Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] Updated version of Policy & Implementation WG Charter - Holly's comments

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Effective solutions to problems cannot be found if the WG does not consider the 
events from which the problem arose. I think we seem to be in agreement on 
that. If you don't agree that my example is one of those problems, that's fine 
and even expected. I am not suggesting we include specific examples or rehash 
them. It was simply "my" example that lead to why I think Alan's question 
should be included, but modified as I suggested. To be clearer, that question 
might be:

In order to maintain multi-stakeholder processes, once policy moves to 
implementation how should the community be involved in a way that is meaningful 
and effective?

Tim


On Jun 23, 2013, at 6:11 PM, "Jordyn Buchanan" <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> While I know that some of the impetus for the Policy and
> Implementation work came from a specific set of events, I'm not sure
> we're going to get to the best outcomes in either the drafting team or
> the eventual working group by either framing the work around those
> events, or by spending too much time revisiting those debates.  It is
> helpful to look at what has worked well in the past and what hasn't,
> but this will require a broader survey of past efforts and we really
> should look just as hard at good examples as problematic ones.
> 
> I also think we're in danger of getting into the weeds a bit here
> working through some of the substantive issues rather than framing the
> scope of the working group.  We shouldn't necessarily be assuming what
> the outcomes of the WG are going to look like; rather, we should make
> sure they're chartered to look at the right problems.
> 
> Returning to the first two assumptions that Chuck and I laid out
> around the WG's mission, it seems to me that there's way more low
> hanging fruit around getting the stuff that happens after a policy is
> adopted (a.k.a. "implementation") to work effectively and consistently
> rather than attempting to grapple with topics like how the GNSO is
> structured, which feel like quagmires and are already properly in the
> scope of the GNSO review.  I'm hoping that, to the extent people feel
> strongly about some of this stuff, we can at least agree to structure
> the charter in a way that the WG can start off creating some structure
> where there is none before attempting to grapple with these much more
> challenging issues.  One of the key failings of our policy vs.
> implementation debate is that tons of people believe the policy-making
> progress is fundamentally broken.  Let's prove them wrong by
> chartering a WG that can get some useful stuff done.
> 
> Jordyn
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I like that question and agree it should be in the charter. That said:
>> 
>> I also want to note that as part of the new gTLD PDP there were a number of
>> off shoot WGs that dealt with different issues. One WG that I was on was
>> tasked with determining if additional protection mechanisms were needed to
>> fulfill one of the PDP principals. There was clearly NO consensus that any
>> were needed and I believe the majority agreed that none were needed with
>> only the Business and IP constituents not agreeing.
>> 
>> Of course those are powerful constituents with a lot of money and influence
>> so the issue did not die there and they continued to lobby the Board, the
>> GAC, the US Capitol Hill, etc. until they got what they wanted. And while
>> some may point out that those issues ultimately came back to the GNSO for
>> resolution, they came back as "this will happen, and this is your chance to
>> have some say as to how." So you can call that MSM if you want, you can call
>> it implementation if you want. In reality it was an override of what the
>> majority of the community had already decided. It was a modification of the
>> policy established by legitimate MSM mechanisms.
>> 
>> So Alan's comment, "Once it moves to implementation, if the policy has not
>> been specified in excruciating detail, this too needs to involve the
>> community, perhaps in more of a consultative mode." is one I also strongly
>> agree with buy beyond just consultative. The community needs to be involved
>> in a meaningful and effective way to avoid powerful, wealthy special
>> interest groups from capturing the process.
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 22, 2013, at 10:12 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> Alan,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> You make some excellent points in a very articulate manner. I agree that the
>> “entire current policy vs implementation debate (can) be a red herring” and
>> I think it is therefore important that the charter help the WG avoid that.
>> I also think that you are right on in saying, “to the extent that
>> implementation is making decision which have substantive impact on what the
>> final product does or how stakeholders are impacted, we need to maintain the
>> MSM”.  I think it is true that “at some level "implementation" is really
>> just that, the details and mechanics of moving something from a piece of
>> paper to reality” and that may be a good start in defining implementation,
>> but it is critical that the MSM continue throughout that process.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Finally, with regard to your last paragraph on policy staff involvement, I
>> wonder if another question we should add to the charter is the following or
>> something like it:  “Should policy staff be involved through the
>> implementation process to facilitate continuity of the MSM process that
>> already occurred?”
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Chuck
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
>> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 8:44 PM
>> To: Mike O'Connor; gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] Updated version of Policy & Implementation
>> WG Charter - Holly's comments
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Mikey,
>> 
>> My thoughts on this have changed significantly over the past weeks. I said a
>> bit of this on the call last week, but I will try to expand it here.
>> 
>> I think that the entire current policy vs implementation debate is a red
>> herring and a diversion. If multi-stakeholderism has any meaning, there
>> cannot be a sharp line drawn where it suddenly ceases to be important.
>> Certainly, at some level "implementation" is really just that, the details
>> and mechanics of moving something from a piece of paper to reality. But to
>> the extent that implementation is making decision which have substantive
>> impact on what the final product does or how stakeholders are impacted, we
>> need to maintain the MSM.
>> 
>> If we take the new gTLD program as an example, for reasons of exhaustion or
>> based on careful thought, many of the PDP recommendations were very general.
>> Moreover, the PDP came out with "principles" which implies that there will
>> be substantive decisions made moving to a real-life implementation. If the
>> PDP task Force had chosen to specify things in more details, we would have
>> taken that as "policy". Since they didn't, it is implementation. ut that
>> does not alter the need for community involvement in the ensuing decisions.
>> 
>> Moreover, if we look at the process which took us from the PDP Recs accepted
>> by the Board, to the final launch of the program, we find that this WAS a
>> consultative process. When the IRT recommendations failed to receive strong
>> support, and the staff proposal for a URS and TMCH had even less support,
>> the GNSO was given the task of pulling together this "implementation" issue.
>> 
>> So yes, at some point things become implementation when the mechanics are
>> put in place. But what we are currently calling implementation is at a far
>> higher level.
>> 
>> Now, there *IS* a difference based on how we do it today. *Policy" is
>> developed by the GNSO essentially as an independent exercise with minimal
>> involvement from non-policy staff (although Fadi has correctly declared that
>> these folks can no longer ignore the process). Once it moves to
>> implementation, if the policy has not been specified in excruciating detail,
>> this too needs to involve the community, perhaps in more of a consultative
>> mode.
>> 
>> Alan
>> 
>> At 6/21/2013 11:59 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>> 
>> i've had a go at smashing together the lists of questions that Greg and i
>> came up with -- and "clump" them a bit.  see what you think of this.  Greg,
>> this especially means you -- i always worry that i've lost essential meaning
>> when i rework stuff like this.  no editorial pride, please fix anything you
>> find broken.
>> 
>> Questions
>> 
>>  Why does it matter if something is “policy” or “implementation”?
>> 
>>     What are the consequences of an action being considered “policy” vs.
>> “implementation?
>>     What happens if you change those consequences?
>>     How do we avoid the current morass of outcome-derived labeling (i.e., I
>> will call this policy because I want certain consequences/”handling
>> instructions” to be attached to it)?
>>     Can we answer these questions so the definitions of “policy” and
>> “implementation” matter less, if at all?
>> 
>>  What are the flavors of “policy” and what consequences should attach to
>> each flavor?
>> 
>>     Are policy and implementation on a spectrum rather than binary?
>>     What options are available for policy and implementation efforts and
>> what are the criteria for determining which should be used?
>> 
>>  Who determines the choice between whether something is policy or
>> implementation?
>> 
>>     How is policy set/recommended/adopted and do different paths lead to
>> different “flavors”?
>>     Who makes these determinations and how?
>>     How are the policy vs implementation decisions reviewed and approved?
>>     What happens if the reviewing bodies come to a deadlock?
>> 
>>  What is the process by which this identification, analysis, review and
>> approval work is done?
>> 
>>     How are "policy and implementation" issues first identified (before,
>> during and after implementation)?
>>       What is the role of the GNSO in implementation?
>>     What is the role of the GNSO vs. the GNSO Council in setting policy?
>> 
>> On Jun 21, 2013, at 8:52 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I agree that the list of questions should not be considered to be
>> exhaustive.  I wonder if we should treat some questions as mandatory (or at
>> least strongly encouraged) and others as optional as well as encouraging the
>> WG to create additional questions.  It seems to me that it would be really
>> important for some questions to be answered by the WG; if we make them
>> optional, there is the risk that they won’t be addressed.
>> 
>> Chuck
>> 
>> From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
>> gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
>> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:59 PM
>> To: gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] Updated version of Policy & Implementation
>> WG Charter - Holly's comments
>> 
>> i'm fine with staying with "policy and implementation" -- and i think this
>> has been a useful conversation.
>> 
>> i like Greg's questions too -- and would be fine including them in the
>> charter as representative of the questions the WG should take up.  but i
>> wouldn't want to treat them as an exhaustive or complete list.
>> 
>> many charters include a series of questions for the WG to answer -- and we
>> could do the same with this charter.  or we could leave the WG the
>> flexibility to come up with questions on their own, especially during the
>> part of the work where it is reviewing the past and trying to extract
>> lessons-learned.  given that we're a small Drafting Team working under a
>> tight deadline, my leaning is to let the WG build its own questions.  that's
>> why i decided to leave my little series of questions out of the charter --
>> it seems like the charter as written give the WG the flexibility to pick up
>> my questions, Greg's questions and other questions yet to be developed.
>> 
>> mikey
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 20, 2013, at 1:30 PM, WUKnoben < wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Let’s stay with “policy and implementation” simply since the GNSO council
>> mandated us by using this phrase.
>> 
>> I agree that all the questions mentioned by Greg should be discussed by the
>> WG we’re going to charter. What we’re talking about are policies which are
>> based on a PDP and policies which have been developed through other
>> “processes” (it could be just 1 step). Inherent to all these kinds of
>> processes is their need for implementation.
>> There is the interaction aspect between policy and implementation which
>> should be reflected in the charter as well as the impact om implementation
>> on policy (development).
>> 
>> 
>> Therefore clear definitions are essential
>> 
>> Best regards
>> 
>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
>> 
>> From: Gomes, Chuck
>> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 7:12 PM
>> To: Shatan, Gregory S. ; gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] Updated version of Policy & Implementation
>> WG Charter - Holly's comments
>> 
>> I agree with Greg a lot in his ‘bigger questions’ paragraph.  He raises some
>> really good questions.  Should some of those be added to the charter?  I
>> tend to think that might be a good idea.
>> 
>> Chuck
>> 
>> From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
>> gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Shatan, Gregory S.
>> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 12:30 PM
>> To: gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] Updated version of Policy & Implementation
>> WG Charter - Holly's comments
>> 
>> It is the view of some, but by no means all, that “the development or
>> modification of policy under the guise of ‘implementation details’” has
>> occurred.  I would submit that what has occurred in those instances is an
>> attempt to halt the development or modification of implementation by
>> attempting to recast it as “policy.”  Without definitions of “policy” and
>> “implementation,” no one can say who’s right and who’s wrong.  This is where
>> history has brought us, and I think this group is here to avoid having
>> history repeat itself.
>> 
>> “What is policy” and “What is implementation” are important questions, but
>> they are small questions in a sense.  They assume that the answers matter
>> because they will plug into the current framework or branching variable sets
>> used for “policy” and “implementation.”  As long as this is the case, policy
>> vs. implementation will just be a tug of war to bring a task into one set of
>> outcomes or the other.
>> 
>> The bigger questions are more interesting.  Why does it matter if something
>> is “policy” or “implementation”? What are the consequences of an action
>> being considered “policy” vs. “implementation?  What happens if you change
>> those consequences?  What are the flavors of “policy” and what consequences
>> should attach to each flavor?  How is policy set/recommended/adopted and do
>> different paths lead to different “flavors”?  How do we avoid the current
>> morass of outcome-derived labeling (i.e., I will call this policy because I
>> want certain consequences/”handling instructions” to be attached to it)?
>> Are policy and implementation on a spectrum rather than binary?  What is the
>> role of the GNSO in implementation?  What is the role of the GNSO vs. the
>> GNSO Council in setting policy?  Can we answer these questions so the
>> definitions of “policy” and “implementation” matter less, if at all?
>> 
>> That said, I don’t particularly care whether the WG is “Policy &
>> Implementation” or “Policy vs. Implementation”.  I think the first implies a
>> broader set of tasks and outcomes for the WG and would tend to support it.
>> However, I think we are here because ICANN history is riddled with battles
>> over “policy vs. implementation”.
>> 
>> Greg
>> 
>> From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
>> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:51 AM
>> To: Gomes, Chuck
>> Cc: Mike O'Connor; gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] Updated version of Policy & Implementation
>> WG Charter - Holly's comments
>> 
>> I don't care either way as long as an important underlying goal is not lost
>> - not allowing the development or modification of policy under the guise of
>> "implementation details." That is the primary motivation that got the GNSO
>> Council interested in this issue.
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 20, 2013, at 9:41 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> Based on the conversations on the Council and in other settings I think the
>> leaning was to say ‘policy and implementation’ because ‘policy v.
>> implementation’ implies it is one against the other, a situation that isn’t
>> necessarily true.  I support this view.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Chuck
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx [
>> mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
>> 
>> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 9:20 AM
>> 
>> To: gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] Updated version of Policy & Implementation
>> WG Charter - Holly's comments
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> hi Marika,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> this is really helpful and i support your suggested wording, with one
>> incredible nitpick editing suggestion.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> i think it would be helpful to replace the slash "/" in your bullet 1 with a
>> word.  Avri and i had a riotous off-list conversation as to whether this
>> effort is called "policy vs implementation" (my words) or "policy AND
>> implementation" (the words that show up everywhere else).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> i gently prefer "policy versus implementation" because it implies that this
>> is about the exploring how the choice between various courses of action are
>> defined and implemented.  "Policy AND implementation" can be interpreted
>> much more broadly, which may not be what was intended.  i don't have a
>> strong preference here and can happily live with our current wording.  but i
>> think "policy / implementation" is ambiguous -- plus i bet that non-native
>> English speakers will be confused by that construct.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> see?  one character.  this may be a personal-best smallest-nitpick for me.
>> :-)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> thanks,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> mikey
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 20, 2013, at 6:10 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx >
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Following further conversations with Holly, I would like you to consider the
>> following rewording of the mission & scope section to address the points
>> raised by Holly in her original email (note that Holly supports these as
>> reworded):
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Policy & Implementation Working Group is tasked to provide the GNSO
>> Council with a set of recommendations on:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 1.     A set of principles that would underpin any GNSO policy /
>> implementation related discussions;
>> 
>> 2.     Recommendations on a process for providing GNSO “Policy Guidance”,
>> including criteria for when it would be appropriate to use such a process
>> instead of a GNSO Policy Development Process;
>> 
>> 3.     A framework for implementation related discussions related to GNSO
>> Policy Recommendations, including criteria for when something is to be
>> considered policy and when it should be considered implementation, and;
>> 
>> 4.     Further guidance on how GNSO Implementation Review Teams are expected
>> to function and operate.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please feel free to share any additional comments and/or edits you may have
>> on this section or other parts of the draft charter with the mailing list.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> With best regards,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Marika
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx >
>> 
>> Date: Thursday 20 June 2013 09:28
>> 
>> To: Holly Raiche < h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "
>> gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx" < gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] Updated version of Policy & Implementation
>> WG Charter - Holly's comments
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Holly, just a question of clarification, your proposed edits seem to have
>> removed two objectives that were identified by the GNSO Council as needing
>> to be included as a minimum, namely:
>> 
>> Recommendations on a process for providing GNSO "Policy Guidance"
>> 
>> A framework for implementation related discussions related to GNSO Policy
>> Recommendations
>> 
>> Was that intentionally?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> In relation to your proposed addition 'Recommendations on  how to determine
>> whe[n] a policy should only be finalised through a PDP process and when it
>> can be determined by a less formal process', Annex A of the ICANN Bylaws
>> already states that 'If the GNSO is conducting activities that are not
>> intended to result in a Consensus Policy, the Council may act through other
>> processes'. The main issue (at least from my perspective) is that there
>> currently are no formal 'other processes' by which such other activities,
>> that are not intended to result in consensus policies, can be carried out.
>> The GNSO has used various ad-hoc processes in the past (with varying degrees
>> of success), but as these processes do not have any formal standing under
>> the current Bylaws or GNSO Operating Procedures, there is also no formal
>> requirement for the ICANN Board to recognise these recommendations in a
>> similar way as they are required to do for PDP recommendations (see section
>> 9 of Annex A). Hence, the importance of developing such other processes,
>> such as "GNSO Policy Guidance", to allow for other mechanisms to develop
>> GNSO non-consensus policy recommendations.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> With best regards,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Marika
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Holly Raiche < h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> 
>> Date: Thursday 20 June 2013 01:53
>> 
>> To: " gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx" < gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
>> 
>> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx >
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] Updated version of Policy & Implementation
>> WG Charter - Holly's comments
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks everyone for the comments, particularly Marika for turning the
>> document around so quickly.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> As we agreed at the last meeting, what we need to lock in by the next
>> meeting is the Mission and Scope.  Once that is done, we can move on to the
>> objectives and goals (noting how little time we have for both).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> With that in mind, I'd like to clarify the  suggested Mission and Scope
>> statement, reflecting where we got to at the last meeting.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> And my recollection is that there was still discussion on what is 'policy' -
>> not that this DT will define it, but that it is an issues.  Specifically,
>> there was discussion arising from the 'Framework" document on policy -
>> anything from the more formal 'policy' decisions made through a PDP process
>> to the less formal 'policy' as procedure.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> AS Chuck has said in his most recent comments, 'all processes, policy and
>> implementation and the framework for interaction between the two need to be
>> multi-stakeholder.  so our scope is clearly beyond just policy as PDP.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> So may I suggest the following as a revised Mission and Scope:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Key Assumptions:
>> 
>> Processes for the development of a formal policy through the PDP process are
>> well understood
>> 
>> Processes for determining whether the development of a policy should be
>> undertaken through a PDP process or a less formal process are not well
>> understood
>> 
>> The process for determining when a policy has been decided and the remaining
>> task is to implement the policy is not well defined
>> 
>> All processes, policy and implementation and the framework for interaction
>> between the two need to be multi-stakeholder
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Mission for the WG:
>> 
>> The Policy & Implementation Working Group is tasked to provide the GNSO
>> Council with a recommendations on:
>> 
>> 1.     Principles that underpin any GNSO policy / implementation related
>> discussions;
>> 
>> 2.     Recommendations on  how to determine whe a policy should only be
>> finalised through a PDP process and when it can be determined by a less
>> formal process;
>> 
>> 3.     A framework for determining when an issue is about 'policy' and when
>> the issue has progressed to the implementation of policy, and;
>> 
>> 4.     Further guidance on how GNSO Implementation Review Teams are expected
>> to function and operate.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I realise that the text will take discussion, but my fear is that, unless we
>> put the issues into the Mission and Scope section, they will be lost.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Holly
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
>> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> * * *
>> 
>> 
>> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may
>> well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on
>> notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then
>> delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for
>> any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for
>> your cooperation.
>> 
>> * * *
>> 
>> 
>> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you
>> that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice
>> contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended
>> or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding
>> penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local
>> provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
>> tax-related matters addressed herein.
>> Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
>> 
>> 
>> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
>> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
>> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)