Report Reporting Group
ATLAS II Groups Reports
| ATLAS II Group | Report |
|---|---|
ATLAS II Working Group | ATLAS II: planning, execution and lessons learned PDF |
ATLAS II Survey Group | |
ATLAS II Events Group | The Events Working Group started its work just after the final approval of the ATLAS II project and the constitution of the organizing committee. It started by proposing a rough schedule of the whole activities of the summit that has been refined during several months according to the ALAC standard works and the summit specific activities. One of the most challenging things the working group faced was the availability of the meeting rooms with the adequate size and shape. The Hilton Metropol wasn’t that large to easily accommodate the normal ICANN meeting and the At-Large Summit. Several interactions with the ICANN meeting team and a lot of effort were deployed to reach the final arrangement. The most difficult thing was to find rooms after Sunday because the meeting staff accepted to organize both the ICANN meeting and the At-Large summit in the same Hilton Metropol hotel assuming that no more rooms will be assigned to ATLAS II starting Monday except one large room on Thursday. I would like to thank Nancy and her team for their understanding and their efforts to conciliate the irreconcilable. It was a tough task, but with the willingness of finding a solution to all problems, we ended with an acceptable and workable arrangement. I would like here to mention the hard problem of the venue of the “fair of opportunities” that was supposed to be the ALAC room with the U shape tables installed. It was a real problem because what was supposed to be a relax interaction and networking space would be a crowded and locked area with no way to circulate in. The willingness of reaching the aim of the event and avoid the failure pushed us to change some parameters (date) and have a better solution. I find it the most successful achievement of our Working Group. The other task of the working group was to form the thematic groups according to the 5 themes chosen by the ALS representatives through a survey. But in Singapore, this task was handed over to Evan Leibovitch and Wolf Ludwig. |
ATLAS II Sponsors Group | Report of ATLAS II Sub-Working Group: Sponsorship
The task of this working group was to search for sponsors for complementary activities of ATLAS II. The ATLAS II base budget did not cover any meals for participants, nor did it cover any drinks, parties or non-meeting event. Furthermore, the ATLAS II Fayre was not fully covered by the Budget and certainly no funding for any promotional items, music/band, drinks etc.
The first step taken was to draft a standard sponsorship proposal that could be sent to all potential sponsors. This covered all aspects of the different types of sponsorship levels possible, the type of activity that could be sponsored and the kind of exposure a sponsor would receive in return. Sponsorship costs were kept high due to the large number of participants expected. The document also contained pictures of past ALAC and RALO events to make it appealing. The search for sponsors was started well in advance, with some sponsors being contacted 8 months before the event in order to be able to vote the sponsorship costs into their yearly sponsorship budget. As a result, larger sums of sponsorship were possible. All sponsors were contacted by email, but a follow-up was made in person at every opportunity. - ICANN 47 in Durban (preparation) - IGF in Bali (request) - ICANN 48 in Buenos Aires (follow-up) - NetMundial in Brazil - ICANN 49 in Singapore (more sponsor follow-up)
On many occasions, things went faster by going straight to the more senior attendee at the ICANN meeting in person, especially after receiving little response from a sponsor - what worked well Personal connections with senior people in the sponsor's corporations yielded a good return. When a company was serious about sponsorship, it replied quickly and made its commitment very fast indeed. Offering a sponsor a choice of different sponsorships as well as a choice of various types of events (explaining the event in detail) helped a lot with a sponsor's response. Some sponsors came up with a counter proposal. Being flexible about counter proposals helped. In one instance, a sponsor converted the offer of funding by an in-kind offer that they would organise the event themselves. In another instance, a sponsor just offered cash funding with freedom to choose what the ATLAS II Organising Committee wanted to allocate the sum for. Once connection and deal signing was done by the volunteers, At-Large Staff took over the process of accounting & funds transfer from the sponsor to the relevant budget. This was left 100% in ICANN At-Large Staff hands and worked very well. There was no need for an external bank account. - what worked less well Some sponsors did not immediately come back with feedback. They took time to reply. Representatives verbally gave their word that their company was going to fund this event to a significant level and the funds never came. If after the 3rd follow-up a company does not reply, do not waste your time - they are just giving you the run-around. Some sponsors said no but in order to deflect any sour relationship, offered to make introductions to other potential sponsors - and these sponsors came up with nothing either. Some sponsors said they would not be able to fund ATLAS II for whatever reason but would be happy sponsoring events in the future - again, this could be a deflection tactic or a truthful intent - in any case, treat all such responses with good faith and respond very positively. Do not burn bridges. ICANN initially insisted on the sponsorship levels to keep to levels that were - what did not work at all Cold calling asking for potential sponsors, without an introduction: 100% failure rate, with either a flat out refusal or mostly being ignored altogether. Do not try this unless you have a lot of time and can call companies to follow-up afterwards. Late requests for sponsorship, 2 months before the event: 100% fail. Some sponsors were confirmed barely a month before the event date, but they had already given written confirmation about the level/kind of their funding and requested for the next stage (funds transfer discussion) to take place. As soon as a sponsor is only ready to provide verbal confirmation and shies away from written confirmation, that sponsor might fail to deliver. Some sponsors funded the ICANN meeting itself and were reluctant to sponsor what was another ICANN activity in addition. ICANN refused to allocate any of the funds to ATLAS II activities after having received sponsorship from a sponsor that could be interested in sponsoring ATLAS II activities. Sponsors having already sponsored the ICANN meeting refused to ask ICANN to allocate some funds to ATLAS II from this fund as a matter or policy. The ATLAS II organising committee was therefore alone in securing sponsorship funds. - were people engaged enough? why? how? No, WG participants were not engaged at all. Searching for sponsors had to be started as soon as possible - nearly a year in advance. By the time participants joined the sponsorship working group, the sponsoring proposal document had already been drafted and was about to be sent out. Participants in the WG were too late to catch up. Also - participants in the sponsorship working group need to have several qualities: - writing and marketing skills into producing an attractive sponsorship proposal - the ability to work in bursts of activity: sponsors require quick answers hence when more information is needed about one aspect of the proposal, the WG should be able to come together and put together a complimentary document in less than a week. - a network of potential sponsors including connections at higher management level Some At-Large participants that were not part of the sponsorship working group offered excellent introductions that led to a sponsorship deal, so it is worth asking all At-Large members to help with their networks. Overall Recommendation It is important for At-Large to develop a network of trusted sponsors by follow-up after the event with the sponsor, sending them pictures of the event as well as potential documents that summarised the event, so as to make them feel part of the success of the overall ATLAS. This database of sponsors should be kept alive as institutional memory somewhere on the ATLAS Web Site, or kept in a database by Staff, or on a protected WIKI page. |
ATLAS II Logistics Group | Report of ATLAS II Sub-Working Group: Logistics The Logistics WG was supposed to beresponsible for coordinating all summit logistics such as keeping track of all attending ALSes, hotel, travel, conference rooms, interpretation services, remote connectivity, printed material, mailing lists, Wikis, invoicing and summit budget. - what worked well Most ATLAS II participants made it to London without having had to ask the Logistics WG for help. - what worked less well No members of the working group decided to pick up the task of going through the groundwork of looking through logistics details of prior meetings in the venue. Some of the local logistics were instead explained by the Communications working group. - what did not work at all? Keeping track of attending ALSes: at the end of the day this was done by At-Large Staff with the two ATLAS Co-Chairs. Keeping track of hotel, travel, conference rooms, interpretation etc. : all done by At-Large Staff. Keeping track of budget: done by At-Large Staff. Keeping track of VISA problems: because Visa problems are often personal in nature, failed visa applicants contacted the ALAC Chair and At-Large Staff who followed-up directly with the local host without sharing the information with the rest of the group on privacy grounds. - were people engaged enough? why? how? No engagement whatsoever, because none of the working group members were local to London. They therefore had no idea of any of the local logistics. Overall recommendation A logistics group should mostly be composed of people who are local to the venue's location. The group does not need to be large - it just needs to be effective. Logistical problems that are personal in nature or require privacy should not be handled by such a group and can easily be handled by named representatives, if not by the ALAC Chair & At-Large Staff, along with the meetings team.
|
ATLAS II Public Relations Group | ATLAS II Public Relations Group Summary What worked well? Success in engagement with ICANN Communications Team during the London Event Success in bridging ICANN Communications Staff with At-Large Members to create pre-event and during event short video communications and newsletter Great support from At-Large staff in assistance with connections with ICANN Communications and numerous logistics support. Our messaging as defined was clear across social media, and web site properties. What worked less well? Engagement with ICANN Communications Team prior to and post London Event. Social media, while successful could be better planned for future events. ICANN ATLAS II Website creation and maintenance was a challenge
Our plan lacked focus resulting in a reactionary communications processes Were people engaged enough? Why? How? While people were engaged in the process, execution was a challenge due to multiple roles played by the various participants at the Summit. How can we improve participation before the event? More education, based-upon issues, not geography How can we improve participation during the event?
Overall participation by At-Large folks was excellent. From a Public Relations/press perspective, we need to create stories and personalities with which the press can engage to better get the word out about the At Large role in ICANN. Increase social media presence and outreach. |
ATLAS II Return on Investment Group | August 22, 2014 Full Report Pending Several action Items including the distribution of a Survey to the attendees are under way; We still require input from each of the other Groups with both qualitative and quantitative data to include in our Post ATLAS II Report - 2014, it would be appreciated greatly if these can be soon passed on via staff or to the ATLAS II email list. |
ATLAS II Fayre of Opportunities Working Group | June 24, 2014 London, UK Event Fayre of Opportunities The Fayre of Opportunities was a huge success bringing together the RALO communities in an evening of inspiring speeches, RALO displays, guest musicians, food and drinks. Many of the RALO's also brought food and candy from their regions. The facility was ideal since the room provided a good stage for the performance and speakers. The RALO's each had table and television to showcase their activities. Some of the RALO's were great hosts in having uniform outfits and small gifts for the attendees. The only downsides to this otherwise great event was that there was not enough time for networking as there were too many speeches If any critical comments I would say that the speeches were too long Short Video http://animoto.com/play/t3t1LBFJ61hNf7tEaI0IQA Pictures of the Event https://www.flickr.com/photos/glennmcknight/sets/72157644961291308/ Video at event Fadi http://youtu.be/pb-2eh3q_uM?list=UUJA15ByE_VwRwN6gGjZhWTg Olivier , Wolfgang, Nmema http://youtu.be/jk59hcc6IPw?list=UUJA15ByE_VwRwN6gGjZhWTg Part Three |
ATLAS II Communications Working Group | First of all I have to clarify: Being one of three co chairs of ATLAS 2 Communication WG, I can only express my personal opinion. What worked well: We start our work with an enormous enthusiasm. We planed our future task following a time line, and defining what to do and how. We were very carefully managing times and things to do. My co chairs are excellent team leaders and they were fundamental in this part of our tasks.
What worked less well – Maybe we were unaware at the beggining about staff times, and our obligation to adapt to it. also adapt our work to staff tecnology standards and protocols. Maybe our main fault was lack of experience on this issues.
What did not work at all – I'm sure (my personal opinion) the relationship between co chairs and staff, was the worst thing in the development of our work in charge. But in this conflict there was two parts, so the responsability also was shared, and we (chairs) did not know or could solve it obstacle.
Were people engaged enough? why? how? –.yes . at the beginning WG had many people, of all regions, involved and engaged. later, the commitment and participation declined. I personally think, the consequence was many changes made in our original time line, due lack of coordination with staff members. On This lack of coordination we (chairs and WG) always had to adapt and never backwards, the main responsibility in my opinion was of the staff members and their enormous quantity of work for this event, and their incapacity to coordinate all their tasks at the same time.
How can we improve participation before the event? - I think, our main fault was lack of experience working with staff, their times and protocols. In my opinion future events, first, they need an staff clarification about what are the rules that WG must adopt.
How can we improve participation during the event? I think the mutual respect, is definetely the main factor to improve participation during all events. Respecting the previous work of others is another way to improve participation.
My final observations are: ATLAS 2 Communication WG reached aims proposed. Previous hard work done by WG members was not respected by some Staff members. Lack of experience in WG chairs, and incapacity of staff to respect other opinions could be the resume of this history. Hopefully this experience (nor bad nor good) can serve for future events. |
ATLAS II Mentoring Program Working Group | ATLAS II Mentoring Program WG Summary What worked well?
What worked less well?
Were people engaged enough? Why? How? In general people were engaged with the Program. We had some resistance prior to the Meeting because some people did not understand the main objective of this Mentoring Program. Then when they understood that we wanted to build community and help newcomer members to take advantage of the ICANN meeting and the roles of the Mentors and Mentees, the collaboration and participation in the Program increased. Several At-Large experienced members started the communication with their groups 2 or 3 weeks before the meeting and shared not only theoretical knowledge about At-Large and ICANN but also practical tips to take advantage of the meeting and build their own networks. After the meeting in general there was a lack of engagement of Mentees. They did not upload the report of their participation in the Program. This means that at this time we cannot follow up on their learning of the meeting and the Program. How can we improve participation before the event?
How can we improve participation during the event?
|
ATLAS II Thematic Group Reports
| Thematic Group | Report |
|---|---|
Thematic Group 1: The Future of Multi-Stakeholder Models | With regards to TG1, this is how I feel things developed:
1.- What worked well?
I think that the subject of TG1 was itself appealing enough to gather a huge crowd around it and discussion was easily sparked. This was not only an advantage but also a challenge in terms of organizing the discussion and focusing on the subject rather than losing focus as a consequence of having too many people involved and with everyone wanting to comment on the subject. Breaking into smaller groups helped with this challenge and also helped to produce an output that was sufficiently complete in terms of reflecting the wide variety of contributions from the different sub-groups but brief enough to make it concrete and easily understandable to people outside the WG.
2.-What worked less well
I feel we can improve the way participants not only engage but follow the discussion and stay in the room. I felt that, at times, we went from a full room to a mid-empty room. Another area where we can improve is in coordinating the expected outcome document for each TG. The final exercise of consolidating all output documents was rather difficult in terms of trying to find a single format and approach into a single document. This could’ve been easier if between moderators and rapporteurs of all TGs had had a coordination call or a brief meeting before or even while we were conducting the sessions. This would’ve helped to have a uniform format and an easier final consolidation exercise.
3.- What did not work at all
I don’t feel that there was something that didn’t work at all. However, I have a feeling that what worked least well in case of TG1 was the contribution of the SME and in my case my understanding of the role I was supposed to play. I understood that as a moderator I was responsible for conducting the session, sparking discussion, leading it so it wouldn’t get out of focus and coordinating with the rapporteurs the way we were going to build the document. All of this under the assumption (wrongly made by me) that the SME would provide with materials, speakers and a proposed agenda for the TG discussion. What really happened is that I misunderstood my role and kept waiting for the SME to provide what I thought he had to provide but came to a point in which we could wait no longer and had to take over and do all what I expected the SME to do, myself. I felt like there wasn’t enough engagement by our SME. I would have expected him to have a more active role but maybe that was my mistake and lesson learned.
4.- Were people engaged enough? why? how?
I believe we had a good level of engagement in an overall assessment. We had members that were hugely engaged as well as members that weren’t engaged at all. It was interesting to see how there was a mix of both experimented and not-so-experimented members that were highly engaged because they felt they had something to contribute and had the good will to do so, while there were other members whom, by their vast experience, would’ve been thought to be more engaged but ended not only not being engaged but critical of the work done by the TG. When I say critical I mean they criticize the work not in a constructive but a rather negative way.
5.- How can we improve participation before the event?
With capacity building. I saw a lot of people engaged but having average or poor contributions due to a lack of understanding of the subject at the level needed or expected for the outcome document.
6.- How can we improve participation during the event?
- Regulating temperature of the AC system. I found that this was, believe it or not, one of the main reasons for people leaving the room at some time (or so they said).
- Having people rotate the role their having in the TG. For example having different people as rapporteurs during the discussions will help all group members engage, at a certain point, in the subject because they will have the responsibility of reporting the work of the group. This helps fostering participation among those who are either shy or lazy.
- Asking each ATLAS participant to file a personal report on the activities. This will help having people stay in the rooms and engaging with discussion. My experience as a participant of the Fellowship program is that if you tie the stipend/per diem you give to people to this report, you can improve the participation and outcome in a significant level.
I hope these comments help improve our future work. I would’ve loved to have the comments from my co-moderators, rapporteurs and SME but I didn’t get reply, as of this time, from them to an e-mail I sent them asking for their thoughts.
Here my humble report on Thematic Group 1 – The future of Multistackeholder models : What worked well: First of all, I want remark the excellent work done by the people in charge to manage discussion. I think this was a point in favor for this TG. The Labour made by Leon, Evan & Rafid was superlative. Second point to have in account and wich was part of the success of this group: the great level of knowledge of the Thematic Group participants. Lastly in this short resume, I think only one topic generated discussion, this was the concept of multistackeholder model, but this obstacle was solve inmediatly by capacity of the participants as I said before. We had a very constructive, deep and rich dialogue. So, what worked well: the excellent work of TG leaders and participants together contributed to build great and clear debate. What worked less well – I think the only mistake or bad election was the tool to communicate among participants at preparation of final document time. Is the only black point in the TG, but wasn`t important at the end. Finally Evan as reporter was incredible and the final document very good. What did not work at all – Everything work well, maybe could be better but limited times conspired with this. Maybe more discussion could be better to clarify some complex point, specially for new participants. Were people engaged enough? why? how? – yes . debate room was full of people during discussion, and representing a many end users sectors and with diversity and multicultural perspective. How can we improve participation before the event? - I think, and is something that I repeat always, to improve participation is needed a well directioned Outreach. I think each region need to work in outreach independent of ICANN work on this sense, ALSs are who better known the field and needs, and also know how to do with less budget, also some ALSs have people prepared and ready to serve as mentor and teacher for new participants. How can we improve participation during the event? Participation during event will be good, if the selection of TG leaders result good. I think is very important to have a good leader with experience to manage this kind of discussions, giving time and importance to every proposal made into TG, and to know when cut the discussions. Also is important to see who are participating into WG, and if they respect diversity, gender and multiculturalism. |
Thematic Group 2: The Globalization of ICANN | 1.- What worked well? We took advantage of the availability of a guest who brought real life experiences and challenges as a Case Study Michele Neylon was able to join us as special expert for constitutional and legal mechanisms relating to the RAA in particular (and with a uniquely practical focus from his EU based Registrar operator point of view) so we lead off with that question, to act as topic 'ice breaker' and to complement the excellent work and contributions of our SME's 2.-What worked less well? Not being able to conduct our sessions as planned was an annoyance and irritation but we adapted and it did not impede. This is however no doubt because of the skills and experiences of the Leadership and the Group Members themselves. 3.- What did not work at all? The room set up was FAR from desirable and conducive to our planned activities and barely able to be made work as well as it did considering the close quarters and in the round set up in such a small space force us to stay as a single Group rather than any sub groups as planned, we had also wanted to use the very successful 'fish-bowl' discussion technique but that was impossible given the room circumstances... We did however adapt. 4.- Were people engaged enough? why? how? Yes we had a well attended and active group of attendees who did differ to some extent over the 2 days but that included a wide diversity and cross section of our the At-Large Community and included 'old hands' and 'new people', engagement was very interactive in a open yet structured to sub theme question debates and discussions that were inclusive balanced and well managed by the Leadership as well as embraced by the audience. 5.- How can we improve participation before the event? To some extent improved participation will happen because the process will be a known not an unknown one in the community, but we should also test the use of pre event activities, (webinars white paper or straw man projects etc.,) to be run sufficiently in advance but not too far out from the activity, as well as look at some online platforms for collaboration and discussion in preparatory mode for the Groups assuming they can be formed and established far enough in advance. 6.- How can we improve participation during the event? Better participation both in number and contribution can build on the experiences of this 1st effort and develop both expectations of and by our attendees as well as ensure that all roles but critically those of the SME's, Moderators Reporters and any Sub Team Leaders have the benefit of training and shared experiences that will allow for good preparation as well as some streamlining of outcomes. AND to ensure active remote participation and real time collaborative tools are utilized in future events. |
Thematic Group 3: Global Internet: The User Perspective | Feedback on ATLAS 2 session (TG 3) What worked well -Subject Matter Experts provided quality value added comments - Core team meet during the evenings to work extensively to assess the notes and summarize the core ideas
-Lack of process and well defined duties -Despite efforts to have pre-meetings before the Atlas 2 session the facilitator would not attend No pre meetings before we arrived in London with the team and so was difficult to get a good sense of what the Facilitator wanted to do. We needed to have at least 1-2 meetings prior to arrival in London so we could understand how the facilitator or chair's plan for the two full days of the Thematic Group. -Lack of repetition of the key tasks, Rule of thumb is telling people three times the key tasks to assure results -Day One facilitation was more confrontation style What did not work at all? -Expectation that a summary to be provided to audience immediately after lunch without any warning. This was announced in the beginning but because of no communication with reporters or thematic groups leaders it was not feasible. -Lack of full participation -Room layout wasn't conducive to equal discussion and a free flow of ideas We had one of the largest rooms with a large group setup in a classroom format The vast majority of participants didn't speak up during the session -The facilitators should have engaged silent majority directly to speak up on the topics -One suggestion was to break up into small groups and encourage summaries from their discussion; however, because of interpretation issues we were not able to do this. -Small groups organized into linguistic groups with a bilingual reporter. This was a good idea but we had people with from different linguistic groups who were interested in different smaller groups and the only way to do this was to have translators in each of these groups and because this was not possible we were not able to do this.
-Direct questions to individuals for their comment so no one is silent |
Thematic Group 4: ICANN Transparency and Accountability | What worked well: The topics did generate lots of discussion, including some disagreement, which generated further, constructive dialogue. I found splitting the group into smaller groups, with each group reporting back meant everyone was actively involved in the discussions and debates.
What worked less well - the actual venue, in that it was one small room without a lot of room for different groups to hold their discussions. But that is simply what was available, so we made the best of it. (as one does)
What really made life a bit more difficult was that the reporter (Alan) simply had too much on his plate and wasn’t there a lot of the time. My session experts were also not there. Avri didn’t attend at all - which she had already telegraphed, and Hong wasn’t there for close to half the time. In future, if people put hands up, they should commit to being there. Chester was a huge help - he stepped in and was an excellent reporter.
Yes people were engaged - splitting people into smaller groups really helps with engaging people. Some people did have other meetings to go to, but enough stayed around (or came back when they could) so that there was real involvement - which is my suggestion for participation on the day (that, and making sure those who are supposed to be reporters/moderators etc can attend for most if not all of the discussion).
I’m not sure how to improve participation before hand - up for discussion
As to time pressures - accountability and transparency was a big topic. We tried to deal with both, but we took time defining the task, agreeing on terminology and then were pressed for time to come up with recommendations.
In future, possibly better defining (or confining) topics may help. |
Thematic Group 5: At-Large Community Engagement in ICANN | 1. What worked well?
- Whilist TG5 was a small group, the diversity and the sustained interest of the At-Large members worked well, even after the 2 day formal meetings of TG5 on Saturday and Sunday. - SMEs offered invaluable insights on the topic and issues raised. - Rapporteurs did well to capture the points raised and to put the myriad of points into a initial form for the rest us to rev - using Google Docs for others to members to simultaneously review and edit the document worked well especially after the 2 day formal TG5 meetings.
2. What worked less well
- the unavailability of one of the SME on Saturday (Murray). - the unavailability of one of the SME on Sunday (Stéphane Van Gelder). - the inability to adjust the room temperature which got really cold on Sunday and was a distraction in the period before lunch. - lack of a spare room for TG5 to meet to discuss and review the TG5 document on Monday and Tuesday.
3. What did not work at all
Perhaps not "did not work at all" but the lack of another formal session for the TG5 might have helped finalise the document quicker, instead of scrambling on Wednesday morning. would have helped expecting that two days of formal sessions alone would have been sufficient to allow for a statement by the group to be ready by Wednesday. However, I realise this was difficult given ICANN's packed schedule.
4.- Were people engaged enough? why? how?
Intially, persons were somewhat tepid, during the first few hours, but this passed as more and more persons relaxed to ask questions and offer opinions. Initially, I was concerned that a lot of time was being taken with Stephane's presentations on Saturday but this might have given enough time for the group to reflect on the issues and to get more comfortable with speaking on the issues. I was impressed and heartened by the tenacity of the members who colloborated and discussed after the main TG sessions to review (and re-review) TG5's output document.
5.- How can we improve participation before the event?
- earlier group preparation. A lot was rushed during the last 2 weeks before the ICANN meeting, but more time, could have meant having a conference call and deeper discussion with the TG5 Team (SME, Moderators, Reporters, etc) and for conference calls with all the TG5 members for all to be better prepared on the subject matter.
6.- How can we improve participation during the event?
Lack of interpretation meant that non English speaking persons interested in TG5 discussions could not be in this TG. So having interpretation would have attracted a greater diversity of persons and perspectives. |
