I would prefer to have some additional information before voting on more studies: 1. An update on the current study already in progress, with estimated completion date and then next steps on that for Staff and Council. 2. Information or report from Staff on resources required for the above over the rest of the fiscal year, and Staff resources that are available to follow through on additional studies the rest of this fiscal year. 3. Information or report from ICANN's CFO or other appropriate Staff on money still available for further studies this fiscal year. The above information will help us make responsible decisions about how best to use the resources that are made available to us. If a motion is required to do this, then I so move: Whereas the GNSO Council must make decisions on which pending Whois Studies are yet to be pursued (link to appropriate Staff reports on cost and feasibility studies); and Whereas the GNSO Council wishes to make fiscally responsible decisions; therefore be it Resolved that the GNSO Council asks Staff to provide as soon as reasonably possible: 1. An update on the current Whois Study already in progress, with estimated completion date and then next steps on that for Staff and Council. 2. Information or report on resources required for the above over the rest of the fiscal year, and Staff resources that are available to follow through on additional studies the rest of this fiscal year. 3. Information or report from ICANN's CFO or other appropriate Staff on money still available for further studies this fiscal year.
Thanks Tim, Is there a second for this motion? Stéphane Le 8 mars 2011 à 21:52, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
I would prefer to have some additional information before voting on more studies:
1. An update on the current study already in progress, with estimated completion date and then next steps on that for Staff and Council.
2. Information or report from Staff on resources required for the above over the rest of the fiscal year, and Staff resources that are available to follow through on additional studies the rest of this fiscal year.
3. Information or report from ICANN's CFO or other appropriate Staff on money still available for further studies this fiscal year.
The above information will help us make responsible decisions about how best to use the resources that are made available to us. If a motion is required to do this, then I so move:
Whereas the GNSO Council must make decisions on which pending Whois Studies are yet to be pursued (link to appropriate Staff reports on cost and feasibility studies); and
Whereas the GNSO Council wishes to make fiscally responsible decisions; therefore be it
Resolved that the GNSO Council asks Staff to provide as soon as reasonably possible:
1. An update on the current Whois Study already in progress, with estimated completion date and then next steps on that for Staff and Council.
2. Information or report on resources required for the above over the rest of the fiscal year, and Staff resources that are available to follow through on additional studies the rest of this fiscal year.
3. Information or report from ICANN's CFO or other appropriate Staff on money still available for further studies this fiscal year.
I second. --Wendy On 03/08/2011 05:18 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Thanks Tim,
Is there a second for this motion?
Stéphane
Le 8 mars 2011 à 21:52, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
I would prefer to have some additional information before voting on more studies:
1. An update on the current study already in progress, with estimated completion date and then next steps on that for Staff and Council.
2. Information or report from Staff on resources required for the above over the rest of the fiscal year, and Staff resources that are available to follow through on additional studies the rest of this fiscal year.
3. Information or report from ICANN's CFO or other appropriate Staff on money still available for further studies this fiscal year.
The above information will help us make responsible decisions about how best to use the resources that are made available to us. If a motion is required to do this, then I so move:
Whereas the GNSO Council must make decisions on which pending Whois Studies are yet to be pursued (link to appropriate Staff reports on cost and feasibility studies); and
Whereas the GNSO Council wishes to make fiscally responsible decisions; therefore be it
Resolved that the GNSO Council asks Staff to provide as soon as reasonably possible:
1. An update on the current Whois Study already in progress, with estimated completion date and then next steps on that for Staff and Council.
2. Information or report on resources required for the above over the rest of the fiscal year, and Staff resources that are available to follow through on additional studies the rest of this fiscal year.
3. Information or report from ICANN's CFO or other appropriate Staff on money still available for further studies this fiscal year.
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
Thanks Wendy. So we now have two motions on WHOIS. I suggest we vote on Tim's motion first and only vote on John's if Tim's fails. There is no sense in voting on actually carrying the studies out if the Council has just decided to ask for more information before deciding whether to do so or not. Stéphane Le 8 mars 2011 à 23:21, Wendy Seltzer a écrit :
I second.
--Wendy
On 03/08/2011 05:18 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Thanks Tim,
Is there a second for this motion?
Stéphane
Le 8 mars 2011 à 21:52, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
I would prefer to have some additional information before voting on more studies:
1. An update on the current study already in progress, with estimated completion date and then next steps on that for Staff and Council.
2. Information or report from Staff on resources required for the above over the rest of the fiscal year, and Staff resources that are available to follow through on additional studies the rest of this fiscal year.
3. Information or report from ICANN's CFO or other appropriate Staff on money still available for further studies this fiscal year.
The above information will help us make responsible decisions about how best to use the resources that are made available to us. If a motion is required to do this, then I so move:
Whereas the GNSO Council must make decisions on which pending Whois Studies are yet to be pursued (link to appropriate Staff reports on cost and feasibility studies); and
Whereas the GNSO Council wishes to make fiscally responsible decisions; therefore be it
Resolved that the GNSO Council asks Staff to provide as soon as reasonably possible:
1. An update on the current Whois Study already in progress, with estimated completion date and then next steps on that for Staff and Council.
2. Information or report on resources required for the above over the rest of the fiscal year, and Staff resources that are available to follow through on additional studies the rest of this fiscal year.
3. Information or report from ICANN's CFO or other appropriate Staff on money still available for further studies this fiscal year.
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
I do not understand why we need a formal motion on this questions. Why don't we just ask staff to provide this information to the meeting in SF - maybe at the weekend sessions or at the public meeting. I'm sure they could provide us with this managerial type of information requested that time. And that's their daily business. After years of discussing for- and backwards it's time to conclude. If we don't I fear the same questions will repeatedly come up after a certain while since the study process may change. My request is to ask staff to provide this information to the SF meeting(s). Then we can see whether this motion is still necessary. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. März 2011 23:30 An: Wendy Seltzer Cc: Tim Ruiz; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: [council] Whois motion Thanks Wendy. So we now have two motions on WHOIS. I suggest we vote on Tim's motion first and only vote on John's if Tim's fails. There is no sense in voting on actually carrying the studies out if the Council has just decided to ask for more information before deciding whether to do so or not. Stéphane Le 8 mars 2011 à 23:21, Wendy Seltzer a écrit :
I second.
--Wendy
On 03/08/2011 05:18 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Thanks Tim,
Is there a second for this motion?
Stéphane
Le 8 mars 2011 à 21:52, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
I would prefer to have some additional information before voting on more studies:
1. An update on the current study already in progress, with estimated completion date and then next steps on that for Staff and Council.
2. Information or report from Staff on resources required for the above over the rest of the fiscal year, and Staff resources that are available to follow through on additional studies the rest of this fiscal year.
3. Information or report from ICANN's CFO or other appropriate Staff on money still available for further studies this fiscal year.
The above information will help us make responsible decisions about how best to use the resources that are made available to us. If a motion is required to do this, then I so move:
Whereas the GNSO Council must make decisions on which pending Whois Studies are yet to be pursued (link to appropriate Staff reports on cost and feasibility studies); and
Whereas the GNSO Council wishes to make fiscally responsible decisions; therefore be it
Resolved that the GNSO Council asks Staff to provide as soon as reasonably possible:
1. An update on the current Whois Study already in progress, with estimated completion date and then next steps on that for Staff and Council.
2. Information or report on resources required for the above over the rest of the fiscal year, and Staff resources that are available to follow through on additional studies the rest of this fiscal year.
3. Information or report from ICANN's CFO or other appropriate Staff on money still available for further studies this fiscal year.
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
Hi Wolf, The motion has been properly made and seconded. We cannot just to choose to ignore it. There will be ample opportunity to discuss during our weekend sessions. Thanks, Stéphane Le 9 mars 2011 à 10:34, <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :
I do not understand why we need a formal motion on this questions. Why don't we just ask staff to provide this information to the meeting in SF - maybe at the weekend sessions or at the public meeting. I'm sure they could provide us with this managerial type of information requested that time. And that's their daily business. After years of discussing for- and backwards it's time to conclude. If we don't I fear the same questions will repeatedly come up after a certain while since the study process may change.
My request is to ask staff to provide this information to the SF meeting(s). Then we can see whether this motion is still necessary.
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. März 2011 23:30 An: Wendy Seltzer Cc: Tim Ruiz; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: [council] Whois motion
Thanks Wendy.
So we now have two motions on WHOIS. I suggest we vote on Tim's motion first and only vote on John's if Tim's fails. There is no sense in voting on actually carrying the studies out if the Council has just decided to ask for more information before deciding whether to do so or not.
Stéphane
Le 8 mars 2011 à 23:21, Wendy Seltzer a écrit :
I second.
--Wendy
On 03/08/2011 05:18 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Thanks Tim,
Is there a second for this motion?
Stéphane
Le 8 mars 2011 à 21:52, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
I would prefer to have some additional information before voting on more studies:
1. An update on the current study already in progress, with estimated completion date and then next steps on that for Staff and Council.
2. Information or report from Staff on resources required for the above over the rest of the fiscal year, and Staff resources that are available to follow through on additional studies the rest of this fiscal year.
3. Information or report from ICANN's CFO or other appropriate Staff on money still available for further studies this fiscal year.
The above information will help us make responsible decisions about how best to use the resources that are made available to us. If a motion is required to do this, then I so move:
Whereas the GNSO Council must make decisions on which pending Whois Studies are yet to be pursued (link to appropriate Staff reports on cost and feasibility studies); and
Whereas the GNSO Council wishes to make fiscally responsible decisions; therefore be it
Resolved that the GNSO Council asks Staff to provide as soon as reasonably possible:
1. An update on the current Whois Study already in progress, with estimated completion date and then next steps on that for Staff and Council.
2. Information or report on resources required for the above over the rest of the fiscal year, and Staff resources that are available to follow through on additional studies the rest of this fiscal year.
3. Information or report from ICANN's CFO or other appropriate Staff on money still available for further studies this fiscal year.
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
Thanks Stéphane, I accept the way the motion was presented. I fully support that we need the information required. And I saw a chance to get it easier. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. März 2011 11:05 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Cc: wendy@seltzer.com; tim@godaddy.com; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: AW: [council] Whois motion Hi Wolf, The motion has been properly made and seconded. We cannot just to choose to ignore it. There will be ample opportunity to discuss during our weekend sessions. Thanks, Stéphane Le 9 mars 2011 à 10:34, <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :
I do not understand why we need a formal motion on this questions. Why don't we just ask staff to provide this information to the meeting in SF - maybe at the weekend sessions or at the public meeting. I'm sure they could provide us with this managerial type of information requested that time. And that's their daily business. After years of discussing for- and backwards it's time to conclude. If we don't I fear the same questions will repeatedly come up after a certain while since the study process may change.
My request is to ask staff to provide this information to the SF meeting(s). Then we can see whether this motion is still necessary.
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. März 2011 23:30 An: Wendy Seltzer Cc: Tim Ruiz; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: [council] Whois motion
Thanks Wendy.
So we now have two motions on WHOIS. I suggest we vote on Tim's motion first and only vote on John's if Tim's fails. There is no sense in voting on actually carrying the studies out if the Council has just decided to ask for more information before deciding whether to do so or not.
Stéphane
Le 8 mars 2011 à 23:21, Wendy Seltzer a écrit :
I second.
--Wendy
On 03/08/2011 05:18 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Thanks Tim,
Is there a second for this motion?
Stéphane
Le 8 mars 2011 à 21:52, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
I would prefer to have some additional information before voting on more studies:
1. An update on the current study already in progress, with estimated completion date and then next steps on that for Staff and Council.
2. Information or report from Staff on resources required for the above over the rest of the fiscal year, and Staff resources that are available to follow through on additional studies the rest of this fiscal year.
3. Information or report from ICANN's CFO or other appropriate Staff on money still available for further studies this fiscal year.
The above information will help us make responsible decisions about how best to use the resources that are made available to us. If a motion is required to do this, then I so move:
Whereas the GNSO Council must make decisions on which pending Whois Studies are yet to be pursued (link to appropriate Staff reports on cost and feasibility studies); and
Whereas the GNSO Council wishes to make fiscally responsible decisions; therefore be it
Resolved that the GNSO Council asks Staff to provide as soon as reasonably possible:
1. An update on the current Whois Study already in progress, with estimated completion date and then next steps on that for Staff and Council.
2. Information or report on resources required for the above over the rest of the fiscal year, and Staff resources that are available to follow through on additional studies the rest of this fiscal year.
3. Information or report from ICANN's CFO or other appropriate Staff on money still available for further studies this fiscal year.
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
I wasn't sure whether Council would think it was or wasn't necessary. And it looks like Liz has responded already. Tim -----Original Message----- From: <KnobenW@telekom.de> Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 10:34:28 To: <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; <wendy@seltzer.com> Cc: <tim@godaddy.com>; <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: AW: [council] Whois motion I do not understand why we need a formal motion on this questions. Why don't we just ask staff to provide this information to the meeting in SF - maybe at the weekend sessions or at the public meeting. I'm sure they could provide us with this managerial type of information requested that time. And that's their daily business. After years of discussing for- and backwards it's time to conclude. If we don't I fear the same questions will repeatedly come up after a certain while since the study process may change. My request is to ask staff to provide this information to the SF meeting(s). Then we can see whether this motion is still necessary. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. März 2011 23:30 An: Wendy Seltzer Cc: Tim Ruiz; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: [council] Whois motion Thanks Wendy. So we now have two motions on WHOIS. I suggest we vote on Tim's motion first and only vote on John's if Tim's fails. There is no sense in voting on actually carrying the studies out if the Council has just decided to ask for more information before deciding whether to do so or not. Stéphane Le 8 mars 2011 à 23:21, Wendy Seltzer a écrit :
I second.
--Wendy
On 03/08/2011 05:18 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Thanks Tim,
Is there a second for this motion?
Stéphane
Le 8 mars 2011 à 21:52, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
I would prefer to have some additional information before voting on more studies:
1. An update on the current study already in progress, with estimated completion date and then next steps on that for Staff and Council.
2. Information or report from Staff on resources required for the above over the rest of the fiscal year, and Staff resources that are available to follow through on additional studies the rest of this fiscal year.
3. Information or report from ICANN's CFO or other appropriate Staff on money still available for further studies this fiscal year.
The above information will help us make responsible decisions about how best to use the resources that are made available to us. If a motion is required to do this, then I so move:
Whereas the GNSO Council must make decisions on which pending Whois Studies are yet to be pursued (link to appropriate Staff reports on cost and feasibility studies); and
Whereas the GNSO Council wishes to make fiscally responsible decisions; therefore be it
Resolved that the GNSO Council asks Staff to provide as soon as reasonably possible:
1. An update on the current Whois Study already in progress, with estimated completion date and then next steps on that for Staff and Council.
2. Information or report on resources required for the above over the rest of the fiscal year, and Staff resources that are available to follow through on additional studies the rest of this fiscal year.
3. Information or report from ICANN's CFO or other appropriate Staff on money still available for further studies this fiscal year.
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
Hi Tim, Please see below for current information. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks, Liz From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 12:52 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Whois motion I would prefer to have some additional information before voting on more studies: 1. An update on the current study already in progress, with estimated completion date and then next steps on that for Staff and Council. Liz – the contract for the Whois “Misuse” study is undergoing final internal review and should be approved very shortly. The study will take about a year to complete (it is being conducted by an independent research entity and will be initiated immediately upon contract sign off, we will announce at that time). No Council action is needed at this time. 2. Information or report from Staff on resources required for the above over the rest of the fiscal year, and Staff resources that are available to follow through on additional studies the rest of this fiscal year. Liz – The studies will all be conducted externally, so staff time will primarily be needed up-front, to finalize the details in each contract, periodically throughout the year to monitor progress on each, and then in a year it will spike again as we post drafts for community comment. The Misuse, Registrant Identification and Proxy/Privacy Abuse studies will each take a year to complete following contract ratification. The pre-study on Relay-Reveal will take about 4 months to do (again, by an outside firm). I estimate 20 hours of policy staff time in the near term to finalize each contract, along with some incremental consultant hours that were budgeted for this fiscal year. (Let me say as an aside those numbers pale when compared with the number of staff hours spent preparing detailed, thorough RFPs on each of these studies, conducting an open RFP process, and analyzing the responses fairly and very thoroughly against objective criteria to provide the costs and feasibility analysis to the Council.) 3. Information or report from ICANN's CFO or other appropriate Staff on money still available for further studies this fiscal year. Again, these studies have not started, so none of the funding that was set aside for Fiscal Year 2011 has been spent on studies. The Council requested, and the Board approved “at least $400,000” for Fiscal Year 2011. All of the money is still available in this fiscal year. Please note that given how much time has elapsed without initiating studies, it will be important for study funding to be carried into Fiscal Year 2012. The above information will help us make responsible decisions about how best to use the resources that are made available to us. If a motion is required to do this, then I so move: Whereas the GNSO Council must make decisions on which pending Whois Studies are yet to be pursued (link to appropriate Staff reports on cost and feasibility studies); and Whereas the GNSO Council wishes to make fiscally responsible decisions; therefore be it Resolved that the GNSO Council asks Staff to provide as soon as reasonably possible: 1. An update on the current Whois Study already in progress, with estimated completion date and then next steps on that for Staff and Council. 2. Information or report on resources required for the above over the rest of the fiscal year, and Staff resources that are available to follow through on additional studies the rest of this fiscal year. 3. Information or report from ICANN's CFO or other appropriate Staff on money still available for further studies this fiscal year.
Thanks Liz, you're really at higher speed I could imagine. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Liz Gasster Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. März 2011 03:12 An: Tim Ruiz; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Whois motion Hi Tim, Please see below for current information. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks, Liz From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 12:52 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Whois motion I would prefer to have some additional information before voting on more studies: 1. An update on the current study already in progress, with estimated completion date and then next steps on that for Staff and Council. Liz - the contract for the Whois "Misuse" study is undergoing final internal review and should be approved very shortly. The study will take about a year to complete (it is being conducted by an independent research entity and will be initiated immediately upon contract sign off, we will announce at that time). No Council action is needed at this time. 2. Information or report from Staff on resources required for the above over the rest of the fiscal year, and Staff resources that are available to follow through on additional studies the rest of this fiscal year. Liz - The studies will all be conducted externally, so staff time will primarily be needed up-front, to finalize the details in each contract, periodically throughout the year to monitor progress on each, and then in a year it will spike again as we post drafts for community comment. The Misuse, Registrant Identification and Proxy/Privacy Abuse studies will each take a year to complete following contract ratification. The pre-study on Relay-Reveal will take about 4 months to do (again, by an outside firm). I estimate 20 hours of policy staff time in the near term to finalize each contract, along with some incremental consultant hours that were budgeted for this fiscal year. (Let me say as an aside those numbers pale when compared with the number of staff hours spent preparing detailed, thorough RFPs on each of these studies, conducting an open RFP process, and analyzing the responses fairly and very thoroughly against objective criteria to provide the costs and feasibility analysis to the Council.) 3. Information or report from ICANN's CFO or other appropriate Staff on money still available for further studies this fiscal year. Again, these studies have not started, so none of the funding that was set aside for Fiscal Year 2011 has been spent on studies. The Council requested, and the Board approved "at least $400,000" for Fiscal Year 2011. All of the money is still available in this fiscal year. Please note that given how much time has elapsed without initiating studies, it will be important for study funding to be carried into Fiscal Year 2012. The above information will help us make responsible decisions about how best to use the resources that are made available to us. If a motion is required to do this, then I so move: Whereas the GNSO Council must make decisions on which pending Whois Studies are yet to be pursued (link to appropriate Staff reports on cost and feasibility studies); and Whereas the GNSO Council wishes to make fiscally responsible decisions; therefore be it Resolved that the GNSO Council asks Staff to provide as soon as reasonably possible: 1. An update on the current Whois Study already in progress, with estimated completion date and then next steps on that for Staff and Council. 2. Information or report on resources required for the above over the rest of the fiscal year, and Staff resources that are available to follow through on additional studies the rest of this fiscal year. 3. Information or report from ICANN's CFO or other appropriate Staff on money still available for further studies this fiscal year.
participants (6)
-
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Liz Gasster -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
Tim Ruiz -
tim＠godaddy.com
-
Wendy Seltzer