Fwd: Re: Follow-up on an enquiry during Durban Public Forum
Dear all, please be so kind to find the answer below, to the question which Evan had asked at the public forum in Durban. The question was: "why is Section 9 of the RAA entitled 'Registrant Benefits and Responsibilities' ?" Kind regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Follow-up on an enquiry during Durban Public Forum Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 12:46:34 -0700 From: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> To: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> CC: Fadi Chehade <fadi.chehade@icann.org>, John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey@icann.org>, Cyrus Namazi <cyrus.namazi@icann.org>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, Cassia Oliveira <cassia.oliveira@icann.org> Dear Olivier and Evan, In response to your query below, during the course of the 2013 RAA negotiations, it became clear that the negotiating teams and the community had different understandings of what purpose the document formerly referred to as "Registrant Rights and Responsibilities" was intended to serve. While the negotiating teams from ICANN and the Registrars agreed that this document would be a compilation only of obligations clearly found in the contract, the community input at public sessions on this topic, as well as in the public comment forum, suggested that the "Registrant Rights and Responsibilities" document should serve a broader scope, encompassing issues such as external legal rights relating to privacy and intellectual property. As explained in the summary of public comments on a proposed final version of the RAA, "For the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities document, there were two versions of a new document posted by commenters as alternatives to the version posted for comment. The current Registrant Rights and Responsibilities document, as posted with the agreement, was not mean to be a full statement of all registrant rights and responsibilities arising out of being a domain name registrant. Rather, it is specifically targeted to identify contractual rights and responsibilities that are stated within the RAA, as opposed to looking to consensus policy or to broader principles of privacy rights. While the suggestions raised in the versions presented during the comment period incorporate some ideas that could be of great value for the community to discuss, they are not geared to the limited purpose of the document. To help clarify the purpose of the document, ICANN will be considering clarifying the title of the document prior to finalizing the RAA." http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-proposed-raa-21 jun13-en.pdf. The term "benefits" was agreed upon by ICANN and the Registrars Negotiating Team to achieve two purposes - first, to clarify the purpose of the document so that it was not seen a broad, sweeping statement of registrant rights, as commenters clearly identified. Second, the use of the term "benefits" helps denote a balance between the listing of key contractual responsibilities to which registrants are bound, and the positive things that the registrants are provided under the agreement, such as access to information. There is no explicit legal meaning that we were trying to afford to the word "benefit", instead the focus was on removing the confusion inherent in the continued use of the term "rights" where not all applicable rights were enumerated. Best, Samantha -- Samantha Eisner Senior Counsel, ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90094 Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 samantha.eisner@icann.org On 9/25/13 6:33 PM, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
ALAC Correspondence Ref: AL-ALAC-CO-0913-01-00-EN
Dear Fadi,
I am following up on a question which was asked as an individual by my colleague Evan Leibovitch during the Public Forum in Durban:
Quoting the transcript of the session, page 87:
EVAN LEIBOVITCH: Thanks, Steve. I'm Evan Leibovitch, vice chair of the ALAC speaking on my own behalf. But this is based on a number of conversations with a number of people within the At-Large and elsewhere. Without coordinating it at all with Phil, it relates to something he said and it has to do with the relationship between benefits and rights. Somewhere, somehow, section 9 of the RAA had some strange search and replace happen where the words "rights" were taken out and "responsibilities" put in. Not only that but it was done in a confusing way. The document for section 9 heading says "benefits and responsibilities" and the first section talks about rights. Since then there have been many talks this week about rights and responsibilities. The "B" word hasn't been used anywhere, but there it is in the RAA. Can someone explain how it crept in, why it's there, and what is meant by the distinction between rights and benefits? I think to a lot of people, there's a very real distinction in the word. I'd like to know how it crept into the RAA.
STEVE CROCKER: Management response here?
FADI CHEHADE: We'll look into that. That's all I can say. I'm trying to find out some facts, but I appreciate your comment. I appreciate the distinction between the two. That's all I can say.
--- end of transcript ---
The ALAC has discussed this point during its August and its September monthly calls and on its mailing lists and this has proved to be a particularly important point which needed clarification. I am therefore writing to you to ask for this clarification.
It is understood that the RAA is a legal contractual document, several copies of which were signed in Durban. The page in question is Section 9, entitled "Registrants' Benefits and Responsibilities", page 68.
Until the title of this section appeared, the notion of "Registrant Rights and Responsibilities" was the notion that prevailed, certainly in the At-Large world. As Evan Leibovitch mentions in his comment during the public meeting, there is much difference between a Registrants' Rights and a Registrants' Benefits.
But the confusion is then exacerbated by the fact that the next line on that same RAA page is a sub-heading of "Domain Name Registrants' Rights" and the list printed on that page very clearly reads as a list of Registrant Rights. RAA signatories are therefore clearly signing on a list of Registrants' Rights.
Furthermore, Section 3.16 of the same RAA document points to "an educational webpage summarizing the terms of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and related Consensus Policies (as of the date of this Agreement, located at: http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/registrant-rights-responsibilities-en.h tm)."
On the other hand, Section 3.7.10 mentions "Registrants' Benefits and Responsibilities" as: "Registrar shall publish on its website(s) and/or provide a link to the Registrants¹ Benefits and Responsibilities Specification attached hereto and shall not take any action inconsistent with the corresponding provisions of this Agreement or applicable law."
and:
"3.12.7 Its Resellers shall publish on their website(s) and/or provide a link to the Registrants¹ Benefits and Responsibilities Specification attached hereto and shall not take any action inconsistent with the corresponding provisions of this Agreement or applicable law."
So what we have is references to both Rights and Benefits, and I, like my colleague Evan Leibovitch, would like to point out that these are entirely different words meaning entirely different things -- and I note that from your response in the ICANN Public Forum, you appreciate the distinction between the two.
Would you then please kindly provide clarification as to how the title of that section is called "Registrants' Benefits and Responsibilities" when there are clearly no "Benefits" but indeed there are "Rights" listed?
Warmest regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair
On 11/10/2013 01:15 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
please be so kind to find the answer below, to the question which Evan had asked at the public forum in Durban. The question was: "why is Section 9 of the RAA entitled 'Registrant Benefits and Responsibilities' ?"
It is long past time, indeed it is decades past time, that the contractual tree that underlies ICANN's regulatory structure ought to recognize and declare that the ultimate purpose of that structure is to benefit those who register and those who use domain names. ICANN's focus is on the structure of registries and registrars. An inquiring outsider could understandably reach the conclusion that in ICANN's systems registrants and users are not of particular value or concern. There is much talk about registrants and domain name users, but it is talk - it is vapor blowing in a light breeze. It is pleasant to see but lacking in substance. What is long overdue is the recognition - legally enforceable recognition - that this system is for the benefit of domain name registrants and those on the net who use domain names. In the law of contracts there is a principle of law known as Third Party Beneficiary Rights. This is a means through which third parties, who are not themselves direct parties to a contractual relationship can obtain powers to enforce and compel the obligations of that contract upon the direct parties. It is time to clearly recognize and specifically declare that ICANN's web of contracts imbues domain name registrants and domain name users with defined third party beneficiary rights that they may enforce upon registrars and registries, and upon ICANN itself, even in the absence of ICANN's participation, even in the absence of ICANN's consent. --karl--
On 10 November 2013 10:27, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
It is long past time, indeed it is decades past time, that the contractual tree that underlies ICANN's regulatory structure ought to recognize and declare that the ultimate purpose of that structure is to benefit those who register and those who use domain names.
I think the term I'd use to describe my reaction to this is "violent agreement".
ICANN's focus is on the structure of registries and registrars. An inquiring outsider could understandably reach the conclusion that in ICANN's systems registrants and users are not of particular value or concern.
Actually, insiders can come to that conclusion too. The more one looks at ICANN from the inside -- its structural composition and corporate culture -- one reaches the conclusion that the robustness of the financial chain is all that matters. ICANN is dependent on the revenues from gTLDs and has thus been captured by their priorities. It benefits most from the maximim proliferation of domain names, whether or not that proliferation benefits either providers or users of Internet-based services. At the highest level, ICANN's choice to (massively!) expand the namespace, before cleaning up what already exists, messages its priorities far clearer than any press release. In this environment, end users are irrelevant to ICANN's because they are not in the financial food-chain. Right now this is set to perpetuate, despite Fadi's attempts to shift slightly by at least acknowledging that non-financially-interested parties matter. Look at the current trend of the NomCom to stress corporate management over Internet policy people for the ICANN Board. This emphasis ensures that a user-centric ICANN is a long way off, if it ever has a chance at all.
There is much talk about registrants and domain name users, but it is talk - it is vapor blowing in a light breeze. It is pleasant to see but lacking in substance.
Well, at least there is talk. Until recently there was barely even acknowledgement that end users existed, let alone mattered. In the law of contracts there is a principle of law known as Third Party
Beneficiary Rights. This is a means through which third parties, who are not themselves direct parties to a contractual relationship can obtain powers to enforce and compel the obligations of that contract upon the direct parties.
This is one channel, but since it depends on one country's law and not international treaty, you're effectively demanding that such rights need to be enforced through the courts and not ICANN's internal mechanisms. That -- as always seems the case within ICANN -- limits participants to those with big cash. It also doesn't address how to build in user-centric policy making from the start, thereby relegating ICANN to an endless stimulus-response cycle of tossing out global policy and hoping it survives American legal challenge. I like your objectives but think we need better tactics -- and especially ones not dependent on any one country's court system. - Evan
On 11/10/2013 10:03 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: I'm very glad that we are on agreement on the destination we want to reach - one in which users and registrants of domain names have not only a real say in ICANN but also a real lever to pull when registrars or registries don't live up to their contractual obligations. I picked Third Party Beneficiary as a vehicle, not because it is the only vehicle, but largely because it fits within ICANN's chosen mode of regulation - a hierarchy of private contracts (with ICANN at the vertex.) Other methods are just fine by me. My concern with other methods is that I sense they may be more speculative than the relatively well established laws of third party beneficiary rights - these are reasonably well established, I believe, in many, if not all of the states of the US. I would not be surprised to learn that there are analogues in places that use civil law principles. Any method that gets us to the goal is acceptable to me and would get my support. --karl--
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
In the law of contracts there is a principle of law known as Third Party Beneficiary Rights. This is a means through which third parties, who are not themselves direct parties to a contractual relationship can obtain powers to enforce and compel the obligations of that contract upon the direct parties.
It is time to clearly recognize and specifically declare that ICANN's web of contracts imbues domain name registrants and domain name users with defined third party beneficiary rights that they may enforce upon registrars and registries, and upon ICANN itself, even in the absence of ICANN's participation, even in the absence of ICANN's consent.
I am now unanimous that absent Third Party Beneficiary Rights ingrained in present dispensation, end users will always be disadvantaged. +1. Or, an entirely new framework must emerge. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
Karl A very interesting idea. Any chance of At Large requiring ICANN to fund legal opinions and any best practice strategies in place for users to "obtain powers to enforce and compel the obligations of that contract upon the direct parties. " both in US and other key jurisdictions for gTLDs One off the top observation is that this might also imply that such contracts need to be visible to users i.e., open and not subject to NDAs etc. Christian
Karl Auerbach <mailto:karl@cavebear.com> 10 November 2013 15:27
It is long past time, indeed it is decades past time, that the contractual tree that underlies ICANN's regulatory structure ought to recognize and declare that the ultimate purpose of that structure is to benefit those who register and those who use domain names.
ICANN's focus is on the structure of registries and registrars. An inquiring outsider could understandably reach the conclusion that in ICANN's systems registrants and users are not of particular value or concern.
There is much talk about registrants and domain name users, but it is talk - it is vapor blowing in a light breeze. It is pleasant to see but lacking in substance.
What is long overdue is the recognition - legally enforceable recognition - that this system is for the benefit of domain name registrants and those on the net who use domain names.
In the law of contracts there is a principle of law known as Third Party Beneficiary Rights. This is a means through which third parties, who are not themselves direct parties to a contractual relationship can obtain powers to enforce and compel the obligations of that contract upon the direct parties.
It is time to clearly recognize and specifically declare that ICANN's web of contracts imbues domain name registrants and domain name users with defined third party beneficiary rights that they may enforce upon registrars and registries, and upon ICANN itself, even in the absence of ICANN's participation, even in the absence of ICANN's consent.
--karl--
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <mailto:ocl@gih.com> 10 November 2013 09:15 Dear all,
please be so kind to find the answer below, to the question which Evan had asked at the public forum in Durban. The question was: "why is Section 9 of the RAA entitled 'Registrant Benefits and Responsibilities' ?" Kind regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Follow-up on an enquiry during Durban Public Forum Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 12:46:34 -0700 From: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> To: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> CC: Fadi Chehade <fadi.chehade@icann.org>, John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey@icann.org>, Cyrus Namazi <cyrus.namazi@icann.org>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, Cassia Oliveira <cassia.oliveira@icann.org>
Dear Olivier and Evan,
In response to your query below, during the course of the 2013 RAA negotiations, it became clear that the negotiating teams and the community had different understandings of what purpose the document formerly referred to as "Registrant Rights and Responsibilities" was intended to serve. While the negotiating teams from ICANN and the Registrars agreed that this document would be a compilation only of obligations clearly found in the contract, the community input at public sessions on this topic, as well as in the public comment forum, suggested that the "Registrant Rights and Responsibilities" document should serve a broader scope, encompassing issues such as external legal rights relating to privacy and intellectual property.
As explained in the summary of public comments on a proposed final version of the RAA, "For the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities document, there were two versions of a new document posted by commenters as alternatives to the version posted for comment. The current Registrant Rights and Responsibilities document, as posted with the agreement, was not mean to be a full statement of all registrant rights and responsibilities arising out of being a domain name registrant. Rather, it is specifically targeted to identify contractual rights and responsibilities that are stated within the RAA, as opposed to looking to consensus policy or to broader principles of privacy rights. While the suggestions raised in the versions presented during the comment period incorporate some ideas that could be of great value for the community to discuss, they are not geared to the limited purpose of the document. To help clarify the purpose of the document, ICANN will be considering clarifying the title of the document prior to finalizing the RAA." http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-proposed-raa-21 jun13-en.pdf.
The term "benefits" was agreed upon by ICANN and the Registrars Negotiating Team to achieve two purposes - first, to clarify the purpose of the document so that it was not seen a broad, sweeping statement of registrant rights, as commenters clearly identified. Second, the use of the term "benefits" helps denote a balance between the listing of key contractual responsibilities to which registrants are bound, and the positive things that the registrants are provided under the agreement, such as access to information. There is no explicit legal meaning that we were trying to afford to the word "benefit", instead the focus was on removing the confusion inherent in the continued use of the term "rights" where not all applicable rights were enumerated.
Best,
Samantha
Y'all know I so too like when words come together to express thinking. I have to give it to Sam. This was a magnificent job of shaping the conversation as I have ever seen out of ICANN. Hired. So now, the Registrant Rights and Benefits Spec doc was merely a collector for the T&C applicable to registrants already defined in the contract! Well knock me down and steal mah teeth. If ICANN Legal was been paid by the word for contract prep etc, it would be plausible. Message to me, follow the money. All this aside, 2 strategic issues emerge - well, more illuminated here than emerging. The RAA is arguably the single most important outcome for continuance of the DNS. It would also be the evidence of the consensus policy decisions derived from a multi-stakeholder governance and policy development model to which this enterprise claims it is bounded. In other words the RAA ought to be, of right, the highest manifestation of ICANN consensus policy. At least this would be the logical view. What is outlined here in this response says 1) the RAA may not be construed as nothing more than a contract between ICANN the corporate entity and a foundational set of beneficiaries of the DNS; registrars 2) One set of beneficiaries of the DNS, registrars, are more equal than others 3) Notwithstanding a concerted demonstration of the public interest, it would be highly obstructionist to demand that ICANN meet it obligations to the PI in contract. What then is the obligation this revelation imposes on the rest of our community? -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>wrote:
Dear all,
please be so kind to find the answer below, to the question which Evan had asked at the public forum in Durban. The question was: "why is Section 9 of the RAA entitled 'Registrant Benefits and Responsibilities' ?" Kind regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Follow-up on an enquiry during Durban Public Forum Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 12:46:34 -0700 From: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> To: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> CC: Fadi Chehade <fadi.chehade@icann.org>, John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey@icann.org>, Cyrus Namazi <cyrus.namazi@icann.org>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, Cassia Oliveira <cassia.oliveira@icann.org>
Dear Olivier and Evan,
In response to your query below, during the course of the 2013 RAA negotiations, it became clear that the negotiating teams and the community had different understandings of what purpose the document formerly referred to as "Registrant Rights and Responsibilities" was intended to serve. While the negotiating teams from ICANN and the Registrars agreed that this document would be a compilation only of obligations clearly found in the contract, the community input at public sessions on this topic, as well as in the public comment forum, suggested that the "Registrant Rights and Responsibilities" document should serve a broader scope, encompassing issues such as external legal rights relating to privacy and intellectual property.
As explained in the summary of public comments on a proposed final version of the RAA, "For the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities document, there were two versions of a new document posted by commenters as alternatives to the version posted for comment. The current Registrant Rights and Responsibilities document, as posted with the agreement, was not mean to be a full statement of all registrant rights and responsibilities arising out of being a domain name registrant. Rather, it is specifically targeted to identify contractual rights and responsibilities that are stated within the RAA, as opposed to looking to consensus policy or to broader principles of privacy rights. While the suggestions raised in the versions presented during the comment period incorporate some ideas that could be of great value for the community to discuss, they are not geared to the limited purpose of the document. To help clarify the purpose of the document, ICANN will be considering clarifying the title of the document prior to finalizing the RAA." http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-proposed-raa-21 jun13-en.pdf.
The term "benefits" was agreed upon by ICANN and the Registrars Negotiating Team to achieve two purposes - first, to clarify the purpose of the document so that it was not seen a broad, sweeping statement of registrant rights, as commenters clearly identified. Second, the use of the term "benefits" helps denote a balance between the listing of key contractual responsibilities to which registrants are bound, and the positive things that the registrants are provided under the agreement, such as access to information. There is no explicit legal meaning that we were trying to afford to the word "benefit", instead the focus was on removing the confusion inherent in the continued use of the term "rights" where not all applicable rights were enumerated.
Best,
Samantha
-- Samantha Eisner Senior Counsel, ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90094 Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 samantha.eisner@icann.org
On 9/25/13 6:33 PM, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
ALAC Correspondence Ref: AL-ALAC-CO-0913-01-00-EN
Dear Fadi,
I am following up on a question which was asked as an individual by my colleague Evan Leibovitch during the Public Forum in Durban:
Quoting the transcript of the session, page 87:
EVAN LEIBOVITCH: Thanks, Steve. I'm Evan Leibovitch, vice chair of the ALAC speaking on my own behalf. But this is based on a number of conversations with a number of people within the At-Large and elsewhere. Without coordinating it at all with Phil, it relates to something he said and it has to do with the relationship between benefits and rights. Somewhere, somehow, section 9 of the RAA had some strange search and replace happen where the words "rights" were taken out and "responsibilities" put in. Not only that but it was done in a confusing way. The document for section 9 heading says "benefits and responsibilities" and the first section talks about rights. Since then there have been many talks this week about rights and responsibilities. The "B" word hasn't been used anywhere, but there it is in the RAA. Can someone explain how it crept in, why it's there, and what is meant by the distinction between rights and benefits? I think to a lot of people, there's a very real distinction in the word. I'd like to know how it crept into the RAA.
STEVE CROCKER: Management response here?
FADI CHEHADE: We'll look into that. That's all I can say. I'm trying to find out some facts, but I appreciate your comment. I appreciate the distinction between the two. That's all I can say.
--- end of transcript ---
The ALAC has discussed this point during its August and its September monthly calls and on its mailing lists and this has proved to be a particularly important point which needed clarification. I am therefore writing to you to ask for this clarification.
It is understood that the RAA is a legal contractual document, several copies of which were signed in Durban. The page in question is Section 9, entitled "Registrants' Benefits and Responsibilities", page 68.
Until the title of this section appeared, the notion of "Registrant Rights and Responsibilities" was the notion that prevailed, certainly in the At-Large world. As Evan Leibovitch mentions in his comment during the public meeting, there is much difference between a Registrants' Rights and a Registrants' Benefits.
But the confusion is then exacerbated by the fact that the next line on that same RAA page is a sub-heading of "Domain Name Registrants' Rights" and the list printed on that page very clearly reads as a list of Registrant Rights. RAA signatories are therefore clearly signing on a list of Registrants' Rights.
Furthermore, Section 3.16 of the same RAA document points to "an educational webpage summarizing the terms of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and related Consensus Policies (as of the date of this Agreement, located at:
http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/registrant-rights-responsibilities-en.h
tm)."
On the other hand, Section 3.7.10 mentions "Registrants' Benefits and Responsibilities" as: "Registrar shall publish on its website(s) and/or provide a link to the Registrants¹ Benefits and Responsibilities Specification attached hereto and shall not take any action inconsistent with the corresponding provisions of this Agreement or applicable law."
and:
"3.12.7 Its Resellers shall publish on their website(s) and/or provide a link to the Registrants¹ Benefits and Responsibilities Specification attached hereto and shall not take any action inconsistent with the corresponding provisions of this Agreement or applicable law."
So what we have is references to both Rights and Benefits, and I, like my colleague Evan Leibovitch, would like to point out that these are entirely different words meaning entirely different things -- and I note that from your response in the ICANN Public Forum, you appreciate the distinction between the two.
Would you then please kindly provide clarification as to how the title of that section is called "Registrants' Benefits and Responsibilities" when there are clearly no "Benefits" but indeed there are "Rights" listed?
Warmest regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
participants (5)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Christian de Larrinaga -
Evan Leibovitch -
Karl Auerbach -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond