- ALAC - lists.icann.org

FW: Input Requested on GNSO Council Restructuring
by At-Large Staff Sept. 6, 2008

Sept. 6, 2008

Dear ALAC Members and RALO Leaders: We draw your attention to the message below. ------ Forwarded Message From: Denise Michel <denise.michel(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Denise Michel <denise.michel(a)icann.org> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 16:06:49 -0700 To: Janis Karklins <janis.karklins(a)icann.org>, Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle(a)gmail.com>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Cc: Donna Austin <donna.austin(a)icann.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> Subject: Input Requested on GNSO Council Restructuring Dear Advisory Committee Chairs and representatives: As I reported during yesterday's GNSO Council teleconference meeting and previously via email, the ICANN Board made significant progress discussing various aspects of the GNSO Council restructuring at its 28 August meeting. During the meeting, Board members discussed a number of consensus recommendations developed by the special working group on GNSO Council Restructuring (WG-GCR). The Board endorsed the direction of the WG-GCR Report and approved a bicameral voting structure that includes contracted and non-contracted party houses each composed of voting stakeholder representatives and independent nominating committee appointees (see <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05417.html>). The Board directed that a transition to this new structure be accomplished by January 2009. Several Council restructuring issues remained unresolved. The Board is continuing its discussions and intends to address these issues at its next meeting on 30 September. There are five major issue areas yet to be decided: (1) the role of an independent third Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA) that the Board has decided will serve on the Council; (2) the process for electing Council leadership (Chair and Vice Chairs); (3) the process for filling Board seats #13 and #14; (4) the voting thresholds for various Council decisions as proposed by the WG-GCR; and (5) general implementation issues. (It is important to keep in mind that the Board is actively considering Council restructuring and additional ideas and issues could emerge.) To assist Board members in their deliberations, Staff will be preparing an analysis and recommendation for each of these remaining decision points. I would like to include additional community input in that process and invite all GNSO constituencies, other ICANN structures, and the nominating committee appointees to share their views as appropriate. For each of the four WG-GCR recommendations outlined below I am inviting each group to submit a one-paragraph statement clarifying its perspective on that topic. I also hope that each group will take the opportunity to highlight in one paragraph what they believe to be the most significant implementation issues that will need to be addressed (Issue 5). Note: your comments will not be edited or summarized, but will be collated and submitted directly to Board members for their consideration. A copy of this submission will be posted on the public GNSO email list and emailed to you. Any group intending to contribute comments should submit them to me via email to policy-staff(a)icann.org by COB on 18 September (PDT). That will give Board members adequate time before their meeting to review your submissions. A copy of the Final Report of the WG-GCR is attached for your reference. The remaining issues also are summarized below, but please reference the report directly for the precise WG-GCR language. Issue 1 Role of the Third NCA: At it 28 August meeting the Board directed that each voting house include one voting Nominating Committee appointee (NCA). The Board also directed that a third "independent" NCA continue to serve on the Council a matter on which the WG-GCR could not reach consensus. The Board has not yet determined what the role, function or status of that third NCA will be on the Council. Ideas currently under discussion include: making this NCA non-voting and not assigned to either house (recommended by Staff); making the third NCA voting (unclear yet how this would fit into the bicameral voting structure); including the third NCA as a voting member of the non-contracted party house to maintain a 6:1 ratio of constituency representatives to NCAs; Issue 2 Council Leadership; Election of GNSO Council Chair The WG-GCR proposed that the GNSO Council Chair be elected by a 60% vote of BOTH voting houses and that each house elect its own Vice Chair to serve in that capacity. A WG-GCR non-consensus compromise suggested that if that process could elect no Chair, then a third Council-level Nominating Committee Appointee should serve as a non-voting Chair. The Board generally discussed the leadership selection options at it 28 August meeting, but did not reach a decision. Ideas currently under discussion include: adopting the WG-GCR proposal (recommended by Staff); adopting the WG-GCR proposal as well as the proposal to use the third NCA as a non-voting Chair if needed; and have the Chair elected by a simple majority of the full Council with weighted voting (12 votes each for the contracted and non-contracted party houses, and single vote for each of the three NCAs). Issue 3 - Election of Board Seats The WG-GCR proposed that, at the end of the current terms for Board seats #13 and #14, the contracted party voting house elect Seat 13 by a 60% vote and that the user/non-contracted party voting house elect Seat 14 by a 60% vote. The WG-GCR agreed that the two seats cannot BOTH be held by individuals who are employed by, serve as an agent of, or receive any compensation from an ICANN-accredited registry or registrar, nor can they both be held by individuals who are the appointed representatives to one of the GNSO user stakeholder groups. Staff is exploring concerns that changes in the Board election methodology for Seats 13 and 14 as proposed by the WG-GCR would have the effect of creating Board members from each of the voting houses, rather than Board members from the entire GNSO. (All Board seats are to serve the interests of ICANN's public benefit mandate, not the interests of individual groups; the SO level represents a view of an entire sector of the ICANN community and there is concern that to more narrowly define the parameters of selection within an SO is inconsistent with the non-representational capacity of the members once they reach the board of directors). The Board did not have time to thoroughly address this matter at its 28 August session. Ideas currently under discussion include: adopting the WG-GCR proposal; deferring this issue and dealing with it as part of the Board Review (which is ongoing); adopting a Council-wide supermajority selection criteria; adopting a method which uses a simple majority of the full Council with weighted voting (12 votes each for the contracted and non-contracted party houses, and single vote for each of the three NCAs). Issue 4 Voting Thresholds: 1. "The WG-GCR reached consensus on the following collection of voting thresholds: "Create an Issues Report (currently 25% of vote of Council) either greater than 25% vote of both houses or simple majority of one house 2. 3. Initiate a PDP within Scope of the GNSO per ICANN Bylaws and advice of ICANN GC (currently >33% of vote of Council) -- greater than 33% vote of both houses or greater than 66% vote of one house 4. Initiate a PDP not within Scope of the GNSO per ICANN Bylaws and advice of ICANN GC (currently >66% of vote of Council) greater than 75% vote of one house and a simple majority of the other 5. Approval of a PDP without Super-Majority (currently >50% of vote of Council) -- Simple majority of both houses, but requires that at least one representative of at least 3 of the 4 stakeholder groups supports 6. Super-Majority Approval of a PDP (currently >66% of vote of Council) Greater than 75% majority in one house and simple majority in the other 7. Removal of Nominating Committee Appointees for Cause subject to ICANN Board Approval (currently 75% of Council): a) At least 75% of User/NCP House to remove Nominating Committee appointee on User/NCP House; b) At least 75% of Contracted Parties House to remove Nominating Committee appointee on Contracted Parties House; c) [At least 75% of both voting houses to remove the Council-level Nominating Committee appointee]. 8. All other GNSO Business (other than Board elections) simple majority of both voting houses." The Board did not have time at its 28 August meeting to discuss these voting thresholds. Staff has recommended adoption of all voting thresholds noted in the WGGCR Report, except for Category F, the threshold for removal of an NCA. Staff has recommended that the Board consider this threshold further as it continues its related work on the NomCom Review and improvement efforts. Additional ideas under consideration include adding a voting threshold for the approval of a charter for a PDP working group. Issue 5 Implementation At its 28 August meeting, the Board directed the GNSO Council to work with ICANN Staff on an implementation plan that creates a transition to a new bicameral voting structure by the beginning of calendar year 2009. Board discussion continues on how to ensure diversity in each stakeholder group, whether specific Board recommendations are needed to support expansion and inclusiveness for new actors, and whether the Board should encourage fostering different representation. Questions about whether additional guidance or requirements are needed on the implementation plan, and transition to the new structure by January 2009, also are being explored. Comments about this time frame, the issues noted, or about particular areas that might require special attention are most welcome. Thank you for your continued involvement and input. Regards, Denise -- Denise Michel ICANN VP, Policy policy-staff(a)icann.org ------ End of Forwarded Message

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Liaison Vote
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 5, 2008

Sept. 5, 2008

Darlene, I wish that before you post notes like this, you would either listen to the audio recording or talk to the person who is alleged to have asked the question (I am the person). There was no implication whatsoever that the NARALO or its executive was talking about taking such action. Nor that *I* was suggesting that he resign (ignoring the fact that his term is up anyway - which I did mention). I did ask a question about time commitment, as did someone else (I think Robert). Alan At 05/09/2008 04:19 PM, Thompson, Darlene wrote: >Hi all, > >I am writing this e-mail in my capacity as >Secretariat of the NARALO. It has come to my >attention that Beau Brendler was asked a >question along the lines of âconsidering the >NA region is calling for your resignation >because you don't have time for your ALAC duties >as they currently stand, why should we vote for >you for board liaison?â during the conference call this morning. > >I wish to assure the entire ALAC that the NARALO >is NOT calling for Beauâs resignation. Beau >has put in tremendous amounts of work and our >entire region has appreciated all of his efforts. > >Please note that this e-mail is not intended to >slant your vote towards Beau in rather than >Wendy in any way it is just meant to ccorrect a misconception. > >Thank you and have a good weekend, > >Darlene

1 0

Liaison Vote
by Thompson, Darlene Sept. 5, 2008

Sept. 5, 2008

Hi all, I am writing this e-mail in my capacity as Secretariat of the NARALO. It has come to my attention that Beau Brendler was asked a question along the lines of “considering the NA region is calling for your resignation because you don't have time for your ALAC duties as they currently stand, why should we vote for you for board liaison?” during the conference call this morning. I wish to assure the entire ALAC that the NARALO is NOT calling for Beau’s resignation. Beau has put in tremendous amounts of work and our entire region has appreciated all of his efforts. Please note that this e-mail is not intended to slant your vote towards Beau in rather than Wendy in any way – it is just meant to correct a misconception. Thank you and have a good weekend, Darlene ᑕᓕᓐ ᑕᒻᓴᓐ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂ ᖃᕆᓴᐅᔭᕐᕕᒋᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᑐᓄᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑎ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᖅᕕᖓᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᖓᑦ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᓂᐊᕐᕕᖓ 1000, ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᖓ 910 ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca ᐅᖄᓚᐅᑎ: 867 975-5631 ᓱᑲᑦᑐᒃᑰᕈᑎ: 867 975-5610 Taliin Taamsan Nunalingni Qaritauyani Atuqtauningitnun Titiraqtia Nunavut Kavamangat Titiraqarvia 1000, Nayugaa 910 Iqaluit, Nunavut dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca Hivayautik : 867 975-5631 Kayumiktuk : 867 975-5610 Darlene Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Corporate Services Division Department of Education Government of Nunavut PO Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, Nunavut, X0A 0H0 dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca Ph: 867 975-5631 Fax: 867 975-5610 Darlene Thompson Administratrice du programme d’accès communautaire Division des services ministériels Ministère de l’Éducation Gouvernement du Nunavut Case postale 1000, Succursale 910 Iqaluit Nunavut, X0A 0H0 dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca Tél. : 867 975-5631 Téléc. : 867 975-5610

1 0

Nominating Committee - African Region Candidatures
by At-Large Staff Sept. 5, 2008

Sept. 5, 2008

Dear Afralo members: As you will recall, on 19th August we sent a reminder to this list, noting that the 25th August 2008 was the deadline for the ALAC to receive a list of those from your Geographic Region who were to be forwarded to the ALAC to choose from amongst for appointment to the Nominating Committee. As the ALAC have not received any communication from the region, we are writing to advise you (and the ALAC by copy) that we are aware of two persons who have let the region know that they are willing to serve: 1. Khaled Koubaa the incumbent Nominating Commmittee member from Africa 2. Alan Levin, of ISOC South Africa, who is self-nominated with a second from McTim on the list We note that there has not been a recommendation from the regional Secretariat on behalf of the region. Mindful of the fact that the ALAC needs to proceed to selecting the list of Nominating Committee appointments for the coming year (which are actually due on 31 August), it will now be for the ALAC to decide to vote on the above-mentioned persons or to otherwise resolve upon a candidate from the African Geographic Region who shall be appointed to the NomCom for the upcoming year. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

4 3

Google Chrome and domain names
by Evan Leibovitch Sept. 4, 2008

Sept. 4, 2008

Hello everyone, Back in July I had an email dialogue with fellow NARALO member John Levine on the general subject "Domains don't matter". The debate was over whether the whole importance of having a premium domain name even matters anymore, given the improving ability for people to use search engines to find appropriate web destinations. I now am interested to find out what others believe on this issue given recent developments. I've played with the beta of the new Google "Chrome" browser, which has made a significant move from the perspective from the user. The search window is now merged with the one used to type in URL names. So, if you type in "flowers" you're not just taken to flowers.com, but to search-engine suggested matches. (Obviously Chrome defaults to Google as the search engine but that can be changed.) This is especially helpful for organizations that were not able to aquire their most obvious domain name (likely these days because it's in the hands of squatters). It will also have the potential to reduce phishing and typosquatting by pointing out misspellings and unintended redirections before the page is obtained. Even if Chrome is not dominant as a browser I believe that this direction will eventually be followed by other implementations. I raise this issue here to ask what implications this this trend has to ICANN. Especially from an end-user At-Large point of view, does it affect our approaches to gTLD creation, to the RAA and to IDNs? - Evan

3 2

Result of EURALO ALAC Representative Elections for 2008
by Nick Ashton-Hart Sept. 3, 2008

Sept. 3, 2008

Dear EURALO Members: It is my honour to provide the results of the 2008 EURALO Elections to fill the open ALAC seat vacated by Veronica Cretu, and the seat currently occupied by Sebastien Bachollet which was up for election. Full information about the election procedures and candidatures may be found at http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.o…. Some election procedures were amended by the Chair for technical reasons; that information may be found at: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.o… Note that the fourth candidate, Adela Danciu, declined to run due to work commitments prior to the vote being opened. Of the 24 authorised ALS representatives entitled to vote, 18 cast a vote, representing 75% participation. The candidate finishing in first place, Sebastien Bachollet, will therefore take the two-year seat, commencing at the closing of the ICANN AGM in Cairo on 7th November and concluding at the close of the ICANN AGM in 2010. The candidate finishing in second place, Patrick Vande Walle, will join the ALAC with immediate effect to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Veronica Cretu, and will serve until the closing of the ICANN AGM in 2009. Independent verification of the voting results may be found on the BigPulse servers, which is the third-party, secured voting system used for conduct of this vote (and all others in the At-Large community). A direct link to the vote results may be found at the following URL: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=izyqasVfrAgfGW9rKwE9 The Staff would like to congratulate Sebastien and Patrick and thank Lutz for his candidacy. Without volunteers willing to spend their free time and energy in leadership roles like these three gentlemen, the ICANN multi-stakeholder model simply would not work and we are grateful to have had three such excellent candidates who were williing to serve. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

4 3

Registrants 'Bill of Rights and Responsibilities' - Call for Volunteers
by Nick Ashton-Hart Sept. 3, 2008

Sept. 3, 2008

Dear Community: As you may be aware, the ALAC sent an advisory to the Board of Directors of ICANN in August 2008 related to At-Large community views on amendments to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement ("RAA") (http://www.atlarge.icann.org/en/correspondence/community-views-raa-negotiat… ) A number of the proposals in the Advisory related to the protection of registrants, including: "Add a clause in the RAA to require registrars to show a standardized description of registrant rights, to be provided by ICANN in different languages, as an appendix to the contract at the time of registration, and also to make it available in the registrant's domain management interface whenever available. Such obligation should also be passed onto resellers. " In the public consultation on a package of proposed draft amendments to the RAA begun in June 2008 (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-18jun08-en.htm) this proposal can be found as a redline addition to the RAA text: "In the event that ICANN gives reasonable notice to Registrar that ICANN has published a webpage that identifies available registrant rights and responsibilities, and the content of such webpage is developed in consultation with registrars, Registrar shall provide a link to the webpage on any website it may operate for domain name registration or renewal clearly displayed to its Registered Name Holders at least as clearly as its links to policies or notifications required to be displayed under ICANN Consensus Policies." The ALAC Coordinator of the Registrant / Registrar Relations Working group of At-Large has asked that work begin, in consultation with the registrar community, on producing such a document. Volunteers from the At-Large community who wish to work on this project are asked to subscribe to the RRA-WG list at: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/raa-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.… and send an email introducing yourself to that list. The RRA Working Group URL is: https://st.icann.org/raa-policy/index.cgi?at_large_registrar_registrant_rel… and you will find a new set of pages dedicated to this initiative along with reference information. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [NA-Discuss] Proposed ALAC statement on new amendments to RAA -- please read
by Brendler, Beau Sept. 2, 2008

Sept. 2, 2008

Thanks...we'll get to work with the stuff in the bottom half and get it to Tim Cole today. BB ________________________________________ From: Danny Younger [dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 10:44 PM To: ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; Brendler, Beau Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed ALAC statement on new amendments to RAA -- please read Beau, I must begin by expressing my discomfort with this situation. ICANN Staff graciously extended a courtesy to the ALAC by way of a 30-day time extension on public comments so as to properly accomodate the needs of those that have aggressively petitioned for document translations. ICANN Staff did a superlative job of providing an additional briefing session as well as translations for all of the relevant documents in a very timely fashion, yet with the deadline for comments nigh upon us we have yet to receive within this extended window for comment a single submission in any language (including English) from any other member of the ALAC, from any RALO or from any ALS. This was an opportunity for the ALAC to shine. After the devastation of the Registerfly meltdown, this was ALAC's opportunity to stand up in defense of the user interest, to aggressively act to right the myriad wrongs exposed in that travesty. But instead of setting a shining example, it looks like the ALAC has turned their back on the users, on the very registrants whose fees make possible the travel vouchers the ALAC is so keen to obtain. There are others that can now lay claim to the notion that they represent the user community: those from the Business Constituency that collaborated on a document, those from the International Trademark Association that put together a significant statement, those from the IPC for incredibly well-researched and articulated multiple submissions, those from the domainer community as represented in the efforts of the Internet Commerce Association, and last but not least the Government of the United States that submitted strong focused comments in defense of the consumer interest. They all recognized the need to stand up for the user community, to make their voices heard, to champion necessary change. Yet those that are charged with representing the user interest within ICANN, the ALAC and its gaggle of associate structures, have chosen to be mute, to engage in no discussion of the issues and to contribute nothing. Rest assured, this will be the albatross around the ALAC's neck that will mark its impending demise. Absolutely no one needs "participants" that won't "participate". Absolutely no one needs to actively fund those that will not stand up for their own constituents. That said, let's get on with the task ahead of us... My first observation would be that ICANN President and CEO Paul Twomey made a promise to the community: "What has happened to registrants with RegisterFly.com has made it clear there must be comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process and the content of the RAA." Thus far we have received the proposed revisions to the RAA but we have yet to hear the results of the comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process. In a posting today, the spam mitigation firm Knujon pointed to the nefarious activities of a single registrar associated with illicit pharmaceuticals that has sponsored 48 phantom accreditations. Extending accreditations to these shell/paper companies that are formed for the express purpose of gaming the system must stop. These phantom registrars are currently being used to game the aftermarket, but as we move into the new gTLD cycle they will next be used to actively game the new gTLD landrush periods. This is simply not acceptable. As a community, we are aware of accredited registrars in North America with officers that have been convicted of mail fraud, that continue to be associated with the deceptive marketing practices employed by the notorious Domain Registry of America. We are not happy about this... Accreditation processes must be reviewed, and that review must be released for public scrutiny. We are aware of registrars that now stand as defendents in courts of law accused of cybersquatting, and yet ICANN lacks the will to suspend their accreditations. We are sick and tired of registrars that refuse to craft a Registrar Code of Conduct, and we would ask the ICANN Board to impose a long overdue Code of Conduct upon that community in much the same fashion as the Eurid Registry imposed such a code upon their registrars. We are disgusted by the fact that while organizations like auDA can responsibly put into place a registrant complaint procedure, ICANN remains intransigent on the point of third-party beneficiary clauses and has no procedures in place whatsoever to remedy legitimate registrant complaints -- this is not how a proper steward of the DNS should be behaving. We are furious that after years of discussion and hundreds upon hundreds of complaints, there has been no change whatsoever to the language of RAA section 3.7.7.2 Finally, as consumers we are astounded by the lack of a requirement that a registrar prominently post its valid email and street address on its website for contact purposes. Beau, that's it for tonight... best wishes, Danny *** Scanned **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********

2 1

Election for 2009 NomCom representatives now open
by At-Large Staff Sept. 1, 2008

Sept. 1, 2008

Dear ALAC members, The nomination period for regional NomCom representatives ended on August 25th and led to the following situation: * three regions have put forward only one candidate. His or her name will directly be submitted to the NomCom. * two regions have put forward two candidates and will require an ALAC vote These are the regions who have provided only one name, all of whom are eligible for appointment to the NomCom: * Asia-Pacific: Hong Xue * Europe: Desiree Milosevic * Latin-America and the Caribbean: Matías Altamira The appointment of the above candidates will directly be confirmed to the NomCom. With regards to Africa and North America, which both submitted two candidates, the ALAC members will elect one regional representative for each of these regions. An electronic vote has been set up to that effect for a period of seven day. It will end on September 8th at 1800 UTC. The ALAC members will receive their credentials for this election shortly. In case the candidates sent us their biographies they are linked to the ballot. The NomCom candidates for Africa and North America are: * Africa: Alan Levin, Khaled Koubaa * North America: Dharma Dailey Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 1

Statement on proposed amendments to RAA, version II
by Brendler, Beau Aug. 29, 2008

Aug. 29, 2008

Here's the next version incorporating comments from Danny, Wendy and Carlton. I tried to recast the whole document and added introduction and conclusion, in which some of the more passionate reflections are made, though I modulated those a bit. I believe this needs to be to Tim Cole today. At this point I'm going to ask Nick, who's probably started his weekend by now, to give this a second read and then proceed with Spanish translation (and French if that's now possible). I will cc Tim so he has an idea of what's coming, but that he should be aware the final might not be completed until early next week. I'll be out Monday and with limited time online during the holiday weekend. Thanks for your contributions... Beau **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********

1 0