<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3492" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<TABLE class=NormalBody cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD class=NormalBody vAlign=top noWrap>Meeting Name:</TD>
<TD class=NormalBody vAlign=top><B>NCUC: Follow-Up Meeting on NCSG
Charter-Structure</B></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD class=NormalBody vAlign=top noWrap>Start Date and Time:</TD>
<TD class=NormalBody vAlign=top><B>02/27/2009 04:30 PM EST</B></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD class=NormalBody vAlign=top noWrap>End Date and Time:</TD>
<TD class=NormalBody vAlign=top><B>02/27/2009 06:30 PM
EST</B><BR>Attendee(s) may join this meeting up until this time. The
meeting will remain in session until the last person leaves. </TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD class=NormalBody vAlign=top noWrap>Public Meeting:</TD>
<TD class=NormalBody>This is a <B>public meeting</B> and will be displayed
on the public schedule page. Attendee(s) may join by using the following
link:<BR><B><A
href="http://cotelcocave.syr.edu/join_meeting.html?meetingId=1235657500435">http://cotelcocave.syr.edu:80/join_meeting.html?meetingId=1235657500435</A></B>
<BR><BR>Attendee(s) may add this meeting to their scheduling application
with the following link:<BR><B><A
href="http://cotelcocave.syr.edu/build_calendar.event?meetingId=1235657500435">http://cotelcocave.syr.edu:80/build_calendar.event?meetingId=1235657500435</A></B>
<BR></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD class=NormalBody vAlign=top noWrap>Meeting Password:</TD>
<TD class=NormalBody vAlign=top>This is an open meeting. Attendee(s) don't
require a password to join. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Robin Gross <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">
<DIV>
<DIV>Great! How about 16:30 (EST) on Friday the 27th for the call?
That is 21:30 UTC on Friday the 27th.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Does that time work for folks who want to join? </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Using Elluminate again would be terrific, thank you.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>All best,</DIV>
<DIV>Robin</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=Wj3C7c>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>On Feb 23, 2009, at 12:13 PM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote:</DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">Hi, Robin<BR><BR>I would like to join the call if
possible. My preference would be for meeting on Friday, as I'll be traveling
to MC on Saturday. But either way I can setup an Elluminate session,
so those who can't be there can listen to the recording.
<BR><BR><BR>Best,<BR><BR clear=all>Brenden Kuerbis<BR>Internet Governance
Project<BR><A href="http://internetgovernance.org"
target=_blank>http://internetgovernance.org</A><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Robin Gross <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org"
target=_blank>robin@ipjustice.org</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">
<DIV>
<DIV>Thanks, Milton. This sounds like a good approach and should
address some of those concerns from staff.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>How about a call on either this Fri., or Sat. to try to hammer this
out further?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I'm less optimistic that it will pacify those who are fixated on
controlling counsel seats, but is an inclusive approach that will empower
minority voices within the constituency.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Thanks,</DIV>
<DIV>Robin</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>On Feb 23, 2009, at 6:33 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:</DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Robin</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I
will try to have a draft that incorporates the reasonable staff comments
and some new ideas (thresholds for working group formation) that came
out of our discussions with ALAC/NARALO people by the middle of this
week. If we could schedule a call sometime late evening EST this
week I could squeeze it into my schedule.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Let me explain this new
idea. Brenden Kuerbis actually came up with it, and it solves many
problems related to minority representation under an integrated
structure. It should appeal to "dissenters" within NCUC such as Cheryl
Preston. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>The idea is that when a
certain threshold of the membership or the policy committee wants to
form a GNSO Working Group on a policy issue dear to them, then ALL NCSG
Council representatives must vote to support the formation of that WG.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Example: A constituency
or faction within the NCUC wants to promote policy X. The first step is
to get the GNSO Council to create a WG on X. Once a WG is formed, any
supporters of X can join that WG and work on the issue, it doesn't
matter whether they have a Council seat or not. So we have a vote in the
SG or the Policy Committee on whether to form the WG and if a certain
low threshold is met - say, 20% - then ALL of the NCSG Councillors are
obliged to vote for the formation of that WG, whether they like the idea
or not. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><FONT color=#0000ff><SPAN>Of course,
forming the WG does not mean that the supporters of X will get exactly
the policy they want. But NCSG cannot guarantee that in any event -- all
the other factions, constituencies and SGs will be involved in any WG.
It does, however, guarantee that minorities within the NCSG have a
chance to get their ideas past the Council and into the WG phase.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN></SPAN><FONT size=2>Milton Mueller<BR>Professor, Syracuse
University School of Information Studies<BR>XS4All Professor, Delft
University of Technology<BR>------------------------------<BR>Internet
Governance Project:<BR><A href="http://internetgovernance.org/"
target=_blank>http://internetgovernance.org</A><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT
size=2></FONT>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,255) 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Robin Gross [<A
href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org"
target=_blank>mailto:robin@ipjustice.org</A>] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday,
February 22, 2009 7:27 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Milton L Mueller; <A
href="mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"
target=_blank>NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</A><BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:
[NCUC-DISCUSS] FW: Follow-Up to NCSG Charter-Structure
Questions<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Thanks, Milton.
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>You are right that we have to continue to remind the ICANN staff
and board that the constituency model that the staff is proposing
encourages stake-holder groups to be in a perpetual power struggle
within themselves (and between constituencies) to hold on to counsel
seats. The way staff is trying to organize the GNSO it appears
they are trying to disempower the GNSO even further by requiring all
energies to be consumed in un-ending administrative tasks and
political battles. Too bad. This "GNSO reform" was a real
opportunity for ICANN to reform some of its more nasty tendencies
(like staff dominating the board, the GNSO, etc.)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>We should revise our draft SG proposal for submission by 1 March
(taking into account the feedback we've received so more).
</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Should we schedule a call this week to discuss the submission
further? Any suggestions?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Thanks,</DIV>
<DIV>Robin</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>On Feb 21, 2009, at 9:46 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:</DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><SPAN
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal">
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><FONT
face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Hello,
all</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><FONT
face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">You will
remember that I sent questions to the staff questioning the
practicality of certain aspects of their favored model for a NCSG.
The good news is that they have taken the inquiry seriously and
responded. The bad news is that, as I feared, the only way to make
their favored model work requires enormous amounts of organizational
overhead – an additional bureaucratic overlay that creates not only
complexity but the possibility of top-down manipulation of
constituency election results. Interestingly, the more workable
approaches start to look a lot like the integrated election process
we already proposed. Read for yourself.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><FONT
face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; TEXT-ALIGN: center"
align=center><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<HR align=center width="100%" SIZE=2>
</SPAN></FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><B><FONT
face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">From:</SPAN></FONT></B><FONT
face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma"><SPAN> </SPAN>Robert
Hoggarth<SPAN> </SPAN>[<A
href="mailto:robert.hoggarth@icann.org"
target=_blank>mailto:robert.hoggarth@icann.org</A>]<SPAN> </SPAN><BR></SPAN></FONT><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond"><BR>Milton:<BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">Thank you for your
recent email (below) in which you posed a couple of questions for
the Staff concerning the new Stakeholder Group model. The
questions are challenging and we have done our best to provide what
we think are reasonable recommendations as to how they might be
addressed.<SPAN> </SPAN><BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><B><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">Q1: How does a
constituency-based model produced balanced geographic representation
in Council seats?<SPAN> </SPAN><BR></SPAN></FONT></B><BR><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">We envision
geographic diversity as a representational responsibility of each
Stakeholder Group (SG) in fulfilling its role of allocating GNSO
Council seats to member Constituencies. We are currently
working with the General Counsel to draft Bylaw amendments
consistent with that approach.<BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">Using your
example, if the SG has six seats and three Constituencies, it may
choose to allocate seats evenly although it would not be required to
do so. In the simplest case, if there are two seats assigned
to each Constituency, the SG would alert its members that it needs
to have all five geographic regions represented with no more than
two Councilors coming from the same one. In order to
accomplish that goal, the SG might ask certain Constituencies to
produce its candidates from a limited set of geographic
regions.<SPAN> </SPAN><BR>Another option might be to solicit a
larger candidate pool, e.g. three from each Constituency or nine
total (voted from within), and choose those six that best satisfy
the SG's geographic diversity needs. In a situation where the
number of Council seats to be allocated is not evenly divisible, the
SG might decide to designate certain seats to specific geographic
regions and candidates from various Constituencies could campaign
for those available slots.<FONT color=navy><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy"></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><FONT
face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">MM
commentary: note the last line: "designating certain seats to
specific geographic regions" and allowing "candidates from various
Constituencies [to] campaign for those available slots" sounds
suspiciously close to an integrated, Stakeholder Group-wide
election, which is what we proposed! In other words, Council
candidates would have to appeal for votes from across the entire SG,
not just inside their constituency</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><FONT
face=Garamond size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">We believe that the
SG, working collaboratively with its member Constituencies, can
continue to ensure that its GNSO Councilors reflect a profile
consistent with the organization's geographic diversity
goals.<SPAN> </SPAN><BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><B><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">Q2: How does a
constituency-based model apportion Council seats among
Constituencies when they are of different
size?<BR></SPAN></FONT></B><BR><FONT face=Garamond><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">While the decisions may be
challenging, we think that one principal role of the SG's leadership
team[ 1] <see footnote below> is to establish the very
criteria (and methodology) that would allow such apportionment
determinations to be made. A SG could utilize factors other
than size, for example, geographic diversity and possibly others.
To take a concrete example, if there were six seats and four
constituencies, the SG could end up with a 2-2-1-1 or 3-1-1-1
configuration utilizing whatever decision-making criteria it adopted
(and had approved, via its Charter, by the Board). You raise
the possibility of gaming the system and, of course, such behavior
is theoretically possible in any proposed model including your own.
In that circumstance, the SG leadership should reexamine its
methodology and adjust, as necessary, to minimize any undesirable
outcomes. Once the seats are allocated, if a new constituency
is subsequently admitted to the SG by the Board, we recommend that,
at its next annual cycle, the SG reallocate seats taking into
consideration five members vs. four. The most likely Council
member configuration, given the limited combinations, would be
2-1-1-1. We do make the tacit assumption that any Constituency
approved by the Board would have satisfied ICANN's fundamental
stakeholder representational requirements and, thus, would be
entitled to at least one seat on the
Council.<SPAN> </SPAN><BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">In terms of
oversight, we believe that the Board's role will be not only to
ensure that each of the SG Charters is structured in a fair, open,
and transparent manner; but, it will also likely monitor SG
activities, especially in the period immediately after initial
implementation.<SPAN> </SPAN><BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">We would be happy
to continue discussing this matter with you and, of course, we would
welcome another set of questions if there are still unresolved
issues in your mind.<BR> <BR>Regards,<BR>Denise
Michel<BR><BR>[1] <#_ftnref><SPAN> </SPAN><I><SPAN
style="FONT-STYLE: italic">We would envision an Execeutive Committee
comprised of one delegate from each recognized
Constituency.<SPAN> </SPAN><BR></SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT><BR><FONT
color=navy><SPAN style="COLOR: navy">MM comment: This proposal
creates a potential nightmare. It requires a group of delegates from
each constituency to fight among themselves, with no pre-set
criteria, to decide who gets how many Council seats. Unacceptable,
and unnecessary. In our proposal, size differences among
constituencies are automatically reflected in voting totals for
Council seats. There is no need for top-down, negotiated
allocations. Those negotiations create all the rigidities that the
Board Governance Committee was trying to get rid of, and present all
kinds of opportunities for abuse. Even when they are not abused,
they will consume enormous amounts of time. It is apparent that
ICANN's professional staff – which gets paid to do this work – still
does not appreciate the way in which imposing additional layers of
bureaucracy and a constant need to contend and negotiation for power
inside a SG saps the energy of noncommercial groups and prevents
them from doing the real work of policy development. I ask for your
support to tell the staff that this is not an acceptable
option.<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Garamond><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond"><BR><BR></SPAN></FONT><B><U><FONT
face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN></FONT></U></B></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><B><U><FONT
face=Garamond size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">MM's
Original Email of 6 February,
2009:<BR></SPAN></FONT></U></B><BR><FONT face=Garamond><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">Robert, Denise and
Ken<BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><FONT face=Garamond><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">Thanks a lot for your valuable
feedback on our draft Charter (v4.0). It is clear that we are making
progress, although there is a long way to
go.<SPAN> </SPAN><BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">In respect to some
of your questions or requests for explanation, let me turn the
tables on you a bit. The presumption in many of these exchanges is
that there's something complicated or "different" about what we are
proposing, and that the "constituency-based SG model" is
straightforward and poses no problems. In many ways, however, an
integrated SG structure is far simpler, and we have no idea how a
constituency model would work even if we thought it desirable to
implement it.<BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><FONT face=Garamond><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">Let me give you two examples. I will
pose them in the form of questions because it genuinely would like
to have answers from you or any other defender of the
constituency-based SG model.<BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><B><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">Q1: How does a
constituency-based model produced balanced geographic representation
in Council seats?<SPAN> </SPAN><BR></SPAN></FONT></B><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond"><BR>Think about
this. Let's say there are 3 independent constituencies in a SG, and
each of them elects 2 Council seats without reference to the other.
So Constituency A elects (in accord with its own geog.
representation rules) a person from North American and a person from
Latin America; Constituency B elects a person from North America and
a person from Latin America; and Constituency C elects a person from
North America and another from<SPAN> </SPAN>Latin America. End
result: each constituency has, on its own, produced as much
geographic diversity as it possibly could, and yet the end result
could be that only two world regions are represented on the
Council.<SPAN> </SPAN><BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">I would be very
interested to see how you propose to avoid this problem while
staying in the constituency model.<BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">An integrated SG
model, by contrast, can impose proportions on the six seats as a
whole, thereby ensuring that most if not all regions are
represented.<SPAN> </SPAN><BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><B><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">Q2: How does a
constituency-based model apportion Council seats among
Constituencies when they are of different
size?<BR></SPAN></FONT></B><BR><FONT face=Garamond><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">Let's suppose there is an "old
constituency" that has 50 members, and a "new" constituency that
starts and gets recognized by the Board, and has only 10 initial
members (or even less). How many Council seats does each
constituency get? Do they inherently get the same number of seats
simply by virtue of the fact that they are constituencies? Or does
their representation on the Council reflect their relative size? If
the latter, who decides what allocation principle is used, when
there is no pre-established SG decision-making method? And once
Council seats depend on membership size, what is to stop one
constituency from extending membership in an overly easy way,
regardless of appropriate criteria, to inflate its relative size?
Will the Board monitor
this?<SPAN> </SPAN><BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">These questions
are not impossible to answer, but they obviously impose a very
complex layer of organization, monitoring and procedure that an
integrated SG model does not have to worry
about.<SPAN> </SPAN><BR>Frankly, Bob and Denise, I could
produce about a dozen more questions like this. But let's see how
you do with these two
first.<SPAN> </SPAN><BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">My point is to put
this discussion of SG models on a more solid footing with an equal
burden of proof. If you can convince us that a constituency-based
model handles such basic and obvious issues as well as an integrated
model,we'd be more inclined to change our
view.<SPAN> </SPAN><BR>--MM</SPAN></FONT><FONT color=navy><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy"></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><FONT
face=Garamond size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">
<HR align=left width="33%" SIZE=1>
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><FONT
face=Garamond size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">[1]</SPAN></FONT><SPAN> </SPAN><#_ftnref><SPAN> </SPAN><I><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN
style="FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">We would envision
an Execeutive Committee comprised of one delegate from each
recognized
Constituency.</SPAN></FONT></I></DIV></DIV></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR>
<DIV><SPAN
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal">
<DIV><BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>IP JUSTICE</DIV>
<DIV>Robin Gross, Executive Director</DIV>
<DIV>1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA</DIV>
<DIV>p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451</DIV>
<DIV>w: <A href="http://www.ipjustice.org"
target=_blank>http://www.ipjustice.org</A>
e: <A href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org"
target=_blank>robin@ipjustice.org</A></DIV><BR></SPAN><BR></DIV><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR>
<DIV><SPAN
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate">
<DIV><BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>IP JUSTICE</DIV>
<DIV>Robin Gross, Executive Director</DIV>
<DIV>1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA</DIV>
<DIV>p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451</DIV>
<DIV>w: <A href="http://www.ipjustice.org"
target=_blank>http://www.ipjustice.org</A> e: <A
href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org"
target=_blank>robin@ipjustice.org</A></DIV><BR></SPAN><BR></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR>
<DIV><SPAN
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate">
<DIV><BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>IP JUSTICE</DIV>
<DIV>Robin Gross, Executive Director</DIV>
<DIV>1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA</DIV>
<DIV>p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451</DIV>
<DIV>w: <A href="http://www.ipjustice.org"
target=_blank>http://www.ipjustice.org</A> e: <A
href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org"
target=_blank>robin@ipjustice.org</A></DIV><BR></SPAN><BR></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BODY></HTML>