All Apologies for missing this discussion yesterday. I want to express my reservations about the agreement that the EPDP Chair candidate names be made public. I believe they should be confidential or, at a minimum, the candidates should at least have the option to decide whether they wish to have their candidacy made public. Given the subject matter of this PDP, I thought we might be a bit more sensitive to privacy. I’m also disappointed that the selection task falls to the leadership team. We established a standing selection committee for this purpose. I understand the concerns about being able to undertake the task quickly, but this same pressure will be on the leadership team as well. If the candidate names are public this also puts considerable pressure on the leadership team in terms of lobbying and claims of bias in selection etc. We may also have potential conflicts of interest arise and as there is only three of us this would leave the job to two. The SSC is more representative of the GNSO and has a methodology in place for selections as a result of the processes they’ve undertaken to date. Thanks Donna Sent from my iPhone 100
I support Donna's position, particularly as the expectation on neutrality (perceived or real) may depend on the eye of the beholder. As Michelle expressed during one of the meetings, who has no vested interest in the results of this PDP? safe travels to all --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-06-29 07:34, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt escribió:
All
Apologies for missing this discussion yesterday. I want to express my reservations about the agreement that the EPDP Chair candidate names be made public. I believe they should be confidential or, at a minimum, the candidates should at least have the option to decide whether they wish to have their candidacy made public. Given the subject matter of this PDP, I thought we might be a bit more sensitive to privacy.
I'm also disappointed that the selection task falls to the leadership team. We established a standing selection committee for this purpose. I understand the concerns about being able to undertake the task quickly, but this same pressure will be on the leadership team as well.
If the candidate names are public this also puts considerable pressure on the leadership team in terms of lobbying and claims of bias in selection etc. We may also have potential conflicts of interest arise and as there is only three of us this would leave the job to two. The SSC is more representative of the GNSO and has a methodology in place for selections as a result of the processes they've undertaken to date.
Thanks
Donna
Sent from my iPhone
100
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
Hi Donna, If the council would like to rethink the use of the SSC for this selection I am open to it but would think the Leadership team should be very involved. I disagree on the need for confidentiality of the candidates names. We did discuss not disclosing any details of the candidates beyond the SOI which is required of all of us. Although, GDPR concerns privacy ICANN operates best with transparency. Best regards, Susan On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 7:34 AM, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt < epdp-dt@icann.org> wrote:
All
Apologies for missing this discussion yesterday. I want to express my reservations about the agreement that the EPDP Chair candidate names be made public. I believe they should be confidential or, at a minimum, the candidates should at least have the option to decide whether they wish to have their candidacy made public. Given the subject matter of this PDP, I thought we might be a bit more sensitive to privacy.
I’m also disappointed that the selection task falls to the leadership team. We established a standing selection committee for this purpose. I understand the concerns about being able to undertake the task quickly, but this same pressure will be on the leadership team as well.
If the candidate names are public this also puts considerable pressure on the leadership team in terms of lobbying and claims of bias in selection etc. We may also have potential conflicts of interest arise and as there is only three of us this would leave the job to two. The SSC is more representative of the GNSO and has a methodology in place for selections as a result of the processes they’ve undertaken to date.
Thanks
Donna
Sent from my iPhone
*100*
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
I agree that this should be a public process. I think we should try as much as possible to encourage candidates to have a public statement about why they believe they can be a neutral and effective chair. In this respect, I would consider the parameters of the decision to resemble an election more than a hiring decision. Lobbying will be inevitable, there are very few folks with no skin in the game, so it would be better to have more transparency. Stephanie On 2018-06-30 11:28, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:
Hi Donna,
If the council would like to rethink the use of the SSC for this selection I am open to it but would think the Leadership team should be very involved.
I disagree on the need for confidentiality of the candidates names. We did discuss not disclosing any details of the candidates beyond the SOI which is required of all of us.
Although, GDPR concerns privacy ICANN operates best with transparency.
Best regards,
Susan
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 7:34 AM, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> wrote:
All
Apologies for missing this discussion yesterday. I want to express my reservations about the agreement that the EPDP Chair candidate names be made public. I believe they should be confidential or, at a minimum, the candidates should at least have the option to decide whether they wish to have their candidacy made public. Given the subject matter of this PDP, I thought we might be a bit more sensitive to privacy.
I’m also disappointed that the selection task falls to the leadership team. We established a standing selection committee for this purpose. I understand the concerns about being able to undertake the task quickly, but this same pressure will be on the leadership team as well.
If the candidate names are public this also puts considerable pressure on the leadership team in terms of lobbying and claims of bias in selection etc. We may also have potential conflicts of interest arise and as there is only three of us this would leave the job to two. The SSC is more representative of the GNSO and has a methodology in place for selections as a result of the processes they’ve undertaken to date.
Thanks
Donna
Sent from my iPhone
*100*
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt>
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
I concede on the confidentiality aspect, but I would prefer to have the selection process done by the SSC. Rafik is part of that process already—Susan, does this address your request for leadership input? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 30, 2018, at 8:41 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: I agree that this should be a public process. I think we should try as much as possible to encourage candidates to have a public statement about why they believe they can be a neutral and effective chair. In this respect, I would consider the parameters of the decision to resemble an election more than a hiring decision. Lobbying will be inevitable, there are very few folks with no skin in the game, so it would be better to have more transparency. Stephanie On 2018-06-30 11:28, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: Hi Donna, If the council would like to rethink the use of the SSC for this selection I am open to it but would think the Leadership team should be very involved. I disagree on the need for confidentiality of the candidates names. We did discuss not disclosing any details of the candidates beyond the SOI which is required of all of us. Although, GDPR concerns privacy ICANN operates best with transparency. Best regards, Susan On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 7:34 AM, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> wrote: All Apologies for missing this discussion yesterday. I want to express my reservations about the agreement that the EPDP Chair candidate names be made public. I believe they should be confidential or, at a minimum, the candidates should at least have the option to decide whether they wish to have their candidacy made public. Given the subject matter of this PDP, I thought we might be a bit more sensitive to privacy. I’m also disappointed that the selection task falls to the leadership team. We established a standing selection committee for this purpose. I understand the concerns about being able to undertake the task quickly, but this same pressure will be on the leadership team as well. If the candidate names are public this also puts considerable pressure on the leadership team in terms of lobbying and claims of bias in selection etc. We may also have potential conflicts of interest arise and as there is only three of us this would leave the job to two. The SSC is more representative of the GNSO and has a methodology in place for selections as a result of the processes they’ve undertaken to date. Thanks Donna Sent from my iPhone 100 _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwMDaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=lrOBxX_pToVCqJ8R10NHnbkXCXtiufdStlOp0AxaXWQ&s=jOrzbhLCxGuq_P8jKkA_0nCX1xeF8vhbWmzEgbNYNFA&e=> _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwMDaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=lrOBxX_pToVCqJ8R10NHnbkXCXtiufdStlOp0AxaXWQ&s=jOrzbhLCxGuq_P8jKkA_0nCX1xeF8vhbWmzEgbNYNFA&e=> _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...
While I agree that we should encourage candidates to make as much of their applications public as possible, I believe conflict of interest statements _must_ be made public. This is an issue of great public interest and will rightfully attract public scrutiny. We have the right to know if a candidate to be chair of the EPDP has declared a conflict of interest. I also note that it is existing practice with Review Teams for the applications to be posted publicly, including motivation statements. This EPDP is not the time to discard all of our past practices around accountability and transparency. It is bad enough we are scrapping bottom-up multistakeholder participation and reducing the opportunities for public comment. Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 21:02, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org> wrote:
I concede on the confidentiality aspect, but I would prefer to have the selection process done by the SSC. Rafik is part of that process already—Susan, does this address your request for leadership input?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 30, 2018, at 8:41 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
I agree that this should be a public process. I think we should try as much as possible to encourage candidates to have a public statement about why they believe they can be a neutral and effective chair. In this respect, I would consider the parameters of the decision to resemble an election more than a hiring decision.
Lobbying will be inevitable, there are very few folks with no skin in the game, so it would be better to have more transparency.
Stephanie
On 2018-06-30 11:28, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:
Hi Donna,
If the council would like to rethink the use of the SSC for this selection I am open to it but would think the Leadership team should be very involved.
I disagree on the need for confidentiality of the candidates names. We did discuss not disclosing any details of the candidates beyond the SOI which is required of all of us.
Although, GDPR concerns privacy ICANN operates best with transparency.
Best regards,
Susan
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 7:34 AM, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org> wrote:
All
Apologies for missing this discussion yesterday. I want to express my reservations about the agreement that the EPDP Chair candidate names be made public. I believe they should be confidential or, at a minimum, the candidates should at least have the option to decide whether they wish to have their candidacy made public. Given the subject matter of this PDP, I thought we might be a bit more sensitive to privacy.
I’m also disappointed that the selection task falls to the leadership team. We established a standing selection committee for this purpose. I understand the concerns about being able to undertake the task quickly, but this same pressure will be on the leadership team as well.
If the candidate names are public this also puts considerable pressure on the leadership team in terms of lobbying and claims of bias in selection etc. We may also have potential conflicts of interest arise and as there is only three of us this would leave the job to two. The SSC is more representative of the GNSO and has a methodology in place for selections as a result of the processes they’ve undertaken to date.
Thanks
Donna
Sent from my iPhone
100
______________________________ _________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org [https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwMDaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=lrOBxX_pToVCqJ8R10NHnbkXCXtiufdStlOp0AxaXWQ&s=jOrzbhLCxGuq_P8jKkA_0nCX1xeF8vhbWmzEgbNYNFA&e=)
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...
+1 Stephanie On 2018-07-01 05:39, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
While I agree that we should encourage candidates to make as much of their applications public as possible, I believe conflict of interest statements _must_ be made public. This is an issue of great public interest and will rightfully attract public scrutiny. We have the right to know if a candidate to be chair of the EPDP has declared a conflict of interest.
I also note that it is existing practice with Review Teams for the applications to be posted publicly, including motivation statements.
This EPDP is not the time to discard all of our past practices around accountability and transparency. It is bad enough we are scrapping bottom-up multistakeholder participation and reducing the opportunities for public comment.
Ayden
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 21:02, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> wrote:
I concede on the confidentiality aspect, but I would prefer to have the selection process done by the SSC. Rafik is part of that process already—Susan, does this address your request for leadership input?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 30, 2018, at 8:41 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
I agree that this should be a public process. I think we should try as much as possible to encourage candidates to have a public statement about why they believe they can be a neutral and effective chair. In this respect, I would consider the parameters of the decision to resemble an election more than a hiring decision.
Lobbying will be inevitable, there are very few folks with no skin in the game, so it would be better to have more transparency.
Stephanie
On 2018-06-30 11:28, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:
Hi Donna,
If the council would like to rethink the use of the SSC for this selection I am open to it but would think the Leadership team should be very involved.
I disagree on the need for confidentiality of the candidates names. We did discuss not disclosing any details of the candidates beyond the SOI which is required of all of us.
Although, GDPR concerns privacy ICANN operates best with transparency.
Best regards,
Susan
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 7:34 AM, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> wrote:
All
Apologies for missing this discussion yesterday. I want to express my reservations about the agreement that the EPDP Chair candidate names be made public. I believe they should be confidential or, at a minimum, the candidates should at least have the option to decide whether they wish to have their candidacy made public. Given the subject matter of this PDP, I thought we might be a bit more sensitive to privacy.
I’m also disappointed that the selection task falls to the leadership team. We established a standing selection committee for this purpose. I understand the concerns about being able to undertake the task quickly, but this same pressure will be on the leadership team as well.
If the candidate names are public this also puts considerable pressure on the leadership team in terms of lobbying and claims of bias in selection etc. We may also have potential conflicts of interest arise and as there is only three of us this would leave the job to two. The SSC is more representative of the GNSO and has a methodology in place for selections as a result of the processes they’ve undertaken to date.
Thanks
Donna
Sent from my iPhone
*100 *
______________________________ _________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...
I agree con on the confidentiality, the argument to make all public are stronger, specially with such a “strange” process we need as much transparency as we can get. Cheers, Martín
On 1 Jul 2018, at 09:59, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
+1
Stephanie On 2018-07-01 05:39, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
While I agree that we should encourage candidates to make as much of their applications public as possible, I believe conflict of interest statements _must_ be made public. This is an issue of great public interest and will rightfully attract public scrutiny. We have the right to know if a candidate to be chair of the EPDP has declared a conflict of interest.
I also note that it is existing practice with Review Teams for the applications to be posted publicly, including motivation statements.
This EPDP is not the time to discard all of our past practices around accountability and transparency. It is bad enough we are scrapping bottom-up multistakeholder participation and reducing the opportunities for public comment.
Ayden
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 21:02, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> wrote:
I concede on the confidentiality aspect, but I would prefer to have the selection process done by the SSC. Rafik is part of that process already—Susan, does this address your request for leadership input?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 30, 2018, at 8:41 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
I agree that this should be a public process. I think we should try as much as possible to encourage candidates to have a public statement about why they believe they can be a neutral and effective chair. In this respect, I would consider the parameters of the decision to resemble an election more than a hiring decision.
Lobbying will be inevitable, there are very few folks with no skin in the game, so it would be better to have more transparency.
Stephanie On 2018-06-30 11:28, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:
Hi Donna,
If the council would like to rethink the use of the SSC for this selection I am open to it but would think the Leadership team should be very involved.
I disagree on the need for confidentiality of the candidates names. We did discuss not disclosing any details of the candidates beyond the SOI which is required of all of us.
Although, GDPR concerns privacy ICANN operates best with transparency.
Best regards,
Susan
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 7:34 AM, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> wrote: All
Apologies for missing this discussion yesterday. I want to express my reservations about the agreement that the EPDP Chair candidate names be made public. I believe they should be confidential or, at a minimum, the candidates should at least have the option to decide whether they wish to have their candidacy made public. Given the subject matter of this PDP, I thought we might be a bit more sensitive to privacy.
I’m also disappointed that the selection task falls to the leadership team. We established a standing selection committee for this purpose. I understand the concerns about being able to undertake the task quickly, but this same pressure will be on the leadership team as well.
If the candidate names are public this also puts considerable pressure on the leadership team in terms of lobbying and claims of bias in selection etc. We may also have potential conflicts of interest arise and as there is only three of us this would leave the job to two. The SSC is more representative of the GNSO and has a methodology in place for selections as a result of the processes they’ve undertaken to date.
Thanks
Donna
Sent from my iPhone
100
______________________________ _________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwMDaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=lrOBxX_pToVCqJ8R10NHnbkXCXtiufdStlOp0AxaXWQ&s=jOrzbhLCxGuq_P8jKkA_0nCX1xeF8vhbWmzEgbNYNFA&e=>_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=lrOBxX_pToVCqJ8R10NHnbkXCXtiufdStlOp0AxaXWQ&s=jOrzbhLCxGuq_P8jKkA_0nCX1xeF8vhbWmzEgbNYNFA&e=>_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
Hi Donna, We discussed using the SSC process but the council thought it may take to long. The quickest we were able to make a selection was 2 weeks. The other issue to consider is that the SSC consists of members from the SG and C's. Rafik and I are the only councilors on the committee. The SSC charter requires that we have full consensus on all decisions which usually takes more time. The members take their instructions from their SG or C so more information about the candidate will be shared broadly. I agree the SSC has created a good working process and I am willing to lead the SSC in the selection if necessary. Best regards, Susan On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 2:02 PM, Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar> wrote:
I concede on the confidentiality aspect, but I would prefer to have the selection process done by the SSC. Rafik is part of that process already—Susan, does this address your request for leadership input?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 30, 2018, at 8:41 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail. utoronto.ca> wrote:
I agree that this should be a public process. I think we should try as much as possible to encourage candidates to have a public statement about why they believe they can be a neutral and effective chair. In this respect, I would consider the parameters of the decision to resemble an election more than a hiring decision.
Lobbying will be inevitable, there are very few folks with no skin in the game, so it would be better to have more transparency.
Stephanie On 2018-06-30 11:28, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:
Hi Donna,
If the council would like to rethink the use of the SSC for this selection I am open to it but would think the Leadership team should be very involved.
I disagree on the need for confidentiality of the candidates names. We did discuss not disclosing any details of the candidates beyond the SOI which is required of all of us.
Although, GDPR concerns privacy ICANN operates best with transparency.
Best regards,
Susan
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 7:34 AM, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt < epdp-dt@icann.org> wrote:
All
Apologies for missing this discussion yesterday. I want to express my reservations about the agreement that the EPDP Chair candidate names be made public. I believe they should be confidential or, at a minimum, the candidates should at least have the option to decide whether they wish to have their candidacy made public. Given the subject matter of this PDP, I thought we might be a bit more sensitive to privacy.
I’m also disappointed that the selection task falls to the leadership team. We established a standing selection committee for this purpose. I understand the concerns about being able to undertake the task quickly, but this same pressure will be on the leadership team as well.
If the candidate names are public this also puts considerable pressure on the leadership team in terms of lobbying and claims of bias in selection etc. We may also have potential conflicts of interest arise and as there is only three of us this would leave the job to two. The SSC is more representative of the GNSO and has a methodology in place for selections as a result of the processes they’ve undertaken to date.
Thanks
Donna
Sent from my iPhone
*100*
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing listEpdp-dt@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm. icann.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r= CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=lrOBxX_ pToVCqJ8R10NHnbkXCXtiufdStlOp0AxaXWQ&s=jOrzbhLCxGuq_P8jKkA_ 0nCX1xeF8vhbWmzEgbNYNFA&e=
participants (6)
-
Austin, Donna -
Ayden Férdeline -
Carlos Raul Gutierrez -
Martin Pablo Silva Valent -
Stephanie Perrin -
Susan Kawaguchi