- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Have a great Lisbon Meeting!
by Annette Muehlberg March 19, 2007

March 19, 2007

Dear All, I would like to congratulate those regions who made large steps forward to strengthen the bottom-up structure of ICANN and get individual end-users involved in its decision making processes. I am looking forward to the inauguration of new Regional At-Large Organisations! We all know, this is only the first step and the real hard work just starts as we do not want to create bureaucratic monsters but vivid organisations with a lot of inputs by and in the interest of individual internet users. There is a lot to do and it is great that so many people came together to dedicate their time for this work. Unfortunately I will not be able to take part in the Lisbon meeting and asked the ALAC to elect someone else from our team to carry the responsibilities of ALAC Chair. I hope I have been of help to you and would like to thank you all for your trust, support, and great cooperation. I wish you all the best for this exciting ICANN Meeting in Lisbon. I will try and join you virtually. See you in June in Puerto Rico Annette

2 1

Resolutions on Policy Matters for Lisbon
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 18, 2007

March 18, 2007

Dear At-Large Community: In order to facilitate discussion of the three resolutions being proposed for adoption in Lisbon, I have put them up on the Wiki as follows: Domain Tasting / Monetisation: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi? al_2007_r_1 Contractual Compliance, Registry Issues: https://st.icann.org/alac/ index.cgi?al_2007_r_2 Internationalised Domain Names: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi? al_2007_r_3 NEXT STEPS: 1) I will incorporate, as separate revisions so that you can see the changes which have been suggested on the ALAC worldwide discussion forum, as individual edits. 2) I will reformulate them all so that they are structured similarly - to the maximum extent possible making no changes of substance in doing so - also in single revisions so that this is easy to see. 3) Once step 1 and 2 are done, I will translate the texts into French and Spanish - this will take a couple of days though. I will ask our faithful regional liaisons for Africa (Anne-Rachel Inne) and LAC Pablo Hinojosa then to help keep the updates to the English versions current with the French and Spanish versions once the translations arrive. Note that the idea is to adopt these in Lisbon. AS A RESULT INPUT IS NEEDED NOW FROM THE FOLLOWING REGIONS, SINCE THEY WILL NOT BE MEETING IN FULL SESSION IN LISBON like Africa and Europe: LAC North America Asia/Pacific IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS TO MAKE ON ANY OR ALL OF THESE: For ease of reading please use the comment button at the top of the page. You may also send email to the pages of the wiki, which will then appear as comments at the bottom and show you as the person who made the comments. Here are links: Domain Tasting Contractual Compliance IDNS It is helpful if you copy the comment to the worldwide ALAC list at alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org as well so that everyone sees the new comment. If you haven't joined this list, I recommend you do so at http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- lists.icann.org These resolutions are scheduled for debate, amendment, and if consensus is achieved adoption in a combined meeting of the European, African, and the ALAC on 27th March between 13:00 and 18:00. Full agenda details for that meeting can be found at https://st.icann.org/ alac/index.cgi?second_session. There will be a remote participation facility for this meeting. Details for how to attend that way will be available on the url immediately above early this coming week. If you do not see links above, here is how to use the comment feature: Send an email to: alac(a)st.icann.org, and for the subject line, for domain tasting, use 'AL/2007/R/1' without the quotes, for Contractual Compliance, 'AL/2007/R/2', and for IDNs 'AL/2007/R/3' -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 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

2 1

Information on the GNSO and Policy Development Process
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 18, 2007

March 18, 2007

Dear Community: Since I know many ALSes are not intimately familiar with the GNSO and the GNSO Policy Development Process, I have drawn up an informational document which describes both and includes the graphical representation of the process previously forwarded. I hope you will find this helpful, especially when you are considering the draft resolutions which in the current draft call for a PDP to be initiated. The attached will help you understand what that means, and the other avenues associated with, and connected to, the full formal PDP process which can also be used, or which can be complimentary to, the full PDP process. Note that French, Spanish, and Portuguese translations of the attached documents will be available next week. All of these will be posted on the Wikis for the various regions as well and I will email those links when they are available. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 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

Recommendation on contract enforcement by the public
by Wendy Seltzer March 18, 2007

March 18, 2007

[Third time's the charm? Apparently my earlier attempts to post this were eaten by a spam blocker.] If ICANN't keep a contract, let the public enforce it Earlier in the Registerfly controversy, ICANN Vice President Paul Levins posted to the ICANN Blog <http://blog.icann.org/?p=32>, ICANN is not a regulator. We rely mainly on contract law. We do not condone in any way whatsoever RegisterFly's business practice and behaviour. This is disingenuous. ICANN is the central link in a web of contracts that regulate the business of domain name allocation. ICANN has committed, as a public benefit corporation, to enforcing those contracts in the public interest. Domain name registrants, among others, rely on those contracts to establish a secure, stable environment for domain name registration and through that for online content location. A user registers a domain name by contracting with a registrar, such as Registerfly. The terms of that agreement are constrained by ICANN's accreditation contract with the registrar <http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm>. French registrar Gandi <http://gandi.net/> explains this web with helpful diagrams in its registration agreement <http://www.gandi.net/contracts/en/g1/pdf/>: Gandi is a Registrar, accredited by both the Trustee Authority [ICANN] and registry of each TLD to assign and manage domain names according to their specific TLD. We must abide by the terms and conditions of Our accreditation contract. As a consequence, We must pass some of Our obligations on to Our customers. ... As such, We commit Ourselves to providing you with the best possible service. This being said, due to Our contractual obligations with the Trustee Authorities and Registries, and which You must also abide by, Our services are limited in some of their technical, legal, regulatory and contractual aspects. Now the ICANN contracts can both limit and help the end-user registrant. On the limit side, they restrict the registrant's ability to maintain anonymity or privacy by requiring the registrar to provide accurate identifying information to the WHOIS database <http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#3.2>, a duty the registrar fulfills by compelling provision of accurate information in its own contract with the registrant. This requirement benefits trademark holders, who have recently turned out <http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-services-comments/> to prophesy doom if data display is limited. On the benefit side, the RAA-imposed duty of data escrow <http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#3.6>, requiring the registrar to maintain an escrowed copy of its registration database, provides evidence of a registrant's domain name holdings in the event of registrar failure. Registrants seeing this provision could believe that their domain names would be secure even if the registrar who had recorded them defaulted. So they might have believed, but apparently ICANN has never enforced this provision of its contracts <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg06000.html>. Moreover, ICANN denies that the public is a third-party beneficiary entitled to demand enforcement <http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#5.10>. The Registerfly debacle <http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2007/tc20070307_079128.ht…> shows why this view is wrong as a matter of law and policy. ICANN was told more than a year ago of customer service problems at Registerfly, but did nothing to respond to those complaints, including escrowing data, leaving the company's 200,000 registrants at risk of losing domain names or the ability to update them when Registerfly's business troubles escalated early this year. ICANN should recognize that the reason for its registrar contracts is precisely to benefit third parties: domain name registrants and those who rely on the domain name system. ICANN is not (or shouldn't be) accrediting registrars merely to have a larger pool of organizations paying fealty to it. Rather, it is imposing terms and conditions on registrars and, with an "ICANN accredited" seal, inviting the public to rely on those terms for a secure domain name registration. In cases where ICANN fails <http://omblog.icann.org/?p=6> to recognize a registrar's problems <http://www.theregister.com/2007/02/19/registerfly_angry_customers/>, concerned members of the public should be entitled to take action themselves. As well as enforcing public-benefit obligations on its own, ICANN should facilitate individual action by removing the "no third-party beneficiary" language from its contracts. Resolved that: Recognizing that the public Internet users are intended beneficiaries of ICANN should strike the "no third-party beneficiary" language from its Registrar Accreditation Agreements and Registry Agreements; ICANN should promptly adopt a schedule and provisions for escrowing of data from all registrars, as envisioned in RAA 3.6. -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/

5 6

Registerfly accreditation terminated
by Vittorio Bertola March 17, 2007

March 17, 2007

ICANN has terminated Registerfly's accreditation. In 15 days, names will be transferred to other registrars. http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-16mar07.htm -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

1 0

PSC Consultations
by Vittorio Bertola March 16, 2007

March 16, 2007

The President's Strategic Committee will hold a public online consultation on Monday, on its recommendations on the future of ICANN: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-14mar07.htm -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

1 0

ALAC Draft Resolution on Domain Tasting
by Izumi AIZU March 16, 2007

March 16, 2007

Dear ALAC/RALO/ALS people, At the last ALAC conference call, I volunteered to write some draft resolution for ALAC on Domain Tasting (and Domain monetization). With my limited knowledge, I rather hesitate, but put forward the following as a very crude draft. I owe much part to John Levin's comment (on internal list months ago), who unfortunately left ALAC recently. I hope John still watch this open list and make further contribution, together with all others. I repeat this is very very crude, and I am aware that some porposals may not be readily accepted by you guys, especially in the area of domain monetization. I still feel that the speculation is not for the interest of ordinary users, perhaps OK with Domainers as new and innovative industry. For that, I really like you to come up with clear and convincing ideas and solutions. This draft is just a step stone for that. Thanks, izumi *Draft Resolution on Domain Tasting ICANN AtLarge Advisory Committee (ALAC) V. 0.8 Mar 12 2007* * * On behalf of the ordinary Internet users, AtLarge Advisory Committee (ALAC) would like to propose the following actions to be taken by the ICANN Community on Domain Tasting and Domain Monetization. *To gNSO Council:* Start a Policy Development Process on Domain Tasting. We believe that Domain Tasting is an abuse of existing Five-day Add Grace Period which results confusion for the ordinary Internet users and give unfair treatment to peculiar speculators. We propose to abandon the five day "Add Grace period". *To Registrars Constituency:* Finalize and implement Registrars Code of Conduct that prohibits unfair speculation and exploitation on Domain name registration including the use of five day Add Grace period. *To Registry Constituency:* We request the registries to consider how to avoid user confusion and unfair practices by abolishing the five day add grace period. Adding small fee, such as 25 cents per Domain to those registrants who kept their names using add grace period may be one solution, but we are not fully convinced. *To ICANN Board: *We request ICANN Board to seriously consider how to prohibit unfair speculation, enhance consumer trust to Domain Name registration system, by a) Initiating a third party study on the impact of Domain Tasting and Domain Monetization/speculation to the ordinary Internet users. b) Initiating review of Registry – Registrar Contract that will promote the fair trade and restrict unfair speculation. *Background and Rationale:* Domain tasting uses the five day add grace period to register domains without paying for them. We think they are unfair acts: somewhere between larceny and extortion, because the registration cost is zero and the purpose of these registrations is just to make money taking advantage of automated bulk registration to exploit the domain names which are the public goods in essence. As many people have noted, it's exploiting a loophole that shouldn't be there in the first place. There was a great deal of debate both in the ICANN community and on the ICANN board about the deletion grace period, but none at all about add grace which was apparently tossed into the package by an ICANN staffer without asking anyone. So says Karl Auerbach, who was on the board at the time, and I haven't seen anything to the contrary from any other board member. As Bob Parsons wrote in his blog: *Millions of good .COM domain names – on any given day over 3.5 million and climbing — are unfairly made unavailable to small businesses and others who would actually register and use them in ways for which the names were intended. Many times businesses accidentally let their domain names expire. When they go to renew them, they find they have been snapped up – and taken away with a huge expensive hassle to follow – by an add/drop registrar. * (http://www.bobparsons.com/adddropscheme.html) The usual explanation of domain tasting says that the registrars register millions of domains, watch the traffic, and then after 4.9 days they delete the ones that don't seem likely to make back the US$6.00. Often they just delete them all and then reregister what they can a few minutes later until they find the ones which produce enough traffic that yields well above $6 cost. The add grace period is just a mistake. The problem it purports to solve is not and never was an important one. If you let an important domain expire, you risk losing the entire investment made in that domain over many years. But if one registers a domain by mistake, the most one risks is the ten or twenty dollars you paid to register it. *On Domain Monetization* We note that there is a meaningful difference between domain tasting and domain monetization. Monetization is a straightforward arbitrage between the cost of domain registrations and the revenue from as much pay-per-click traffic as the domain owner can get from people who visit web sites in the domain. It's a fundamentally sleazy business, since the web sites have no useful content and the way they get the traffic is basically by tricking people, either via typos or recently expired domains. We do not think it is appropriate in this case to make ICANN as a regulator to watch and prohibit the Domain monetization practice. Instead, we like to ask those commercial activities such as Google or Overture to stop paying for clicks on pages with no content, thereby dealing with a problem that is not limited to typo and expired domains. We've seen click arbitrage, people buying Google ads to drive traffic to pages that are simply other Google ads. This kind of self-generating traffic for pay-per-click advertising is confusing and unnecessary for ordinary Internet users and , in the long run, not healthy for the development of Internet as a whole. END

3 2

Fwd: [gnso-dow123] ICANN posts Final Task Force Report On Whois Services
by Wendy Seltzer March 16, 2007

March 16, 2007

>From: "GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG" <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> >User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) > >FYI > >[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] >[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] >[To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] > >ICANN posts Final Task Force Report On Whois Services >http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-16mar07.htm > >Final Task force report on WHOIS Services >http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-services-final-tf-report-1… > >Proposed Changes to the Whois Service - ICANN Staff Discussion Points >http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/staff-discussion-points-whois-fi… >To assist the GNSO in its deliberations, and to >support the work of the community, the ICANN >staff has prepared 'Staff Notes on Potential >Implementation Issues.' This document details >implementation questions and issues relating to >the Task Force policy recommendation and its >minority report the 'Operational Point of >Contact' (OPoC) proposal and the 'Special >Circumstances' proposal -- and is intended to >inform ongoing policy work on these issues in a constructive way. > >Online Discussion Forum on Final Task Force Report > >Submit comments to: whois-comments-2007(a)icann.org >View comments at http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2007/ > >A forum has been set up to facilitate further >discussion on Whois and the Final Task Force >Report. This forum is not part of the formal >policy development process, but has been created >to allow ICANN stakeholders to continue to share >and discuss their views on the output of the >Whois Task Force and to inform the process as it >moves forward at the GNSO Council level. > >Next Steps > >The GNSO Council will now begin consideration of >the Task Force recommendations. The Council will >hold public discussions on this topic during the >ICANN Lisbon meetings, and will continue its >work online and through conference calls >thereafter (updates on Council Whois activities >can be found at >http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/) >Following its deliberations, the GNSO Council >may make a policy recommendation to the ICANN >Board. Should the ICANN Board receive a >recommendation from the GNSO Council, it must >then consider whether to accept it. > > >Glen de Saint Géry >GNSO Secretariat - ICANN >gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org >http://gnso.icann.org > -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [APAC-Discuss] ALAC Draft Resolution on Domain Tasting
by Izumi AIZU March 15, 2007

March 15, 2007

2007/3/15, cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>: > > Thank you Izumi, for both your draft and an excellent working example > of how such a draft can activate (and make easier) direct input into > ALAC processes by both RALO's and ALS's... I know I always find it > easier to get our AUstralian constituency to respond to a draft or > white paper (or fill out a short survey) rather than find the time to > answer open ended "what is you opinion on / of ???" questions... That is quite true. I am happy to be a part of the process. May ISOC-AU as an ALS in the APRALO distribute this draft text as a > request for comment through our mailing list to Members and via our > related contacts in both business and general consumer peak bodies and > lists, here in .au; and presuming you will permit us to reproduce, > when is the deadline for feedback and response? Sure, that is more than welcome. AND, though we have not set the fixed deadline, we like to read this at the ICANN Lisbon meeting as our consensus of ALAC/RALO - so for that, we need to hear from your perhaps one week from now, meaning next Wednesday or so. thanks again, izumi Kindest regards, > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr > > > > Quoting Izumi AIZU <iza(a)anr.org>: > > > Dear ALAC/RALO/ALS people, > > > > At the last ALAC conference call, I volunteered to write some draft > > resolution for ALAC on Domain Tasting (and Domain monetization). > > > > With my limited knowledge, I rather hesitate, but put forward the > following > > as a very crude draft. I owe much part to John Levin's comment (on > internal > > list months ago), who unfortunately left ALAC recently. I hope John > still > > watch this open list and make further contribution, together with all > > others. > > > > I repeat this is very very crude, and I am aware that some porposals may > not > > be readily accepted by you guys, especially in the area of domain > > monetization. > > > > I still feel that the speculation is not for the interest of ordinary > users, > > perhaps OK with Domainers as new and innovative industry. For that, I > really > > like you to come up with clear and convincing ideas and solutions. This > > draft is just a step stone for that. > > > > Thanks, > > > > izumi > > > > > > > > *Draft Resolution on Domain Tasting > > ICANN AtLarge Advisory Committee (ALAC) > > > > V. 0.8 > > Mar 12 2007* > > * > > > > * > > On behalf of the ordinary Internet users, AtLarge Advisory Committee > (ALAC) > > would like to propose the following actions to be taken by the ICANN > > Community on Domain Tasting and Domain Monetization. > > > > *To gNSO Council:* > > Start a Policy Development Process on Domain Tasting. We believe that > Domain > > Tasting is an abuse of existing Five-day Add Grace Period which results > > confusion for the ordinary Internet users and give unfair treatment to > > peculiar speculators. We propose to abandon the five day "Add Grace > period". > > > > > > *To Registrars Constituency:* > > Finalize and implement Registrars Code of Conduct that prohibits unfair > > speculation and exploitation on Domain name registration including the > use > > of five day Add Grace period. > > > > *To Registry Constituency:* > > We request the registries to consider how to avoid user confusion and > unfair > > practices by abolishing the five day add grace period. Adding small fee, > > such as 25 cents per Domain to those registrants who kept their names > using > > add grace period may be one solution, but we are not fully convinced. > > *To ICANN Board: > > *We request ICANN Board to seriously consider how to prohibit unfair > > speculation, enhance consumer trust to Domain Name registration system, > by > > a) Initiating a third party study on the impact of Domain Tasting and > Domain > > Monetization/speculation to the ordinary Internet users. > > b) Initiating review of Registry ? Registrar Contract that will promote > the > > fair trade and restrict unfair speculation. > > > > *Background and Rationale:* > > Domain tasting uses the five day add grace period to register domains > > without paying for them. We think they are unfair acts: somewhere > between > > larceny and extortion, because the registration cost is zero and the > purpose > > of these registrations is just to make money taking advantage of > automated > > bulk registration to exploit the domain names which are the public goods > in > > essence. > > > > As many people have noted, it's exploiting a loophole that shouldn't be > > there in the first place. There was a great deal of debate both in the > > ICANN community and on the ICANN board about the deletion grace period, > but > > none at all about add grace which was apparently tossed into the package > by > > an ICANN staffer without asking anyone. So says Karl Auerbach, who was > on > > the board at the time, and I haven't seen anything to the contrary from > any > > other board member. > > > > As Bob Parsons wrote in his blog: > > *Millions of good .COM domain names ? on any given day over 3.5 million > and > > climbing ? are unfairly made unavailable to small businesses and others > who > > would actually register and use them in ways for which the names were > > intended. Many times businesses accidentally let their domain names > expire. > > When they go to renew them, they find they have been snapped up ? and > taken > > away with a huge expensive hassle to follow ? by an add/drop registrar. > * > > (http://www.bobparsons.com/adddropscheme.html) > > > > The usual explanation of domain tasting says that the registrars > register > > millions of domains, watch the traffic, and then after 4.9 days they > delete > > the ones that don't seem likely to make back the US$6.00. Often they > just > > delete them all and then reregister what they can a few minutes later > until > > they find the ones which produce enough traffic that yields well above > $6 > > cost. > > > > The add grace period is just a mistake. The problem it purports to solve > is > > not and never was an important one. If you let an important domain > expire, > > you risk losing the entire investment made in that domain over many > years. > > But if one registers a domain by mistake, the most one risks is the ten > or > > twenty dollars you paid to register it. > > > > *On Domain Monetization* > > We note that there is a meaningful difference between domain tasting and > > domain monetization. Monetization is a straightforward arbitrage between > the > > cost of domain registrations and the revenue from as much pay-per-click > > traffic as the domain owner can get from people who visit web sites in > the > > domain. It's a fundamentally sleazy business, since the web sites have > no > > useful content and the way they get the traffic is basically by tricking > > people, either via typos or recently expired domains. > > > > We do not think it is appropriate in this case to make ICANN as a > regulator > > to watch and prohibit the Domain monetization practice. Instead, we like > to > > ask those commercial activities such as Google or Overture to stop > paying > > for clicks on pages with no content, thereby dealing with a problem that > is > > not limited to typo and expired domains. We've seen click arbitrage, > people > > buying Google ads to drive traffic to pages that are simply other Google > > ads. This kind of self-generating traffic for pay-per-click advertising > is > > confusing and unnecessary for ordinary Internet users and , in the long > run, > > not healthy for the development of Internet as a whole. > > > > END > > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org

1 0

.xxx
by Vittorio Bertola March 14, 2007

March 14, 2007

All, the Board is likely to take a decision on the controversial proposal to create the .xxx TLD - for "adult material" on the Internet - quite soon, possibly in Lisbon. To this effect, it would be good for me and for the ALAC to hear your voices and reasons in support or against the creation of this new domain. (It'd be better if they were based on the specific proposal, rather than on generic judgements of the opportunity of having pornographic sites on the Internet.) I think that, in the end, each Board member will vote according to their own personal opinion (and we don't have votes) but maybe some good arguments from the At Large might help them to make up their final decision. So, what do you think about this matter? Thanks, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

1 0