Out of the four pages of the letter, there are only a few sentences which are meaningful and responsive to the previous request, and those sentences are near the end of page 3, hidden after an unnecessary and mind-numbing 'description of ICANN' for the first two and a half pages, hidden like any deceitful news story which tries to hide substantial info near the end of an article but not at the very end. That is the first indication in my opinion that ICANN has something to hide in regards to its relationship with China. The argument of the letter is that ICANN's relationship with China is the same as any U.S. company, like Microsoft, so therefore there should be as much concern for ICANN's relationship with the Chinese government as there is for Microsoft operating in that country, and since there is no current concern for collusion between Microsoft and the Chinese government, there should be no concern in the case of ICANN post-transition either. The argument of the letter relies soley on that false equivalence, and therefore fails to explain the differences in responsibility, post-transition, between ICANN and a U.S. software company. The letter is manipulative as it spends nearly three pages descibing ICANN, and half a page wrapping up the one paragraph false argument neatly in a ribbon of 'nothing to see here'. Any letter which tries to manipulate the reader as I have herein described deserves further investigation in my opinion. Ron