Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review
Dear Council, At the 20 November 2008 GNSO Council meeting, ICANN staff alerted Council members that efforts were underway to initiate a review of the gTLD registry funnel process - also known as the Registry Services Evaluation Policy (RSEP) - that was first implemented in July 2006. Staff reminded Council members that the RSEP was developed through the GNSO's policy development process, and applies to all gTLD registries and registry sponsoring organizations under contract with ICANN. The adoption of the RSEP by the ICANN Board did not call for a periodic review of the process, but ICANN staff is of the opinion that a review is consistent with ICANN's continuing efforts to evaluate and improve policies and procedures. A draft statement of work regarding the review has now been developed. The document will be used to identify and retain a reviewer to evaluate the process as it has worked to date. In view of the GNSO Council's critical role in developing the original RSEP, staff would like to give Council members the opportunity to review and comment on the draft document. A copy of the draft SOW is attached. Please feel free to send any comments on the document directly to me. An announcement will be made when the SOW is released and subsequent announcements will be made when the reviewer is selected and when other milestones in the review process take place. Also, if you are interested in being identified as a possible contact for the review process itself, please let me know of your interest. We hope to finalize the SOW in late February, so any comments should be submitted by 23 February in order to be incorporated. Patrick -- Patrick L. Jones Registry Liaison Manager & Support to ICANN Nominating Committee Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Tel: +1 310 301 3861 Fax: +1 310 823 8649 patrick.jones@icann.org
Patrick, Please don't take my comments personally because as I stated publicly in Cairo, I do not attribute my concerns to anything you did in coordinating the RSEP. Regular reviews of policy are a good practice, but in this case it seems like overkill and a poor use of funds to hire a consultant to evaluate the policy or the procedures. In my opinion, Staff implementation of the RSEP has already been identified as a problem and we do not need a high priced consultant to point that out. As stated in your SoW, "The RSEP and its implementation were developed in particular: To support a timely, efficient, and open process for the evaluation of new registry services". In 2008, we had at least three examples where implementation of the RSEP was not timely, efficient or open. All three examples were pointed out to ICANN Staff prior to Cairo and in Cairo. So again, we do not need a consultant to identify the problem; it has already happened. Those of us in the RyC believe that the RSEP procedures that ICANN Staff should follow were clear, but obviously they were not clear enough for ICANN Staff, otherwise we would not have seen the significant delays that were experienced for three registry service proposals. Therefore, maybe all we need to do is provide the clarity that ICANN Staff seems to need. That shouldn't be too difficult. I think it could be done in fairly short order by a small group of interested GNSO and ICANN Staff with the opportunity for public comment. It may not even be necessary to amend the policy as long as the clarified procedures are consistent with the policy as is, something that I sincerely believe is very possible. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Jones Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 8:21 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review Dear Council, At the 20 November 2008 GNSO Council meeting, ICANN staff alerted Council members that efforts were underway to initiate a review of the gTLD registry funnel process - also known as the Registry Services Evaluation Policy (RSEP) - that was first implemented in July 2006. Staff reminded Council members that the RSEP was developed through the GNSO's policy development process, and applies to all gTLD registries and registry sponsoring organizations under contract with ICANN. The adoption of the RSEP by the ICANN Board did not call for a periodic review of the process, but ICANN staff is of the opinion that a review is consistent with ICANN's continuing efforts to evaluate and improve policies and procedures. A draft statement of work regarding the review has now been developed. The document will be used to identify and retain a reviewer to evaluate the process as it has worked to date. In view of the GNSO Council's critical role in developing the original RSEP, staff would like to give Council members the opportunity to review and comment on the draft document. A copy of the draft SOW is attached. Please feel free to send any comments on the document directly to me. An announcement will be made when the SOW is released and subsequent announcements will be made when the reviewer is selected and when other milestones in the review process take place. Also, if you are interested in being identified as a possible contact for the review process itself, please let me know of your interest. We hope to finalize the SOW in late February, so any comments should be submitted by 23 February in order to be incorporated. Patrick -- Patrick L. Jones Registry Liaison Manager & Support to ICANN Nominating Committee Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Tel: +1 310 301 3861 Fax: +1 310 823 8649 patrick.jones@icann.org
Dear Patrick, Although I am not as familiar with the subject as Chuck undoubtedly is, I do tend to have to agree with his concerns over seeing yet another review initiated if the process being reviewed has already been identified as flawed. I am also worried about seeing staff decide a review is needed without being so directed by the Board or by any action from the relevant SO Council, in this case the GNSO. Chuck mentions that staff was made aware of problems with RSEP before and during the Cairo meeting. Could you explain why staff¹s reaction to this was to feel an outside consultant need be hired and a full review process initiated? Is it not feasible to try and address the problems that have been brought to staff¹s attention first? Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Le 25/01/09 16:29, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@verisign.com> a écrit :
Patrick,
Please don't take my comments personally because as I stated publicly in Cairo, I do not attribute my concerns to anything you did in coordinating the RSEP.
Regular reviews of policy are a good practice, but in this case it seems like overkill and a poor use of funds to hire a consultant to evaluate the policy or the procedures. In my opinion, Staff implementation of the RSEP has already been identified as a problem and we do not need a high priced consultant to point that out. As stated in your SoW, "The RSEP and its implementation were developed in particular: To support a timely, efficient, and open process for the evaluation of new registry services". In 2008, we had at least three examples where implementation of the RSEP was not timely, efficient or open. All three examples were pointed out to ICANN Staff prior to Cairo and in Cairo. So again, we do not need a consultant to identify the problem; it has already happened.
Those of us in the RyC believe that the RSEP procedures that ICANN Staff should follow were clear, but obviously they were not clear enough for ICANN Staff, otherwise we would not have seen the significant delays that were experienced for three registry service proposals. Therefore, maybe all we need to do is provide the clarity that ICANN Staff seems to need. That shouldn't be too difficult. I think it could be done in fairly short order by a small group of interested GNSO and ICANN Staff with the opportunity for public comment. It may not even be necessary to amend the policy as long as the clarified procedures are consistent with the policy as is, something that I sincerely believe is very possible.
Chuck
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Jones Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 8:21 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review
Dear Council,
At the 20 November 2008 GNSO Council meeting, ICANN staff alerted Council members that efforts were underway to initiate a review of the gTLD registry funnel process also known as the Registry Services Evaluation Policy (RSEP) - that was first implemented in July 2006.
Staff reminded Council members that the RSEP was developed through the GNSO¹s policy development process, and applies to all gTLD registries and registry sponsoring organizations under contract with ICANN.
The adoption of the RSEP by the ICANN Board did not call for a periodic review of the process, but ICANN staff is of the opinion that a review is consistent with ICANN¹s continuing efforts to evaluate and improve policies and procedures.
A draft statement of work regarding the review has now been developed. The document will be used to identify and retain a reviewer to evaluate the process as it has worked to date.
In view of the GNSO Council¹s critical role in developing the original RSEP, staff would like to give Council members the opportunity to review and comment on the draft document. A copy of the draft SOW is attached. Please feel free to send any comments on the document directly to me.
An announcement will be made when the SOW is released and subsequent announcements will be made when the reviewer is selected and when other milestones in the review process take place.
Also, if you are interested in being identified as a possible contact for the review process itself, please let me know of your interest. We hope to finalize the SOW in late February, so any comments should be submitted by 23 February in order to be incorporated.
Patrick
A number of us were not privy to the communications to staff regarding problems with the RSEP. Would either Staff or the RyC please share the examples provided? Many thanks. ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 10:08 AM To: Patrick Jones Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review Dear Patrick, Although I am not as familiar with the subject as Chuck undoubtedly is, I do tend to have to agree with his concerns over seeing yet another review initiated if the process being reviewed has already been identified as flawed. I am also worried about seeing staff decide a review is needed without being so directed by the Board or by any action from the relevant SO Council, in this case the GNSO. Chuck mentions that staff was made aware of problems with RSEP before and during the Cairo meeting. Could you explain why staff's reaction to this was to feel an outside consultant need be hired and a full review process initiated? Is it not feasible to try and address the problems that have been brought to staff's attention first? Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Le 25/01/09 16:29, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@verisign.com> a écrit : Patrick, Please don't take my comments personally because as I stated publicly in Cairo, I do not attribute my concerns to anything you did in coordinating the RSEP. Regular reviews of policy are a good practice, but in this case it seems like overkill and a poor use of funds to hire a consultant to evaluate the policy or the procedures. In my opinion, Staff implementation of the RSEP has already been identified as a problem and we do not need a high priced consultant to point that out. As stated in your SoW, "The RSEP and its implementation were developed in particular: To support a timely, efficient, and open process for the evaluation of new registry services". In 2008, we had at least three examples where implementation of the RSEP was not timely, efficient or open. All three examples were pointed out to ICANN Staff prior to Cairo and in Cairo. So again, we do not need a consultant to identify the problem; it has already happened. Those of us in the RyC believe that the RSEP procedures that ICANN Staff should follow were clear, but obviously they were not clear enough for ICANN Staff, otherwise we would not have seen the significant delays that were experienced for three registry service proposals. Therefore, maybe all we need to do is provide the clarity that ICANN Staff seems to need. That shouldn't be too difficult. I think it could be done in fairly short order by a small group of interested GNSO and ICANN Staff with the opportunity for public comment. It may not even be necessary to amend the policy as long as the clarified procedures are consistent with the policy as is, something that I sincerely believe is very possible. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Jones Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 8:21 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review Dear Council, At the 20 November 2008 GNSO Council meeting, ICANN staff alerted Council members that efforts were underway to initiate a review of the gTLD registry funnel process - also known as the Registry Services Evaluation Policy (RSEP) - that was first implemented in July 2006. Staff reminded Council members that the RSEP was developed through the GNSO's policy development process, and applies to all gTLD registries and registry sponsoring organizations under contract with ICANN. The adoption of the RSEP by the ICANN Board did not call for a periodic review of the process, but ICANN staff is of the opinion that a review is consistent with ICANN's continuing efforts to evaluate and improve policies and procedures. A draft statement of work regarding the review has now been developed. The document will be used to identify and retain a reviewer to evaluate the process as it has worked to date. In view of the GNSO Council's critical role in developing the original RSEP, staff would like to give Council members the opportunity to review and comment on the draft document. A copy of the draft SOW is attached. Please feel free to send any comments on the document directly to me. An announcement will be made when the SOW is released and subsequent announcements will be made when the reviewer is selected and when other milestones in the review process take place. Also, if you are interested in being identified as a possible contact for the review process itself, please let me know of your interest. We hope to finalize the SOW in late February, so any comments should be submitted by 23 February in order to be incorporated. Patrick
The concerns Chuck refers to were raised partly during the GNSO working sessions in Paris and also during the Cairo meeting. The gTLD Registries also sent a letter to Peter Dengate Thrush that was posted on ICANN's Correspondence page: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/maher-to-dengate-thrush-21oct08.pdf. I'll respond to Stephane and Chuck's points by separate email. Patrick On 1/26/09 7:14 AM, "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com> wrote: A number of us were not privy to the communications to staff regarding problems with the RSEP. Would either Staff or the RyC please share the examples provided? Many thanks. ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 10:08 AM To: Patrick Jones Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review Dear Patrick, Although I am not as familiar with the subject as Chuck undoubtedly is, I do tend to have to agree with his concerns over seeing yet another review initiated if the process being reviewed has already been identified as flawed. I am also worried about seeing staff decide a review is needed without being so directed by the Board or by any action from the relevant SO Council, in this case the GNSO. Chuck mentions that staff was made aware of problems with RSEP before and during the Cairo meeting. Could you explain why staff's reaction to this was to feel an outside consultant need be hired and a full review process initiated? Is it not feasible to try and address the problems that have been brought to staff's attention first? Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Le 25/01/09 16:29, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@verisign.com> a écrit : Patrick, Please don't take my comments personally because as I stated publicly in Cairo, I do not attribute my concerns to anything you did in coordinating the RSEP. Regular reviews of policy are a good practice, but in this case it seems like overkill and a poor use of funds to hire a consultant to evaluate the policy or the procedures. In my opinion, Staff implementation of the RSEP has already been identified as a problem and we do not need a high priced consultant to point that out. As stated in your SoW, "The RSEP and its implementation were developed in particular: To support a timely, efficient, and open process for the evaluation of new registry services". In 2008, we had at least three examples where implementation of the RSEP was not timely, efficient or open. All three examples were pointed out to ICANN Staff prior to Cairo and in Cairo. So again, we do not need a consultant to identify the problem; it has already happened. Those of us in the RyC believe that the RSEP procedures that ICANN Staff should follow were clear, but obviously they were not clear enough for ICANN Staff, otherwise we would not have seen the significant delays that were experienced for three registry service proposals. Therefore, maybe all we need to do is provide the clarity that ICANN Staff seems to need. That shouldn't be too difficult. I think it could be done in fairly short order by a small group of interested GNSO and ICANN Staff with the opportunity for public comment. It may not even be necessary to amend the policy as long as the clarified procedures are consistent with the policy as is, something that I sincerely believe is very possible. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Jones Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 8:21 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review Dear Council, At the 20 November 2008 GNSO Council meeting, ICANN staff alerted Council members that efforts were underway to initiate a review of the gTLD registry funnel process - also known as the Registry Services Evaluation Policy (RSEP) - that was first implemented in July 2006. Staff reminded Council members that the RSEP was developed through the GNSO's policy development process, and applies to all gTLD registries and registry sponsoring organizations under contract with ICANN. The adoption of the RSEP by the ICANN Board did not call for a periodic review of the process, but ICANN staff is of the opinion that a review is consistent with ICANN's continuing efforts to evaluate and improve policies and procedures. A draft statement of work regarding the review has now been developed. The document will be used to identify and retain a reviewer to evaluate the process as it has worked to date. In view of the GNSO Council's critical role in developing the original RSEP, staff would like to give Council members the opportunity to review and comment on the draft document. A copy of the draft SOW is attached. Please feel free to send any comments on the document directly to me. An announcement will be made when the SOW is released and subsequent announcements will be made when the reviewer is selected and when other milestones in the review process take place. Also, if you are interested in being identified as a possible contact for the review process itself, please let me know of your interest. We hope to finalize the SOW in late February, so any comments should be submitted by 23 February in order to be incorporated. Patrick
Thanks Patrick. It would be helpful to point Council to the material that is available from the special open session that occurred in Cairo (e.g., transcription, MP3, etc.). There was also some discussion that occurred in the Council meeting on Wednesday in Cairo. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Jones Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 10:31 AM To: Rosette, Kristina; Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review The concerns Chuck refers to were raised partly during the GNSO working sessions in Paris and also during the Cairo meeting. The gTLD Registries also sent a letter to Peter Dengate Thrush that was posted on ICANN's Correspondence page: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/maher-to-dengate-thrush-21oct08.pdf. I'll respond to Stephane and Chuck's points by separate email. Patrick On 1/26/09 7:14 AM, "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com> wrote: A number of us were not privy to the communications to staff regarding problems with the RSEP. Would either Staff or the RyC please share the examples provided? Many thanks. ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 10:08 AM To: Patrick Jones Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review Dear Patrick, Although I am not as familiar with the subject as Chuck undoubtedly is, I do tend to have to agree with his concerns over seeing yet another review initiated if the process being reviewed has already been identified as flawed. I am also worried about seeing staff decide a review is needed without being so directed by the Board or by any action from the relevant SO Council, in this case the GNSO. Chuck mentions that staff was made aware of problems with RSEP before and during the Cairo meeting. Could you explain why staff's reaction to this was to feel an outside consultant need be hired and a full review process initiated? Is it not feasible to try and address the problems that have been brought to staff's attention first? Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Le 25/01/09 16:29, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@verisign.com> a écrit : Patrick, Please don't take my comments personally because as I stated publicly in Cairo, I do not attribute my concerns to anything you did in coordinating the RSEP. Regular reviews of policy are a good practice, but in this case it seems like overkill and a poor use of funds to hire a consultant to evaluate the policy or the procedures. In my opinion, Staff implementation of the RSEP has already been identified as a problem and we do not need a high priced consultant to point that out. As stated in your SoW, "The RSEP and its implementation were developed in particular: To support a timely, efficient, and open process for the evaluation of new registry services". In 2008, we had at least three examples where implementation of the RSEP was not timely, efficient or open. All three examples were pointed out to ICANN Staff prior to Cairo and in Cairo. So again, we do not need a consultant to identify the problem; it has already happened. Those of us in the RyC believe that the RSEP procedures that ICANN Staff should follow were clear, but obviously they were not clear enough for ICANN Staff, otherwise we would not have seen the significant delays that were experienced for three registry service proposals. Therefore, maybe all we need to do is provide the clarity that ICANN Staff seems to need. That shouldn't be too difficult. I think it could be done in fairly short order by a small group of interested GNSO and ICANN Staff with the opportunity for public comment. It may not even be necessary to amend the policy as long as the clarified procedures are consistent with the policy as is, something that I sincerely believe is very possible. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Jones Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 8:21 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review Dear Council, At the 20 November 2008 GNSO Council meeting, ICANN staff alerted Council members that efforts were underway to initiate a review of the gTLD registry funnel process - also known as the Registry Services Evaluation Policy (RSEP) - that was first implemented in July 2006. Staff reminded Council members that the RSEP was developed through the GNSO's policy development process, and applies to all gTLD registries and registry sponsoring organizations under contract with ICANN. The adoption of the RSEP by the ICANN Board did not call for a periodic review of the process, but ICANN staff is of the opinion that a review is consistent with ICANN's continuing efforts to evaluate and improve policies and procedures. A draft statement of work regarding the review has now been developed. The document will be used to identify and retain a reviewer to evaluate the process as it has worked to date. In view of the GNSO Council's critical role in developing the original RSEP, staff would like to give Council members the opportunity to review and comment on the draft document. A copy of the draft SOW is attached. Please feel free to send any comments on the document directly to me. An announcement will be made when the SOW is released and subsequent announcements will be made when the reviewer is selected and when other milestones in the review process take place. Also, if you are interested in being identified as a possible contact for the review process itself, please let me know of your interest. We hope to finalize the SOW in late February, so any comments should be submitted by 23 February in order to be incorporated. Patrick
I have a few more comments about this topic. 1. Isn't the GNSO Council usually responsible for reviewing GNSO policies? That was certainly the case with the IRTP. So why is that not the case with regard to the RSEP? 2. The first sentence of the last paragraph in the Summary of the draft SoW says, "The review of the operation of the RSEP will allow ICANN to ensure the process is meeting intended goals efficiently and effectively." It is my opinion that the problem with the RSEP is not the process but rather implementation of the process that is not "meeting intended goals efficiently and effectively". The three recent examples I would cite are single character second level domain name services proposed by DotCoop, DotMobi and VeriSign. 3. In the section of the draft SoW titled Evaluation of Registry Services Proposals, the fourth paragraph reads, "Once ICANN determines that the request as submitted is complete, ICANN will notify the requesting registry operator or sponsoring organization that the 15-calendar day review process has commenced. ICANN will conduct within 15 days a preliminary determination on whether the proposed service raises significant security or stability issues or competition issues." It is my opinion that this this not occur with VeriSign's single character second level domain registry service proposal submitted in June 2008. If ICANN Staff believe that they were in compliance with this provision, then it would be helpful to receive an explanation of why they believe so. 4. In the section of the draft SoW titled Tasks to be Undertaken, item 2 says, "Deliver a report with observations and recommendations to ICANN for consideration by ICANN, gTLD registries and the GNSO Council. Those observations are expected to include: o whether the RSEP is meeting its intended purpose o whether RSEP is consistent with the approved policy and implementation plan o whether the process is timely, efficient and open in implementation o whether there is sufficient opportunity for and realization of public input or comment on proposed registry service requests o whether the process and outcomes are predictable o whether there is overlap with the PDP process o whether there is overlap between the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel (RSTEP) with the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)" This could be perceived as a way to work around the GNSO PDP. Most of these issues are policy issues. On a different note, what is meant by "overlap with the PDP process" and "overlap between the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel (RSTEP) with the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)"? Chuck Gomes ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Jones Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 8:21 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review Dear Council, At the 20 November 2008 GNSO Council meeting, ICANN staff alerted Council members that efforts were underway to initiate a review of the gTLD registry funnel process - also known as the Registry Services Evaluation Policy (RSEP) - that was first implemented in July 2006. Staff reminded Council members that the RSEP was developed through the GNSO's policy development process, and applies to all gTLD registries and registry sponsoring organizations under contract with ICANN. The adoption of the RSEP by the ICANN Board did not call for a periodic review of the process, but ICANN staff is of the opinion that a review is consistent with ICANN's continuing efforts to evaluate and improve policies and procedures. A draft statement of work regarding the review has now been developed. The document will be used to identify and retain a reviewer to evaluate the process as it has worked to date. In view of the GNSO Council's critical role in developing the original RSEP, staff would like to give Council members the opportunity to review and comment on the draft document. A copy of the draft SOW is attached. Please feel free to send any comments on the document directly to me. An announcement will be made when the SOW is released and subsequent announcements will be made when the reviewer is selected and when other milestones in the review process take place. Also, if you are interested in being identified as a possible contact for the review process itself, please let me know of your interest. We hope to finalize the SOW in late February, so any comments should be submitted by 23 February in order to be incorporated. Patrick -- Patrick L. Jones Registry Liaison Manager & Support to ICANN Nominating Committee Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Tel: +1 310 301 3861 Fax: +1 310 823 8649 patrick.jones@icann.org
participants (4)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Patrick Jones -
Rosette, Kristina -
Stéphane Van Gelder