Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Tom's thoughts on S&W

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry, my response below was not to say that the process failed, but that the 
process failed to reach consensus. The process itself did work.



From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:20:51 -0700
To: Jeffrey Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Tom's thoughts on S&W

It didn't fail just because you didn't get what you wanted. I bet you
would have the complete opposite argument regarding PEDNR. No consensus
is an acceptable outcome in a truly bottom up consensus driven process.
If there is no consensus for a particular change, then don't change it.
If the result of no consensus is that the Board goes off and does what
it wants anyway, then that tells the community what the Board really
thinks of consensus driven processes and tells the community not to
respect it either.


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Tom's thoughts on S&W
> From: Jeff Eckhaus
> Date: Tue, November 02, 2010 12:59 pm
> To: Eric Brunner-Williams , Tim Ruiz
>
> Cc: "randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" ,
> "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>"
>
> The Board and the GNSO did go for the proper policy path and guess what,
> the bottom-up , consensus -driven, multi-stakeholder model failed this
> time. The thousands of emails and hours spent were not a decorative
> effort, there was just no conclusion. So we move onto the next step.
>
> The Board of Directors who are mostly picked by their members,users (maybe
> not the right term) have to make a decision. So they engaged experts in
> the field of competition and consumer welfare to review the situation and
> the proposals and give their opinion on them. S&W have spent the better
> part of two years engaged on ICANN and the models involved. I am not sure
> about everyone else but think two years is enough time to learn about the
> uniqueness involved and how registries, registrars and registrants
> interact. This may be even more time than some Board members have spent
> learning about the industry.
> One would assume that a competent Board will take the S&W analysis and
> reasoning and use it, if they choose in their decision making process.
> Maybe the Board will agree that they do not understand ICANN and discard
> their opinion or maybe they will say sometimes one needs to step back,
> since you cannot see the forest for the trees and use their analysis.
> Either way I did not see anywhere in the Board info that they asked S&W to
> decide the fate of VI and am confident that is not the case.
>
>
> Jeff
>
>
> On 11/2/10 10:32 AM, "Eric Brunner-Williams"
> wrote:
>
> >
> >On 11/2/10 1:21 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> >>
> >> > With regard to the Board turning to S&W (or any other "outside"
> >> consultants) to determine the VI
> >> > fate for the first round of new gTLDs that would indeed be a big
> >> mistake.
> >>
> >> Completely agree.
> >
> >+1
> >
> >Exactly what part of the bottom-up, consensus-driven,
> >multi-stakeholder universe to S&W hail from?
> >
> >Why bother to have a GNSO if policy is made externally? For the
> >decorative effect?
> >
> >Eric
> >
> >>
> >> Tim
> >>
> >> > -------- Original Message --------
> >> > Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Tom's thoughts on S&W
> >> > From: "Ron Andruff"
> >> > Date: Tue, November 02, 2010 10:09 am
> >> > To:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Dear all,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I appreciate Tom¹s analysis of the current
> >> > situation, but I take issue with the notion that he and Jeff
> >> promote, i.e. that
> >> > everyone in the VI WG had a bias or vested interest. I believe
> >> that there
> >> > are many members of this WG that stood on one side or another
> >> because of principles.
> >> > I, for one, supported the RACK+ proposal because in my mind it
> >> provided safer
> >> > measures when ICANN embarks on a monumental, yet untested process ­ a
> >> > process that portends the start of a new era of the Internet ­ 100¹s
> >> > of new gTLDs. I submit that there are many others in the WG who also
> >> > stood on principle rather than bias and therefore reject the
> >> wholesale comment.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > With regard to the Board turning to
> >> > S&W (or any other �outside¹ consultants) to determine the VI
> >> > fate for the first round of new gTLDs that would indeed be a big
> >> mistake.
> >> > Those who are not part of the ICANN community, by definition,
> >> cannot have any
> >> > depth of understanding for the uniqueness of what this body is,
> >> what it does, or
> >> > how it works. To apply standard market power equations to a
> >> > one-of-a-kind entity is equivalent to pounding a square peg into a
> >> round hole,
> >> > in my view.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Kind regards,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > RA
> >> > Ronald N. Andruff
> >> > RNA Partners, Inc.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > From:
> >> > owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
> >> > Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010
> >> > 7:28 PM
> >> > To: tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
> >> > Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] call
> >> > for agenda items
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Tom,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > While I like your idea
> >> > and do agree with you , I believe the same bias that has kept us
> >>from
> >> > coming to consensus would leak into the refinements and the S&W
> >> proposals
> >> > would look like the proposals in the Initial Working group.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The one exclusion
> >> > being the CAM proposal since it is close to
> >> > the S&W proposal and believe was authored by the team with the least
> >> > economic interest in the outcome to this VI decision.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Jeff
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > From: Thomas
> >> > Barrett - EnCirca
> >> > Reply-To: "tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>"
> >> > Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 13:48:17
> >> > -0700
> >> > To: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>"
> >> > Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] call
> >> > for agenda items
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > My sense from reading the ICANN report is
> >> > that they have already begun the process of retaining impartial
> >> experts to help
> >> > them with VI/CO by engaging S&W to review the WG proposals.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Everyone who submitted proposals should be
> >> > thinking about how to adjust their proposal in light of S&W's
> >>comments
> >> > about the short-comings of their proposals.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > S&W's conclusion ....[warning: spoiler
> >> > alert] is that their own proposal is more pro-competitive for
> >> > registrants than any of those submitted by this WG. Given the choice
> >> > between proposals from insiders vs outsiders-- outsiders win, since
> >> it can be
> >> > argued that they are bias-free and have nothing at stake in the
> >> outcome.
> >> > That excludes (most) everyone that is part of this WG.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > If I were ICANN, I would be leaning
> >> > towards the S&W proposal as a template for round 1.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Why aren't we discussing the S&W
> >> > proposal to see what refinements we would recommend to ICANN?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > best regards,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Tom Barrett
> >> >
> >> > EnCirca
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Thomas Barrett
> >> > EnCirca - President
> >> > 400 W. Cummings Park, Suite 1725
> >> > Woburn, MA 01801 USA
> >> > +1.781.942.9975 ext: 11
> >> > +1.781.823.8911 (fax)
> >> > +1.781.492.1315 (cell)
> >> > My Linkedin Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/thomasbarrett
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
> >> > On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
> >> > Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010
> >> > 1:23 PM
> >> > To: vertical integration wg
> >> > Subject: Fwd: [gnso-vi-feb10] call
> >> > for agenda items
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Begin forwarded
> >> > message:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > From:
> >> > "Berry
> >> > Cobb"
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Date:
> >> > October 23, 2010
> >> > 4:55:21 PM CDT
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > To:
> >> > "'vertical
> >> > integration wg'"
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Subject:
> >> > RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] call for agenda items
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Mikey,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > A
> >> > proposal I would like for us to discuss at our next session��.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Time
> >> > for RESET & SHAKE the tree!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > My
> >> > apologies for missing the last call, but I am now caught up from
> >> the MP3.
> >> > I have concerns about the momentum of terminating this WG and
> >> asking the GNSO
> >> > Council to decide next steps when we have to power to control our
> >> own destiny.
> >> > Yes, we have not reached consensus WRT to Vertical Integration and
> >> > Cross-Ownership���..yet! Yes, The ICANN Board now
> >> > owns the VI decision for the first round! Yes, there is slim
> >> chance that
> >> > any continued WG efforts will influence the first round. Yes, yes,
> >> yes!
> >> > However, Yes I believe we have NOT fully satisfied the objectives
> >> defined in
> >> > the WG¹s Charter and more specifically, Yes, we have NOT performed
> >>the
> >> > kind of analysis this type of issue rightly deserves. Yes, I also
> >> believe
> >> > termination of this PDP will remove the only opportunity for the
> >> community to
> >> > remain engaged on this important issue in parallel to the launch of
> >> gTLDs in
> >> > the first round and hopefully, one day, resolve this issue before
> >> 2nd and other future rounds
> >> > materialize. Therefore, I propose that the VI WG remain intact,
> >> hit the reset
> >> > button, and shake the tree loose of dead leaves.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Here¹s
> >> > how I got there��
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > This is
> >> > a formally chartered GNSO PDP WG operating independent of the new
> >> gTLD program,
> >> > and no matter what directions the ICANN Board has provided or asked
> >> of us, we
> >> > owe it to the community and our bylaws to exhaust the PDP to a proper
> >> > conclusion. Where we stand today does NOT appear to be a proper
> >> > conclusion, nor does it feel like it.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Now
> >> > that the Board owns the outcome to Vertical Integration and Cross
> >> Ownership,
> >> > they have two choices in their desire to open up the application
> >> window for the
> >> > first round. Choice number one is the fast track to make no change
> >> at all
> >> > and only allow for ³current state² models of existing separation
> >> > and ownership restrictions to exist. The second choice creates
> >> some sort
> >> > of a liberal change to separation and/or ownership that will
> >> require the Board
> >> > to take the most responsible and less risky path of engaging
> >> competition
> >> > experts and other ³specialist.²
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > So what
> >> > are the VI WG¹s outcomes as a result of two choices?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > · If choice one plays out and only use of existing models are
> >> > allowed, the VI WG if still active, can work alongside in a normal
> >>PDP
> >> > ³proactive² mode and observe, analyze, ³engage
> >> > experts,² and respond alongside to the first round while the WG
> >>solves
> >> > this complex issue for subsequent rounds.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > · Choice two, unfortunately, could mean another possible
> >> delay in
> >> > the first round application process and whereby the Board engages its
> >> > ³experts.² I do not believe the Board will decide this issue
> >> > blindly, if it chooses to make changes, as it increases the risk of
> >> litigation
> >> > and such a notion is already a threat by some in the community.
> >> Further
> >> > to the second choice, Peter Dengate-Thrush specifically stated at
> >> the Brussels
> >> > RrSG meeting that if the Board were forced to make a decision on VI
> >> that they
> >> > would engage ³experts² to do so. The VI WG, if still active,
> >> > could seize the opportunity to work alongside the Board¹s engaged
> >> > ³experts² while keeping the community engaged in the process and
> >> > perhaps influence the first round decision. This notion of working
> >> > alongside the ³experts² is what has lacked in all prior economic
> >> > and ³expert² reports to date.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > · Or the third outcome which is being discussed mostly now
> >> is that
> >> > the VI WG be SHUTDOWN and as a result, we lose any possible chance
> >>for
> >> > influence on this important issue and any future PDP efforts will
> >> most likely
> >> > be REACTIONARY in nature given our failure to address this issue
> >> properly
> >> > today. YUCK!!!!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Jothan
> >> > has mentioned many times the notion ³that compliance is one of the
> >>few
> >> > topics we all agreed on,² and while I agree, I also want to remind
> >> > everyone that regardless of what proposal(s) were to have gained
> >> consensus and
> >> > passed by the WG, the least liberal of proposals or concepts still
> >> require a
> >> > transformation in how ICANN Compliance functions and their
> >> enforcement of the
> >> > policies. The same holds true if the Board decides to move forward
> >> with
> >> > option number one mentioned above and only implement just current
> >>state
> >> > separation and ownership restrictions. Why you ask? Ken has used
> >> > the analogy several times of ³letting the genie out of the bottle²
> >> > and that once released, it will be impossible to return the genie
> >> to the
> >> > bottle. I like this analogy, but let¹s not kid ourselves; the real
> >> > genie out of the bottle is NOT what proposal(s) or model of VI & CO
> >> exist,
> >> > but it is the proposed quantity of 500+ new gTLDs. Further to this
> >> point,
> >> > we do not see any regulated or controlled release of gTLD language
> >> from ICANN
> >> > or the ICANN Board despite the GNSO Recommendations and subsequent
> >> economic
> >> > reports.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Which
> >> > choice and outcome do you prefer? I chose to remain engaged and
> >> keep the
> >> > WG active until we resolve this issue and develop solutions that
> >> work for the
> >> > industry and community proactively rather than reactively. Mikey,
> >> if you
> >> > chose to accept and continue your mission as Jr. Co-Chair, it¹s
> >> time for
> >> > you to bust out the PROCESS hat. Here is starter list of what I
> >> think it
> >> > will take for us to get there:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > · Acknowledge Initial Report Public Comments and call Initial
> >> > Report phase complete
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > · Communicate to GNSO Council that our Charter has not been
> >>met
> >> > and the WG intends to ³Reset² (instead of asking for Council to
> >> > provide next steps to the WG)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > o All WG participants will be asked to resubmit their SOI &
> >> > intent of participation with the WG and shed former WG members who
> >> no longer
> >> > chose to participate
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > o Provide the opportunity for Co-Chair changes (You guys have a
> >> > done a great job so far, so I hope you stay on, but understand
> >> about other
> >> > demands)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > · Review & perhaps update the charter & establish new
> >> > objectives for the WG
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > · Establish a new project plan & timeline that reflects
> >> > normalized PDP process and pace
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > · Engage external economist and competition experts to work
> >> > alongside the WG
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > · Create new poll methodology, beginning with high level
> >> concepts
> >> > and drilldown capabilities, and built on a binary yes/no framework
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > o Develop baseline, poll at set intervals, and establish poll
> >> > trend methods to consistently document the position of the WG
> >> throughout the PDP
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > · Scope the Final Report deliverable
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > o Create Model & Harms documentation templates for
> >> > standardized comparison
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > o Establish a current state baseline model
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > o Create proposed models & convert existing proposals to new
> >> > standard template (i.e.. remove the personalization and complete
> >> model details
> >> > via standard template)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > o Finalize terminology & definitions list
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > o Create analysis methodology of Models (aka proposals) &
> >> > Harms, Pros/Cons
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > · Analyze Models via economic, fair competition, cost
> >>benefit,
> >> > market power, pro/con, and use case lenses.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > · Conduct threat analysis of the Ry/Rr technical data &
> >> > integration relationships
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > · Analyze compliance and enforcement frameworks and
> >> requirements
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > · Analyze international jurisdictions and understand
> >> capabilities
> >> > & relationships
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > · Establish desired state, consensus driven, VI Model (s) and
> >> > concepts for Final Report recommendations
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > That¹s
> >> > all for now. I urge members to support the continuation of this WG
> >>and
> >> > not let this opportunity slip away for the community to remain
> >>engaged.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I will
> >> > be happy to answer questions at the call. Thank you.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Berry Cobb
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Infinity Portals LLC
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > http://infinityportals.com
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 720.839.5735
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -----Original
> >> > Message-----
> >> >
> >> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
> >> > On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
> >> > Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 6:12 AM
> >> > To: vertical integration wg
> >> > Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] call for agenda items
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > hi all,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > here are the things i
> >> > have for us to discuss on Monday's call...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -- Roberto's summary
> >> > list
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -- language (which
> >> > i'll draft before the meeting, hopefully today or tomorrow)
> >> introducing the
> >> > summary of public comments in the report
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > my goal is to get a
> >> > pretty precise direction defined on the call Monday, and a final
> >> draft approved
> >> > a week from Monday.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > anything to add?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > mikey
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > - - - - -
> >> > - - - -
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > phone
> >> > 651-647-6109
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > fax
> >> >
> >> > 866-280-2356
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > web
> >> > http://www.haven2.com
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > handle
> >> > OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
> >>etc.)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > - - - - - - - - -
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > phone
> >> >
> >> > 651-647-6109
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > fax 866-280-2356
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > web
> >> >
> >> > http://www.haven2.com
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter,
> >> > Facebook, Google, etc.)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Please NOTE: This electronic message,
> >> > including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential
> >> and/or inside
> >> > information owned by Demand Media, Inc. Any distribution or use of
> >>this
> >> > communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is
> >> strictly
> >> > prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended
> >> recipient, please
> >> > notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it
> >> from your
> >> > system. Thank you.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include 
> privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, 
> Inc. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the 
> intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are 
> not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this 
> message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.


________________________________
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include 
privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, Inc. 
Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended 
recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and 
then delete it from your system. Thank you.