<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=gb2312">
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><base href="x-msg://201/"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"MS PGothic";
panose-1:2 11 6 0 7 2 5 8 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@MS PGothic";
panose-1:2 11 6 0 7 2 5 8 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"MS PGothic","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:JA;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"MS PGothic","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:JA;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:438449413;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-265753300 67698705 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:637801394;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-265753300 67698705 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Dear Ken,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Thank you for the excellent efforts. In following your various email exchanges with Committee members I noted (from below) the following: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>3. The PDP is a complex, multi-step process in its own right and probably should be evaluated exhaustively, but separately, via survey or other method. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>On the last point, we were looking for a set of questions that a WG might address collectively vs. individually. Perhaps a separate questionnaire could be developed that would delve deeply into the PDP methodology itself and could be administered to all or a random sample of appropriate WGs. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Most of us on this list will agree with you that PDPs are complex. For my part, I would like us to keep our eye on the ball vis-à-vis establishing an assessment questionnaire that is more one-size-fits-all as opposed to different questionnaires for different purposes. Better to try to compare apples to apples as best we can. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>PDP methodology is pushing the limits, in my view, in terms of what we are looking for now.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>My two cents (as a member, rather than Chair).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>RA<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Ron Andruff<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>RNA Partners<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><a href="http://www.rnapartners.com"><span style='color:#0563C1'>www.rnapartners.com</span></a> <o:p></o:p></span></b></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Ken Bour<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 18, 2013 15:05<br><b>To:</b> 'Mike O'Connor'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<br><b>Cc:</b> 'Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN)'<br><b>Subject:</b> RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Mikey:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Based upon the way I have designed the WG Self-Assessment, the PROCESS dimension is intended to refer to the WG¡¯s internal operations (norms, logistics, decision-making, etc.). In that framework, I would consider the PDP to be an INPUT to the WG (imposed methodology) and, based upon your earlier comments, I attempted to cover it generically in the 1<sup>st</sup> question of Section II. If a WG member found that the PDP (or any other requirement/constraint) was detrimental to the team¡¯s ability to accomplish its mission, he/she could address it in Section II of the questionnaire. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I would recommend that the WG Self-Assessment instrument not be a means for evaluating the PDP (per se) for three reasons: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>1)<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The WG Guidelines and Charter Template (source documents) do not specifically integrate the PDP within the WG process scope; rather, the PDP is specified as part of the ICANN Bylaws. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>2)<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Not all WGs deal with PDP issues, which would mean that any such questions would have to be skipped for some percentage of respondents. The WG Guidelines mention the PDP, but only as an example of the type of methodology that may be imposed upon a WG chartered to address a domain name policy issue. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>3)<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The PDP is a complex, multi-step process in its own right and probably should be evaluated exhaustively, but separately, via survey or other method. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailEndCompose"></a><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>On the last point, we were looking for a set of questions that a WG might address collectively vs. individually. Perhaps a separate questionnaire could be developed that would delve deeply into the PDP methodology itself and could be administered to all or a random sample of appropriate WGs. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Ken<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> <a href="mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org">owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org">mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Mike O'Connor<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, June 14, 2013 11:12 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org">gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org</a><br><b>Cc:</b> Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN); Ken Bour<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>hi Ken,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>see? sometimes i'm not so lightning fast in my replies.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>this is looking really good. i've got just a little bit i'd like to see us work into the "Processes" section. is there a way to get a question or two in there that gives participants a chance to talk about the PDP process? we've got decision-making methodology (consensus) in there already, maybe this question/LO is closely related to that? looking back at the projects that the SCI is working on (method to suspend/end a WG is a good example), i think some feedback on the *structure* of the PDP would be helpful.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>for example, we have a lot of comment-periods (and subsequent reviews of those comments) built into the PDP right now. Marika laid all those end to end one time and came up with a minimum time to get through a PDP that's pretty long. it would be nice to start getting feedback from WG participants as to whether they felt that those were all needed and whether they were helpful to the work of the WG. i'm seeing a transition in the way that WG's review those comments. at first, the review felt like a burden that we had to get through because it was a requirement imposed on us by the PD. more recently those comment-reviews have been a really good source of discussion-points and preliminary language that we've woven into initial and final reports. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>if we stick with that example, there's a process-definition dimension (have we got the right number of comment-periods?) and a process-effectiveness dimension (did the WG effectively make use of those comments in doing their analysis?). both are important. we don't want to change a good process that's being badly carried out, in that case we want to improve the effectiveness of the WG participants. we DO want to review a bad process even though the WG has implemented it well if that badly-defined process is hurting effectiveness and timeliness. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>one reason i picked that particular example is because there's a lot of pressure to become "more agile" in the PDP right now. what this often turns into is a shorthand for "do it faster!" and, since the comment/review cycles are fixed/required that sometimes means that the only place to shorten the process is the deliberative portion of the WG's work. it would be nice to be able to get some data from participants that might give an early indication that something needs to change there. that analysis would also be helpful in the "let's not break/bypass the bottom-up process" and "policy vs implementation" conversations that are going on at the moment.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>thanks Ken -- really like where this is headed.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>mikey<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Ken Bour <<a href="mailto:ken.bour@verizon.net">ken.bour@verizon.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>SCI Members:</span><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I have been thinking about the topics raised by Mikey and Avri in their first impressions of the Draft Self-Assessment Questionnaire. Something was definitely missing from the original formulation, which led to an ¡°Aha!¡± moment spurring me to create a second design which, I hope, addresses a few of the comments expressed thus far.</span><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I have reconstituted the questionnaire (still five sections but renamed), reorganized some of the original questions, and added a few new ones. In order not to lose track of the first iteration, I made a completely new page and will henceforth house all questionnaire versions under a new heading:<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><b>Questionnaire Drafts/Versions</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>(<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/ai5-Ag"><span style='color:purple'>https://community.icann.org/x/ai5-Ag</span></a>).</span><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>In this new Draft v2 iteration (<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/bC5-Ag"><span style='color:purple'>https://community.icann.org/x/bC5-Ag</span></a>), I am attempting to take into consideration the dimension raised by Mikey that was only partially accommodated in Draft v1. To evaluate any dynamic system, we could subdivide it into three basic or core components:<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><b>Inputs ¡ú Processes ¡ú Outputs</b>. In the first version, I captured many of the processes, the outputs, but only a few of the inputs, namely, team member representativeness, tools, and outside experts. I did not ask about the other critical inputs that impinge upon the success of a WG, e.g., its charter/mission (including time or other constraints) and team member<u>expertise</u>. That led to a reconceptualization of the external resources questions into three buckets: administrative, technical, and human.</span><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>This Draft v2 also shifts the rating scale to 7 points and adds ¡°Background Contributor¡± to the Role list as suggested by Avri.</span><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I thank Mikey and Avri for their ideas/suggestions and look forward to additional feedback from the team¡</span><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Ken</span><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black'>PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: <a href="http://www.haven2.com">www.haven2.com</a>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)</span> <o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>