Hi Kent --
I suppose you have changed the names of the DNSO drafts yet again.
There are two that were submitted, and the DNSO.ORG draft that was not.
Are you talking about what you earlier renamed to be the BMW draft?
Or the Washington Draft? Or the INTA/WITSA draft? Or whatever?
Please settle down to use of a consistent name so we can be sure we
know what you are talking about.
When You clarify what you are talking about, I will give your comments
a serious read.
Until then...\Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:00:36 -0800:
}
}
}All -
}
}As promised, here are my comments on the DNSO application. There
}has been a lot of misunderstanding and misstatements about the
}content of this draft, and I hope that these clarifications will be
}helpful.
}
}Please note that these are my personal comments, and are not
}necessarily representative of the opinions of anyone else.
}
}A few general points:
}
} 1) The form of the document was changed back to a generalized
} "application to ICANN" format, as was the case in Barcelona.
} Many sections were simplified, and there are a number of places
} where details are left to be worked out -- in particular the
} complex problem of international representation, and the complex
} language concerning committees was excised. This is not a
} prejudice against these areas -- it was just felt that these
} details are less controversial, and that they could safely be
} left to later elaboration, or just left unspecified to be
} determined at need by the Names Council (in computer parlance,
} they could be run-time decisions, instead of compile-time
} decisions).
}
} 2) In light of comments received from many sources the decision
} model was changed significantly. The DNSO, in this new model, is
} to be considered as a *source of expert and informed opinion*.
} Sometimes that opinion is in the form of fully-fleshed out policy
} proposals that originate from within the DNSO and may take a long
} time to develop; sometimes it is in the form of a response to a
} specific policy question from ICANN that must be answered in a
} short time. This change is very fundamental, and has many subtle
} implications -- in particular in points 3, 4, and 6, below.
}
} 3) Previous decision models involve a binary choice -- either
} pass a policy recommendation to ICANN, or don't. This binary
} choice was felt to be incompatible with the notion of returning
} expert opinion in a timely manner, and a different mechanism was
} adopted -- the "dissenting opinion" mechanism.
}
} It turns out that this mechanism is very general and very
} powerful, and subsumes many other forms of review or veto, so it
} is worth spending a few paragraphs describing it.
}
} ICANN is required by its bylaws to consider all policies in terms
} of their overall effect on the good of the Internet. Therefore,
} wile ICANN may by default adopt the recommendations of a SO, it
} still must review those policies, and must consider their effects.
} Therefore, the level of support for a policy is an important bit
} of information that ICANN must use in this evaluation.
}
} Therefore, the recommendations that the DNSO passes to ICANN will
} be required to contain information concerning the level of
} support for a policy, and any significant dissenting opinions.
} The role of the Names Council in this model is to assemble the
} recommendations and dissents, and conduct a vote that essentially
} tags the recommendations with a "level of support" label.
}
} )4 This mechanism automatically builds what might be called a
} "non-blocking pre-review" into the system -- any policy not
} favored by the registries (for example) will be submitted to ICANN
} with a dissenting opinion from the registries, with an indication
} for the strength of that dissent. However, it is a *non-blocking*
} pre-review, in that the policy still gets submitted to ICANN for
} consideration. Being "Constituency Neutral" is an important
} characteristic of this decision process -- *all* constituencies
} have the same power of review.
}
} 5) The matter of separate incorporation was left unspecified.
} There was a great deal of legal talent involved in drafting this
} document; I think it is fair to say that they view incorporation
} as a very minor implementation detail. The basic stance of the
} document, therefore, is that if ICANN holds firm on its position
} of separate organizations with contracts, then incorporation can
} be done trivially; but if the DNSO becomes part of ICANN, then
} this document will serve just as well.
}
} 6) One of the glaring differences between this version and
} previous versions is the removal of explicit memberships for
} individual persons. Membership criteria are now the business of
} the constituencies. Furthermore, it was argued that ICANN itself
} seems pretty committed to an individual membership category, and
} that therefore a special individual membership category in the
} DNSO was redundant.
}
} If the DNSO is part of ICANN, the "at large" membership of ICANN
} will be part of the DNSO. If not, then presumably an "at large"
} constituency can be built through the constituency creation
} process that is required to be developed.
}
} Since there will probably be considerable interest in this
} issue, I will post a longer discussion of the issues, hopefully
} this weekend.
}
} 7) Most of the actual drafting work on the document was done by
} David Maher, Joe Alhadeff, and Jon Englund. The structure and
} overall layout of the document is derived from David's first
} draft application, which was presented at Barcelona. Realizing
} that an application would be required whether bylaws were
} supplied or not, David drafted a revised version of the
} application form, incorporating various elements from previous
} Barcelona/Monterrey drafts. Joe Alhadeff did a rough draft of
} what he thought were the salient points from the Washington
} meeting. There were several telecons; David, Joe, and Jon were
} conscripted into generating a merge of these two sources, plus
} input from the people on the various telecons. This process
} iterated a couple of times.
}
} There were a lot of participants in the telecons and in the
} impromptu email that went back and forth -- lists of addresses on
} the emails kept changing, so it is a little hard to know
} ultimately all who were involved. I know the following people
} were all involved at some point or another (forgive me for any
misspellings): David Maher, Jon Englund, Joe Alahdeff, Theresa
} Swinehart, Michael Schneider, Amadeu Abril i Abril, Fay Howard,
} Mike Heltzer, Marilyn Cade, Sarah Deutsch, Ken Stubbs, Barb
} Dooley, Keith Gymer, Roger Cochetti, Kilnam Chon, John Wood, Kent
} Crispin, Olivier Muron, Bret Fausette, Andrew Kraft, and probably
} a dozen more whose names are not coming to mind.
}
}Kent
}
}PS Other committments have kept me from spending as much time on
} this as I would have liked, and I have not proofread my comments
} carefully. But hopefully the information will be useful.
}
} Comments all begin with "[COMMENT" in the text below...
}
}
}================================================================
}
}FINAL
}
}APPLICATION TO BECOME THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORT ORGANIZATION, pursuant to Art.
}I, Section 3(b) of the Bylaws of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
}Numbers (the "Corporation")
}
} [COMMENT: The basic form of the document has been changed back
} to an "application form", instead of Bylaws. A great deal of
} detail has been removed, in the process.]
}
}
}INTRODUCTION
}
} [DELETED -- the Introduction is just boilerplate]
}
}DISCUSSION
}
}I. MEMBERSHIP CRITERIA
}
}A. MEMBERSHIP IN THE DNSO:
}
}The DNSO membership shall consist of constituencies, as described
}below. Each constituency shall self-organize and determine its own
}criteria for membership.
}
} [COMMENT: As noted, the constituencies set their own membership
} criteria. The internal organization of constituencies is
} studiously ignored. However, there are some requirements that
} are implied -- for example, constituencies must be able to
} nominate candidates for the Names Council in an open and fair
} manner. Another important requirement is that the constituencies
} be able to produce intelligent and meaningful comments on policy
} proposals.]
}
}Such criteria shall be publicly available.
}Each constituency shall meet at least once a year, and all the
}constituencies combined shall meet as a general assembly at least
}once a year.
}
}B. MEMBERSHIP IN THE CONSTITUENCIES:
}
}The constituencies described herein are an initial set of
}constituencies. The DNSO and the Names Council will develop fair and
}open procedures for the creation, deletion, and merger of
}constituencies; and adjustment of the representation of
}constituencies on the Names Council.
}
} [COMMENT: there has been some discussion for mechanisms for doing
} this, but the issues are fairly complex. Several points:
}
} - The process of changing constituencies must have a fair amount
} of inertia, because constituencies have votes on the Names
} Council (NC), and we want to avoid vote manipulation through
} rapid changes in the constituencies.
}
} - On the other hand, the old constituencies, and the NC, must
} not be able to block the creation of new constituencies at whim.
}
} - The inevitable result of any realistic process will be the
} creation of many more constituencies, and a correspondingly
} obese NC. This issue was discussed, and the conclusion was that
} a restructuring of the NC would probably be necessary at some
} point, but that such a restructuring would be something that
} could safely be left to a future time.]
}
}
} In terms of creating new
}constituencies, there has been some interest expressed that a
}category be created for additional Internet technology and content
}providers, such as the Internet access software and portal segments
}of industry.
}
}The constituencies (listed alphabetically) are:
}
}
} 1. Commercial and business: entities with Internet interests
} engaged in commerce or business, including, but not limited to,
} organizations of commercial and business entities.
}
} 2. ISP and connectivity providers: IP network operators and
} service providers, i.e., entities operating name servers for
} clients and offering Internet connectivity to third parties.
}
} 3. Non-commercial registrants : Non-commercial groups, bodies
} and associations, including, but not limited to, the following:
}
} o Associations and groups of users of the Internet;
} o Governmental (central, regional and local) users;
} o Hospitals, clinics and other health facilities;
} o Museums, Libraries and other custodians of the cultural heritage;
} o Non-Governmental public sector and public services;
} o Universities, Research Institutes and Schools.
}
} 4. Registrars: entities that provide a service to Internet users
} of registering second level domain names in top level domains
} (TLDs) (or registering third level domain names in the case of
} TLDs that have established categories of second level domains).
}
} 5. Registries: entities authorized by the Corporation to publish
} authoritative TLD zones in one or more generic or country-code
} TLD zones.
}
} 6. Trademark and anti-counterfeiting interests: entities
} including, but not limited to trademark owners and groups of
} owners, who are interested is the protection of trademarks or the
} effort to stop trademark counterfeiting and infringement.
}
} [COMMENT: The "non-commercial" constituency has been added, and
} the "At-Large" constituency has been removed.]
}
}An entity may be a member in more than one constituency if it meets
}the criteria for each constituency for which it applies and pays the
}applicable dues or membership fees for each constituency.
}
} [COMMENT: There is an important requirement missing here, in my
} view: entities that are members of the DNSO must delegate some
} individual to serve as their representative to the
} DNSO/Constituencies, and that delegation should be discussed. In
} my view it should be a requirement that no individual person can
} represent more than one member of the DNSO.]
}
}C. THE NAMES COUNCIL
}
}There shall be a Names Council initially consisting of 18 members,
}elected from time to time by the members of the DNSO, following the
}procedures set forth below. Each constituency shall each have the
}right to elect the same number of members of the Names Council. If
}at some later date another constituency or constituencies are added,
}the number of members of the Names Council shall be adjusted so that
}each constituency shall continue to have the right to elect the same
}number of members.
}
}Within four weeks after acceptance by the Corporation of this
}application, the Names Council shall form itself initially by means
}of a meeting of representatives of all entities that have subscribed
}to the application in the form in which it is accepted by the
}Corporation. The meeting shall select an Initial Names Council that
}shall have only the power to establish procedures for the formation
}of the constituencies, the assessment of fees for the start-up
}process and such further administrative steps as are necessary to
}form the DNSO. The Initial Names Council shall not have any power to
}make recommendations to the Corporation or to nominate directors of
}the Corporation.
}
} [COMMENT: This deals with the standard bootstrap problem for
} organizations. If separate incorporation is required, the
} Initial Names Council would probably serve in the role of
} incorporators, as well.]
}
}The initial list of constituencies and number of members of the Names
}Council is set forth below:
}
}1. Commercial and business - 3
}
}2. ISP and connectivity providers - 3
}
}3. Non-commercial - 3
}
}4. Registrars - 3
}
}5. Registries - 3
}
}6. Trademark and anti-counterfeiting interests - 3
}
}In order to ensure broad international representation on the Names
}Council, at least one citizen of a country located in each of the
}geographic regions listed below shall serve on the Names Council at
}all times. As used herein, each of the following shall be a
}"Geographic Region": Europe; Asia/Australia/Pacific; Latin
}America/Caribbean Islands; Africa; North America. The specific
}countries included in each Geographic Region shall be determined by
}the Names Council, and this Section shall be reviewed by the Names
}Council from time to time (but at least every three years) to
}determine whether any change is appropriate, taking account of the
}evolution of the Internet.
}
} [COMMENT: The document punts on the very difficult problem of
} exact mechanics for achieving international representation. This
} language is essentially the same as the language in the ICANN
} bylaws.
}
} Previous versions described an elaborate and intricate mechanism
} for achieving fair international representation. That language
} was removed in the interests of simplicity -- it was so hard to
} understand that its inclusion was an impediment to agreement.
} Even some of the Monterrey and Barcelona participants were
} proposing alternate language...]
}
}The Names Council shall meet regularly on
}a schedule determined by its members, but not less than 4 times per
}year. Unless otherwise provided (see Section II), a majority vote of
}the members attending a Names Council meeting at which a quorum is
}present shall be sufficient for the conduct of its business.
}
} [COMMENT: It should be noted that policy votes in general have
} stronger requirements. It was noted that the NC could vote on
} all kinds of things, including setting time for coffee breaks,
} and some of them are not of consequence. Hence policy decision
} processes are described in a separate section, "METHODS FOR
} DEVELOPING SUBSTANTIVE INTERNET POLICIES AND SELECTING BOARD
} NOMINEES" ]
}
}Meetings may be held in person, via videoconference or
}teleconference, at the discretion of the Names Council. The Names
}Council shall post minutes of its meeting to the DNSO web site as
}soon a practicable, after the meeting has concluded.
}
}Robert's Rules of Order (Revised), or whatever other rules shall be
}agreed to by the Names Council, shall govern the conduct of Names
}Council meetings on all matters not otherwise specified by the Bylaws
}or the Constitution, if any, that may be adopted by the Names
}Council.
}
}The Names Council may from time to time appoint research or drafting
}committees to review matters, draft proposals and provide expert
}recommendations to the Names Council. Such committees shall be
}composed of at least one representative from each constituency.
}
} [COMMENT: The reasoning for the simplification is similar to the
} case for international representation -- committee structure and
} mechanics are just not that exciting, and do not really need
} specification.]
}
}D. APPLICATIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP IN CONSTITUENCIES 1-6
}
}Applications for membership in the constituencies 1-6 shall be
}submitted to the relevant constituency which shall accept or reject
}the application according to its own criteria.
}
} [COMMENT: Missing is an appeal procedure for membership
} conflicts. Presumably the Fair Hearing process described below
} will be used.]
}
}E. ELECTION OF THE NAMES COUNCIL
}
}Upon completion of the work of the Initial Names Council, but not
}less than six weeks after acceptance by the Corporation of this
}application, the membership will form itself according to the
}structure established by this application and elect members of the
}Names Council in accordance with the procedures set forth below.
}
} [COMMENT: Note that the constituencies nominate candidates for NC
} positions, but it is the MEMBERSHIP that elects.]
}
}Members of each constituency shall nominate individuals to represent
}that constituency on the Names Council. Nominations within each
}constituency may be made by any member of the constituency, provided,
}however, that each member of a constituency may make no more than one
}nomination for a Names Council member representing that constituency.
}An entity that is a member of more than one constituency may make one
}nomination for each constituency of which it is a member. However,
}no individual or entity may hold more than one Names Council 'seat'.
}Every nominee shall be identified as representing a particular
}geographical region.
}
}Elections for Names Council members shall be held once each year for
}vacant seats. The term of office for each member of the Names
}Council is two years, staggered so that each year one half of the
}Names Council members shall be elected.
}
} [COMMENT: Changed from a three year term to a two year term. The
} motive for this change was burnout -- membership in the NC takes
} work, but it is an unpaid position. Some of the commenters with
} experience in this kind of thing thought that a three year term
} was just to long to bear.]
}
}The Names Council shall determine appropriate procedures (i) to
}ensure the international representation prescribed for its
}membership, (ii) to select the terms of the initial members so as to
}ensure staggered terms and (iii) to select a Chairman and appropriate
}staffing.
}
} [COMMENT: Point i) is a requirement from earlier -- the NC just
} has to implement that requirement, basically to the satisfaction
} of ICANN. Of course, ICANN has to figure out how to do this as
} well...]
}
}II. METHODS FOR DEVELOPING SUBSTANTIVE INTERNET POLICIES AND
}SELECTING BOARD NOMINEES
}
}A. Substantive Internet Policies
}
} [COMMENT: The basic process is: 1) Someone proposes a policy; 2)
} the NC designates a committee to flesh out the policy proposal; 3)
} after a satisfactory proposal comes from the committee the policy
} is presented to the constituencies for comment; 4) depending on
} the comments the policy will either be returned to the committee,
} or voted out of the NC as a recommendation for ICANN. Note that
} at least a majority vote is required before the recommendation may
} be passed on to ICANN. A less than majority vote will require
} that the policy either be dropped, or sent back to the committee
} for further work and review.
}
} Note the following subtlety -- a NC member who basically favors a
} policy may still vote against it, in order to force it back to
} committee and further review in the hopes of generating a
} stronger consensus.]
}
}The Names Council is delegated the task of managing the development
}of policy recommendations regarding TLDs, including the operation,
}assignment and management of the domain name system and other related
}subjects, and, in accordance with Article VI, Section 3(a)(ii) of the
}Corporation's Bylaws, the Names Council shall make recommendations on
}such subjects to the Corporation's Board.
}
}The Names Council is intended to act primarily as an administrative
}and management body. It will only undertake greater authority or
}
} [COMMENT: Note that, contrary to misstatements on the mailing
} lists, the NC does not "develop" policies, or "decide" policies.]
}
}issue final policy recommendations when needed due to urgent
}questions of Internet stability, time deadlines for recommendations
}established by the Corporation (and then with as much consultation as
}time permits) or after proper consultation and comment/redrafting
}with the constituencies.
}
}The Names Council shall seek input and review of its recommendations
}from each of the constituencies.
}
} [COMMENT: Note that the primary role of the NC is "managing the
} development" of policies, and not "development of policies". The
} development of policies is delegated to committees, and review
} through the constituencies is mandatory.]
}
}Constituencies may provide initial input to the Names Council on a
}given topic. If the Names Council undertakes consideration of a
}topic, or if a constituency requests consideration of a topic, the
}Names Council shall designate one or more research or drafting
}committees, as appropriate, and shall set a time frame for the draft.
}The draft shall then be returned from the committee for review by
}Names Council. The Names Council may either accept the draft for
}submission back to constituencies for comment and consultation or
}return the draft to the committee for further work.
}
} [COMMENT: Note that time limits are imposed for drafting and
} comments. These need not be fixed -- some policies might take a
} lot more work than others -- but it was felt important that a
} mechanism for time constrained policy development exist.]
}
} After the draft
}is submitted to the constituencies and the comment period for the
}constituencies is over, the Names Council shall evaluate the comments
}to determine whether there is the basis for a consensus
}recommendation.
}
} [COMMENT: As described in the general comments, the vote of the NC
} is essentially a labelling process. The labels are "consensus"
} recommendation, or "majority" recommendation. In all cases,
} dissenting opinions may be attached by any constituency.
}
}A consensus recommendation is one that is supported by the
}affirmative vote of two thirds of the members of the Names Council
}and is not opposed by the votes of all of the representatives of any
}two constituencies. If a consensus recommendation is developed, any
}constituency may file a statement of its dissenting view to accompany
}the recommendation to the Board of the Corporation. If a
}recommendation is supported by an affirmative vote of more than one
}half but less than two-thirds of the members of the Names Council,
}the Council shall submit the recommendation to the Board of the
}Corporation with statements of majority and minority views. If a
}recommendation is not supported by affirmative vote of at least one
}half of the members of the Names Council, the Names Council will
}submit the proposed recommendation back to the drafting committee for
}re-drafting consistent with constituency comments.
}
}B. Selecting Nominees to the Board of the Corporation
}
}Each year, the Names Council shall request that each constituency
}appoint one representative to serve on a nominating committee for the
}nomination of candidates to serve on the Board of the Corporation.
}The representatives appointed by the constituencies (or in the event
}of the failure of a constituency to appoint, a substitute from that
}constituency selected by the Names Council) shall nominate one
}candidate from each of the geographical areas specified in Article
}I.C. above.
}
}The Names Council shall have the power to select three candidates for
}the first round of nominations to the Board of the Corporation, with
}terms of one, two and three years respectively, and one candidate for
}a three year term each year thereafter, from among those nominated by
}the nominating committee. In order for a candidate to be selected,
}the candidate must have the affirmative votes of at least one-half
}the members of the Names Council. The Names Council shall establish
}procedures for run off voting, if necessary, to ensure that the
}selected candidates each have the support of the affirmative votes of
}at least one-half the members of the Names Council.
}
} [COMMENT: The basic idea is that no candidate will be approved
} who does not have the vote of at least a majority of the NC
} members. A runoff election will be used to eliminate candidates
} until a candidate emerges with at least such a majority.]
}
}C. General
}
}The DNSO, the Names Council and each of the constituencies will
}establish on-line methods of meeting, conducting ballots and
}developing consensus. Applicable Internet Engineering Task Force
}(IETF) procedures and other relevant models will be examined as a
}possible model.
}
}III. OPEN AND TRANSPARENT NON-DISCRIMINATORY PROCESSES
}
}A. General
}
}The processes of the Names Council (and the processes of each
}constituency) shall be governed by the same provisions for open and
}transparent non-discriminatory processes as those of the Board of the
}Corporation. A general mechanism for review of conflicts and
}grievances will be developed. This mechanism shall include the
}appointment, from time to time, if supported by an affirmative vote
}of one third of the Names Council, of a Fair Hearing Panel. This
}panel will have such powers and responsibilities for review of
}conflicts and grievances as may be delegated to it by the Names
}Council.
}
}B. Minutes and Reports.
}
}The DNSO shall publish, at least annually, a report describing its
}activities and including an audited financial statement and
}describing any payments made by the DNSO to Directors (including
}reimbursements of expenses). Draft minutes of all DNSO meetings
}shall be published as soon as practicable. The Names Council at its
}next regular meeting will formally approve minutes. All minutes,
}meetings, materials, and communications of the DNSO (and any
}committees thereof) shall be made publicly available immediately
}following approval by the Names Council.
}
}C. DNSO Web Site.
}
}The Names Council shall post on a public World Wide Web Site:
}
}(a) a calendar of scheduled meetings for the upcoming year; and (b)
}in advance of each DNSO meeting or policy-recommendation proceeding,
}a notice of the fact and time that such meeting or proceeding will be
}held and, to the extent known, an agenda for the meeting. If
}reasonably practicable, the Names Council shall post notices of
}special meetings of the DNSO and of the Names Council at least
}fourteen days prior to the meetings. As appropriate, the Names
}Council will facilitate the translation of final published documents
}into various appropriate languages.
}
}D. On-line Participation
}
}To ensure international and diverse participation, the proceedings of
}the DNSO and the Names Council, as well as all Committees of the
}DNSO, shall to the fullest extent possible, be available on-line.
}The Names Council shall consult with the general assembly of the
}constituencies to develop a process to enable on-line comments on
}drafts and discussion topics.
}
}IV. POLICIES TO ENSURE INTERNATIONAL AND DIVERSE PARTICIPATION
}
}Because of the composition of the Names Council, there will
}automatically be international and diverse participation.
}
}V. POLICIES FOR DISCLOSURE TO THE CORPORATION BY MEMBERS OF OR
}PARTICIPANTS IN THE DNSO OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OTHER FINANCIAL
}INTERESTS IN MATTERS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE DNSO.
}
}These policies shall be the same as those for the Board of the
}Corporation.
}
}VI. METHODS FOR FUNDING THE DNSO AND PROVIDING FUNDING FOR THE
}CORPORATION
}
}The DNSO shall fund its own expenses, including the costs of DNSO and
}Names Council membership and other meetings and communications. It
}is presently the understanding of the drafters of this application
}that the Corporation is not expecting the Supporting Organizations to
}provide funding for the Corporation.
}
} [COMMENT: If the DNSO is part of ICANN this clause may be
} unnecessary. But if it is an independent organization, as ICANN
} has specified, then some statement about this topic is
} necessary.]
}
}The Names Council shall draw up a budget for each calendar year,
}which shall include receipts, and all expenditures for which the DNSO
}is responsible. These include the administrative costs for DNSO and
}other expenditures for membership meetings, conferences and hearings.
}The budget shall include a provision for reasonable reserves, not to
}exceed a percentage to be determined of the previous year's budget.
}
}Members of the Names Council shall serve without compensation,
}provided, however, that members of the Names Council may be reimbursed
}by the DNSO for out of pocket expenses incurred in connection with
}their function if the expense is objectively necessary, and if the
}member seeking reimbursement can document the expense and show
}plausibly that the member could not perform the member's duties as a
}member of the Names Council without such reimbursement. Such
}reimbursement may include the cost of travel and reasonable expenses
}for attending the meetings, where the member indicates that such
}reimbursement is necessary to ensure their participation.
}
}The general assembly of the constituencies shall determine a fair
}means of allocating membership dues among its membership.
}
}
}================================================================
}
}--
}Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
}[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
