August 2016 - Iana-ipr - nro-apps-2.ripe.net

IANA IPR follow-up call | 20:00 UTC | Wednesday, 3 August 2016 | Meeting Notes
by Nathalie Vergnolle 04 Aug '16

04 Aug '16

Dear all, Please see below the meeting notes and chat history from today's IANA IPR follow-up call. The presentation materials, audio and AC room recordings are now posted at https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation under "Meetings & Work Sessions" section. *** Meeting Notes *** IANA IPR Follow-up Call 03 August 16 @ 20:00 UTC List of participants Alan Barrett Alissa Cooper Andrew Sullivan Athina Fragkouli Brenda Brewer Craig Ng (APNIC) Eduardo Jimenez (LACNIC´s Counsel) Greg Shatan Jari Arkko Jonathan Robinson Jorge Contreras Josh Hofheimer (Sidley) Lise Fuhr Michael Abejuela (ARIN) Nathalie Vergnolle Ray Pelletier Russ Housley Samantha Eisner Scott Bradner Ted Hardie Trang Nguyen Agenda: 1. Proposed resolution of selected legal issues (ref [1]) 2. Other items arising from OC reviews of community agreement and license agreement (ref [2], [3], ongoing discussions) 3. ICANN proposed edits to license agreement and assignment agreement (ref Aug 2 email from Samantha Eisner) 4. Next steps and future call scheduling References: [1] https://www.nro.net/pipermail/iana-ipr/2016-August/000257.html [2] https://www.nro.net/pipermail/iana-ipr/2016-July/000241.html [3] https://www.nro.net/pipermail/iana-ipr/2016-August/000252.html Notes: 1. Resolution of legal issues * ACTION: Consensus for counsel to draft the damage award allocation as suggested by counsel, for inclusion in the next draft for review * RIRs are comfortable with the points presented. * Trust and the OC's are comfortable with what was presented here. * ACTION: Counsel to look at 5 - Consultation with the CCG. In case the trust doesn't follow the CCG advice, the counsel will look into how to include informal conversations. 2. Other items arising from OC reviews of community agreement and license agreement 3. ICANN proposed edits to license agreement and assignment agreement 4. Next steps and future call scheduling * The 6 points will be shared with the CWG. * IEFT Trust and Sidley to work together to come up with a revised draft for the community agreement by Monday * IETF Trust and ICANN Legal to work together to come up with a revised draft of the license agreement * Send out doodle poll for Friday, Monday and Wednesday, and schedule three calls (one each day). Chat Nathalie Vergnolle: Hi everyone Andrew Sullivan: hi there Ray Pelletier: hello Alan Barrett: Hi Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): Good afternoon Jari Arkko: hello again Jonathan Robinson: Hello All Athina Fragkouli: hello all Greg Shatan: Hello all! Eduardo Jimenez (LACNIC´s Counsel): good afterrnoon Lise Fuhr: Hi All Athina Fragkouli: we can hear you Lise Fuhr: I need to leave at 21: 00 UTC Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): Happy for Jorge to leqad Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): lead Andrew Sullivan: I'm not wedded to resistance. I'm just concerned about the license discussion being an opportunity for subtle incompatibilities. We saw that in some other agreements already that had to be assembled under this compressed time Alissa Cooper: FWIW, having raised a concern on the list about the burden of policing on the Trust, I think with the approach to maintenance outlined in #3 my concerns about the combined effect of that with policing would be mitigated. Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): How about if we write up a proposal that has the damage award split between licensee and licensor, after expenses, regardless of who controls the enforcement action? Greg Shatan: I think that under US law, an exclusive trademark licensee has much less ability to sue on its own, as compared to an exclusive patent licensee. It's really quite rare. Not sure about other jurisdictions. Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): Just throwing this out as a straw man Jari Arkko: FWIW, I think the cleanest design would be to put all costs and possible damage awards in one place, i.e., the IETF Trust. The only exception to this would be the possibility that we'd ask for cost coverage if (too many) additional registrations were requested. Alan Barrett: Sharing the proceeds seems OK to me, but I don't have a strong opinion on this. Jari Arkko: and i'm not opposed to sharing either, just suggesting what might be a simple way. i don't expect any damage awards btw : -) Andrew Sullivan: yeah, the mental effort of coming up with something perfect is a waste Greg Shatan: It may be the simplest way, but it may not be the fairest way. Agree that this is highly unlikely to occur. Andrew Sullivan: since the chances are so tiny Jari Arkko: i'm fine with alissa's suggestion of you guys coming up with a proposal. i'm very likely to be happy with anything that you might suggest on this front Andrew Sullivan: me too Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): Alissa, perhaps as chair, you could see if there is a consensus for counsel to draft the damage award allocation as suggested by counsel, for inclusion in the next draft for review? Alissa Cooper: @Josh yes, at the conclusion here let's discuss the process for generating the next draft(s), including the damage award bit Lise Fuhr: In case of not following advice - try mediation first? Lise Fuhr: Can't mediation be informal in US? Greg Shatan: All mediation to take place at a resort to be chosen by the lawyers? Jorge Contreras: @Greg - offfer accepted - let's sign! Greg Shatan: :-) Ray Pelletier: great job Jorge and Josh Jonathan Robinson: Happy to go on record and acknowledge that this moved us a long way forward on key issues within the constraints we have. Thank-you. Lise Fuhr: @Alissa can we capture in the notes that we need to look at 5 - informal conversations in case of not following the advice? Alissa Cooper: yes, that should be in the notes. note-takers, could we get that added? Athina Fragkouli: as Jorge just mentioned, we submitted some clarifications to the list before this call Andrew Sullivan: linking to the SLAs seems like a good idea Greg Shatan: I think the RIRs suggestion is consistent with the overall concept I've discussed. Jari Arkko: +1 to what alissa is saying Greg Shatan: This is why the Trust's QC role needs to be delegated to the communities. Ray Pelletier: The QC role is in the OCs responsibility Ray Pelletier: The OCs establish the SLAs Ray Pelletier: the OCs evaluate that performance Russ Housley: @Ray: +1 Ray Pelletier: and it is assumed the OC will make the decision to keep the license there or request it be removed Ray Pelletier: So, what happens if the OC abnadons its tole to oversee the performance of the Provider and the provider perfomance stinks, but the OC does notthing to fix it. Athina Fragkouli: thank you Jorge for this explanation Ray Pelletier: and it wouldnt take action without an independent finding that the provider was in violation of the service obligation Ray Pelletier: thats among the 6 items a,ready discussed Ray Pelletier: shall monitor Russ Housley: I really like to separation that Alissa is offering Ray Pelletier: Yes, it sounds good, but there is a tipping pojnt where ppor performance imacts the Mark; then into Trust area. This is co vered by the OCs decising where the mark goes and at the oint where the Trust may blieve the mark is being impacted but needs an independent finidng before acting - this would only happen if the OC abandoned its responsibility Lise Fuhr: I need to leave now - thank you all. Greg Shatan: Apologies for opening this rabbit hole.... Russ Housley: I think that the separation is really desirable, and the failure of on OC to do their qruality control of an IANA Service to the point that it is harming the mark means that the other OCs need to bring that issue forward Andrew Sullivan: It would be very helpful when we're done this to talk briefly about the assignment Andrew Sullivan: to try to understand why ICANN gets a right to approve future assignment. I found that surprising. Andrew Sullivan: I have an answer to this, which is why my hand is up Russ Housley: The most straightforward way to handle this is to create a subdomain for each of the OCs. Russ Housley: If you look at http://www.iana.org today, there are essentially three links to go to the pages for each OC Ted Hardie: So, I think my answer is slightly differnt Andrew Sullivan: the links today are to different subdirectories, however Andrew Sullivan: You could maybe work out some way to do that with redirects, but the registration is a problem Andrew Sullivan: and the Trust was indeed to be the Admin contact Andrew Sullivan: and ICANN or maybe PTI the tech contact Russ Housley: For example, http://www.iana.org/domains would become a redirect to http://domains.iana.org/ in the future Greg Shatan: The home page probably wouldn't change at all if there were 3 operators. Alissa Cooper: ... and the ietf SLA, at least, already has the cooperation provision in it, I think Greg Shatan: Agree that changing subdirectories to subdomains makes sense. Might make sense to do that in some future upgrade of the site. Russ Housley: @Greg: Correct, and it is so simple and stable that any need for update can be handled with a very straightforward process Greg Shatan: FWIW, the IANA marks predate ICANN. Russ Housley: @Greg: Yes, they were transfered to ICANN by CNRI Ted Hardie: Can you go back to the mediation required section? Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): Could ICANN staff enable independent scrolling by the participants, and zoom, on our own screens? Nathalie Vergnolle: You now have scrolling rights Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): thx Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): @Ted, I think the comments proposed by Sam apply only to an allegation of breach. For consultations in the ordinary course between the IETF and the OCs, it did not seem like anyone was opposing a more informal process for review and consultation. That I believe Jorge is going to draft in the next turn. Andrew Sullivan: rather, necessarily not ICANN, I believe Andrew Sullivan: given the ICG requirement Andrew Sullivan: (That's what my hand was up for.) Jari Arkko: Absolutely agree with what Andrew and Jorge are saying. The basis of the transition is not holding the IPRs at ICANN. Andrew Sullivan: Not to put too fine a point on it, the ICG plan has been out for a long time Russ Housley: Hardwiring the transfer back to ICANN is counter to the proposal that was delivered to NTIA. I would strongly object if this were to go to public comment. Jari Arkko: ICANN should not be driving the community discussion. To a large extent that discusson has happened, and is part of the ICG proposal. Lets stick to that, please. Alan Barrett: Automatic transfer of IPR to ICANN if something goes wrong would be problematic for me, and probably in conflict with the ICG propoosl Athina Fragkouli: agree with Andrew, Jari and Alan's points Russ Housley: @Alan: We had the same thought at the same time Alissa Cooper: agree with above commenters Ted Hardie: We lost the ability to scroll Nathalie Vergnolle: You now have scrolling rights again Ted Hardie: Thanks Jonathan Robinson: @All. In case we get short of time. I need to note that my personal view of the proposed resolution of the legal issues is positive in line with others. However, please do reccall and note that this does need to be presented back to the CWG at our forthcoming meeting tomorrow. I am hopeful that we will get agreement and support for the key points but cannot, of course, guarantee it. Greg Shatan: I think that is what in fact we are contemplating -- that all 3 agreements will be executed and be effective simultaneously (or as close to simultaneous as logic allows). Russ Housley: @Ted: +1 Andrew Sullivan: I am fine with presenting the "6 points" thing to the CWG. Anyone object to that? Jari Arkko: +1 Greg -- that's right Alan Barrett: presenting those 6 points to the CWG is fine Jonathan Robinson: @Andrew. That seems to be the way to go. It is transparent to anyone sufficiently interested in any event. Athina Fragkouli: I concur with Andrew. once the IPR is transferred, ICANN should not have any control over it Jari Arkko: Agree that 7.7 is not consistent with the ICG proposal. Russ Housley: @Jonathan: Please share it. Alan Barrett: 3.1 also seems problematic. it says that the assignment can be revoked Russ Housley: The OCs should be the ones to decide that, not ICANN Alissa Cooper: agree with russ Ray Pelletier: This section of the 6 points covers this: Termination of License.* The Trust will not terminate a License without (a) the support of the applicable Operational Communities/CCG, or (b) an independent finding of fact (e.g. Arbitration) that a material breach has occurred and has not been cured. Jorge Contreras: a restriction on transfer of IP absolutely does not belong in one of the 3 license agreements Greg Shatan: Agree with Russ as well. Ray Pelletier: +1 Andrew Ted Hardie: I may have to move Jari Arkko: In the interest of time, I'll say me piece here: The ICG proposal specifies what the roles of various parties have. ICANN has an important role, but the OC are really in charge. That's a feature, and fundamental to the ICG proposal. Russ Housley: I will need to drop off the call in a few minutes Greg Shatan: A feature, not a bug, Jari? Ray Pelletier: ET Alan Barrett: it would probably be reasonable to commit to provide a license in the other direction concurrent with the assignment Ray Pelletier: The Trust is 11 years old and isnt going anywhere Michael Abejuela (ARIN): we must remain faithful to the proposal, plain and simple. Proposed deviation is not appropriate particularly at the 11th hour Greg Shatan: A condition of assignment should be that the license(s) go along with it. Greg Shatan: That is typical of IPR assignments. Encumbrances travel with the asset. Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): @Greg, agreed, and that would happen as a matter of law regardless. Greg Shatan: Might also want a commitment that a new owner is commiteed to the SSR of the Internet. Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): If acceptable to Jonathan and Greg, then I am ok with that too. Jonathan Robinson: Acceptable to me. Thanks Josh. Jonathan Robinson: Very early next week may make more sense. Friday night not great here in any case Andrew Sullivan: Monday means that we have only 3 days to sort everything out Andrew Sullivan: I'd suggest we schedule anyway. Worst case, we find we haven't anything and we have to cancel Jari Arkko: Lets have enough meetings. Fri or Mon may not have quite everything done yet, but will have something. Ray Pelletier: Friday for IPR Assignment and license with ICANN, Mnday for CA & License with OCs Greg Shatan: We can use a call on Friday to see if the drafters have identified issues that can be worked through by this group. The draft will be better for it.. Andrew Sullivan: +1 to Athina's request Greg Shatan: Mute please. Greg Shatan: Not you Alissa! Brenda Brewer: We will make sure Athina is added Ray Pelletier: Then Wed to wrap! Jonathan Robinson: Thank-you Alissa. Thank-you All. Athina Fragkouli: @ Brenda my request is for the dial in info to be sent to the whole list Nathalie Vergnolle: Thank you. Andrew Sullivan: thanks all Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): thanks all Athina Fragkouli: thank you all Jari Arkko: thanks alissa, thanks all Greg Shatan: Thanks all and Bye! Michael Abejuela (ARIN): thanks everyone

1 0

IANA IPR Community Agreement and License Agreement drafts
by Jorge Contreras 03 Aug '16

03 Aug '16

Dear colleagues, We have attached for your review clean and redlined versions of the Community Agreement and License Agreement, which have been marked against the versions distributed on July 5. We have inserted numerous comments in the marked version using the MS Word comment feature. These comments are intended to address specific text or suggestions made by CWG, RIR or IETF during the last round. In these candidate agreements, we have accepted a number of suggestions both the operational communities. We know that everyone is anxious to get these done, and many of the changes seem to us to be reasonable and in keeping with the Trust¹s responsibilities. What we have not accepted, and what we do not believe we can accept, is any arrangement in which the Trust is subject to "approvals" by the CCG. We remain convinced that such acceptance would be contrary to the Trust's anticipated fiduciary responsibility as the holder of the Marks, and the Trustees cannot responsibly expose the Trust to such a threat. We believe that any independent trust would face this problem. In addition, we do not think that, given the terms of our Trust Agreement, the Trust is capable of acting as a "steward" for other operational communities. The existing Trust Agreement also does not permit the Trust to transfer away any asset once it is owned by the Trust, so we cannot accept any term that anticipates such a transfer. We realize that some people would prefer to amend some terms of the IETF Trust Agreement. That may be possible in the future in order to accommodate some of the above worries. But all changes have to go through the IETF consensus process, and there simply isn't time to do that this year. Hence our agreement must work with the Trust as it currently exists. We hope that you will agree that we are making substantive and collegial process here, and we hope you understand that the existing terms of the Trust Agreement are a hard limit on what we may possibly do. We look forward to additional comments and to a fruitful discussion on our next call. Jorge L. Contreras Contreras Legal Strategy LLC 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 Washington, DC 20036 contreraslegal(a)att.net The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message immediately.

5 5

Proposed agenda for today's call
by Alissa Cooper 03 Aug '16

03 Aug '16

Put together an agenda for the call today, please send amendments/additions: 1. Proposed resolution of selected legal issues (ref [1]) 2. Other items arising from OC reviews of community agreement and license agreement (ref [2], [3], ongoing discussions) 3. ICANN proposed edits to license agreement and assignment agreement (ref Aug 2 email from Samantha Eisner) 4. Next steps and future call scheduling [1] https://www.nro.net/pipermail/iana-ipr/2016-August/000257.html <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/iana-ipr/2016-August/000257.html> [2] https://www.nro.net/pipermail/iana-ipr/2016-July/000241.html <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/iana-ipr/2016-July/000241.html> [3] https://www.nro.net/pipermail/iana-ipr/2016-August/000252.html <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/iana-ipr/2016-August/000252.html> Best, Alissa

1 0

IANA IPR - Proposed resolution of selected legal issues
by Jorge Contreras 03 Aug '16

03 Aug '16

Colleagues, As promised during yesterday¹s conference call, Josh and I have discussed some of the the legal ³sticking points² in the IANA IPR Community Agreement and License Agreement. The attached document reflects our joint proposal to resolve these issues in a manner that, we hope, will be satisfactory to all of the parties. We look forward to discussing these points during tomorrow¹s call, along with any other issues that the parties wish to raise. Best regards, Jorge Jorge L. Contreras Contreras Legal Strategy LLC 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 Washington, DC 20036 contreraslegal(a)att.net The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message immediately.

1 0

Fwd: Your WebEx recording is available for viewing: IANA IPR Aug 1-20160801 1904-1
by Alissa Cooper 01 Aug '16

01 Aug '16

Recording from today’s call is here: https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/lsr.php?RCID=551fea2627b24c6fa26dcd8de21… <https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/lsr.php?RCID=551fea2627b24c6fa26dcd8de21…> > Begin forwarded message: > > From: <messenger(a)webex.com> > Subject: Your WebEx recording is available for viewing: IANA IPR Aug 1-20160801 1904-1 > Date: August 1, 2016 at 2:07:55 PM PDT > To: <alcoop(a)cisco.com> > Reply-To: <messenger(a)webex.com> > > Hi, Alissa Cooper, > Your recording is now available on your WebEx site. > > IANA IPR Aug 1-20160801 1904-1 > Monday, August 1, 2016 > 12:04 pm | Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco, GMT-07:00) > > Play recording <https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/lsr.php?RCID=551fea2627b24c6fa26dcd8de21…> (54 min 18 sec) > Recording password: jJpFC6kC > > You can forward this message to others to allow them to play back the recording. > > Additional options > Edit recording <https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/editrd.php?RCID=369831344780460b805f84fd…> > Download recording <https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/viewrd.php?RCID=a904daa904694c11b0577b69…> > Manage recordings <https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/servicerds.php?SP=MC>

1 0

Fwd: Your WebEx recording is available for viewing: IANA IPR Aug 1-20160801 1904-1
by Alissa Cooper (alcoop) 01 Aug '16

01 Aug '16

Recording of today’s call is available at: https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/lsr.php?RCID=551fea2627b24c6fa26dcd8de21… <https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/lsr.php?RCID=551fea2627b24c6fa26dcd8de21…> > Begin forwarded message: > > From: <messenger(a)webex.com> > Subject: Your WebEx recording is available for viewing: IANA IPR Aug 1-20160801 1904-1 > Date: August 1, 2016 at 2:07:55 PM PDT > To: <alcoop(a)cisco.com> > Reply-To: <messenger(a)webex.com> > > Hi, Alissa Cooper, > Your recording is now available on your WebEx site. > > IANA IPR Aug 1-20160801 1904-1 > Monday, August 1, 2016 > 12:04 pm | Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco, GMT-07:00) > > Play recording <https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/lsr.php?RCID=551fea2627b24c6fa26dcd8de21…> (54 min 18 sec) > Recording password: jJpFC6kC > > You can forward this message to others to allow them to play back the recording. > > Additional options > Edit recording <https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/editrd.php?RCID=369831344780460b805f84fd…> > Download recording <https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/viewrd.php?RCID=a904daa904694c11b0577b69…> > Manage recordings <https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/servicerds.php?SP=MC>

1 0

Aug 1 call chat transcript
by Alissa Cooper 01 Aug '16

01 Aug '16

Attached is the chat transcript from our call today. Alissa

1 0

CWG Comments to IETF Trust IPR Agreements
by Hofheimer, Joshua T. 01 Aug '16

01 Aug '16

Thank you to the work of the IETF Trust and its counsel in preparing and circulating a revised, annotated draft of the IANA IPR License and Community Agreements on such short notice. Attached please find a table highlighting a few key issues from those versions circulated by the trust on July 30. We also would like to make one general comment on behalf of the CWG to give some context for the comments provided: The CWG has enshrined in its proposal as a condition regarding the transition the importance of “neutrality” in handling the IANA Intellectual Property Rights. Achieving this neutrality has been a consistent driver in its work on the IANA-IPR transition and in its discussions with the various operational communities, including in the principal terms document. Originally the CWG considered structural neutrality, which would have had the IANA-IPR housed in an independent, neutral body. As the IETF Trust emerged as the likely home for the IANA IPR, it became clear that structural neutrality was not possible, and that CWG's requirement would need to be satisfied through "functional" neutrality, i.e., through agreements. We understood that the occupational communities recognized this inherent, potential conflict and would endeavor to achieve as much “functional” neutrality as possible, so as to avoid undue actual or perceived influence being exerted by one community. This is to be achieved through the Community Agreement. It is with this context that Sidley Austin LLP, as outside counsel advising the CWG, has been instructed to provide comment to both the IANA IPR License and to the Community Agreement. To be clear, CWG is not advocating for structural changes in the IETF Trust to achieve neutrality. However, serious consideration needs to be given to CWG's concerns and comments, which seek to achieve an acceptable level of functional neutrality. The following comments highlight those provisions and concepts in the proposed agreements that we believe detract from that principle, and we look forward to engaging in some constructive discussion that enables all participants to achieve a balancing of interests. We look forward to speaking with everyone soon. Best regards, Josh JOSHUA T. HOFHEIMER Partner SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP +1 650 565 7561 (PA direct) +1 213 896 6061 (LA direct) +1 323 708 2405 (Cell) jhofheimer(a)sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com> [SIDLEY] **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ****************************************************************************************************

2 1

CWG Comments to IANA IPR License and Community Agreement
by Hofheimer, Joshua T. 01 Aug '16

01 Aug '16

Thank you to all the participants on the IANA-IPR call earlier today. Attached please find comments by the CWG to the IANA IPR License and the Community Agreement, clean and marked to show changes from the originals forwarded to CWG. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions and we look forward to our discussion next week. Best regards, Josh JOSHUA T. HOFHEIMER Partner SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP +1 650 565 7561 (PA direct) +1 213 896 6061 (LA direct) +1 323 708 2405 (Cell) jhofheimer(a)sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com> [SIDLEY] **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ****************************************************************************************************

8 13

IPR assignment draft
by Andrew Sullivan 01 Aug '16

01 Aug '16

Hi, I forwarded this once before, but I'm nervous that I might have forwarded the wrong version -- I _did_ forward the wrong version of something else recently, after all. So I'm forwarding this again, just so that we're clear about what we're talking about. This is really a proposal for an agreement between the Trust and ICANN, so in principle it shouldn't really require much in the way of attention by people here. But we want to be transparent and, as you can see, this is pretty straightforward. We're a little concerned that we're having a hard time getting responses from our correspondents on the ICANN staff, so if anyone has the opportunty to tickle them on this topic we'd appreciate it. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com

2 1