Members:   Alan Greenberg, Becky Burr, Bruce Tonkin, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Eberhard Lisse, Izumi Okutani, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Julie Hammer, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Pär Brumark, Robin Gross, Sébastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Rickert   (17)

Participants:  Aarti Bhavana, Andrew Sullivan, Barrack Otieno, Chris Disspain, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Malcolm Hutty, Mark Carvell, Martin Boyle, Mary Uduma, Padmini Baruah, Sabine Meyer, Steve Crocker, Suzanne Woolf, Tatiana Tropina, Tom Dale   (23)

Legal Counsel:  Edward McNicholas, Holly Gregory, Nancy McGlamery, Rosemary Fei   (4)

Guests:  ARI, Asha Hemrajani, John Poole, Jonathan Robinson, Maciej Tomaszewski, Manal Ismail, Nigel Hickson   (7)

Staff:  Alice Jansen, Bernie Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Laena Rahim, Xavier Calvez

Apologies:   Seun Ojedeji

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**




  1. Welcome
  2. Follow-up discussion on Marrakech meeting
  3. Clarification of potential request to lawyers re:  PICs and mission statement
  4. Update on CWG Draft Comment
  5. Update on SO/AC endorsement timeline
  6. Update on Board interactions
  7. Closing remarks


These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute 

in any way the transcript.

1. Welcome

  • Cheryl & Barrack on audio only at the moment. 

2. Follow-up discussion on Marrakech meeting

  • Questions around what types of meetings would be held and whether or not there will be travel support. 
  • Three sessions during the ICANN meeting have been tentatively planned.
  • Discussion on what topics need to be addressed in Marrakesh and whether or not a meeting 
    outside of the ICANN meeting is needed. 
  • According to our timeline, the WS1 report will be with NTIA by the time ICANN 55 starts
  • One potential topic for the meeting could be reviewing the draft Bylaws. Another is WS2. 

Action: CCWG to send recommendations and proposals for work during ICANN55 to the mailing 
list by 16 December (end of day UTC). 

3. Clarification of potential request to lawyers re:  PICs and mission statement

  • Work requested for Counsel to review 
  • Ask ICANN legal if there are examples on list 
  • Legal counsel concerned it does not have the specificity yet
  • Question will be certified or not based on examples from ICANN legal

ActionLiaise with ICANN on activity PICS and reframe the question for legal counsel in light of that input. 

4. Update on CWG Draft Comment

  • CWG-Stewardship will discuss report on call today
  • There are questions raised on: 1) whether IRP clearly addresses needs of CWG-Stewardship; 2) whether limitations of a removal process for Director is adequately addressing 
    CWG-Stewardship requirements; 3) concerns about delays of escalation processes; 4) concerns 
    about level of detail on IANA functions budget question
  • Flag section of report you identify as problematic in an email to staff for proofreader 

5. Update on SO/AC endorsement timeline

  • Document from ALAC to review
  • Request to clarify that Chartering Organizations should comment in early January
  • The public comment period is intended to receive a heads-up from Chartering Organizations on problematic areas
  • ASO will hold call today and plans to review Board comments on Mission and IANA Budget. Appeals mechanisms 
    also shortlisted as area that raises concerns. The rest should not be an issue.
  • ccNSO council call planned. Outreach and activities planned. Concerns on efficiency of process were raised.
  • SSAC is drafting response that reflects limited role. 
  • GNSO will discuss on 17 Dec - comments are under development. Plan is to determine if there are issues for approval
  • GAC has virtual meeting on Dec 18th and a process leading to endorsement decision has been set out by GAC Chair.
  • Clear that if major issues/changes, it wll need to be resubmitted to Chartering Organizations. No risk 
    that Chartering Organizations approve report without knowledge of changes

6. Update on Board interactions

  • Co-Chairs welcome attending any meetings you wish to schedule
  • Co-Chairs attended call with ICANN Board without knowledge of Board comments. We received outline of comments 
    on call, reminded Board of timeline and requested (as with Chartering Organizatons) to leave details for implementation. 
    Board was asked to limit comments
  • SO/AC leaders call on Thursday which Board plans to attend 
  • Board comments will be handled with same care as comments received from ICANN community 
  • Board will determine whether any of our recommendations is against global interest. if 2/3 of Board determines 
    it is, recommendation will not be passed and the Board will engage with the CCWG-Accountability to fix this. 
  • Board vote will reflect community input and final report from CCWG-ACCT.

Action: CoChairs to relay questions from Kavouss through Board liaison 

7. Closing remarks

CCWG-ACCT is committed to making this work. 

Action Items

Action: CCWG to send recommendations and proposals for work during ICANN55 to the mailing 
list by 16 December (end of day UTC). 

Action: Liaise with ICANN on activity PICS and reframe the question for legal counsel in light of that input.

Action: CoChairs to relay questions from Kavouss through Board liaison 

Adobe Chat

  Brenda Brewer: (12/14/2015 23:37) Welcome all to the CCWG Accountability Meeting #72 on 15 December 2015 @ 06:00 UTC!  Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior:

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (23:42) Hi Brenda

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (23:43) Is there another meeting today at20,00 21,30  pls ?

  Brenda Brewer: (23:45) Hi Kavouss.  I am not aware of another meeting today at 20:00 UTC. The webinar #3 will be on Wednesday, 16 December at 20:00 UTC.

  Steve Crocker: (23:48) Hello, everyone

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (23:55) Greetings all!

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (23:56) Hello everyone

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (23:56) Hello Kavouss.  Hope you are "on the mend"!

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (23:59) Hi all

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (23:59) hi all

  Tatiana Tropina: (23:59) hi all

  Aarti Bhavana: (12/15/2015 00:00) Hi All

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:00) Co-Chairs

  Andrew Sullivan: (00:01) Hello everyone

  Greg Shatan: (00:01) Hello, all!

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:01) PLEASE INCLUDE IN iTEM 6, the following, and Board recent comments on the 3rd CCWG PROPOSAL

  nigel hickson: (00:02) good morning

  David McAuley (RySG): (00:02) Good morning all

  Becky Burr: (00:02) hello all

  Pär Brumark (Gac Niue): (00:02) Hi all!

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (00:03) Good evening, all.

  Brenda Brewer: (00:03) Barrack Otieno is on audio only

  Grace Abuhamad: (00:04) Thanks B

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (00:05) You are speaking Thomas :P

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:05) @Kavouss: yes we can discuss Board comment under item 6

  Edward Morris: (00:07) WS2

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (00:08) Good to hear you are recovering Kavouss :-)

  Sébastien (ALAC): (00:11) Yes WS2

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (00:13) It is good to hear that no face to face meeting is planned to take place in Marrakesh. Though I wonder where the certainty that this is all happening without issues is coming from.

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (00:14) SO we can not make our bookings, and I assume that if an additional meeting were now to be called on short notice the co-chairs would take responsibility for the additional costs?

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (00:14) Typo, "so we can NOW make or bookins"

  Alan Greenberg: (00:15) It is not just GAC members. The ALAC has been vitally concerned about this area.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:15) Eberhard, Thomas conclusion was that we'll take further inputs and then give clear indications on plans within a few days

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:15) Thanks to Leon for this good overview, and as Alan says we have just flagged this issue again, but it has been raised by different stakeholders

  Alan Greenberg: (00:17) In my mind, the real question is whether a PIC resulting from GAC advice can be overturned by an IRP since it is will not have been created through a bottom-up process.

  Julia Wolman, GAC, Denmark: (00:17) Thanks for the overview and for submitting the question to the lawyers, I do not have examples at the moment

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (00:17) Mathieu, can you please give a date by when we can start aking arrangements?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:19) Next Tue should be safe

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:19) Hi Leon -  I do not have audio right now, but I refer to my comments in the emailing list. ICANN legal under the supervision of CCWG might well be suited to provide a sample of typical PICs which could be considered for this general assessment

  David McAuley (RySG): (00:21) Fair point @Becky

  Becky Burr: (00:23) Alan, then what does the contracting authority mean?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (00:23) Not just GAC advice, Alan.  Could SSAC advice be disallowed if it is not bottom-up?

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:24) Macolmn+ 1

  Alan Greenberg: (00:24) Becky, I have no idea. If the ability to enter into contracts in furtherance of its mision, I am not sure why we need so many of the other mission changes that CCWG participants seem to have thought were absolutely necessary.



  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (00:26) Thank you,

  Malcolm Hutty: (00:26) @Kavouss: Exactly

  Alan Greenberg: (00:26) I think this all comes down to a large number of mission changeswhere we have little idea on how they will interact or cause 2nd or 3rd order effects.

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:26) The study would be inclonc lussive

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (00:26) hi team - been on the audio for the last 15 mins

  Becky Burr: (00:27) @ Alan - such as? 

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:27) The question is not workable and practical to be studied legally

  Alan Greenberg: (00:28) This very question is an example. Will the Board be able to honour some or any GAC advice where it may conflict with some of the mission statements, whether tit is content related, botton-up requirements or whatever.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (00:29) but should it be able to?

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:29) Grace,May some one confirms that there would be no travelling support for CCWG actuivities in Marrakesh

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (00:29) @Kavouss: it's not fully decided yet

  Becky Burr: (00:29) the Mission is not new

  Alan Greenberg: (00:30) @Jordan. If we do have the concept of GAC giving advice that it beleives is in the global public interest, then we do needa way to honour it. Otherwise it is a meaningless right.

  Julia Wolman, GAC, Denmark: (00:30) +1 Alan

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:30) My perception is that we are being asked to sign off on a Bylaws amendment which we know impacts an essential tool (which are PICs), without knowing what the effect of this impact is. That is certainly problematic for our political hierarchies

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:30) As for the lawyers study, we need to hold up untill we have a clear view on the matter

  Alan Greenberg: (00:31) The GAC safeguard for sensitive domains are good examples.

  Alan Greenberg: (00:31) safeguardS

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:31) There is difficult to tertermine what is " typical PIC"?

  Greg Shatan: (00:31) With over 500 PICs, how many would you need to pick beforeyou covered alll "typical" PICs?

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:31) tHEN WE must hold up for the time being

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (00:32) Thank you for clarity about which Mission language.  We will be guided by 3rd draft alone.

  Alan Greenberg: (00:32) There are not 500 GAC-related PICs. Most of those were voluntary.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (00:32) ALan's concern was raised in Stress Test #30 (page 28 at )

  Greg Shatan: (00:32) So, we are not looking at voluntary PICs?

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:33) what we are looking then?

  Greg Shatan: (00:33) We are nailing mercury to the wall....

  Alan Greenberg: (00:33) The EXISTANCE of PICs is one issue. GAC-specific PICs are another.

  Greg Shatan: (00:33) I think there are concerns about both GAC-driven PICs and voluntary PICs.

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (00:34) I take it that we ourselves do not understand what we are asking the chartering organizations to approve.

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (00:34) Thanks Steve.

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:34) There would difficult to judge what pic is a typical one

  Keith Drazek: (00:34) Shocker that PICs turned out to be a problem....

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (00:34) Agree with Jorge and way forward on this question of ability fro community to define conractual commitments that serve the oublic interest e.g. limits on who can register under a domain targettign a market that is regualted in many countiies.

  Alan Greenberg: (00:35) The very existence of PICs could be subject to whether they would be allowed under the new Bylaws.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (00:35) My call dropped

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:36) There is a need to discuss this issue at the next GAC before raising any further action on this.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (00:36) I can hear but can't speak

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (00:36) my call failed entirely

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:37) Onced gain, the issue is raw and premature

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (00:37) Thanks Chris

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (00:37) my call dropped

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (00:37) GAC has a conference call on he 18th: can raise this then as an alert on a new issue.

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (00:37) audio is very poor goig off all the time

  Keith Drazek: (00:38) Agree with Chris. A PIC is either voluntary or not voluntary. There's probably nothing "typical" about any of them.

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (00:38) NO WE CAN NOT .tHIS REQUIRES A FACE TO FACE MEETING IN THE ENTIRE gac. The purpose of the call on 18 is something else

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (00:38) I thinkmthey should reboot Adobe :-)-O

  Alan Greenberg: (00:39) @Steve, and ST 30 says the contract provisions that did not result from a bottom up policy could be overturned.


  David McAuley (RySG): (00:42) pls mute if not speaking


  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (00:48) In the GAC we are having a call on Dec 18th

  Brenda Brewer: (00:49) Kavouss' line disconnected

  Brenda Brewer: (00:49) will call him right back

  Keith Drazek: (00:55) The GNSO Council has a call on the 17th where we will discuss the CCWG proposal. Stakeholder Group and Constituency comments are under development . The hope and plan is to determine if there are any obstacles to approval, but the GNSO will likely need another meeting in January to pass a resolution on the proposal.

  Keith Drazek: (00:56) Mute please!

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (00:57) can staff mute all the lines?

  Chris Disspain: (00:58) So Keith, no appoval from GNSO likely by 21 Dec ?

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (00:58) Just for clarity 21st Dec for ASO is to share our comments, the formal approval by ASO will be after the revised proposal is out - incase it was ambiguous

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (00:58) Thanks Izumi. Noted

  Keith Drazek: (00:59) @Chris: I don't believe so.

  Chris Disspain: (00:59) It seems that both Keith and Izumi are saying they won't be able to 'approve' or otherwise by the 21 Dec that correct?

  Keith Drazek: (01:01) I hope and expect the GNSO will be able to signal any problems, i.e "deal killers" by the 21st, but the formal approval process will likely need another meeting.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:01) so where does that leave our "non voluntary" timetable?

  Keith Drazek: (01:01) Thank you, Leon.

  Chris Disspain: (01:01) Thanks Leon...undestood

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:02) half of ICANN seems to be telling us to "rush rush rush", another half of ICANN seems to be telling us to "get it right, don't rush"

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:02) which half should we listen to? :-)

  Keith Drazek: (01:02) Fair question, Jordan. The answer is both!

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (01:03) Alan, we said earlier we would go back to the COs in case substantial changes are made to the proposal

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (01:03) Leon's comment accurately explains ASO situation, we can express the general support by 21st Dec and "deal killer".

  Tatiana Tropina: (01:03) @Thomas which changes you will consider substantial?

  Tatiana Tropina: (01:05) Thanks Thomas

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (01:05) As previously noted, GAC has conference call on 18th and  process has been set out by Chair.

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (01:05) SO the Chartering Organizations are expected to sign off on something relying on the CCWG Accountability's decision whether changes after the fact are substantial.

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (01:05) Good to know.

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (01:06) Dear Co-Chair, PLS CLEARY DETERMINE whether we will have a CCWG meeting in Marrakesh or NOT, and if yes, would tghere be travelling support or NO, wE NEED A CLEAR DETERMINATION ON THAT NOW?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (01:07) @Kavouss: we will determine that in next few days

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (01:07) Explanation given by Thomas was not clear on either of the two questions

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (01:08) including the travelling support.

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (01:08) Pls confirm

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (01:09) Mathieu , pls kindly confirm that the issue of travelling support would also be made clear?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:10) It would be awfully unfortunate if the very aggressive timetable pressure from ICANN staff, which caused this group major concern, is then found not to be the result of Board requirements

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (01:10) Yes Kavouss

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (01:10) Shortly

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (01:11) If ICANN would not support my travelling to Marrakesh then I have to make my mind what to do

  Tatiana Tropina: (01:12) Thomas, this "another occasion" for board's comments - will it be a call scheduled for that any time soon?

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (01:13) On the rejection of any Rec. by the 2/3 Board must be publickly available indicating the objecting Board,s Member

  Tatiana Tropina: (01:13) Not sure, because if they are issuing "public interest threat" for some critical issues

  Eberhard W Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (01:13) SO the meeting in Santa Monic was not in lrelation to the the Board.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:14) lol

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  ALAC APRegional Member 2: (01:15) it seems like none of my chat comments are not getting through??

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:15) NOTHING in the package here can possibly be construed as a breach of fiduciary duties. We're so far away from that line that it isn't even funny.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:15) Cheryl, haven't seen one for ages aside from this one now.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  ALAC APRegional Member 2: (01:15) *now* they are  *sigh*  AC is flakey for me tody

  Keith Drazek: (01:15) As we have before, the CCWG needs to consider the Board's comments as we do all public comments. And now, at this stage of the deliberations, we need to balance them carefully with the input from the chartering organizations who have to approve the package.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:16) +1 Keith

  Keith Drazek: (01:17) Speaking personally, I don't see significant issues with the Board's input. And I welcome that it was submitted well before the end of the comment period.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:17) this is simply an organisational power balance discussion now, not a fiduciary one.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:17) and I believe that most of the Board input is also constructuve and able to be dealt with

  Keith Drazek: (01:17) Agreee Jordan.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:18) Agree

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (01:18) +1 Jordan

  Chris Disspain: (01:18) thank you Jordan and do I

  Alan Greenberg: (01:18) Keith, I tend to agree.

  Tatiana Tropina: (01:18) Actually Kavouss asked my question

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:18) the problematic areas are the inspection and human rights ones, where the comments don't jive with what the report contains, but that's OK

  Tatiana Tropina: (01:18) what will happen if board rejects some of the recommendations as it says in the public comments - will we have to negotiate as it is provided in the charter?

  Alan Greenberg: (01:19) @Jordan, it does become a fiduciary duty if they feel a change is not in the best interests of the organization.

  Tatiana Tropina: (01:19) The HR comments are not based on the bylaw or on the recommendation text

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (01:19) Thomas $

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (01:19) tks

  Tatiana Tropina: (01:19) It was my hand. You answered my question, I think

  Keith Drazek: (01:20) @Alan: The test is not "in the best interest of the organization" it's "in the global public interest." Right?

  Tatiana Tropina: (01:20) @Keith, +1

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (01:20) Thomas,

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (01:21) Pls confirm that the rejection of any Rec,. require 75% of the Board's Member?

  Keith Drazek: (01:21) @Kavouss: I think it's 2/3 but am prepared to be corrected.

  Alan Greenberg: (01:21) @Keith, that is not 100% clear to me. Their "right" to say they don't agree with the CCWG recs is GPI. But when it comes down to approving bylaws, it is far less well defined. But as Bruce is saying, there are a lot of steps in between.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:22) Alan, their job is the Global Public Interest. There are so many ways to organise the organisation behind it that something that, narrowly read, wasn't in the organisation's short term interests should be looked through in respecting the very fiduciary duties you are talking about

  Tatiana Tropina: (01:22) 2/3 I think though at the call someone told 3/4 but I saw the charter and resolution yesterday, it was 2/3

  Keith Drazek: (01:22) Thanks Alan, I appreciate the distinction.

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (01:23) What are the legal basis and criteria  by which the Board rejects a given Recommendation?

  Alan Greenberg: (01:23) I don't think we will get down to the stage of drafted bylaws that they will refuse to ratify.

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (01:23) Are these basis and criteria available or only they are subject to board's desretion

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:24) Good questions, Kavouss :-)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:24) if we don't know the answer, we probably can't close out the report

  Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (01:27) thanks all, bye

  Sabine Meyer: (01:28) good bye everyone!

  KAVOUSS aRASTEH: (01:28) Bye

  David McAuley (RySG): (01:28) Thanks all and bye

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (01:28) thanks everyone!

  Pär Brumark (Gac Niue): (01:28) Thx all! Bye!

  Steve Crocker: (01:28) Thank you, everyone

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (01:28) bye all

  Izumi Okutani(ASO): (01:28) Thanks all

  Jonathan Zuck/ACT: (01:28) Thank you!

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (01:28) bye all

  Tatiana Tropina: (01:28) good bye everyone!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  ALAC APRegional Member 2: (01:28) BYE FOR NOW EVERYONE

  Andrew Sullivan: (01:28) thansks, bye!

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:28) thaks and bye!

  Keith Drazek: (01:28) Thanks all

  Aarti Bhavana: (01:28) bye all

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (01:28) thanks, bye

  nigel hickson: (01:28) thank you

  Greg Shatan: (01:28) Bye!

  • No labels