April 2016 - Accountability-Cross-Community

.Africa Preliminary Injunction
by Paul Rosenzweig April 13, 2016

April 13, 2016

For those following the case, the decision can be accessed here: case no. 16-CV-00862 RGK (JCx) <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001cSDGDz8h71ckml9p90Ehw8ncA4XI-441d1R6i4Gdh49b 0o5PqbSu2_fNz2D980RdiKtnEUB5oN7WUEvZk4N2t56rIfjT4IzEEitUsX4btBWIIwuMC9yVBbru kWnEqPH2U_62NtGIrfarESQcH6Nv1jQWyTaLpXki3hJ_UAmEHbnN3oQHMJGa7IqZYDWg5s7IFjJs DBZYYBCkSLT1wjDyCWyPQugzRHtKpx39rSzhaSfzgiF6l8IlUmqh0VyvOu1jCLu2-8PM9PWpmofG Rfr8fpNTp5WVJpvRPu4Ila4ot9KmZHYRw3brpg==&c=nCw9I7GmGoPkTifN2DG2n6NRUMT5WssKM 8rUL9KbTSu91VMOq8cp7A==&ch=02N2sUAFFSxqQmguVimPDaSjfa_ZKafSOV5-ZnF8AFEI4Q9Kp kPQ1w==> Short summary - ICANN is enjoined from delegating the .Africa gTLD. The whole case is worth reading, but the money quote is: "The evidence suggests that ICANN intended to deny DCA's application based on pretext." Paul Paul Rosenzweig Red Branch Consulting, PLLC 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.paulrosenzweigesq.com <http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com/> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9>

10 20

TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7
by Mathieu Weill April 13, 2016

April 13, 2016

Forwarding also our lawyers clarification on Q29 (please note that the clarification on Q7 is redundant with the previous email). Best Mathieu De : bylaws-coord-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Rosemary E. Fei via bylaws-coord Envoyé : lundi 11 avril 2016 21:43 À : bylaws-coord(a)icann.org Cc : ICANN-Adler; Daniel Halloran (daniel.halloran(a)icann.org) Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com) Amy Stathos (amy.stathos(a)icann.org) Objet : [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7 Dear Bylaws Coordination group: Please see attached. All three counsels have signed off on these questions from counsel. Pdf versions to follow. Rosemary and Holly

10 15

Disagreement on wrong interpretation of a qualifier
by Kavouss Arasteh April 13, 2016

April 13, 2016

Dear Leon I am disappointed and frustrated by the reaction of some Co-Chairs in conducting the meeting . I had a disagreement with Mr. Satan of IPC on the above subject Due to the closed link between that person and other persons belonging to the same camp, you did not agreed with the argument that I submitted . Mr.Satan and his camp , wrong views were taken BUT what disturbed me more was your statement in saying" kavouss,if you want to continue thus discussion,continue on nailing list" Why should I do that? What was the usefulness of the meeting if an important issue should be discussed outside the call? Why I was treated ? . Kavousd Sent from my iPhone

4 5

[Blog] Building an Enhanced, Community Empowered ICANN
by Hillary Jett April 12, 2016

April 12, 2016

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/building-an-enhanced-community-empowered-ic… Building an Enhanced, Community Empowered ICANN The submission of the IANA Stewardship Transition Package to the U.S. Government last month marked the end of an impressive proposal development effort by the global multistakeholder community. It also marked the beginning of the next, intense period of work, to ensure that the proposals can be implemented in a timely manner if they’re accepted. We’ve seen significant progress since the submission, with a great deal of focus for ICANN and the community on updating ICANN’s Bylaws. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has said they need to see adoption of any changes to ICANN’s Bylaws before they can complete their anticipated 90-day review. To meet this aggressive timeline, immediately following the ICANN55 meeting in Marrakech, a drafting team was formed consisting of ICANN’s legal team and the two external law firms involved with the Community Working Group (CWG-Stewardship) and Cross Community Working Group (CCWG-Accountability). The drafting team is working closely with representatives of all the involved community groups and theICANN Board to ensure that the updated Bylaws accurately reflect the recommendations in the IANAStewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) and the CCWG-Accountability proposals. Consistent with the current timeline, we will post the new draft Bylaws for a 30-day public comment period on 20 April 2016, with tentative adoption by 27 May. The Bylaws will only become effective upon the successful completion of the transition. We are also continuing our joint planning efforts to remove NTIA’s administrative role from the root zone management system (outlined in my recent blog update), and as announced last week, ICANN and Verisign are currently undertaking a 90-day “parallel testing” period of the Root Zone Management System (RZMS). The parallel testing period is part of the proposal that ICANN and Verisign submitted toNTIA in August 2015. Additionally, we hope to complete two other critical agreements this month – the Service Level Agreement with the five Regional Internet Registries (RIR) and the Memorandum of Understanding Supplemental Agreement with the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). We will make the drafts of these agreements available for a 30-day public review period prior to ICANN Board consideration. To keep everyone informed on all these strands of planning, we will start publishing weekly updates on icann.org beginning next week. I encourage anyone who’s interested in the transition’s implementation details to check back for those updates. There are 25 weeks left until the end of the current term of the IANA Functions contract with NTIA. We clearly have a lot of work to do as an organization and a community to be fully prepared, but the end goal of an enhanced, community empowered, independent ICANN, is well within sight.

1 0

CCWG ACCT in Helsinki
by Mathieu Weill April 12, 2016

April 12, 2016

Dear Colleagues, As discussed during our call on Apr 11, we have received confirmation from Icann that there will be a room available to support our F2F meeting in Helsinki on Sunday 26th June. This meeting will be focused on kicking off WS2 discussions, and scoping the various work items. As I said during the meeting, Icanns suggestion for our consideration is that Icann provide support for the extra day for those CCWG-Accountability members intending to travel to the meeting B, and for those who were not planning to attend meeting B, that the remote participation is used. We hope that this information is useful to help each of you make the necessary arrangements, so that we can make this F2F successful and demonstrate the value of this event. I seize this opportunity, on behalf of the co chairs, to thank Bernie, Theresa and Xavier who liaised on our behalf with the Board Finance Committee to support our request. Best regards, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript link for CCWG Accountability "Review of Draft Bylaws" Meeting - 12 April 2016
by MSSI Secretariat April 12, 2016

April 12, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability "Review of Draft Bylaws" Meeting - 12 April 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/FjuAAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Notes These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. 1. Opening Remarks (LS) Phone only - Sebastien Bachollet, KArasteh. GShatan 2. Second reading of question responses agreed on previous call * TBenJemaa - point to be added regarding 6 month delay in IRP. Lawyers should draft the appropriate language in the Bylaws to allow for the IRP process not completing in the 6 month window. 3. Resolution of remaining questions * Clarification - do we need to define Root Zone - ASullivan - no need to. AGreenberg no issue with defining but need a confirmation that it will not interfere with ICANN contracting at the higher levels. MW the CCWG would prefer to not define but would request that the lawyers that this will not create significant risk if we do not. * Q29A - nomcom board member removal is beyond the scope of the carve-out. BSchaefer - against for a number of reasons including that the GAC does not participate in the naming of nomcom candidates, also CCWG draft is silent on this and doing this would grant additional power to GAC. AG report is not silent on this as it says that the EC removes NC directors and the GAC is part of the EC. TBenJemma it is included in report properly - no issue with recommendation as is. RMeijer supports AG and TBJ. JGannon - does not support GAC participating at this point from a procedural POV given they do not select. MW there is not a significant number opposing - recommendation in slides is supported. * Q29B - All DPs in the EC participate in any EC decision to remove NC nominted director - no objection - recommendation in slides is supported. * Q7 Interim Board Consulting with community - Lawyers suggest using same procedure as a rejection process - No objection - recommendation in slides is supported. * AQ7 - EC chairs Council - "the role of the EC Chair's Council remain as ministerial as possible". HGregory full transparency of the EC decisions and of the EC chair's council will ensure things always match up. David McAuley (RySG): should the ec chairs council be named in indemnification language? HGregory should be covered but lawyers will check. CCWG welcomes the full transparency provisions. AG are the MEMBERs of the EC corporation the SO/ACs or the chairs? HGregory SO/ACs.. KArasteh against the use of Council. HGregory no strong feeling either way - secretariat would be fine. GShatan - ICANN uses secretariat in many places but is not what is described here. Disagree with KA - no reason to stay away from Council - MW the concept of the "council" is approved and the name is not critical and can be solved on the list. * AQ14 - Section 1.1 (d) previous agreements - RFei - Issues were raised by ICANN legal which the CCWG lawyers agreed with. Re renewals Strategic Plan and Operating Plan are covered but cannot be grandfathered. MW the CCWG would like to see this in writing and want to avoid mission creep. ASullivan - Including by reference agreements which are not even yet written or docs which could be modified. We need to nail down what text will be included by reference - uncertain how to do this.. supported by JGannon. MW - we should include this point in our response to lawyers. HGregory there is a way to include that the plans cannot be changed without public consult and support. As to putting things in writing we do not have time. MW understand the timing issue. Could we arrange a specific call on this topic with all lawyers and community members that are interested in this topic. We cannot conclude on this topic until we feel more comfortable with the potential issues. HGregory we are available to answer questions. KArasteh - UN procedure supporting AS point. Will continue discussion and coordination with CWG. * Q33 AQ5 - Mediation and community IRP - BBurr mediation in community IRP. In standard IRP a mediation type process gets automatically engaged. In a community IRP its more complicated. Parked for now - BBurr to discuss with lawyers. * AQ12 - Mission vs Regulation - TR waiting on response from lawyers regarding BBurr proposed text - no movement since yesterday. * AQ16 - Global Internet Community - take this offline and discuss on the list and close on the list (please see AS email). 4. Next Steps * We will publish questions we have answered to lawyers. * We will publish recommendation of answers as soon as they become available. * We should aim to close our discussion in the next 24 hours. 5. AOB * None

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7
by Alan Greenberg April 12, 2016

April 12, 2016

The CCWG was NOT silent. It said that the EC had the power and the GAC is defined as part of the EC. That notwithstanding, if the removal power were granted solely to those who vote for the selection of NomCom appointees, then the IETF would have to be part of the decisional group that removes NomCom appointed directors. Something that was never even raised. Alan At 12/04/2016 08:06 AM, Schaefer, Brett wrote: >Co-chairs, > >I am opposed to this decision on Q29 for several reasons: > > * The GAC does not vote for NOMCOM > directors, and should not have a vote in their removal. > * It is inconsistent with how the CCWG draft > treats individual SO/ACs with respect to their > appointed directors. The SO/ACs voting on > NOMCOM directors should have similar exclusive authority over their removal. > * The CCWG proposal is silent on this > matter, we should not be inserting new powers > for the GAC into the bylaws when they are not > explicitly included in the CCWG draft. > >I am also opposed procedurally. > >On the Board removal of directors discussion, we >were told that even though legally the EC had to >approve the removals, that the CCWG draft was >silent of this, so we could not create a new >power for the EC that would infringe on Board >powers in the current bylaws. Therefor the approval had to be a rubber stamp. > >Here, the CCWG proposal is silent on whether the >GAC should have a vote on removing NOMCOM >directors. The current bylaws specifically do >not give the GAC any vote on the approval or >removal of NOMCOM directors. But we are told >that we must grant them such authority even >though there is no legal requirement for it as >we know from the power of individual SO/AC to remove their appointed directors. > >How are these two interpretations consistent? >Either we add new powers for the EC on Board >decisions to remove directors or we do not add >new powers for the GAC on removing NOMCOM directors. > >Best, > >Brett > > > >---------- >Brett Schaefer >Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs >Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis >Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy >The Heritage Foundation >214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE >Washington, DC 20002 >202-608-6097 ><http://heritage.org/>heritage.org > >From: >accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] >On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill >Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 2:54 AM >To: Accountability Cross Community >Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] >Requested clarification of Question 29; further >clarification request for Question 7 > >Forwarding also our lawyerâs clarification on >Q29 (please note that the clarification on Q7 is >redundant with the previous email). > >Best >Mathieu > >De : ><mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org>bylaws-coord-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org] De la >part de Rosemary E. Fei via bylaws-coord >EnvoyÃ© : lundi 11 avril 2016 21:43 >Ã : <mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org>bylaws-coord(a)icann.org >Cc : ICANN-Adler; Daniel Halloran >(<mailto:daniel.halloran@icann.org>daniel.halloran(a)icann.org) >Sidley ICANN CCWG >(<mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com) >Amy Stathos (<mailto:amy.stathos@icann.org>amy.stathos(a)icann.org) >Objet : [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification >of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7 > >Dear Bylaws Coordination group: > >Please see attached. All three counsels have >signed off on these questions from counsel. Pdf versions to follow. > >Rosemary and Holly > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

6 7

Implementation flaw in Mission section
by Malcolm Hutty April 12, 2016

April 12, 2016

I have found a discrepancy between CCWG Final Report and the implementation of the draft Bylaws in the Mission section. The Report approved by the Chartering Organisations says: "* Clarify that ICANN’s Mission does not include the regulation of services that use the Domain Name System or the regulation of the content these services carry or provide." (paragraph 134) The Draft Bylaws implements this as follows: "* ICANN shall not use its contracts with registries and registrars to impose terms and conditions that exceed the scope of ICANN’s Mission on services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide." (Article I Section 1.1 (c)) Firstly, this draft bylaw would pick on only one means by which ICANN might seek to regulate content (through the RA or RAA contracts), and prohibits that. There is no such limitation in the CCWG Report: our Report prohibits any attempt to regulate content by ICANN, whether through the RA/RAA contracts or by any other means. Certainly, the RA/RAA contract is the most likely means by which ICANN might seek to regulate content and services. However, if ICANN manages to come up with some other means (including means that cannot now be imagined) then a full implementation of the CCWG Report would cover that too. This is a clear and objective discrepancy. Secondly, the CCWG Report expresses this limitation as an exclusion from the Mission. That was quite deliberate, and significant. We never expressed this section as a bare prohibition on some action, it was always considered to be essential that it was a Mission limitation. This aspect of the Report's proposal is not reflected in the draft bylaw at all. That is also clear discrepancy. The significance of this is that a Mission limitation has a broader scope. Excluding regulation of content from the Mission means any action aimed at regulating content can be challenged, including actions that (if done for some legitimate purpose) would be entirely OK. By contrast, a Bylaw that merely prohibits a certain class of action is weaker, because it says it's OK for ICANN to regulate content if it can find some way of doing so within its permitted powers. That's simply not consistent with the Report approved by the Chartering Organisations. Finally, in the future there may arise some disagreement as to whether a specific activity constitutes "regulation", in particular in marginal cases. Before we adopted the Report, our lawyers advised us not to seek to tightly define this in every particular, but to allow precedent to develop as cases arise. We accepted that advice. The implementation team should therefore avoid seeking to resolve that deliberate ambiguity in favour of the narrowest possible definition of regulation: again, that's not consistent with the Report. I therefore propose we transmit the following request to the implementation team. "Article I Section 1.1(c) implements paragraph 134 of the CCWG Report (prohibition of regulation of content) as a prohibition use of its contracts with registries and registrars to regulate content. This does not fully implement our Report. Please ensure that ICANN is prohibited from regulating content through any mechanism, not only through registry and registrar contracts. Furthermore, please exclude express this as an exclusion from the Mission, not merely a bare prohibition on certain actions, so that activities that would otherwise be permitted to ICANN can be challenged if they are designed to achieve this prohibited purpose." I hesitate to offer alternative wording: the lawyers may wish to come up with their own, and we should let them. But I will offer these observations and a brief suggestion. 1. I understand that the lawyers wished to avoid use of the word regulation. Fine. 2. When moving away from the word regulation, they also moved away from describing a class of activity (regulation) to a specific action (using X contract in Y way). I think this is where they went wrong. This in itself limits the scope of the restriction. 3. Sticking as closely as possible to the text of the Report that Chartering Organisations have approved would seem advisable. So if they want to avoid the word regulation, look for some synonym. Thus compare our Report: "Clarify that ICANN’s Mission does not include the regulation of services that use the Domain Name System or the regulation of the content these services carry or provide." with the implementation team's draft bylaw "ICANN shall not use its contracts with registries and registrars to impose terms and conditions that exceed the scope of ICANN’s Mission on services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide." and my alternative suggestion for this Bylaw "ICANN's Mission does not include seeking to constrain or impose requirements upon the services the use the Domain Name System, nor seeking to constrain the content that those services carry or provide". That would follow the Report as closely as possible, preserve the restriction as a limit on ICANN's Mission as intended, and still achieve the lawyers' goal of avoiding the word "regulate". Kind Regards, Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA

14 26

TR: [bylaws-coord] Clarification of today's directions and Questions for Tomorrow
by Mathieu Weill April 12, 2016

April 12, 2016

Dear Colleagues, Forwarding a couple of follow up clarifications requested by our lawyers. To be discussed during our call in a few hours. De : bylaws-coord-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Gregory, Holly via bylaws-coord Envoyé : mardi 12 avril 2016 01:02 À : Bernard Turcotte; bylaws-coord(a)icann.org Cc : Sidley ICANN CCWG; ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com Objet : [bylaws-coord] Clarification of today's directions and Questions for Tomorrow We eagerly await the certified instructions from today’s call. Please be sure to clarify treatment of the question regarding HR FOI Section 27.3. We understand that the Human Rights provision is to be moved from the transitional bylaws into the Core Values section, but we are unclear as to the outcome of the issues raised by Ed and David regarding enforcement. For Discussion A. On the call today the CCWG agreed to include in the bylaw language the phrase “the root zone of” in Article 1, Section 1.1.a.i The remaining open issue on this question is whether “root zone” needs to be defined, as highlighted in yellow below from the original question: 1. The latest draft text for Article 1, Section 1.1.a.i describes ICANN’s naming mission as follows: “Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the Domain Name System …” This text differs from the conceptual language proposed in Annex 05 – Recommendation #5, which read as follows: “Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System ….” The words “the root zone of” do not appear in the current ICANN Bylaws, which states that ICANN “Coordinates the allocation and assignment of […] Domain names” (without any qualifier or limitation to “the root zone of”). It is not true that ICANN coordinates assignment ONLY in the root zone, as such term is currently understood. ICANN’s gTLD registry and registrar agreements and policies deal substantially and primarily with issues relating to assignment of names at the second (and in some cases lower) levels of the DNS. If in the root zone is currently intended to include the second level, that should be clarified in the use of the term. For example, the UDRP, the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, and the Expired Registration Recovery Policy are all ICANN policies relating to second-level gTLD registrations <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registrars/consensus-policies-en>. Do we need to define the term “root zone” to include the second level or remove the words? [On April 5, CCWG directed us to remove the words; on April 11 this position was reversed, so now we need to know whether root zone should be defined.] B. You have asked us for clarification of Question 7 regarding the Interim Board. Our original question was as follows: 7. The CCWG proposal was silent on how the Interim Board is to consult with the community to make major decisions. We have included a suggestion that the Interim Board shall “(a) consult with the chairs of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees before making major decisions (as if such action were a Rejection Action [as defined in Annex D]) and (b) consult through a community forum (in a manner consistent with the process for a Rejection Action Community Forum pursuant to Section [_] of Annex D)” prior to taking the action. Are these the right processes? CCWG Response: Agreed with Option a) REQUESTED FURTHER CLARIFICATION: The Proposal, in Annex 4, Paragraph 98, provides as follows: The ICANN Bylaws will state that, except in circumstances of where urgent decisions are needed to protect the security, stability and resilience of the DNS, the Interim Board will consult with the community through the SO and AC leaderships before making major decisions. Where relevant, the Interim Board will also consult through the ICANN Community Forum before taking any action that would mean a material change in ICANN’s strategy, policies or management, including replacement of the serving President and CEO. Our original request for clarification was not intended to present a choice between two options (as was apparently misunderstood), but rather to seek the CCWG’s confirmation that the Interim Board’s consultation with SO and AC leadership would follow the same procedures as a Rejection Action, and that, similarly, the Community Forum consultation would follow the same procedures as a Rejection Action Community Forum. Based on the CCWG response to our original Question 7, it appears that the CCWG wishes to modify the Proposal by eliminating the Interim Board community forum consultation requirement. Please confirm that you are giving direction for us to modify the Proposal or revise the answer above to read: “We confirm the Interim Board shall “(a) consult with the chairs of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees before making major decisions (as if such action were a Rejection Action [as defined in Annex D]) and (b) consult through a community forum (in a manner consistent with the process for a Rejection Action Community Forum pursuant to Section [_] of Annex D)” prior to taking the action.” HOLLY J. GREGORY Partner and Co-Chair, Global Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory(a)sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com> www.sidley.com Description : Image supprimée par l'expéditeur. 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. ****************************************************************************************************

4 5

(no subject)
by Kavouss Arasteh April 12, 2016

April 12, 2016

Relation of" every reasonable effort" with US Court Dear Mr. Gregory Satan I wish to draw your attention of irrelevance of the the terms referred to above with US Court . Moreover, even though you and your supporters made every attempt to include your wrong judgement if legal terms by referencing that in a inappropriate manner to US Court , I continue to fully and strongly disagree with you and the way you mobilises your supporters to defend a wrong concept Arasteh Sent from my iPhone

1 0