Mission Statement language regarding grandfathering
I want to circulate what I believe is the agreed upon language regarding grandfathering, just to make sure we are all on the same page. Not quite sure how we will be handling post-publication changes like this – we will probably need to discuss on the next CCWG call. But in the meanwhile, I want to capture the state of our discussion. 3. For the avoidance of uncertainty, the language of existing registry agreements and registrar accreditation agreements should be grandfathered. This means that the parties who entered into existing contracts intended (and intend) to be bound by those agreements. It means that neither a contracting party nor anyone else should be able to bring a case that any provisions of such agreements on their face are ultra vires. It does not, however, modify any contracting party’s right to challenge the other party¹s interpretation of that language. It does not modify the right of any person or entity materially affected (as defined in the Bylaws) by an action or inaction in violation ICANN¹s Bylaws to seek redress through an IRP. Nor does it modify the scope of ICANN’s Mission. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
Becky: I suggest that we add something like the following: Nor should the term "grandfathered" act to modify the rights of the parties to amend such agreements. Thanks. Jon
On Dec 4, 2015, at 10:16 AM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
I want to circulate what I believe is the agreed upon language regarding grandfathering, just to make sure we are all on the same page. Not quite sure how we will be handling post-publication changes like this – we will probably need to discuss on the next CCWG call. But in the meanwhile, I want to capture the state of our discussion.
3. For the avoidance of uncertainty, the language of existing registry agreements and registrar accreditation agreements should be grandfathered. This means that the parties who entered into existing contracts intended (and intend) to be bound by those agreements. It means that neither a contracting party nor anyone else should be able to bring a case that any provisions of such agreements on their face are ultra vires. It does not, however, modify any contracting party’s right to challenge the other party¹s interpretation of that language. It does not modify the right of any person or entity materially affected (as defined in the Bylaws) by an action or inaction in violation ICANN¹s Bylaws to seek redress through an IRP. Nor does it modify the scope of ICANN’s Mission.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
Becky, the current registry agreement is renewable every 10 years. Does this term impact the ability of ICANN and registry to renew an existing contract. Related to this, the RAA is alterable by negotiation between the parties. Does this term alter tha ability of ICANN and Registrars to continueto use terms in the contract which are not subject to Spec 4? Alan At 04/12/2015 10:16 AM, Burr, Becky wrote:
I want to circulate what I believe is the agreed upon language regarding grandfathering, just to make sure we are all on the same page. Not quite sure how we will be handling post-publication changes like this we will probably need to discuss on the next CCWG call. But in the meanwhile, I want to capture the state of our discussion.
3. For the avoidance of uncertainty, the language of existing registry agreements and registrar accreditation agreements should be grandfathered. This means that the parties who entered into existing contracts intended (and intend) to be bound by those agreements. It means that neither a contracting party nor anyone else should be able to bring a case that any provisions of such agreements on their face are ultra vires. It does not, however, modify any contracting partys right to challenge the other party¹s interpretation of that language. It does not modify the right of any person or entity materially affected (as defined in the Bylaws) by an action or inaction in violation ICANN¹s Bylaws to seek redress through an IRP. Nor does it modify the scope of ICANNs Mission.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / <http://www.neustar.biz>neustar.biz _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
The contracts explicitly provide for amendment and renewal, so I don’t see how a fair reading of the text precludes either amendment or renewal. That said, the note to drafters in the current draft specifically contemplates Spec 4 of the existing RAA and Spec 1 of the existing RA to be within ICANN’s Mission, which when the drafters are done should be reflected in ICANN’s Bylaws. Accordingly, the Mission could not be modified by amending the RA or the RAA. (And we will fix the fact that the side by side which reflects the existing spec language and which is specifically referenced in the Proposal was not attached as it was clearly meant to be) J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Friday, December 4, 2015 at 11:04 AM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Mission Statement language regarding grandfathering Becky, the current registry agreement is renewable every 10 years. Does this term impact the ability of ICANN and registry to renew an existing contract. Related to this, the RAA is alterable by negotiation between the parties. Does this term alter tha ability of ICANN and Registrars to continueto use terms in the contract which are not subject to Spec 4? Alan At 04/12/2015 10:16 AM, Burr, Becky wrote: I want to circulate what I believe is the agreed upon language regarding grandfathering, just to make sure we are all on the same page. Not quite sure how we will be handling post-publication changes like this – we will probably need to discuss on the next CCWG call. But in the meanwhile, I want to capture the state of our discussion. 3. For the avoidance of uncertainty, the language of existing registry agreements and registrar accreditation agreements should be grandfathered. This means that the parties who entered into existing contracts intended (and intend) to be bound by those agreements. It means that neither a contracting party nor anyone else should be able to bring a case that any provisions of such agreements on their face are ultra vires. It does not, however, modify any contracting party’s right to challenge the other party¹s interpretation of that language. It does not modify the right of any person or entity materially affected (as defined in the Bylaws) by an action or inaction in violation ICANN¹s Bylaws to seek redress through an IRP. Nor does it modify the scope of ICANN’s Mission. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Pz84GjUnD6eEOQuFztPXN7yGynyDJgNdmOLFe1jRD7A&s=Z_bxTC9jJOWX2_SfR3Dqz1yOPc3bBIY4uk45x0tzR0M&e=>
It shouldn't be possible to amend these contracts to insert new provisions that are outside the scope of the Mission that don't currently exist in these contracts.
On 4 Dec 2015, at 20:23, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
The contracts explicitly provide for amendment and renewal, so I don’t see how a fair reading of the text precludes either amendment or renewal. That said, the note to drafters in the current draft specifically contemplates Spec 4 of the existing RAA and Spec 1 of the existing RA to be within ICANN’s Mission, which when the drafters are done should be reflected in ICANN’s Bylaws. Accordingly, the Mission could not be modified by amending the RA or the RAA. (And we will fix the fact that the side by side which reflects the existing spec language and which is specifically referenced in the Proposal was not attached as it was clearly meant to be)
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Friday, December 4, 2015 at 11:04 AM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Mission Statement language regarding grandfathering
Becky, the current registry agreement is renewable every 10 years. Does this term impact the ability of ICANN and registry to renew an existing contract.
Related to this, the RAA is alterable by negotiation between the parties. Does this term alter tha ability of ICANN and Registrars to continueto use terms in the contract which are not subject to Spec 4?
Alan
At 04/12/2015 10:16 AM, Burr, Becky wrote:
I want to circulate what I believe is the agreed upon language regarding grandfathering, just to make sure we are all on the same page. Not quite sure how we will be handling post-publication changes like this – we will probably need to discuss on the next CCWG call. But in the meanwhile, I want to capture the state of our discussion.
3. For the avoidance of uncertainty, the language of existing registry agreements and registrar accreditation agreements should be grandfathered. This means that the parties who entered into existing contracts intended (and intend) to be bound by those agreements. It means that neither a contracting party nor anyone else should be able to bring a case that any provisions of such agreements on their face are ultra vires. It does not, however, modify any contracting party’s right to challenge the other party¹s interpretation of that language. It does not modify the right of any person or entity materially affected (as defined in the Bylaws) by an action or inaction in violation ICANN¹s Bylaws to seek redress through an IRP. Nor does it modify the scope of ICANN’s Mission.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I believe that some (important) words have been inadvertently omitted from the Mission Statement in Annex 5. It currently reads: ICANN's Mission, "in its role of coordinat[ing] the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System ("DNS")," is to "coordinate the development and implementation of policies: [a] For which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability; and [b] That are developed through a bottom-up, consensus-based multi-stakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique names systems." I believe that the words "of the DNS" should follow "security and/or stability" .... That's correct, no? [otherwise it doesn't make sense -- the "openness" etc. of what?] David ******************************* David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com *******************************
DNS is already a starting reference point and there is a colon (:) after policies then you have item "a" which talks about security and/or stability..... So it seem in order to me. Nevertheless the professional proof reader may want to have a look. Regards On Dec 8, 2015 2:45 AM, "David Post" <david.g.post@gmail.com> wrote:
I believe that some (important) words have been inadvertently omitted from the Mission Statement in Annex 5. It currently reads:
ICANN's Mission, "in its role of coordinat[ing] the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System ("DNS")," is to "coordinate the development and implementation of policies: [a] For which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability; and [b] That are developed through a bottom-up, consensus-based multi-stakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique names systems."
I believe that the words "of the DNS" should follow "security and/or stability" .... That's correct, no? [otherwise it doesn't make sense -- the "openness" etc. of what?]
David
******************************* David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com ******************************* _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
This is not a proofreading issue. It is a substantive issue. Please put the words that were agreed back in, as David suggests. Unambiguous mission statement is important From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2015 1:25 AM To: David Post <david.g.post@gmail.com> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] An Inadvertent Omission in Annex 5 - Mission Statement DNS is already a starting reference point and there is a colon (:) after policies then you have item "a" which talks about security and/or stability..... So it seem in order to me. Nevertheless the professional proof reader may want to have a look. Regards On Dec 8, 2015 2:45 AM, "David Post" <david.g.post@gmail.com<mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com>> wrote: I believe that some (important) words have been inadvertently omitted from the Mission Statement in Annex 5. It currently reads: ICANN's Mission, "in its role of coordinat[ing] the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System ("DNS")," is to "coordinate the development and implementation of policies: [a] For which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability; and [b] That are developed through a bottom-up, consensus-based multi-stakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique names systems." I believe that the words "of the DNS" should follow "security and/or stability" .... That's correct, no? [otherwise it doesn't make sense -- the "openness" etc. of what?] David ******************************* David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com ******************************* _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Agree with David and Milton - clarity is key On 08/12/2015 14:00, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
This is not a proofreading issue.
It is a substantive issue. Please put the words that were agreed back in, as David suggests.
Unambiguous mission statement is important
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji *Sent:* Tuesday, December 8, 2015 1:25 AM *To:* David Post <david.g.post@gmail.com> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] An Inadvertent Omission in Annex 5 - Mission Statement
DNS is already a starting reference point and there is a colon (:) after policies then you have item "a" which talks about security and/or stability.....
So it seem in order to me. Nevertheless the professional proof reader may want to have a look.
Regards
On Dec 8, 2015 2:45 AM, "David Post" <david.g.post@gmail.com <mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com>> wrote:.
ICANN's Mission, "in its role of coordinat[ing] the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System ("DNS")," is to "coordinate the development and implementation of policies: [a] For which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability; and [b] That are developed through a bottom-up, consensus-based multi-stakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique names systems."
I believe that the words "of the DNS" should follow "security and/or stability" .... That's correct, no? [otherwise it doesn't make sense -- the "openness" etc. of what?]
David
******************************* David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post <http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post> book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com ******************************* _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
+1. Clarification - and proper grammar - needed. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad On Dec 8, 2015, at 10:03 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>> wrote: Agree with David and Milton - clarity is key On 08/12/2015 14:00, Mueller, Milton L wrote: This is not a proofreading issue. It is a substantive issue. Please put the words that were agreed back in, as David suggests. Unambiguous mission statement is important From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2015 1:25 AM To: David Post <david.g.post@gmail.com><mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] An Inadvertent Omission in Annex 5 - Mission Statement DNS is already a starting reference point and there is a colon (:) after policies then you have item "a" which talks about security and/or stability..... So it seem in order to me. Nevertheless the professional proof reader may want to have a look. Regards On Dec 8, 2015 2:45 AM, "David Post" <david.g.post@gmail.com<mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com>> wrote:. ICANN's Mission, "in its role of coordinat[ing] the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System ("DNS")," is to "coordinate the development and implementation of policies: [a] For which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability; and [b] That are developed through a bottom-up, consensus-based multi-stakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique names systems." I believe that the words "of the DNS" should follow "security and/or stability" .... That's correct, no? [otherwise it doesn't make sense -- the "openness" etc. of what?] David ******************************* David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com ******************************* _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org> + 44 771 247 2987 [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/logo-avast-v1.png]<https://www.avast.com/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-ema...> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
That looks like what we had agreed on ... David At 10:16 AM 12/4/2015, Burr, Becky wrote:
I want to circulate what I believe is the agreed upon language regarding grandfathering, just to make sure we are all on the same page. Not quite sure how we will be handling post-publication changes like this we will probably need to discuss on the next CCWG call. But in the meanwhile, I want to capture the state of our discussion.
3. For the avoidance of uncertainty, the language of existing registry agreements and registrar accreditation agreements should be grandfathered. This means that the parties who entered into existing contracts intended (and intend) to be bound by those agreements. It means that neither a contracting party nor anyone else should be able to bring a case that any provisions of such agreements on their face are ultra vires. It does not, however, modify any contracting partys right to challenge the other party¹s interpretation of that language. It does not modify the right of any person or entity materially affected (as defined in the Bylaws) by an action or inaction in violation ICANN¹s Bylaws to seek redress through an IRP. Nor does it modify the scope of ICANNs Mission.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / <http://www.neustar.biz>neustar.biz _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
******************************* David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com *******************************
This looks right to me. On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 03:16:35PM +0000, Burr, Becky wrote:
I want to circulate what I believe is the agreed upon language regarding grandfathering, just to make sure we are all on the same page. Not quite sure how we will be handling post-publication changes like this – we will probably need to discuss on the next CCWG call. But in the meanwhile, I want to capture the state of our discussion.
3. For the avoidance of uncertainty, the language of existing registry agreements and registrar accreditation agreements should be grandfathered. This means that the parties who entered into existing contracts intended (and intend) to be bound by those agreements. It means that neither a contracting party nor anyone else should be able to bring a case that any provisions of such agreements on their face are ultra vires. It does not, however, modify any contracting party’s right to challenge the other party¹s interpretation of that language. It does not modify the right of any person or entity materially affected (as defined in the Bylaws) by an action or inaction in violation ICANN¹s Bylaws to seek redress through an IRP. Nor does it modify the scope of ICANN’s Mission.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
participants (10)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Andrew Sullivan -
Burr, Becky -
David Post -
Jon Nevett -
Malcolm Hutty -
Matthew Shears -
Mueller, Milton L -
Phil Corwin -
Seun Ojedeji