<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">- Antitrust statement</span><br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">The Antitrust Statement was read.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">- Attendence</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Amanda Mendieta (Apple), Aneta Wojtczak-Iwanicka (Microsoft), Ben Wilson (Mozilla), Bruce Morton (Entrust), Clint Wilson (Apple), Corey Bonnel (Digicert), Daniela Hood (GoDaddy), Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA), Doug Beattie (GlobalSign), Janet Hines (SecureTrust), Johnny Reading (GoDaddy), Michelle Coon (OATI), Niko Carpenter (SecureTrust), Paul van Brouwershaven (Entrust), Rebecca Kelley (Apple), Rich Smith (Sectigo), Ryan Sleevi (Google), Shelley Brewer (Digicert), Stephen Davidson (Digicert), Tim Hollebeek (Digicert), Wayne Thayer (Mozilla).</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">- Agenda</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Two items were added to the agenda:</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">1. Wildcard and ADN validation</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">2. Extensions based on BRs 7.1.2.4</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">- Wildcard and ADN validation</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Ryan sent a message on the list about concerns raised in meeting #43 around Domain Validation methods related to agreed-upon change to a website.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">These methods practically demonstrate control for a particular Domain Name, the Domain Name of the website and not for the Domain Namespace.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Change agreed upon change to web sites should not validate ADNs and wildcard certificates.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">DNS are ok for ADNs and wildcards.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Ryan would like to propose that it becomes effective immediately, around February 2021. If CAs anticipate problems with that timeline, they should send feedback with some useful data, since this is one of the automatable methods that doesn't really need human interaction. He is looking for initial reactions, challenges anticipated, any useful feedback would help during the preparation of the ballot.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Doug mentioned that Globalsign uses this method for Enterprise accounts so they can validate their Domain and then issue Certificates to sub-domains. It can be typically automated but not all systems on these Enterprises can use ACME. This would be something GS would like to push down the road, more than February 2021 so they can let their customers know this is coming. Doug also mentioned that it is important to know how we will handle validation re-use for sub-domains that were validated using these methods after this change is made. Will they immediately expire or have a transition?</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Ryan said that this is where the email touches on, to trigger discussion on such challenges. For example, he expects not resolvable subdomain validations to be a challenge using these methods for these subdomain validations.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Ryan describes in his email what sort of data would be useful for CAs to collect and present. He is not opposed to pushing the date down the road but we should do this based on actual data. He proposed CAs to collect statistics and useful data for a concrete discussion. This would help set a better timeframe. CAs could also indicate their timeline to get this data, if they decide to do so. He agrees that examination of data takes time but CAs can mention how much time they need to collect this data. We certainly need to understand the impact before going forward.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Dimitris asked Ryan that in his email, the "www" label was mentioned separately when looking for statistics. It appeared as a "special case" and was curious if there were any plans for an exception.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Ryan replied that there was no intention of having an exception or "special treatment" for the "www" label. If the "www" is in the same server as the bare domain, it should be easy for the CA to use the same validation challenge for both domains. Two connections would be required to the two Domain Names but they could use one random value. For example, today the CA can validate example.com connect to example.com and get authorization to issue for <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.example.com">www.example.com</a>. After this update, the CA would need to connect to example.com and to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.example.com">www.example.com</a> to get the same random value to issue for <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.example.com">www.example.com</a> and example.com.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Tim mentioned that the "www" label was used as a special case in the past because of how browsers treated this label, adding it automatically in some cases. He described a workaround for users that typed bare domain names in the address bar and browsers would historically do things like "let's see what happens if I add www to this". Ryan said this behavior has changed for the better and does not apply for almost a decade. Now you would need to do [CONTROL - ENTER] to "magically" add the www, and no one really knows about this behavior.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Ryan suggested to use the mailing list for first reactions, possible gotchas and in case CAs need time to gather data, they should just mention how much time they would need, it would be very useful.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Tim said that there should be some convergence and deadline on data feedback so this process doesn't go on forever.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Wayne added that there is a combination of factors (notifying customers, validation systems need to be modified, what has to happen with previously validated data) that make this proposed change clearly not happening overnight. He wasn't sure why the initial proposal was from the perspective of "let's make this effective immediately" and request data to push this forward, instead of taking the historically and typical approach proposing it to be effective 6 months after the ballot is effective. The 6 month effective time seems more realistic with this ballot and would help us move more quickly than trying to get data from people.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Ryan said that we set the standard to 3 months, not 6. The collection of data can help us tweak the effective dates. The goal is not to rush this through in February but get data to support informed decisions. We have a number of variables that need to be sorted out.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Tim echoed Wayne's point and also recalled that the default was 6 months de-facto used, and Tim had proposed more than 3 years ago that 3 years should be the default for complicated ballots.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Ryan replied that we said 90 days and he could dig up the archives. Tim said that he wouldn't be surprised if at different times, different people proposed different timelines but 6 months is the number he recalls as the agreed upon timeline.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Ryan said that the goal is not to produce a big impact in February but rather get some concrete data so we can find the right timelines. Also, if CAs ask for specific time to gather information, that would be very reasonable and helpful. He is concerned about some CAs using these validation methods to issue wildcard certificates which exposes users at a greater risk. Some CAs have been conscientious about the discussion in Virginia and taking the right steps for not using these methods for wildcard certificates.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">- Extensions based on BRs 7.1.2.4</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Dimitris asked why using the cabfOrganizationIdentifier extension with the validation rules described in the EV Guidelines would not be considered acceptable for the OV level.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Ryan replied that there is no blanket "yes/no" answer because it is the CA's burden to demonstrate how it meets 7.1.2.4 a and b. Tha CA can't make up their own rules. Even using the same extension OID that is specifically designed for EV Certificates in an OV Certificate might be considered to fail b (misleading). In the email there was an example to use orgId and there was extensive discussion in the context of LEIs and why there has not been any acceptable method proposed that can demonstrate both that the Applicant is entitled to assert that information and that this information has been appropriately verified. The current proposed methods to verify the organization identifier do not meet 7.1.2.4 a or b. Some private EKUs have also been included and CAs have demonstrated how 7.1.2.4 a and b apply. It would be best to start from a position that this is not permitted and work to demonstrate how 7.1.2.4 a and b are fulfilled.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Dimitris clarified that he had VAT in mind, because that's in the current EV Guidelines so it is used in the public Internet, with clear validation rules so why can't a CA use this in an OV Certificate.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Ryan said that the link between the VAT number and an organization relies on the strong organization validation that is described in the EV Guidelines. The same level of assurance for organization validation does not apply in OV Certificates. If a CA uses this information in an OV Certificate, they have to demonstrate that that validation is the same but in the example Dimitris gave this is tied to an EV Certificate. You can't just take EV extension data and move it to an OV Certificate.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Tim commented that what Ryan said means that using an EV validation method for an extension related to an OV certificate in an OV validated organization, the validation method used is "too good" for an OV Certificate.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Ryan clarified that the ability to validate a VAT number is tied to the stronger validation method done for the organization. The same problem was with the LEI. How do you match that the LEI number is actually issued to the organization asserted in the subject and this is where LEI is messy because you need to figure out how to do that mapping. VAT is roughly the same. You have an organization validated to some level, OV, that doesn't give as strong validation as EV that you are actually dealing with the specific organization referenced in that VAT number. So you can't just add the VAT number because in order to validate that it assumes you have strongly validated data to match against which is the output of the EV Validation process.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Tim disagreed. Validating an organization at the OV level means that the identity of that organization has been validated at that level. So we already have an organization there and we just need to validate the VAT number against that organization. The level of rigor is that of an OV level.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Dimitris added to Tim's point that once an organization is validated at the OV level, the mapping between the organization and the VAT number is easy.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Ryan responded that there are different levels of organization validation and the orgID and the corresponding extension relies on the higher assurance organization validation following the EV process. The specific example that Dimitris described is not allowed. In any case, he suggested that any CA should consider that something is not allowed and work on the 7.1.2.4 language to demonstrate that it meets the requirements. Fully copying an extension specifically designed for an EV Certificate described in the EV Guidelines and using it in the BRs does not automatically meet 7.1.2.4 requirements and Ryan believes it misleads Relying Parties about the information verified by the CA, because it’s an extension defined for EV certificates. The CA also needs to demonstrate that this extension is technically relevant in the context of the public Internet, which is not just “it’s useful”.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Alternatively, if it’s not technically relevant to TLS certificates, then you can include it as an extension OID that is specific to each Applicant, as discussed in 7.1.2.4(a)(i). However, you can’t just reuse existing extensions from other profiles, because of 7.1.2.4(b), and for something like VAT numbers, it doesn’t pass the sniff test for 7.1.2.4(a)(ii)</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">- Certificate Profiles</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">No specific progress on the certificate profiles.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Ryan reported that automation landed in the servercert repository to automatically build docx, pdf versions. Ryan tested tables with "column span" and other formatting approaches trying to improve readability and preview how things look in the produced pdf, docx files. "Column span" is currently not supported as it does in the spreadsheet. Pandoc added support this past July/August but it's not yet integrated in the "pdf-writer" or "docx-writer".</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Everyone that syncs/forks the servercert repository should be in a position to see how PDFs are produced and tweak the markdown for better table representation.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Tim asked Ryan how frequently do we use "Column span" on the produced docs. Ryan said the current documents don't support it but the Google spreadsheet uses it extensively. He is still working on these tables to find a good solution.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">The Subcommittee decided to cancel the call on December 31st.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Next call is scheduled for the Dec 17th</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre;white-space:pre-wrap;">Adjurned</span></p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>