- Ws2-jurisdiction - lists.icann.org

Influence of Jurisdiction Stable Draft
by Greg Shatan Nov. 1, 2016

Nov. 1, 2016

All, Here is a copy of the Influence of Jurisdiction Stable Draft. Due to the length of some marginal comments, the PDF does not show their full length. It is best to view the document in word and click on the comments to see their full text. Best regards, Greg

3 4

Google Doc for Jurisdiction Subgroup Status Update
by Greg Shatan Nov. 1, 2016

Nov. 1, 2016

All, Here is a link to the draft Status Update Google doc, for your changes and comments. I need to review the requirements for this document and may make some changes as well, but I don't anticipate making significant changes to the text we discussed on today's call, beyond those in the document now. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ie4ysgSH97tMciUvAYfk86USOCoIdK6aMQ9QWS2… The document will become stable at 16:00 UTC tomorrow (Friday, October 28), and will be sent to the CCWG staff in anticipation of next week's F2F. A copy is also attached for those who have difficulty accessing Google Docs. Thank you for your comments. Best regards, Greg

4 4

Status Update
by Greg Shatan Oct. 30, 2016

Oct. 30, 2016

All, Attached is the Status Update that will be distributed to the CCWG staff and leadership. I have added an Executive Summary, as required by the process, but have not otherwise changed the document, except to add a note where one member wished to be disassociated from a particular statement. Best regards, Greg

1 0

Stable Draft of "Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction" Document
by Greg Shatan Oct. 30, 2016

Oct. 30, 2016

All, Attached is a "stable draft" of the Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction document, which will be circulated to the plenary CCWG-Accountability. "Stable" only means that we are holding off on further changes on this document before the CCWG-Accountability F2F, so that we can all work off the same document; it does not mean that this draft reflects the consensus of the group. For purposes of readability, I have taken all of the "suggested" texts and accepted them, but bracketed them and indicated their author by the author's initials. I have also taken all of the marginal comments and turned them into footnotes, again indicating the author by their initials. I have not edited the text, other than to add an introductory explanation to the document, for the benefit of the plenary, and to fix a few typographical and spelling errors. I look forward to seeing many of you in Hyderabad! Best regards, Greg Shatan Co-Rapporteur

1 0

REVISED - [CCWG-ACCT] Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #9 | 27October16
by MSSI Secretariat Oct. 28, 2016

Oct. 28, 2016

Hello all, my apologies on this email sent out yesterday without a link – see the highlight below, link now included… The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #9 | 27 October 16 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/FhO4Aw The copy of the notes can be found below. Thank you! Brenda & Yvette Notes Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #9 | on Thursday, 27 October @ 19:00 UTC (including relevant parts of chat): 23 participants at start of call ________________________________ 1. Welcome Greg Shatan: Acknowledge KA statement. Advise everyone that we will consider all the tough questions within our scope and that we will reach consensus on these. Statement from Kavouss Arasteh for the record: While the works of all subgroup are important and valuable and their efforts are fully recognized and highly appreciate, I as a Member of CCWG associate a very high degree of importance to a mutually accepted output of Jurisdiction sub group. I hope our expectations would be realized and the group produce an output which properly and legally address the case under consideration. It would be totally inacceptable, disappointing and frustrating to either end up with status quo or a Watered town product. The overwhelming majority community, in particular those which are still skeptical to the concept of multistakeholder approach, are carefully monitoring the output of this group to join others getting assurance that this fundamental, crucial and important issue is concluded with satisfactory results. We count on all of you and, in particular, count on the able chairman to explore all his expertise, skills, competence, knowledge and fairness in this regard 2. Review of Progress to Date Greg Shatan: will post this to a Google doc and give the group 24 hours to review. Any comments on A? (none). PDS email comment for B - Generally speaking, the progress report seems reasonable to me. I would only suggest the removal of the expression "and the Subgroup can’t find a less drastic solution" in point 2.b, as the idea of what "drastic" means seems quite abstract to me and can be subject to misinterpretations. Any comments on this? In meeting 7 of this sub-group it was phrased as this and accepted at that time. Avri Doria: So many other words can be used vs drastic why not change it. Milton Mueller: how about just replacing "less drastic" with "another"? Christopher Wilkinson: Agree with 2A, never understood what a gap analysis would be and support changing the word Drastic. Kavous Arasteh: Alternate solution - part starting with "IF the subgroup deems it is necessary to revisit this it will be done accordingly" Greg Shatan: KA please check if notes ok. David McAuley: I stand by the comments I made on the list regarding the gap analysis several weeks ago. simple) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Happy to switch out "drastic" Kavouss Arasteh: Grec pls assure me of the actions required Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Thx Greg that seems reasonable of course comments to list will also be considered Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Dear Greg: the report seems quite balanced. But allow us some time to consider it, ok? Greg Shatan: Any other comments? (none). 3. Preparing for ICANN 57 a. CCWG F2F currently allots 30 minutes to an update and discussion of Jurisdiction matters. We need to determine how best to use this time. David McAuley: will we have remote participation? Bernard Turcotte: yes, but probably not the same URLs for the Adobe rooms - the URLs will be published ahead of time. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I feel we should focus those 30 minutes to talk about the "influence" doc, concentrating on specific issues. Greg Shatan: Agree with this suggestion from JC. Would like for this group to do more work on this document prior to presenting in Hyderabad. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Another reason to just work in UTC for planning Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): If lightning talks come from people with relevant experiences, preferably from outside our subgroup, that could enrich us Kavous Arasteh: Will we have the final documents ahead of time? Greg Shatan: How about 1200UTC Sunday. No objections. Kavous Arasteh: In the update in 4 we must include any open questions we need to raise with the plenary. Greg Shatan: Given the 30 minutes and that there are many questions - I think we should focus on questions wrt to the Influence document. Kavouss Arasteh: Could we make a short list of these open questions Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Agree with Greg: let's do some practical stuff focusing on the "influence" doc Greg Shatan: Someone has brought up the question of Immunity - but it is classified as a remedy - as such we should agree on what the Issues are. Kavouss Arasteh: Grec, it would good that in the progress report you indicate average no. of participants Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): We don't need to enter the immunity discussion. But the doc should not prejudge or conclude anything Kavouss Arasteh: what is " immunity discussion pls Paul McGrady: Just for the empowered community? Greg Shatan: No, more about making ICANN immune like NGOs etc. Paul McGrady: If this would happen it would undo all the accountability work we have just completed in WS1. Greg Shatan: There is much work to do even before we even consider this point. Paul McGrady: All horrible tends to grow in this environment - I think this is a horrible idea and hope it will not grow. Jorge Cancio: Immunity was inserted last week in the Multiple layers document. then there was another addition as an Addition vs a Suggestion that immunity would block accountability measures and should only be a suggestion. Agree with GS that it is early days and we should focus on the influence document. We cannot dismiss immunity without proper discussion and as such we should not jump to conclusions. In the Multiples layers document we should simply note that we will get to this if necessary. Greg Shatan: offending text now changed to suggestion mode. Greg Shatan: We should not raise immunity within the 30 minutes in Hyderabad. Any comments on the Influence document? much text has been added and you have until Sunday to insert comments. (Presentation of influence document) Section C is the heart of the document but t is unfortunately empty at this time. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Let's focus on real life issues for the community - this "influence" doc is a good basis for gathering also inputs from the community Kavous Arasteh: If you refer to California law please include or hyperlink the document so we understand the references. Greg Shatan: good suggestion will look at doing this. We will circulate the latest copy of this document after this call. Parminder's issues are around the power of the state. JC is more about choice of law. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): @Greg: could we at some time circulate this to registries, registrars and others directly affected in order to gather their impressions? We need to listen to real-life needs... otherwise we may get into an academic exercise with all due respect to academics of course :P Kavous Arasteh: not distribute widely at this point. Greg Shatan: I take what JC has said to mean “at some point” - so. Also ICANN has a list of legal issues it has been involved in - we should ask staff to distribute this to this group. It is essential everyone participate in producing these documents. Encourage everyone to participate in this document. 4. Reporting on our Progress Greg Shatan: will fill out the slide for Hyderabad and circulate. Any other comments? (none). Would ask everyone to look at the progress report and the Influence document. AOB ( none). Adjourned

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #8 | 20 October16
by MSSI Secretariat Oct. 27, 2016

Oct. 27, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #9 | 27 October 16 will be available here: The copy of the notes can be found below. Thank you! Brenda & Yvette Notes Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #9 | on Thursday, 27 October @ 19:00 UTC (including relevant parts of chat): 23 participants at start of call ________________________________ 1. Welcome Greg Shatan: Acknowledge KA statement. Advise everyone that we will consider all the tough questions within our scope and that we will reach consensus on these. Statement from Kavouss Arasteh for the record: While the works of all subgroup are important and valuable and their efforts are fully recognized and highly appreciate, I as a Member of CCWG associate a very high degree of importance to a mutually accepted output of Jurisdiction sub group. I hope our expectations would be realized and the group produce an output which properly and legally address the case under consideration. It would be totally inacceptable, disappointing and frustrating to either end up with status quo or a Watered town product. The overwhelming majority community, in particular those which are still skeptical to the concept of multistakeholder approach, are carefully monitoring the output of this group to join others getting assurance that this fundamental, crucial and important issue is concluded with satisfactory results. We count on all of you and, in particular, count on the able chairman to explore all his expertise, skills, competence, knowledge and fairness in this regard 2. Review of Progress to Date Greg Shatan: will post this to a Google doc and give the group 24 hours to review. Any comments on A? (none). PDS email comment for B - Generally speaking, the progress report seems reasonable to me. I would only suggest the removal of the expression "and the Subgroup can't find a less drastic solution" in point 2.b, as the idea of what "drastic" means seems quite abstract to me and can be subject to misinterpretations. Any comments on this? In meeting 7 of this sub-group it was phrased as this and accepted at that time. Avri Doria: So many other words can be used vs drastic why not change it. Milton Mueller: how about just replacing "less drastic" with "another"? Christopher Wilkinson: Agree with 2A, never understood what a gap analysis would be and support changing the word Drastic. Kavous Arasteh: Alternate solution - part starting with "IF the subgroup deems it is necessary to revisit this it will be done accordingly" Greg Shatan: KA please check if notes ok. David McAuley: I stand by the comments I made on the list regarding the gap analysis several weeks ago. simple) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Happy to switch out "drastic" Kavouss Arasteh: Grec pls assure me of the actions required Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Thx Greg that seems reasonable of course comments to list will also be considered Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Dear Greg: the report seems quite balanced. But allow us some time to consider it, ok? Greg Shatan: Any other comments? (none). 3. Preparing for ICANN 57 a. CCWG F2F currently allots 30 minutes to an update and discussion of Jurisdiction matters. We need to determine how best to use this time. David McAuley: will we have remote participation? Bernard Turcotte: yes, but probably not the same URLs for the Adobe rooms - the URLs will be published ahead of time. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I feel we should focus those 30 minutes to talk about the "influence" doc, concentrating on specific issues. Greg Shatan: Agree with this suggestion from JC. Would like for this group to do more work on this document prior to presenting in Hyderabad. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Another reason to just work in UTC for planning Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): If lightning talks come from people with relevant experiences, preferably from outside our subgroup, that could enrich us Kavous Arasteh: Will we have the final documents ahead of time? Greg Shatan: How about 1200UTC Sunday. No objections. Kavous Arasteh: In the update in 4 we must include any open questions we need to raise with the plenary. Greg Shatan: Given the 30 minutes and that there are many questions - I think we should focus on questions wrt to the Influence document. Kavouss Arasteh: Could we make a short list of these open questions Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Agree with Greg: let's do some practical stuff focusing on the "influence" doc Greg Shatan: Someone has brought up the question of Immunity - but it is classified as a remedy - as such we should agree on what the Issues are. Kavouss Arasteh: Grec, it would good that in the progress report you indicate average no. of participants Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): We don't need to enter the immunity discussion. But the doc should not prejudge or conclude anything Kavouss Arasteh: what is " immunity discussion pls Paul McGrady: Just for the empowered community? Greg Shatan: No, more about making ICANN immune like NGOs etc. Paul McGrady: If this would happen it would undo all the accountability work we have just completed in WS1. Greg Shatan: There is much work to do even before we even consider this point. Paul McGrady: All horrible tends to grow in this environment - I think this is a horrible idea and hope it will not grow. Jorge Cancio: Immunity was inserted last week in the Multiple layers document. then there was another addition as an Addition vs a Suggestion that immunity would block accountability measures and should only be a suggestion. Agree with GS that it is early days and we should focus on the influence document. We cannot dismiss immunity without proper discussion and as such we should not jump to conclusions. In the Multiples layers document we should simply note that we will get to this if necessary. Greg Shatan: offending text now changed to suggestion mode. Greg Shatan: We should not raise immunity within the 30 minutes in Hyderabad. Any comments on the Influence document? much text has been added and you have until Sunday to insert comments. (Presentation of influence document) Section C is the heart of the document but t is unfortunately empty at this time. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Let's focus on real life issues for the community - this "influence" doc is a good basis for gathering also inputs from the community Kavous Arasteh: If you refer to California law please include or hyperlink the document so we understand the references. Greg Shatan: good suggestion will look at doing this. We will circulate the latest copy of this document after this call. Parminder's issues are around the power of the state. JC is more about choice of law. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): @Greg: could we at some time circulate this to registries, registrars and others directly affected in order to gather their impressions? We need to listen to real-life needs... otherwise we may get into an academic exercise with all due respect to academics of course :P Kavous Arasteh: not distribute widely at this point. Greg Shatan: I take what JC has said to mean "at some point" - so. Also ICANN has a list of legal issues it has been involved in - we should ask staff to distribute this to this group. It is essential everyone participate in producing these documents. Encourage everyone to participate in this document. 4. Reporting on our Progress Greg Shatan: will fill out the slide for Hyderabad and circulate. Any other comments? (none). Would ask everyone to look at the progress report and the Influence document. AOB ( none). Adjourned

1 0

Agenda for Today's Meeting
by Greg Shatan Oct. 27, 2016

Oct. 27, 2016

The agenda for today's meeting at 19:00 UTC is attached. Greg

2 1

Version of Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction Document used in Plenary
by Greg Shatan Oct. 25, 2016

Oct. 25, 2016

All: Attached is the version of the Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction document used in the plenary meeting that just concluded. This is the current state of the document in Google Drive (except that I have added participant names, which otherwise disappear when the document is downloaded). Please continue to work in Google Docs on this document and the "Influence of Jurisdiction" document. These will ultimately be part of our deliverable, so it's important that these progress. Greg

1 0

Google Docs Tutorial
by Bernard Turcotte Oct. 20, 2016

Oct. 20, 2016

All, As promised on the call today I am posting a link to what I think is one of the better tutorials that focuses on the writing/editing functionalities in Google docs which is in Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeFJvXhFJd8 Hope this is helpful but if you know of a better one please post it. Cheers. B.

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #8 | 20 October16
by MSSI Secretariat Oct. 20, 2016

Oct. 20, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #8 | 20 October 16 will be available here; https://community.icann.org/x/-RC4Aw The copy of the notes can be found below. Thank you! Brenda & Yvette Notes (Including relevant parts of chat): 24 participants at start of call ________________________________ 1. Welcome Apologies: Cheryl Langdon-Orr Greg Shatan: Update from leadership call earlier this week. Looking for more participation from participants. Comments will be removed once the document is completed. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I would request staff and/or the rapporteur to take on board also the comments on the margin. Greg Shatan: do not agree. If you have text please enter it. Vinay Kesari: Agree with Greg on Jorge's point - it would be difficult for staff/ rapporteurs to do that without inserting their own value judgments (except where it's a pure copy-paste of a comment into the body). Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I understand that we have to include our comments not as "comments", but as "suggestions" - otherwise valuable efforts and time are lost. Vinay Kesari: Jorge - absolutely. Farzaneh Badii: Vinay you need to put the doc on comment mode. That way automatically goes on suggestion mode when people sign in Kavouss Arasteh: We are not making progress. We have multiple fronts - there is no focusing on a given topic and we do not seem to be progressing on any of them. What should we focus on to have some progress? We need to prioritize. Farzaneh Badii: it's ok Greg. No group is making progress in some people's views. David McAuley: Could use a tutorial on google docs. Also GS how do we want to use the Google docs? Bernie Turcotte: Staff will post links to tutorials that are available (action item) Greg Shatan: Review of Google Docs modes. Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]: If an alternative to google docs can be sought, I would be grateful. I have issues accessing it from work. Kavouss Arasteh: I have serious difficulties to have access to GD Parminder: I think that while entering into the google doc is necessary to have a collaborative document move along, it may be useful to get the important issues/ arguments/ justifications also to the enlist so that others can see and if needed weigh in on. Kavouss Arasteh: We have been working during WS1 in 3 Cross Community Group with redline doc. and everybody was happy Farzaneh Badii: I agree with that Parminder, I think we can discuss the most pressing issues on the mailing list as well Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I would also like to respectfully request that some empathy is developed and displayed for those of us who are not us law specialists - i.e. that an effort is made to understand the issue presented, without entering in endless debates about the exact meaning something has under US law specifically. Tijani Ben Jemaa: I remind everyone that ICANN makes Wiki tool that is available to all and works fine as this is what we use in ALAC. Farzaneh Badii: hmm I wonder if we really needed to spend 30 minutes discussing usage of google doc. Kavouss Arasteh: It is frustrating that at 8th meeting we are discussing "working Method "+ Farzaneh Badii: you bring it up Kavouss. 2. Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction. Matthew Shears: Greg do you think it is possible at this juncture to clean this doc up and post again as a consolidated text for comment Kavouss Arasteh: Why are these things layers of jurisdiction? Greg Shatan: this is based on the requirements of WS1 Recommendation 12 on Jurisdiction. Kasvouss Arasteh: would it not be to have this in tabular form where we could separate what is from the Annex 12 and then another column for comments etc. Similarly to what was done in Human Rights. Greg Shatan: this is different from the HR work which is charged with interpreting a Bylaws text. I will work on integrating comments etc. the next version of the layers document. 3. The influence of ICANN's existing jurisdictions relating to resolution of disputes (i.e., choice of law and venue) on the actual operation of policies and accountability mechanisms. David McAuley: This document gets, in part, to the notion of venue. IRP will be venue-less with the new rules. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): thanks to David for that info. What about the language of the proceedings? The rule is English, what about additional "official ICANN languages"? Farzaneh Badii: where can we enforce the award, and would online hearing be accepted as hearing in some jurisdictions? David McAuley (RySG): I better check on that Jorge rather than rely on memory - will do that and come to list with that Q+A Farzaneh Badii: I think it makes sense to be in English. Lowers the costs in general. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): And lowers the accessibility for many stakeholders Farzaneh Badii: not for many. That's an exaggeration. Which led ICANN to translate many things to 6 languages and their usage is absolutely unknown Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): dear Farzaneh: language is an issue, for instance for many GAC members - before making general assertions we would need some data. Farzaneh Badii: yes exactly Jorge - so let's get the data then talk about accessibility. David McAuley (RySG): Jorge: Bylaw Article 4.3(l) says this: All IRP proceedings shall be administered in English as the primary working language, with provision of translation services for Claimants if needed. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I guess that working in your mother language or at least one of the official languages helps for starters. That English is accessible for all interested is what would need to be supported by data, if you permit Farzaneh Badii: David, is it possible at this stage of IRP group work, to talk about enforcement? Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: Dear David, I suggest that you take that issue on board - at least to consider it, thanks! David McAuley (RySG): Will do what I can and keep you informed Jorge. Not sure what latitude there is now. Christopher Wilkinson: @Bylaw Article 4.3(l): That would not be acceptable in Europe in my experience. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: @David: thx! Please keep me posted... Greg Shatan: Discussion of draft document. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: when hearings are made electronically, what is the venue that is considered legally? Farzaneh Badii: yes, online hearing might not be accepted in some jurisdictions Greg Shatan: there have been contributions on this document and would ask everyone to go through these and make comments or add text. Vinay Kesari: Farzi, I think they have gone on record stating that local law would apply in some matters such as employment law, property law (with respect to renting premises for example). My last comment was in response to your earlier comment on jurisdictions where ICANN has offices, not incorporated Tijani Ben Jemaa: With IRP there is a standing panel. As to the type of disputes - there is something missing here - what about applicants for new gTLDs who are not contracted parties? Greg Shatan: I am uncertain about TBJ assertion that ICANN incorporation means IRP is California jurisdiction. Christopher Wilkinson: It would be very reassuring to confirm that IRP is NOT subject to CA law. The MAIN point about IRP is to ensure that it is accessible and affordable for ALL eventual complainants, including private individuals. CW Parminder: IRP is ICANN's internal arrangement. I am not sure it is an issue of jurisdiction, to be considered here. Farzaneh Badii: so there can be a choice of substantive law for IRP? Farzaneh Badii: IRP is not internal management Parminder it's like arbitration Parminder: Yes, appeal against or for enforcement of IRP decisions may be an issue of jurisdiction Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: IRP is a legal accountability mechanism with jurisdictional aspects Farzaneh Badii: it's binding I think, there might not be an appeal Greg Shatan 2: Influence/Effect/Consequence are all possibilities. Farzaneh Badii: so there can be a choice of substantive law for IRP? Kavouss Arasteh: We are moving in the right direction. We should not use the word Influence. David McAuley: The standing panel will be selected considering diversity. IRP cases will be decided vs the Bylaws and not any local laws. Greg Shatan 2: Q: What substantive law is applied in an IRP? However, we have to be careful with IRP given there is another group working on it. Kavouss Arasteh: re TBJ question is an important question and should be looked again and answered. Greg Shatan: will include this. David McAuley (RySG): Bylaw Article 4.3(v) is relevant here - I will read it is short. If push comes to shove the panel may have to address. Also rules say it will be a DeNovo decision. 4. Preparation of Status Report before Hyderabad Greg Shatan: Will draft a document and circulate for comment. 5. Hyderabad: What do want to accomplish in F2F? Kavouss Arasteh: Major questions should be brought up and we need to identify these before going to Hyderabad Tijani Bern Jemaa: There is no meeting of sub-groups. If there is a sub-group meeting, we have to know so we can prepare. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: we need to engage in a fact finding exercise at some point of time, including on how well stakeholders have fared and perceived existing rules on applicable law, both in judicial, arbitration and internal mechanisms (such as IRP) Bernard Turcotte: there are no facilities or time available for sub-group meetings in Hyderabad. Greg Shatan: We should start thinking what questions we will have for ICANN legal and expert external legal advice. Everyone please continue to contribute. Adjourned - we have a meeting next week. Action Items: Staff to post links to tutorials on using Google Docs Greg Shatan to post draft status report for Hyderabad to group for comments by end of weekend.

1 0