FW: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top-Level
Councilors, FYI. Please see below for a note from the co-chairs of the SubPro PDP, providing a status update on the creation of Work Track 5 (WT5). Thank you, J. From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 19:38 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Subject: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top-Level ** Sending on behalf of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG co-chairs Dear James, On behalf of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, we write to you in your capacity as chair of GNSO. This email is in regards to the topic of geographic names at the top-level, recently discussed during the cross community sessions at ICANN59. In addition, we want to state our agreement with the GAC which in its Communique for ICANN59 stated that “any further process of policy review and development should: (a) continue to allow all stakeholder groups to participate equally; (b) take into account the history and rationale of the arrangements currently in place; and (c) apply an evidence-based policy approach to any proposals for future arrangements” in dealing with Geographic Names as Top-Level Domains. Pursuant to those discussions and the recommendations provided by the GAC, we are establishing a new Work Track 5 (WT5) within the GNSO’s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group. This new WT5 will focus exclusively on geographic names at the top-level. In order to promote broad participation from across the community, we are seeking to establish a shared leadership model in WT5. We are requesting that one representative from each of the ALAC, ccNSO, GAC and GNSO be nominated (through whatever mechanism is deemed appropriate by each group) to serve as a co-leader of WT5 by August 18, 2017. . We are aware that some members of the community are concerned about this topic being addressed under the auspices of a GNSO PDP WG. That said, we are also aware of recommendations from the recently concluded CCWG on the Use of Country and Territory Names that the work should be consolidated into a single community-wide initiative moving forward as opposed to having each SO and AC working on recommendations independently. As such, we are strongly recommending that the leaders of WT5 operate WT5 similarly to a cross community working group, ensuring that each SO and AC participate equally to achieve consensus on any recommendations proposed by the Work Track. While we believe that ultimately, it will be up to WT5 itself to draft the terms of reference for WT5 and determine its structure and operating procedures, we recommend that the co-leaders discuss these issues with the PDP co-chairs and staff first in order to frame the issues and structure for the group. Setting up this arrangement within the GNSO PDP seems to strike a balance between establishing an inclusive and collaborative structure while maintaining the ability to develop policy as determined by ICANN’s Bylaws. After the co-leaders are appointed and have had a chance to discuss plans, we will issue a call to each of the SOs and ACs seeking volunteers from the community to participate in WT5. We hope that you support our proposed multi-stakeholder approach to work with the community in addressing a topic that is clearly of great importance to many. We hope to be able to organize an introductory meeting the first week of September 2017, in order to allow the co-leaders to come to agreement on WT5’s draft terms of reference . Finally, while we as co-chairs of the overall PDP WG support WT5’s independence, we nevertheless remain available to facilitate and provide assistance to the co-leaders as the need or desire arises. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to us. Best regards, Avri Doria and Jeff Neuman
Hi James, I recall in our last calls we talked about tasking the SSC for selecting a GNSO co-clear for WT5. was a request to SSC made already? noting that the deadline for sending name to subpro WG is the 18th August (2 weeks from now) and that is before the next GNSO council call when we will have to confirm the selection. Best, Rafik 2017-08-03 0:55 GMT+09:00 James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>:
Councilors, FYI. Please see below for a note from the co-chairs of the SubPro PDP, providing a status update on the creation of Work Track 5 (WT5).
Thank you,
J.
*From: *Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> *Date: *Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 19:38 *To: *"James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> *Subject: *New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top-Level
** Sending on behalf of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG co-chairs
Dear James,
On behalf of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, we write to you in your capacity as chair of GNSO. This email is in regards to the topic of geographic names at the top-level, recently discussed during the cross community sessions at ICANN59. In addition, we want to state our agreement with the GAC which in its Communique for ICANN59 stated that “any further process of policy review and development should: (a) continue to allow all stakeholder groups to participate equally; (b) take into account the history and rationale of the arrangements currently in place; and (c) apply an evidence-based policy approach to any proposals for future arrangements” in dealing with Geographic Names as Top-Level Domains.
Pursuant to those discussions and the recommendations provided by the GAC, we are establishing a new Work Track 5 (WT5) within the GNSO’s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group. This new WT5 will focus exclusively on geographic names at the top-level. In order to promote broad participation from across the community, we are seeking to establish a shared leadership model in WT5. We are requesting that one representative from each of the ALAC, ccNSO, GAC and GNSO be nominated (through whatever mechanism is deemed appropriate by each group) to serve as a co-leader of WT5 by *August 18, 2017.* .
We are aware that some members of the community are concerned about this topic being addressed under the auspices of a GNSO PDP WG. That said, we are also aware of recommendations from the recently concluded CCWG on the Use of Country and Territory Names that the work should be consolidated into a single community-wide initiative moving forward as opposed to having each SO and AC working on recommendations independently.
As such, we are strongly recommending that the leaders of WT5 operate WT5 similarly to a cross community working group, ensuring that each SO and AC participate equally to achieve consensus on any recommendations proposed by the Work Track. While we believe that ultimately, it will be up to WT5 itself to draft the terms of reference for WT5 and determine its structure and operating procedures, we recommend that the co-leaders discuss these issues with the PDP co-chairs and staff first in order to frame the issues and structure for the group. Setting up this arrangement within the GNSO PDP seems to strike a balance between establishing an inclusive and collaborative structure while maintaining the ability to develop policy as determined by ICANN’s Bylaws. After the co-leaders are appointed and have had a chance to discuss plans, we will issue a call to each of the SOs and ACs seeking volunteers from the community to participate in WT5.
We hope that you support our proposed multi-stakeholder approach to work with the community in addressing a topic that is clearly of great importance to many. We hope to be able to organize an introductory meeting the first week of September 2017, in order to allow the co-leaders to come to agreement on WT5’s draft terms of reference . Finally, while we as co-chairs of the overall PDP WG support WT5’s independence, we nevertheless remain available to facilitate and provide assistance to the co-leaders as the need or desire arises.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to us.
Best regards,
Avri Doria and Jeff Neuman
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
In regard to this: "As such, we are strongly recommending that the leaders of WT5 operate WT5 similarly to a cross community working group, ensuring that each SO and AC participate equally to achieve consensus on any recommendations proposed by the Work Track." While recognizing that the structure proposed by the co-chairs will have the final decisions on Geo name recommendations made by the full PDP WG, and fully understanding the internal ICANN political dynamics surrounding this issue, I nonetheless believe we should have some internal discussion within Council, with appropriate staff input, on whether this proposed CCWG within a PDP structure is consistent with applicable GNSO rules regarding the operation of PDP WGs. I think we all need to be clear about whether or not a precedent is being set that dilutes GNSO primacy on gTLD policy matters. Thanks for your consideration of this comment. 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 Aug 2, 2017, at 11:56 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
As such, we are strongly recommending that the leaders of WT5 operate WT5 similarly to a cross community working group, ensuring that each SO and AC participate equally to achieve consensus on any recommendations proposed by the Work Track.
I agree that this is a worry. And at the risk of sounding pedantic, we don't need to start with "as such". Stephanie Perrin On 2017-08-03 08:27, Phil Corwin wrote:
In regard to this: "As such, we are strongly recommending that the leaders of WT5 operate WT5 similarly to a cross community working group, ensuring that each SO and AC participate equally to achieve consensus on any recommendations proposed by the Work Track."
While recognizing that the structure proposed by the co-chairs will have the final decisions on Geo name recommendations made by the full PDP WG, and fully understanding the internal ICANN political dynamics surrounding this issue, I nonetheless believe we should have some internal discussion within Council, with appropriate staff input, on whether this proposed CCWG within a PDP structure is consistent with applicable GNSO rules regarding the operation of PDP WGs. I think we all need to be clear about whether or not a precedent is being set that dilutes GNSO primacy on gTLD policy matters.
Thanks for your consideration of this comment.
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 Aug 2, 2017, at 11:56 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
As such, we are strongly recommending that the leaders of WT5 operate WT5 similarly to a cross community working group, ensuring that each SO and AC participate equally to achieve consensus on any recommendations proposed by the Work Track.
council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
Are we supposed to interpret this to mean that WT5’s recommendations are not subject to the consensus of the entire PDP WG? I can understand if they want WT5 to operate “similarly to a cross community working group” as it investigates issues and drafts recommendations. But it is not appropriate for that to happen within the PDP without the consensus process of the PDP. Darcy From: <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Date: Friday, August 4, 2017 at 10:39 AM To: <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] FW: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top-Level I agree that this is a worry. And at the risk of sounding pedantic, we don't need to start with "as such". Stephanie Perrin On 2017-08-03 08:27, Phil Corwin wrote: In regard to this: "As such, we are strongly recommending that the leaders of WT5 operate WT5 similarly to a cross community working group, ensuring that each SO and AC participate equally to achieve consensus on any recommendations proposed by the Work Track." While recognizing that the structure proposed by the co-chairs will have the final decisions on Geo name recommendations made by the full PDP WG, and fully understanding the internal ICANN political dynamics surrounding this issue, I nonetheless believe we should have some internal discussion within Council, with appropriate staff input, on whether this proposed CCWG within a PDP structure is consistent with applicable GNSO rules regarding the operation of PDP WGs. I think we all need to be clear about whether or not a precedent is being set that dilutes GNSO primacy on gTLD policy matters. Thanks for your consideration of this comment. 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 Aug 2, 2017, at 11:56 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote: As such, we are strongly recommending that the leaders of WT5 operate WT5 similarly to a cross community working group, ensuring that each SO and AC participate equally to achieve consensus on any recommendations proposed by the Work Track. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
I concur that it would not be appropriate, and that the interpretation of the quoted language is not entirely clear absent further exploration. Philip S. Corwin Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW 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 ________________________________ From: council-bounces@gnso.icann.org <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com> Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 2:16 PM To: Stephanie Perrin; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] FW: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top-Level Are we supposed to interpret this to mean that WT5’s recommendations are not subject to the consensus of the entire PDP WG? I can understand if they want WT5 to operate “similarly to a cross community working group” as it investigates issues and drafts recommendations. But it is not appropriate for that to happen within the PDP without the consensus process of the PDP. Darcy From: <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Date: Friday, August 4, 2017 at 10:39 AM To: <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] FW: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top-Level I agree that this is a worry. And at the risk of sounding pedantic, we don't need to start with "as such". Stephanie Perrin On 2017-08-03 08:27, Phil Corwin wrote: In regard to this: "As such, we are strongly recommending that the leaders of WT5 operate WT5 similarly to a cross community working group, ensuring that each SO and AC participate equally to achieve consensus on any recommendations proposed by the Work Track." While recognizing that the structure proposed by the co-chairs will have the final decisions on Geo name recommendations made by the full PDP WG, and fully understanding the internal ICANN political dynamics surrounding this issue, I nonetheless believe we should have some internal discussion within Council, with appropriate staff input, on whether this proposed CCWG within a PDP structure is consistent with applicable GNSO rules regarding the operation of PDP WGs. I think we all need to be clear about whether or not a precedent is being set that dilutes GNSO primacy on gTLD policy matters. Thanks for your consideration of this comment. 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 Aug 2, 2017, at 11:56 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote: As such, we are strongly recommending that the leaders of WT5 operate WT5 similarly to a cross community working group, ensuring that each SO and AC participate equally to achieve consensus on any recommendations proposed by the Work Track. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
Rather than jumping to conclusions about what they are suggesting, maybe it would be more prudent to ask that they clarify this? Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ https://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265, Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Philip Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Date: Friday 4 August 2017 at 19:29 To: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] FW: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top-Level I concur that it would not be appropriate, and that the interpretation of the quoted language is not entirely clear absent further exploration. Philip S. Corwin Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW 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 ________________________________ From: council-bounces@gnso.icann.org <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com> Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 2:16 PM To: Stephanie Perrin; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] FW: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top-Level Are we supposed to interpret this to mean that WT5’s recommendations are not subject to the consensus of the entire PDP WG? I can understand if they want WT5 to operate “similarly to a cross community working group” as it investigates issues and drafts recommendations. But it is not appropriate for that to happen within the PDP without the consensus process of the PDP. Darcy From: <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Date: Friday, August 4, 2017 at 10:39 AM To: <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] FW: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top-Level I agree that this is a worry. And at the risk of sounding pedantic, we don't need to start with "as such". Stephanie Perrin On 2017-08-03 08:27, Phil Corwin wrote: In regard to this: "As such, we are strongly recommending that the leaders of WT5 operate WT5 similarly to a cross community working group, ensuring that each SO and AC participate equally to achieve consensus on any recommendations proposed by the Work Track." While recognizing that the structure proposed by the co-chairs will have the final decisions on Geo name recommendations made by the full PDP WG, and fully understanding the internal ICANN political dynamics surrounding this issue, I nonetheless believe we should have some internal discussion within Council, with appropriate staff input, on whether this proposed CCWG within a PDP structure is consistent with applicable GNSO rules regarding the operation of PDP WGs. I think we all need to be clear about whether or not a precedent is being set that dilutes GNSO primacy on gTLD policy matters. Thanks for your consideration of this comment. 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 Aug 2, 2017, at 11:56 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote: As such, we are strongly recommending that the leaders of WT5 operate WT5 similarly to a cross community working group, ensuring that each SO and AC participate equally to achieve consensus on any recommendations proposed by the Work Track. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
Hi folks. Good discussion, and to pivot off of Michele’s last post… The vice-chairs and I raised some similar questions/reactions to the note from the SubPro co-chairs regarding WT5, and we asked Staff to convene a call with the co-chairs next week to discuss. The bottom line is that we expect WT5 will operate as a subteam of the SubPro PDP, and that the PDP as a whole will be subject to the GNSO Operating Procedures, and the PDP Manual, etc. This is the basis for providing the PDP Co-Chairs with broad discretion in the organization of WT5. And if the co-chairs anticipate that this could change, then we potentially see a larger oversight role for the GNSO Council in managing the process. In any case, I hope all of that made sense, and it is good to see that so many folks are picking up on the same concerns, which indicates that these are exactly the questions that Donna, Heather and I should be raising next week. Expect a follow up from us then. Thank you, J. From: <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> Date: Friday, August 4, 2017 at 14:19 To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] FW: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top-Level Rather than jumping to conclusions about what they are suggesting, maybe it would be more prudent to ask that they clarify this? Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ https://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265, Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Philip Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Date: Friday 4 August 2017 at 19:29 To: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] FW: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top-Level I concur that it would not be appropriate, and that the interpretation of the quoted language is not entirely clear absent further exploration. Philip S. Corwin Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW 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 ________________________________ From: council-bounces@gnso.icann.org <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com> Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 2:16 PM To: Stephanie Perrin; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] FW: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top-Level Are we supposed to interpret this to mean that WT5’s recommendations are not subject to the consensus of the entire PDP WG? I can understand if they want WT5 to operate “similarly to a cross community working group” as it investigates issues and drafts recommendations. But it is not appropriate for that to happen within the PDP without the consensus process of the PDP. Darcy From: <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Date: Friday, August 4, 2017 at 10:39 AM To: <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] FW: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top-Level I agree that this is a worry. And at the risk of sounding pedantic, we don't need to start with "as such". Stephanie Perrin On 2017-08-03 08:27, Phil Corwin wrote: In regard to this: "As such, we are strongly recommending that the leaders of WT5 operate WT5 similarly to a cross community working group, ensuring that each SO and AC participate equally to achieve consensus on any recommendations proposed by the Work Track." While recognizing that the structure proposed by the co-chairs will have the final decisions on Geo name recommendations made by the full PDP WG, and fully understanding the internal ICANN political dynamics surrounding this issue, I nonetheless believe we should have some internal discussion within Council, with appropriate staff input, on whether this proposed CCWG within a PDP structure is consistent with applicable GNSO rules regarding the operation of PDP WGs. I think we all need to be clear about whether or not a precedent is being set that dilutes GNSO primacy on gTLD policy matters. Thanks for your consideration of this comment. 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 Aug 2, 2017, at 11:56 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote: As such, we are strongly recommending that the leaders of WT5 operate WT5 similarly to a cross community working group, ensuring that each SO and AC participate equally to achieve consensus on any recommendations proposed by the Work Track. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
participants (6)
-
Darcy Southwell -
James M. Bladel -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Phil Corwin -
Rafik Dammak -
Stephanie Perrin