<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">My views on the
questions are below:</font></font><br>
</p>
Stephanie Perrin<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2016-08-19 13:57, Mueller, Milton L
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:SN2PR0701MB733DF8D52FD32036FEF4548A1160@SN2PR0701MB733.namprd07.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:338434257;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1004270580 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I
would like to raise an issue that was completely avoided in
our discussions yesterday.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Probably
the biggest issue facing the whole ICANN environment right
now is the IANA transition – the end of US Govt control of
the DNS root zone, and the completion of ICANN’s movement
toward self-governance. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">My
sense is that the overwhelming majority of us in this
Stakeholder Group (NCSG) are in favor of the transition and
the accountability reforms associated with it. None of us
thinks they are perfect, of course, but almost all of us
believe that we are better off making those changes than
sticking with the status quo.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">There
are a few exceptions. It is clear that the Heritage
Foundation, one of our (eligible!) member organization, is
working very hard in Washington to raise obstacles to the
transition. It appears to me that one of our Council
members, Ed Morris, has aligned himself with the Heritage
folks in opposing completion of the transition at this time,
though I could be wrong about that. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I
think it is perfectly acceptable for there to be different
views within the NCSG. However, it’s also critical for our
members to know what they are voting for, and to have that
debate openly. To my mind, a Council member who actively
works against the completion of the transition has a
dramatically different vision of the nature of ICANN and its
long term future than one who wants to move ahead with the
accountability reforms and IANA transition. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Therefore
it’s critical for our members to know how all Councilors
stand on this question.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">So
I’d like to see the candidates answer these questions;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Do
you think that if the U.S. Congress blocks the transition in
the next 6 weeks that it will be a disaster for the
multistakeholder model of Internet governance? Why or why
not?</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
I think it is extremely important to move ahead on the transition,
lumps and all. There are still risks out there for the
multi-stakeholder model, and we don't know what will happen if there
is a delay. I am optimistic about improving ICANN accountability,
or I would not be willing to work this hard on this stuff. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:SN2PR0701MB733DF8D52FD32036FEF4548A1160@SN2PR0701MB733.namprd07.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">2.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Are
you actively supporting the Heritage Foundation’s (and other
rightwing groups’) efforts to mobilize Congressional
Republicans to block the transition?</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
No<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:SN2PR0701MB733DF8D52FD32036FEF4548A1160@SN2PR0701MB733.namprd07.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">3.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">How
do you think we as a SG should respond if the transition is
blocked by the U.S. Congress?</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Excellent question. I think it would be worthwhile to seek out an
active coalition of civil society to make a lot of noise about the
importance of this transition for the free and open nature of the
Internet. It might be a good idea to work on that now, not wait for
Congress to react. The US situation strikes some of us spectators
as more than a little unpredictable at the moment. Within ICANN, I
think it would be an excellent idea to have this discussion with
other SGs, also sooner rather than later. Certainly ICANN itself
must recognize this risk, and have conceived of strategies. Perhaps
a good idea to raise as a question for our next discussion with
Board members? Finally, I would be gathering as much intelligence
as I could about what is going on at the ITU.<br>
<br>
That is probably enough from me for now, but I am happy to discuss
the matter further, as I view it as a matter that is extremely
important. Opposing or delaying transition is a matter that brings
with it significant risk, in my view, and while everyone is entitled
to their own opinion on the matter, running such a risk for the
community without adequate consultation and discussion in my view is
not correct behaviour for councilors.<br>
Stephanie Perrin<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:SN2PR0701MB733DF8D52FD32036FEF4548A1160@SN2PR0701MB733.namprd07.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I
look forward to discussion of these questions by the
candidates.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Dr.
Milton L. Mueller<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Professor,
School of Public Policy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Georgia
Institute of Technology<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
name="_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
NCSG-Discuss [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>William Drake<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, August 19, 2016 6:04 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> A Few Take-Aways from Meet the
Candidates Call re: Council Transparency and
Coordination<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yesterday’s call provided a useful
opportunity for dialogue on the candidates’ views and
priorities and also turned out to offer some folks a
chance to start clearing the air, however uncomfortably,
regarding issues that arose within our Council contingent
the last cycle. I’d like to suggest a couple take-aways
in hopes that we can re-set that which needs to be and
move forward on a firmer footing. Purely my own views,
which I guess some folks will disagree with, in which case
fine, let’s talk it out.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">1. Differences of perspective among
Councilors are fine but these should be openly shared in
order to preserve trust. It might make sense for the
interested parties to find some congenial space in which
to privately work through past bits of friction that arose
re: e.g. Marrakech, the GNSO chair selection, and whatever
else. It doesn’t make sense to
leave misunderstandings unresolved and entrenched as it
can impact on the effectiveness of the team effort going
forward. Hyderabad obviously offers F2F options, which are
likely to be the most productive in coming to resolutions,
but it might make sense not to wait entirely on this.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2. It would be helpful if Councilors
could be sure to attend the monthly NCSG calls and
proactively share their thinking about upcoming Council
meetings and votes with each other and the wider
membership. In ancient times when I was on Council we
regarded these as fairly mandatory and tried to miss only
exceptionally and with notification, but more recently
participation seems to have be spottier at times (I
believe the NCSG chair has attendance records?). Yes
we’re all volunteers with day jobs and travels so things
can happen, but it shouldn’t be the case that people miss
more than a couple per annual cycle.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">3. In parallel, it’d be good to have
greater open discussion of pending votes and positions on
the NCSG PC mail list. I’ve been on that list since we
set it up in 2011 (first as a Councilor, then as an
observer) and think it’s under-utilized resource that
should work in synch with our monthly calls and those of
the Council. Of course, issues should not always be
sorted purely on an internal PC basis; important policy
choices at least should also be vetted on ncsg-discuss so
the PC is well informed by a feel for general member
sentiment, even if it’s divided. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Either way, between the monthly calls
and the PC, we shouldn’t have cases where members of the
team don’t know until they arrive at a Council meeting how
their colleagues will vote, or what contacts and
representations of the group’s shared positions are being
made to other stakeholder groups, etc. You can’t have a
team effort if people are unaware of each others’ doings.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">4. Part of the PC’s challenge has
always been to ensure effective chairing, including
tracking of progress on open projects, herding cats, etc.
We’ve always appointed Councilors to chair but the
results have been variable as people are already maxed
out. On yesterday’s call Ed made a suggestion that merits
consideration: having a non-Council member as chair, and
allocating one of the NCSG travel slots to this person so
as to promote their continuous coordination of the
process. It’d be interesting to hear views on this.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">5. After-meeting reporting to the
membership of the issues and votes should be routinized.
This doesn’t have involve demanding magnum opus
treatments, a couple paragraphs one a month should be
sufficient and doable. I’d suggested (below) that the six
Councilors could rotate the responsibility, as was briefly
attempted in 2009-2010. Stephanie counter-proposed on the
call that reporting be done by non-Councilors, in part as
a way of on-boarding ‘new blood’ and helping to prepare
folks to stand for Council in a future election. This
could work too, although it may involve some extra
coordination to ensure every Councilors’ votes and views
are reflected to taste. Worth a try…<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">If we could do at least some of this, I
think it’d increase our team’s solidarity and our general
members’ understanding of what their representative are up
to, what’s in play in the GNSO, and what the opportunities
for engaging in working groups and such are. It’d also
make our votes in elections more well informed.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thoughts?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bill<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Aug 17, 2016, at 10:39,
William Drake <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wjdrake@gmail.com">wjdrake@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Aug 16, 2016, at
23:38, Robin Gross <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Agreed.
It is important for members to become
more acquainted with our representatives
and resumes are extremely helpful for
that.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sharing candidates’ resumes
is not a bad idea. But I’d like to suggest we
go beyond this. Two issue we might want to
consider on tomorrow’s call:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">When I joined Council in
2009, we discussed the need for better
reporting to members as to what their reps
were actually doing in Council. We launched
an attempt to deal with this by having
Councilors take turns doing brief reports
about Council meetings. Alas it didn’t get
far, after a couple times the sense of urgency
faded, people told themselves “well, members
can always look at the Council archive to see
what’s happening," and the effort drifted off.
But of course it’s actually not easy for a
member to dive through the Council archive and
try to reconstruct what’s happening, and it’s
not so hard to compose a one or two paragraph
summary of a monthly Council meeting
indicating how our reps voted on which issues,
especially if the workload is rotated among
six Councilors, making it just a few times per
year each. So while it’s a bit uncomfortable
suggesting work to be done by others, I’d like
to put this idea back on the table ahead of
our Meet the Candidates call tomorrow. It
need not be an one onerous thing, and after
all we exist to participate in the GNSO, so
surely we should be able to know how our reps
are representing us in the GNSO. Especially
when we’re being asked to vote them into
‘office’ (for incumbents) on the basis of past
performance.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">More generally, we have
long debated the matter of coordination among
Council reps. Unlike most if not all other
parts of the GNSO, NCSG by charter doesn’t
normally do ‘directed voting,’ where the
members are bound to vote in conformity with a
rough consensus position. We have a charter
provision to do this in exceptional cases, but
I don’t recall it ever being invoked. We’ve
always been content to operate on the notion
that the Councilor does what s/he thinks is in
the best interest of civil society @ GNSO, and
if members don’t approve of anyone’s action
they can vote them out in the next cycle. But
as that has not really happened, it’s sort of
a meaningless check and balance. And this is
not without consequence, as we’ve sometimes
had internal differences within our contingent
that have arguably undermined our
effectiveness and credibility in the eyes of
the community and staff, and can even allow
our various business stakeholder group
counterparts to exploit the differences in
order to push through what they want in
opposition to our common baseline views. So
at a minimum, we need to do better somehow at
team coordination and make sure all our
Councilors know what each other is doing and
why and so there’s no real time surprises,
especially during meetings with high stakes
votes.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thoughts?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bill<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>