > implementation. Based on the new standardized procedures we are recommending, > any other body within ICANN should be able to bring an issue to the GNSO in > order to initiate a challenge. It would be a great result if the GAC > ultimately decided to pursue one of its issues through a GNSO process. (They > may say I’m a dreamer.) > > [Chuck Gomes] Did you see the compromise language I proposed on the RySG > recommendation? I didn’t test it with the RySG but I think it would > accomplish what was intended in the suggested change. The RySG did not intend > the change from ‘community’ to ‘GNSO’ to mean that community members outside > of the GNSO could not contribute but rather to reflect the fact that the GNSO > is responsible for gTLD policy work and hence should be responsible for > challenging any implementation steps that it believes is beyond what was > intended in the policy. That said, I am not prepared to fight hard for the > change. > > > 3. I agree that “separation of powers” is one reason the WG was formed. > The community reacted to the fact that it was unwilling to let the ICANN Board > and staff determine implementation issues that might raise policy > considerations. Then the WG determined that if there are issues during > implementation, what is most important is NOT how the issue is characterized, > but rather, does ICANN itself have efficient means of dealing with issues as > they arise? This is the underlying logic for the three mechanisms that are > being proposed. > > [Chuck Gomes] If separation of powers means that policy development power is > separated from policy implementation power, then I don’t agree. The GNSO is > responsible for developing policy recommendations and for ensuring that those > recommendations are implemented appropriately. I don’t think that that > responsibility should be delegated to staff without GNSO oversight. I do > agree though that the three processes we have proposed are designed to provide > ways of dealing with issues as they arise. > > > > > 4. With respect to working out issues that arise during implementation > with other bodies within ICANN that influence policy enacted by the ICANN > Board, the need for greater coordination has certainly been recognized. For > example, Mason is now the GAC liaison and there is a trial program in place > for involving the GAC early on in the PDP Issue Scoping phase (see notes from > March 19 GNSO Council meeting). Our WG should also be looking at how best to > involve the GAC (and other non-GNSO voting bodies) in the three new processes > that are being recommended. For example, right now the GNSO is developing a > “template” for response to the Singapore GAC communique. I am watching this > and saying to myself – this is EXACTLY why we need the standardized processes > we have been working on. To my mind, in the future, the GNSO should be using > the GIP or the GGP or the EPDP to respond to the GAC Communiques and advising > the Board which of these processes should be used with respect to each issue > raised by the GAC communique. > > [Chuck Gomes] In my opinion, the GIP could be a good tool for this. It is > less clear that the GGP would work very well and I definitely do not think > that the EPDP would fit. Both would probably take too long and the Council > needs to respond to the GAC in a timely manner. And I don’t think the EPDP > restrictions would be applicable in most cases of GAC communiques, but I would > be happy to be proven wrong. > > I look forward to our continuing discussions and like all of you, am hopeful > that these recommendations can actually make the ICANN policy AND > implementation process function more smoothly, thereby increasing trust in the > DNS both inside and outside the community. > > Anne > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel > Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | > One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 > AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/> > > > > > From:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 1:27 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck > Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review > document > > Dear Chuck, > > > > sorry but i was away from my PC this morning and could not go back to the > GGP/GIP/EPDP definitions. My answer to your last question is basically yes: > > > * There should a clearer argument why this requests go back to the original > source, and not to higher (appellate?) instance, and > * Why it differs from the review a redress path (is it for speed? cost? else?) > that is being thoroughly reviewed somewhere else right now > * There should be a minimum threshold of the arguments for the request, > explaining why is there need for the clarification, and not just another run > at trying to change decisions in retrospect. And it should come from affected > parties directly. > * The threshold should increase from GGP to GIP, and even more to EPDP. I’m > afraid there will be more controversy with the last one. > * Are the groups proposed to deal with all this GGP/GIP/EPDP work be > sustainable over time, representative of the community, or do they risk to be > captured by other parts of the system, so the can delegate their > responsibility? > * There should also be a recognition that the world became much more complex, > with the jump form 30 to a 1’000 Domain Names, and that the GNSO is not going > to be the solving all issues that will arise in the future, PARTICULARLY if > the GDD or the Compliance functions have NOT done there work in a proper > manner. And don’t get me wrong here, the separation of power i’m talking about > is “horizontal” between the different steps in the policy to contract to > business process > * If there is a (what I would call a ) “vertical" problem between GNSO and > Board as you mention, then a pdp will not solve it > > > To put it in a nutshell, my impression is that we need a clearer and > compelling argument ready to the question that will certainly pop up at some > point: If the GNSO did his work right in the first place, why do we need this > new stuff??? > > > > And here the length of the document does not cover lack of the background you > know so well, but newbies like me with just 5 years in the backbench don’t > fully understand. And you are right on another thing: I didn’t like the survey > questionnaire. Just by agreeing to all individual elements, can we > automatically can assume the whole effort is on solid ground. Economists get > burned easily by marginal analysis that looks only at the cost of the last > unit produced. > > > > Thank you very much > > > > Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez > _____________________ > > email: crg@xxxxxxxxxxx > Skype: carlos.raulg > +506 8335 2487 (cel) > +506 4000 2000 (home) > +506 2290 3678 (fax) > _____________________ > Apartado 1571-1000 > > San Jose, COSTA RICA > > > > > > > > >> >> On Mar 30, 2015, at 1:19 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> Am I correct Carlos that in referring to the mechanisms you mean the GNSO >> Guidance Process (GGP), GNSO Input Process (GIP) and the Expedited PDP >> (EPDP)? If so, the descriptions of each of those processes explains who can >> initiate them. Do you think that more information is needed? If so, >> specific suggestions would be helpful. >> >> >> >> If I understand correctly, I agree with you that requests for initiation of >> one the three processes should be accompanied with a strong case. That would >> then allow the GNSO Council to make the best decision possible as to whether >> or not to initiate one of them. Of course, several of the questions we asked >> in the request for comments survey relate to that. >> >> >> >> Chuck >> >> >> >> From: Carlos Raúl G. [mailto:crg@xxxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 12:12 PM >> To: Gomes, Chuck >> Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review >> document >> >> >> >> >> >> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez >> >> +506 8837 7176 (New Number) >> >> Enviado desde mi iPhone >> >> >> El mar 30, 2015, a las 9:49, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx >> <mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > escribió: >>> >>> Carlos, >>> >>> >>> >>> I just finished listening to the recording and found it very helpful. Thank >>> you for your comments in the meeting and below. Please see my responses >>> inserted below. >>> >>> >>> >>> Chuck >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez [mailto:crg@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:crg@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> ] >>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 11:02 AM >>> To: Marika Konings >>> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx >>> <mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review >>> document >>> Importance: High >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Chuck >>> >>> >>> >>> let me summarize my worries in a few sentences, based on the comments you >>> will hear in the recording. While the new mechanisms look very useful and >>> elegant in print, I worry about the checks and balances in so far as "who >>> triggers them and why". Particularly the third one worries me a lot. >>> >>> >>> >>> I come from a very old school of "separation of powers", where one entity >>> develops policy, another separate one executes it, and if there is trouble >>> they both can go to a third entity to solve their differences. The recent >>> letter of Senators Thune and Rubio seems to come from this very same school >>> of thought, as they ask for clear organisational and or structural >>> separations of functions. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] In the new TLD program implementation, the position of extreme >>> separation of powers that the Board and staff took cause some serious >>> problems. Staff and the Board took the position that if an issue was >>> implementation, then they could essentially take care of it on their own and >>> didn’t need to involve the GNSO. That was a primary reason for the creation >>> of the P&I WG. >> >> >> >> Separation of powers is always good if there is an effective independent >> review and redress mechanism for the Board decision of approving the policy >> in the first place. Agree it does not seem to be the case today. >> >> >> >> >> >> Since the gTLD came into full swing, I could positively see that some kind of >> similar division of powers evolving within ICANN> a separate Division *GDD* >> was created to deal with (and hopefully be responsible) of the new contracts >> and collecting monies, as well as an enforced separate group looking at the >> compliance of those contracts, just to avoid any conflict of interest in the >> GDD with their clients. >> >> >> >> For that reason I believe we should be very careful that the mechanisms >> proposed are used only when there are proven problems downstream, i.e. mainly >> with the GDD and or compliance functions and not to everybody for every >> possible argument. >> >> [Chuck Gomes] I don’t think I understand your point here. What mechanisms are >> you talking about? The GDD is the body that will be tasked with >> implementation so I understand the reference to the GDD but compliance >> wouldn’t come into play directly until after a policy is implemented although >> we might consult with them in policy and implementation work to obtain their >> input as needed. What do you mean “that the mechanisms proposed are used >> only when there are proven problems downstream”? The purpose of our >> principles and recommendations are to avoid problems in the future not to >> react to problems. >> >> >> >> For that reason I'm only asking for a very clear explanation of the triggers >> to the consultation >> >> >> >> >> >> If the mechanism are used within the GNSO at their discretion, without a >> well grounded reason from their execution and compliance point of view, they >> risk to become a closed feedback loop, that may put into question the policy >> development process that initiated the whole issue. >> >> [Chuck Gomes] Again, I do not understand what you are saying. What >> mechanisms are you talking about? What closed feedback loop? One of the main >> purposes of the principles and recommendations we are proposing is to ensure >> that the policy development process is not compromised. >> >> >> >> Sorry I haven't learned by hearth the names of the 3 type s of consultations. >> >> >> >> For that reason, my general comments should be seen under my question of "who >> or what, and on what ground triggers those elegant mechanisms", so as to >> avoid the feeling that the GNSO get additional discretionary powers trough >> them. I think this is important in these time of increased awareness of >> Accountability and Transparency. >> >> [Chuck Gomes] This also is hard to understand because I don’t know what >> mechanisms you are talking about. Also, what do you mean by “get additional >> discretionary powers” of the GNSO? >> >> >> >> If the policy is out and approved by the Board, the revision should be >> triggered outside of the GNSO with ver compelling arguments. I rest my case. >> >> >> >> Happy to continue in the next WG session if I can make it. >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> >> >> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez >> _____________________ >> >> email: crg@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:crg@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> Skype: carlos.raulg >> +506 8335 2487 (cel) >> +506 4000 2000 (home) >> +506 2290 3678 (fax) >> _____________________ >> Apartado 1571-1000 >> >> San Jose, COSTA RICA >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> On Mar 30, 2015, at 1:21 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx >>> <mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Chuck, >>> >>> >>> >>> Please note that Carlos is a member of the Working Group and participated in >>> the last meeting (including providing further feedback on his comments). >>> Hopefully he’ll be able to join our next meetings as well to be able to >>> answer any follow up questions the WG may have. >>> >>> >>> >>> We’ll fix the template ahead of the next meeting in relation to item 4.18. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Marika >>> >>> >>> >>> From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> > >>> Date: Saturday 28 March 2015 22:40 >>> To: "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> " >>> <gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> > >>> Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document >>> >>> >>> >>> On my flight home from Istanbul, I went through the latest version of the >>> comment review document. Here are some comments and questions I have. >>> >>> >>> >>> Who is responsible for performing any action items we identify? Note the >>> following action items identified to date: >>> >>> · 3.7 and multiple other items– we need further input from Carlos; >>> Carlos made a lot of lengthy comments throughout the survey that I think >>> would best be resolved via a conversation with him and the WG. Let’s talk >>> about this. Here are the items: 3.7, 4.14, 5.2, 5.11, 5.20, 7.4, 8.4, 13.4, >>> 14.3, G.1. >>> >>> · 4.1 & other items – This wasn’t identified in the action column >>> but rather in the response column. Several of John Poole’s comments related >>> to the initial error we made in referencing a section of the survey. Did >>> anyone communicate with him on the fact that the error was corrected? >>> >>> · 4.4 - This wasn’t identified in the action column but rather in >>> the response column. We discussed asking the RySG to propose alternative >>> language. >>> >>> >>> >>> My comments on the items discussed in my absence on 25 March: >>> >>> · 4.7 – The RySG comment was noted. What do others think about >>> adding the sentence redlined below? >>> >>> >>> >>> Principle C.2.c):“Each ofthe principlesin thisdocument mustbeconsideredin >>> termsof thedegree towhich theyadheretoandfurther theprinciples definedin >>> ICANN'sCore Valuesasdocumentedin article2of theICANN by--laws >>> (http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#I).P >>> <http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#I)> articular note should >>> be made tocore value4: “Seekingandsupportingbroad, informedparticipation >>> reflectingthefunctional,geographic, andcultural diversityof theInternet >>> atalllevelsof policydevelopment anddecision--making.” (The WG notes that >>> informed communication depends on effective communication throughout the >>> community.) >>> >>> >>> >>> · 4.8 – The WG decided to reject the change suggested by the RySG >>> from ‘community’ to ‘GNSO’ because it was felt that it would narrow the >>> scope to exclude affected parties outside of the GNSO from participating. I >>> actually think the RySG change is correct because the GNSO is the policy >>> management body, not the full community, but I also believe it would be good >>> to deal with the issue the WG identified. What about the following? >>> >>> >>> >>> PrincipleD.1.b: “Changesto GNSOimplementation guidanceneedtobeexamined bythe >>> GNSOCouncil or anotherappropriate entityasdesignatedby theGNSO >>> Councilonwhere theyfall inthe spectrumofpolicyand implementation.In >>> allcases, thecommunityGNSOmaintainsthe rightto challengewhether suchupdates >>> needfurtherreviewfor policyimplications while at the same time recognizing >>> that all impacted parties in the community should be given the opportunity >>> to contribute to the GNSO challenge process.” >>> >>> >>> >>> · 4.14 and later substantial comments by Carlos – As I suggested >>> toward the beginning of my response, I personally think it might be useful >>> and the most time effective to schedule a call with Carlos and the WG or >>> some subset of the WG to have a live discussion of his concerns and possible >>> solutions. >>> >>> >>> >>> The NCSG makes some substantial suggestions on at least 11 items. >>> Fortunately, we have some NCSG members in our WG so I think it would be good >>> for us to discuss those when the NCSG members can be present. Here are the >>> items: 5.4, 5.22, 5.24, 5.31, 7.6, 8.6, 9.6, 11.6, 13.6, 14.5, G.4. >>> >>> >>> >>> Likewise, the ALAC makes some substantial suggestions on at least 4 items. >>> Fortunately, we have some ALAC members in our WG so I think it would be good >>> for us to discuss those when the ALAC members can be present. Here are the >>> items: 5.5/5.6, 5.15, 5.33, G6. >>> >>> >>> >>> And the IPC also makes some substantial suggestions on at least 6items. >>> Fortunately, we have some IPC members in our WG so I think it would be good >>> for us to discuss those when the IPC members can be present. Here are the >>> items: 7.5, 9.5, 10.5, 12.5, 14.4, G.3. >>> >>> >>> >>> Marika & I talked briefly in Istanbul. We have not made as much progress on >>> going through the public comments as we had hoped and may be in jeopardy of >>> missing our target dates. She suggested that we could get some volunteers >>> (or small groups of volunteers) to draft possible responses for subsets of >>> the items and then present those to the full WG. Of course we would need >>> volunteers for that to work. How many of you would be willing to do this? >>> In the cases of the comments from the ALAC, IPC and NCSG, we would need to >>> pair WG members from those respective groups with some who are not from >>> those groups. Please respond to this email if you are willing to contribute >>> in this way. Another option could be to lengthen our calls from 60 minutes >>> to 90 minutes; please respond if you could or could not do that. >>> >>> >>> >>> Marika/Mary – Note that we ended up with a sea pair of duplicate items: all >>> of 4.18 appears to be included in 4.19. I suggest that we delete 4.18 and >>> leave 4.19. The fact that this only happened once is pretty remarkable >>> considering how much manual entry had to be done. >>> >>> >>> >>> Chuck >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of >>> the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain >>> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and >>> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as >>> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby >>> notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this >>> communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in >>> error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” > > > > > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this > message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or > agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended > recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or > copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying > to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments > may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of > the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications > Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. > > > > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this > message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or > agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended > recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or > copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying > to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments > may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of > the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications > Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. > Attachment:
image001.gif Attachment:
smime.p7s
|
