<div>Hi Nick,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks very much for your comments. Please find responses below.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote><div>- ICANN’s relationship through its registry agreement is with PIR, who will still operate the TLDs after the sale. Clause 7.5 as I understand (happy to be corrected) pertains to a change of registry operator, or subcontracting to another registry operator, and not to a change of significant shareholder in the registry operator itself.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think this is an avenue which we could pursue.<br></div><div><br></div><div>ISOC's CEO has said on one of the internal ISOC member mailing lists that according to the advice he has received, he considers this language relevant and a potential threat to the sale, as it would constitute an "indirect change of control".<br></div><div><br></div><div>While you are right that the agreement for the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG operation remains between PIR and ICANN, article 7.5 a) states "Registry Operator must also provide no less than thirty (30) calendar days advance notice to ICANN prior to the consummation of any transaction anticipated to result in a <b>direct or indirect change of control</b> of Registry Operator," (emphasis added) and an indirect change of control of the Registry Operator is exactly what is being proposed by this sale.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote><div>- I think the specific request to halt the sale is better directed to ISOC, because they are the controlling shareholder in PIR who are positioning to sell;<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This letter is not about halting the sale; it is about preventing the transfer of the Registry Agreements for .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG to Ethos Capital. The decision to sell PIR's assets is indeed a matter for ISOC to decide. If this is not clear please feel free to edit the letter to make this distinction more evident. Thanks!<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote><div>- I’m not convinced an open tendering process is a desirable solution;<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Can you please expand upon why? This was a recommendation that the US Department of Justice's Antitrust Division has previously made to ICANN. They believe that the public ultimately benefits from more competition, and competitive bidding is the only way to accomplish this due to the technical design of the Internet DNS, as there can only be a single registry operator at a time.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote><div>- I’m not convinced by the risks. Many charities and non-profits have telephone numbers and other services which they pay for to for-profit, private and publicly listed companies. Any price increases will need to remain competitive in an expanding gTLD market.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree that the gTLD market will need to remain competitive for new registrations, but I do not believe that will be the case for domain name renewals (which are 75+% of .ORG registrations). The switching costs of moving from one domain to another are extremely significant.<br></div><div><br></div><div>This is not really about PIR being owned by a private business, it's that .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG are all monopolies. With phone numbers, you can keep your phone number and transfer it to another telecom operator. You can't keep your .ORG if the price increases and you can't afford it, you have to move to another gTLD... lose your search engine ranking, update your business cards, update your contacts, etc.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote><div>- Whilst understanding and supportive of the principle of a TLD space for charities and public interest organisations, there appears to be a lack of supporting documentation enshrining this, and indeed .org is open to all registrants.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't think this statement is true... in the introduction of our letter I have provided some language around why I think .ORG was intended or at least viewed as serving non-profit organizations. Maybe there is a divergence of opinion here but happy to discuss further.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks Nick,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Ayden Férdeline<br></div><div> <br></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block"><div class="protonmail_signature_block-proton protonmail_signature_block-empty"><br></div></div><div><br></div><div>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐<br></div><div> On Wednesday, 4 December 2019 15:36, Nick Shorey <lists@NICKSHOREY.COM> wrote:<br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite"><div>Hi everyone,<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>Firstly, in the interests of disclosure, I am a community member of the ISOC England chapter, but not involved in any decisions or activity regarding the proposed sale.<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>Whilst I commend Ayden and others for their efforts in the drafting of the letter and work on the mailing list to bring attention to this issue, I do not give my approval of the transmission of this letter to the ICANN Board in the name of NCSG, and it seems at this stage there is no consensus to doing so.<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>My reasons for objection are thus:<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>- ICANN’s relationship through its registry agreement is with PIR, who will still operate the TLDs after the sale. Clause 7.5 as I understand (happy to be corrected) pertains to a change of registry operator, or subcontracting to another registry operator, and not to a change of significant shareholder in the registry operator itself.<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>- I think the specific request to halt the sale is better directed to ISOC, because they are the controlling shareholder in PIR who are positioning to sell;<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>- I’m not convinced an open tendering process is a desirable solution;<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>- I’m not convinced by the risks. Many charities and non-profits have telephone numbers and other services which they pay for to for-profit, private and publicly listed companies. Any price increases will need to remain competitive in an expanding gTLD market.<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>- Whilst understanding and supportive of the principle of a TLD space for charities and public interest organisations, there appears to be a lack of supporting documentation enshrining this, and indeed .org is open to all registrants.<br></div><div class><br></div><div class><br></div><div class>The timelines and closed nature of this proposed sale are very concerning. Therefore I do believe there is value in requesting from ICANN publication of correspondence with PIR and its representatives regarding the lifting of price caps; any correspondence with members or representatives of ISOC on this issue; any correspondence with members or representatives of Ethos Capital on this issue.<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>I hope this response proves helpful to all.<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>Kind regards,<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>Nick<br></div><div class><div><br></div><div class><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div>Nick Shorey<br></div><div>Phone: +44 (0) 7552 455 988<br></div><div><a href="mailto:lists@nickshorey.com" class>Email: lists@nickshorey.com</a><br></div><div>Skype: nick.shorey<br></div><div>Twitter: @nickshorey<br></div><div>LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin<br></div><div>Web: www.nickshorey.com<br></div></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class><br></div></div></div><div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite" class><div class>On 4 Dec 2019, at 13:36, Amr Elsadr <<a href="mailto:aelsadr@ICANNPOLICY.NINJA" class>aelsadr@ICANNPOLICY.NINJA</a>> wrote:<br></div><div><br></div><div class><div class><div>Hi Stephanie,<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>I’m not asking that you bring back information on the sale, or that you violate an NDA. What I’m saying is that since the NCSG appoints a member to PIR’s Advisory Council, it can serve as a means to communicate to them proposals we come up with, concerning how PIR better serves its non-commercial .org (or other gTLDs) customers.<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>This doesn’t mean that if any proposals we submit result in further discussion, that they remain with the Advisory Council, but could possibly include executives from PIR and Ethos engaging with our membership directly. This isn’t new. If you recall, the NCSG played a role in having PIR abandon plans to adopt private rights protection mechanisms for trademark holders a few years ago, when they were considering it.<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>Thanks.<br></div><div class><br></div><div class><div>Amr<br></div><div class><div class><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite" class><div class>On Dec 4, 2019, at 3:22 PM, Stephanie Perrin <<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@MAIL.UTORONTO.CA" class>stephanie.perrin@MAIL.UTORONTO.CA</a>> wrote:<br></div><div><br></div><div class><div class><p class><span style="font-size:undefinedpx"><span style="font-family:Lucida Grande">I will respond to Amr on the matter of the Advisory Board representatives. Joan Kerr and I both serve on the PIR Advisory Board, I am your official rep but Joan is also on the Board. Unfortunately, we are not
at liberty as members of the Advisory Board to bring back what we learn to the list, as we were reminded recently of our non-disclosure agreements. I am happy to channel anything members care to discuss to my colleagues on the Advisory Board, including Jon
Nevett, but it is not a great two way mechanism for members to learn more about the sale.</span></span><br></p><p class><span style="font-size:undefinedpx"><span style="font-family:Lucida Grande">Various members had requested that we do something. Sending a letter expressing our concerns, asking questions, or requesting a given outcome is in my view important, regardless of whether we get our desired result
in my view. Frankly, how often do we actually succeed at ICANN? (Please do not respond to that with a list of our successes, I am aware that many of our struggles yield better outcomes for non-commercial users than if we had not participated). My point
is, we are here to defend non-commercial interests and I would find it very odd if we remained silent on such a key issue, regardless of the likelihood of changing the outcome.</span></span><br></p><p class><span style="font-size:undefinedpx"><span style="font-family:Lucida Grande">Obviously this whole discussion, as in our comments on the actual removal of price caps, has shone a light on our differences in terms of what we understand ICANN's role to be in matters of price control. Perhaps
a statement of that fundamental disagreement might be added to the letter. </span></span><br></p><p class><span style="font-size:undefinedpx"><span style="font-family:Lucida Grande">Kind regards</span></span><br></p><p class><span style="font-size:undefinedpx"><span style="font-family:Lucida Grande">Stephanie Perrin</span></span><br></p><p class><span style="font-size:undefinedpx"><span style="font-family:Lucida Grande"></span></span><br></p><div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2019-12-04 06:52, Amr Elsadr wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite" class><div>Hi Michael, <br></div><div class><br></div><div class>Yeah…, my problem isn’t that I don’t want NCSG to engage on this, but as you suggest, my problem is with the text (and purpose) of this draft letter. I think NCSG should get stuck into this issue, but hope that we don’t take the lead from other
civil society organizations by simply objecting to the sale (which imo isn't such a disaster).<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>I had indicated earlier on this thread that Milton proposed a few solid improvements to protections that the NCSG should try to negotiate. I’ve been toying around with at least one myself, but am not settled yet on what the best way to proceed
might be.<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>We do have several means of engaging with this event, such as via correspondence with the ICANN BoD, but my thinking right now is that the preferred first step would be to open a channel of communication with PIR, either directly from the NCSG
to PIR, or via our representative on the PIR Advisory Council.<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>If this thing can be turned around to get clear commitments from PIR on empowering civil society through its gTLDs, I believe this would be a win. Ethos and PIR have both declared their intent to better serve the NGO .org community. I’m not saying
we take them at their word, but believe we should test their declarations before condemning them, and definitely before giving up on possibly getting something better out of this than was the status-quo before the announcement of the agreement to sell by ISOC
was made.<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>Thanks.<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>Amr<br></div><div class><div class><div class><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite" class><div class>On Dec 4, 2019, at 1:07 PM, Michael J. Oghia <<a href="mailto:mike.oghia@gmail.com" class>mike.oghia@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div><br></div><div class><div dir="ltr" class><div>Hi Amr, <br></div><div class><br></div><div class>It's always good to hear from you, and all fair points.<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>Let me clarify that, to me, staying silent about this undermines what we stand for. The complexities regarding the how (i.e., what recommendations to suggest, etc.) are open to discussion. I simply don't think that the NCSG should not formally
address this, especially when there is enough evidence to suggest that there could be potential harm to the interests of non-commercial registrants.<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>If you simply disagree with addressing the issue via a statement or additional advocacy, then it's a moot point. If the issue is with the text itself, however, would you be willing to draft something else that articulates any missing nuance or
suggestions for routes going forward?<br></div><div class><br></div><div class><div class><div dir="ltr" data-smartmail="gmail_signature" class><div dir="ltr" class><div class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div><span style="font-family:arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">Best,<br class> -Michael</span> </div><div dir="ltr" class><div class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:50 AM Amr Elsadr <<a href="mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja" class>aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class><div>Hi Michael, <br></div><div class><br></div><div class>Issuing formal statements is not the most important reason for NCSG’s existence. Advancing the interests of non-commercial registrants through gTLD policy development is. This is explained nicely in the <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Charter" target="_blank" class>NCSG
Charter</a>.<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>The only letters the NCSG should be interested in issuing are the ones that advance its mission. I don’t believe the letter being discussed on this thread achieves this. I would hope that the NCSG would be a little more ambitious in what it might
get for non-commercial registrants out of all this. Not trying is what would be the <i class>“injustice to our values/principles”</i>.<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>Thanks.<br></div><div class><br></div><div class><div>Amr<br></div><div> <br></div><div class><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite" class><div class>On Dec 4, 2019, at 11:10 AM, Michael J. Oghia <<a href="mailto:mike.oghia@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank" class>mike.oghia@GMAIL.COM</a>> wrote:<br></div><div><br></div><div class><div dir="ltr" class><div>Agreed Ayden. As the non-commercial constituency, I think it would be an injustice to our values/principles and our entire raison d'etre if we didn't issue at least some kind of formal statement about this. I don't think doing so would
contradict the more nuanced technical and political maneuvering that Milton and others suggest in terms of possible recourse. <br></div><div class><div><br></div><div class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><div><span style="font-family:arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">Best,<br class> -Michael</span> </div><div dir="ltr" class><div class><div dir="ltr" class><div dir="ltr" class><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><br></div></div></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 9:59 AM Ayden Férdeline <<a href="mailto:icann@ferdeline.com" target="_blank" class>icann@ferdeline.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class><div class>I think Lizzy and Milton among others have drawn lot of attention to non effect of this letter or any other one.<br></div></blockquote><div class><br></div><div class><div class><div class>Hi,<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>I agree that sending this letter would be unlikely to have an effect. I just don't think that's a reason to remain silent and not send one. Shouldn't we at least try?<br></div></div></div><div class><br></div><div class>Best wishes, Ayden <br></div><div class><div class><br></div></div><div class><br></div><div class>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐<br></div><div class>On Wednesday, 4 December 2019 01:31, Remmy Nweke <<a href="mailto:remmyn@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank" class>remmyn@GMAIL.COM</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class><br></div><blockquote type="cite" class><div dir="auto" class><div class>Hi all<br></div><div dir="auto" class>I think Lizzy and Milton among others have drawn lot of attention to non effect of this letter or any other one.<br></div><div dir="auto" class><br></div><div dir="auto" class>I will like to suggest to those of us who have hanged around .org TLD to start thinking of plan B including getting alternate domain and redirect the current one and if hosted by PIR find alternative too depending on the agreement abnitio.<br></div><div dir="auto" class>Regards<br></div><div dir="auto" class>Remmy<br></div></div><div class><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class>On Tue, Dec 3, 2019, 8:33 PM Liz Orembo <<a href="mailto:lizorembo@gmail.com" target="_blank" class>lizorembo@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto" class><div dir="auto" class><br></div><div dir="auto" class>ICANN has no authority to stop the sale of PIR to a private entity. But this sale is unethical from multiple dimensions and among other things will have a negative impact on the future of Multistakeholderism in the IG ecosystem.<br></div><div dir="auto" class><br></div><div dir="auto" class>I bet no one saw this coming, and mixed with ISOC being too familiar at the time of auctioning contributed to this legal loophole. <br></div><div dir="auto" class><br></div><div dir="auto" class>As NCSG I don't think our efforts to influence ICANN broad to halt this sale will yield anything. But surely the board is free to issue an advise against the sale. The silence makes it seem like everything is okay or at least it is
supporting this madness.<br></div></div><div class><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class>On Tue, Dec 3, 2019, 21:19 Mueller, Milton L <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class>milton@gatech.edu</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class lang="EN-US"><div class><p class><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">I’ve reviewed this letter and I think it takes the wrong approach and should be scrapped. </span></span></span><br></p><p class><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">It is basically asking ICANN to just stop the sale, which it has no real authority to do, and does not offer
a viable set of protections for .org registrants. </span></span></span><br></p><p class><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">It’s about expressing anger and not about constructive response.</span></span></span><br></p><p class><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></span></span><br></p><p class><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></span></span><br></p><p class><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">Dr. Milton L Mueller</span></span></span><br></p><p class><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">School of Public Policy </span></span></span><br></p><p class><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">Georgia Institute of Technology</span></span></span><br></p><p class><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt"><img style="width:
2.1354in;
height:
0.4583in;" alt="IGP_logo_gold
block_email
sig" class width="205" height="44"></span></span></span><br></p><p class><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></span></span><br></p><p class><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></span></span><br></p><p class><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></span></span><br></p><p class><b class><span style="font-family:Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">From:</span></span></b><span style="font-family:Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt"> NCSG-Discuss <<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank" class>NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>> <b class>On Behalf Of </b>Ayden Férdeline<br class> <b class>Sent:</b> Tuesday, December 3, 2019 7:51 AM<br class> <b class>To:</b> <a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" rel="noreferrer
noreferrer" target="_blank" class> NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br class> <b class>Subject:</b> [proposed letter] NCSG Concerns About the Sale of the Public Interest Registry to Ethos Capital</span></span></p><p class> <br></p><div class><p class>Dear all,<br></p></div><div class><p class> <br></p></div><div class><p class>I have drafted a letter outlining some concerns about the proposed sale of PIR to Ethos Capital. <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GNSxNtZ7k-TtvQkpVXhlSABxi0JYVzDNHU7zZCQtiPU/edit?usp=sharing" title="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GNSxNtZ7k-TtvQkpVXhlSABxi0JYVzDNHU7zZCQtiPU/edit?usp=sharing" rel="noreferrer
noreferrer" target="_blank" class> It is in a Google Doc here.</a> In a nutshell, I am calling for ICANN to exercise its right in article 7.5 of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements to withhold its approval for ISOC to assign its rights and obligations to Ethos Capital. I hope that the
NCSG might consider sending it. Feel free to make/propose edits directly into the document. If the NCSG does not feel comfortable sending it, perhaps interested individuals could sign on instead and we can send it off in our individual capacities? Thanks.<br></p></div><div class><p class> <br></p></div><div class><p class>Best wishes,<br></p></div><div class><p class>Ayden Férdeline<br></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><div class><br></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>