Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Public Board Meeting - the Update for Prague
I believe it was discussed and decided fairly quickly last week. It's funny, I find myself without much to say about it, because for at least three years now ICANN has not funded me to stay for Friday's meetings, so I have not attended one. I don't think they are doing away with the public forum, however. Though I know I am in the minority here, I find that to be a waste of time as well. What I have occasionally found helpful are the interactions between the board and the at-large group at the three annual meetings -- sometimes it's a breakfast, sometimes it's a lunch. On a few occasions it has provided an opportunity to grill board members on problematic topics. However, last time, I found the interaction to be predictably scripted. We spent the time talking about cross-functional teams or some sort of useless topic. If this public board meeting is going to go away, then what should happen -- since the at-large is supposed to represent the public interest -- is that the at-large should tell the board what it wants to discuss in its meeting, and it should follow up on each statement ALAC has made since the last meeting to determine what the board has or has not done about it. For instance, in Prague, I suggest the at-large demand a full accounting of the TAS disaster. I suggest the at-large demand a full accounting of the board conflict-of-interest problems. I suggest the at-large demand a full accounting of what's being done to address the IANA contract issue. Not be shown some pre-scripted video, but have an actual interaction that's not phony. And it all needs to go on the public record. The at-large needs to take on a role similar to that of a major shareholder in a public for-profit company. Executive behavior should be its business; failure to execute should be its business. ALAC needs to be more outside the process looking in, not submerged in process issues that are essentially meaningless to the general public. If we are arguing to hold on to a meeting so that we can parse the body language of participants, then the entire philosophy of public interaction with the board needs to be re-thought. -----Original Message-----
From: Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> Sent: May 4, 2012 8:19 AM To: Bret Fausett <bfausett@internet.law.pro> Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Public Board Meeting - the Update for Prague
When and how was this announced?
-ed
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Bret Fausett <bfausett@internet.law.pro>wrote:
I am very troubled by the decision to remove the public meeting. As I see it, this presents several issues for the community:
1) The Board meeting typically closes a cycle of community discussion with a vote/resolution on some issue, and these end-of-meeting Board resolutions are important. The deadline of closing an issue at a public meeting also keeps the Board on track. Do they still intend to meet and close issues? This needs to happen.
2) The public meetings became a bit of orchestrated theater over the years, but I still believe they served the purpose of showing the Board's professionalism in addressing and resolving difficult issues. Last June's meeting on New TLDs is the most recent example of this. Take a look at this picture from Singapore that ICANN features on its website: http://www.icann.org/en/about That's worth a thousand words. Note the people in the foreground using their camera phones to capture the moment. We're losing that.
3) Closing the monthly meetings while leaving these end-of-session meetings open was something of a compromise reached between a prior Board and the ICANN community many years ago. I am concerned that the Board decided to change the status quo without any notice and comment.
4) As always, ICANN is under scrutiny with the IANA bid still to be resolved and issues of transparency at the forefront of some of those discussions. The way this was handled (was there a Board resolution? Chair's decision?) only makes the optics worse. I can't seem to find any background on how this decision was made, or why it was made.
Bret ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Here here! -------------------------------------------------- From: "Beau Brendler" <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 11:12 AM To: "Eduardo Diaz" <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>; "Bret Fausett" <bfausett@internet.law.pro> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Public Board Meeting - the UpdateforPrague> I believe it was discussed and decided fairly quickly last week. It's funny, I find myself without much to say about it, because for at least three years now ICANN has not funded me to stay for Friday's meetings, so I have not attended one. I don't think they are doing away with the public forum, however. Though I know I am in the minority here, I find that to be a waste of time as well.
What I have occasionally found helpful are the interactions between the board and the at-large group at the three annual meetings -- sometimes it's a breakfast, sometimes it's a lunch. On a few occasions it has provided an opportunity to grill board members on problematic topics.
However, last time, I found the interaction to be predictably scripted. We spent the time talking about cross-functional teams or some sort of useless topic. If this public board meeting is going to go away, then what should happen -- since the at-large is supposed to represent the public interest -- is that the at-large should tell the board what it wants to discuss in its meeting, and it should follow up on each statement ALAC has made since the last meeting to determine what the board has or has not done about it.
For instance, in Prague, I suggest the at-large demand a full accounting of the TAS disaster. I suggest the at-large demand a full accounting of the board conflict-of-interest problems. I suggest the at-large demand a full accounting of what's being done to address the IANA contract issue. Not be shown some pre-scripted video, but have an actual interaction that's not phony. And it all needs to go on the public record.
The at-large needs to take on a role similar to that of a major shareholder in a public for-profit company. Executive behavior should be its business; failure to execute should be its business. ALAC needs to be more outside the process looking in, not submerged in process issues that are essentially meaningless to the general public. If we are arguing to hold on to a meeting so that we can parse the body language of participants, then the entire philosophy of public interaction with the board needs to be re-thought.
-----Original Message-----
From: Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> Sent: May 4, 2012 8:19 AM To: Bret Fausett <bfausett@internet.law.pro> Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Public Board Meeting - the Update for Prague
When and how was this announced?
-ed
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Bret Fausett <bfausett@internet.law.pro>wrote:
I am very troubled by the decision to remove the public meeting. As I see it, this presents several issues for the community:
1) The Board meeting typically closes a cycle of community discussion with a vote/resolution on some issue, and these end-of-meeting Board resolutions are important. The deadline of closing an issue at a public meeting also keeps the Board on track. Do they still intend to meet and close issues? This needs to happen.
2) The public meetings became a bit of orchestrated theater over the years, but I still believe they served the purpose of showing the Board's professionalism in addressing and resolving difficult issues. Last June's meeting on New TLDs is the most recent example of this. Take a look at this picture from Singapore that ICANN features on its website: http://www.icann.org/en/about That's worth a thousand words. Note the people in the foreground using their camera phones to capture the moment. We're losing that.
3) Closing the monthly meetings while leaving these end-of-session meetings open was something of a compromise reached between a prior Board and the ICANN community many years ago. I am concerned that the Board decided to change the status quo without any notice and comment.
4) As always, ICANN is under scrutiny with the IANA bid still to be resolved and issues of transparency at the forefront of some of those discussions. The way this was handled (was there a Board resolution? Chair's decision?) only makes the optics worse. I can't seem to find any background on how this decision was made, or why it was made.
Bret ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Absolutely ! Gordon On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 11:12 -0400, Beau Brendler wrote:
I believe it was discussed and decided fairly quickly last week. It's funny, I find myself without much to say about it, because for at least three years now ICANN has not funded me to stay for Friday's meetings, so I have not attended one. I don't think they are doing away with the public forum, however. Though I know I am in the minority here, I find that to be a waste of time as well.
What I have occasionally found helpful are the interactions between the board and the at-large group at the three annual meetings -- sometimes it's a breakfast, sometimes it's a lunch. On a few occasions it has provided an opportunity to grill board members on problematic topics.
However, last time, I found the interaction to be predictably scripted. We spent the time talking about cross-functional teams or some sort of useless topic. If this public board meeting is going to go away, then what should happen -- since the at-large is supposed to represent the public interest -- is that the at-large should tell the board what it wants to discuss in its meeting, and it should follow up on each statement ALAC has made since the last meeting to determine what the board has or has not done about it.
For instance, in Prague, I suggest the at-large demand a full accounting of the TAS disaster. I suggest the at-large demand a full accounting of the board conflict-of-interest problems. I suggest the at-large demand a full accounting of what's being done to address the IANA contract issue. Not be shown some pre-scripted video, but have an actual interaction that's not phony. And it all needs to go on the public record.
The at-large needs to take on a role similar to that of a major shareholder in a public for-profit company. Executive behavior should be its business; failure to execute should be its business. ALAC needs to be more outside the process looking in, not submerged in process issues that are essentially meaningless to the general public. If we are arguing to hold on to a meeting so that we can parse the body language of participants, then the entire philosophy of public interaction with the board needs to be re-thought.
-----Original Message-----
From: Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> Sent: May 4, 2012 8:19 AM To: Bret Fausett <bfausett@internet.law.pro> Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Public Board Meeting - the Update for Prague
When and how was this announced?
-ed
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Bret Fausett <bfausett@internet.law.pro>wrote:
I am very troubled by the decision to remove the public meeting. As I see it, this presents several issues for the community:
1) The Board meeting typically closes a cycle of community discussion with a vote/resolution on some issue, and these end-of-meeting Board resolutions are important. The deadline of closing an issue at a public meeting also keeps the Board on track. Do they still intend to meet and close issues? This needs to happen.
2) The public meetings became a bit of orchestrated theater over the years, but I still believe they served the purpose of showing the Board's professionalism in addressing and resolving difficult issues. Last June's meeting on New TLDs is the most recent example of this. Take a look at this picture from Singapore that ICANN features on its website: http://www.icann.org/en/about That's worth a thousand words. Note the people in the foreground using their camera phones to capture the moment. We're losing that.
3) Closing the monthly meetings while leaving these end-of-session meetings open was something of a compromise reached between a prior Board and the ICANN community many years ago. I am concerned that the Board decided to change the status quo without any notice and comment.
4) As always, ICANN is under scrutiny with the IANA bid still to be resolved and issues of transparency at the forefront of some of those discussions. The way this was handled (was there a Board resolution? Chair's decision?) only makes the optics worse. I can't seem to find any background on how this decision was made, or why it was made.
Bret ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Agreed on all points except one. I take the position that the TAS outage is only a "disaster" from the vantage point of the domain industry, and am generally unconcerned myself. While delays will have a small trickle-down effect on people whose communities (think they) badly need a TLD, in my opinion the overall actual effect on the general public is negligible. There isn't even much of a credibility hit, given that the day to day Internet functions as if nothing happened. Maybe there's diminished public confidence in ICANN's ability to scale up the number of TLDs so dramatically, but I would suggest that such confidence was never high in the first place. And since -- as I have been asserting all along -- there is no end-user demand driving the TLD expansion, end users really don't care if the process if interrupted, let alone why. IMO the domain industry will do a fine job yelling at ICANN for the TAS mess -- it is a mess, certainly -- and I wouldn't be surprised to see lawsuits. However, our priorities are different and I would suggest that other matters -- such as registrant rights in the RAA, conflict of interest, a goal of 100% WHOIS compliance and REAL consumer metrics (not the self-serving mush now being churned) -- matter more to At-Large and should dominate our time with the Board. I like the shareholder analogy. But of course, for it to stand up, the Board would need to acknowledge our effect far better than it does. In its decision to keep the status quo on the Red Cross/Olympic names -- an issue in which the Board essentially agreed with our position completely -- the Board simply made references to the public comments. The message sent to the community is that, as far as the Board is concerned (at least publicly), ALAC is Just Another Public Comment. In private a number of Board are eager to tell us how well we're doing, but it *still* has yet to explicitly acknowledge specific ALAC policy contribution in any reliable way (and in the way that the Bylaws mandates for the GAC). Public recognition of our role in specific issues would go a long way in both morale and outreach. Maybe that's an issue to take up as well. But that's process, not policy. - Evan On 4 May 2012 11:12, Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> wrote:
I believe it was discussed and decided fairly quickly last week. It's funny, I find myself without much to say about it, because for at least three years now ICANN has not funded me to stay for Friday's meetings, so I have not attended one. I don't think they are doing away with the public forum, however. Though I know I am in the minority here, I find that to be a waste of time as well.
What I have occasionally found helpful are the interactions between the board and the at-large group at the three annual meetings -- sometimes it's a breakfast, sometimes it's a lunch. On a few occasions it has provided an opportunity to grill board members on problematic topics.
However, last time, I found the interaction to be predictably scripted. We spent the time talking about cross-functional teams or some sort of useless topic. If this public board meeting is going to go away, then what should happen -- since the at-large is supposed to represent the public interest -- is that the at-large should tell the board what it wants to discuss in its meeting, and it should follow up on each statement ALAC has made since the last meeting to determine what the board has or has not done about it.
For instance, in Prague, I suggest the at-large demand a full accounting of the TAS disaster. I suggest the at-large demand a full accounting of the board conflict-of-interest problems. I suggest the at-large demand a full accounting of what's being done to address the IANA contract issue. Not be shown some pre-scripted video, but have an actual interaction that's not phony. And it all needs to go on the public record.
The at-large needs to take on a role similar to that of a major shareholder in a public for-profit company. Executive behavior should be its business; failure to execute should be its business. ALAC needs to be more outside the process looking in, not submerged in process issues that are essentially meaningless to the general public. If we are arguing to hold on to a meeting so that we can parse the body language of participants, then the entire philosophy of public interaction with the board needs to be re-thought.
-----Original Message-----
From: Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> Sent: May 4, 2012 8:19 AM To: Bret Fausett <bfausett@internet.law.pro> Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Public Board Meeting - the Update for Prague
When and how was this announced?
-ed
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Bret Fausett <bfausett@internet.law.pro wrote:
I am very troubled by the decision to remove the public meeting. As I see it, this presents several issues for the community:
1) The Board meeting typically closes a cycle of community discussion with a vote/resolution on some issue, and these end-of-meeting Board resolutions are important. The deadline of closing an issue at a public meeting also keeps the Board on track. Do they still intend to meet and close issues? This needs to happen.
2) The public meetings became a bit of orchestrated theater over the years, but I still believe they served the purpose of showing the Board's professionalism in addressing and resolving difficult issues. Last June's meeting on New TLDs is the most recent example of this. Take a look at this picture from Singapore that ICANN features on its website: http://www.icann.org/en/about That's worth a thousand words. Note the people in the foreground using their camera phones to capture the moment. We're losing that.
3) Closing the monthly meetings while leaving these end-of-session meetings open was something of a compromise reached between a prior Board and the ICANN community many years ago. I am concerned that the Board decided to change the status quo without any notice and comment.
4) As always, ICANN is under scrutiny with the IANA bid still to be resolved and issues of transparency at the forefront of some of those discussions. The way this was handled (was there a Board resolution? Chair's decision?) only makes the optics worse. I can't seem to find any background on how this decision was made, or why it was made.
Bret ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
And since -- as I have been asserting all along -- there is no end-user demand driving the TLD expansion, end users really don't care if the process if interrupted, let alone why.
Agreed. The domain speculators don't need any help complaining that they have to wait for another month. I'd prefer that ALAC concentrate on issues that matter to the individual non-registrants that ALAC is supposed to represent and who have no other voice at ICANN (other than very indirectly via GAC.) Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
True, no need for us to add pressure on the TAS issue, I'm sure staff wants to fix it asap as opposed other issues we've presented. However, it is symptomatic and raises questions about the organization's staffing and ability to manage this technical expansion. Beau is right in that they started off sharing lots of info about the outage and then went dark. -------------------------------------------------- From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 1:40 PM To: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Public Board Meeting - the Update for Prague
And since -- as I have been asserting all along -- there is no end-user demand driving the TLD expansion, end users really don't care if the process if interrupted, let alone why.
Agreed. The domain speculators don't need any help complaining that they have to wait for another month.
I'd prefer that ALAC concentrate on issues that matter to the individual non-registrants that ALAC is supposed to represent and who have no other voice at ICANN (other than very indirectly via GAC.)
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Consider the context -- a limited-time ALAC/Board engagement. At issue is not "is it important?" so much as "is it important to the exclusion of other issues more important to end users, especially issues that are not being raised by other communities?" - Evan On 4 May 2012 15:34, Garth Bruen at Knujon.com <gbruen@knujon.com> wrote:
True, no need for us to add pressure on the TAS issue, I'm sure staff wants to fix it asap as opposed other issues we've presented.
However, it is symptomatic and raises questions about the organization's staffing and ability to manage this technical expansion. Beau is right in that they started off sharing lots of info about the outage and then went dark.
------------------------------**-------------------- From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 1:40 PM To: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org>
Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.**icann.org<na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Public Board Meeting - the Update for Prague
And since -- as I have been asserting all along -- there is no end-user
demand driving the TLD expansion, end users really don't care if the process if interrupted, let alone why.
Agreed. The domain speculators don't need any help complaining that they have to wait for another month.
I'd prefer that ALAC concentrate on issues that matter to the individual non-registrants that ALAC is supposed to represent and who have no other voice at ICANN (other than very indirectly via GAC.)
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.**icann.org <NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.**org/mailman/listinfo/na-**discuss<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss>
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
Dear Beau, your concerns and those of other members of our community such as Bret's message prompted me to write to Steve Crocker, Chris Disspain and Sébastien Bachollet, since an email discussion is currently taking place between Chairs of SO/ACs and Board members. I essentially relayed our community's concerns. The reply I received was that the Friday morning interaction was going to be replaced by two other interactions, one on Monday and the second on Thursday. I urged the Board to act quickly and explain its thinking in details so as to avoid raising even more concern in our community. I was told that details are forthcoming. More interspersed in your message: On 04/05/2012 16:12, Beau Brendler wrote :
However, last time, I found the interaction to be predictably scripted. We spent the time talking about cross-functional teams or some sort of useless topic. If this public board meeting is going to go away, then what should happen -- since the at-large is supposed to represent the public interest -- is that the at-large should tell the board what it wants to discuss in its meeting, and it should follow up on each statement ALAC has made since the last meeting to determine what the board has or has not done about it.
Prior to an ICANN meeting we are asked what subjects would we like to discuss with the Board, with the GAC and with any other constituency that we would have a meeting with. Agendas are set-up by consensus. When this comes up for Prague, I will ask that a Wiki page be set-up for each interaction so as to build our agenda. That said, some of the subjects we asked for in the past were not chosen by our counterparts due to lack of time. We can only treat 2-3 subjects per session max.
For instance, in Prague, I suggest the at-large demand a full accounting of the TAS disaster. I suggest the at-large demand a full accounting of the board conflict-of-interest problems. I suggest the at-large demand a full accounting of what's being done to address the IANA contract issue. Not be shown some pre-scripted video, but have an actual interaction that's not phony. And it all needs to go on the public record.
Absolutely agreed. On the TAS, we are yet to receive all of the information about what is going on. You have seen our two statements about the Board Conflict of Interest Issue. On the IANA Contract issue, I have emailed the Board Working Group to provide us with more information about what they are doing and was planning to forward their answer to our mailing list, once I got one --- and my request has gone unanswered so far.
The at-large needs to take on a role similar to that of a major shareholder in a public for-profit company. Executive behavior should be its business; failure to execute should be its business. ALAC needs to be more outside the process looking in, not submerged in process issues that are essentially meaningless to the general public. If we are arguing to hold on to a meeting so that we can parse the body language of participants, then the entire philosophy of public interaction with the board needs to be re-thought.
Parsing the body language is all part of interaction between people. This is why we meet face to face. Let's see what the Board suggests as a replacement for the Friday session and then we can take this up officially with a statement, if needed. Kind regards, Olivier
participants (6)
-
Beau Brendler -
Evan Leibovitch -
Garth Bruen at Knujon.com -
Gordon Chillcott -
John R. Levine -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond