SillyString for Vice Delegate

SillyString

SillyString

TNPer
-
-
ssvd-1.png

So as I'm sure you're all aware, I'm running for Vice Delegate alongside mcm's run for Delegate! We have chosen to run together because we have a strong working relationship, our strengths complement each other well, and we share similar goals and ideals for the region.

While mcm will be working to build strength and activity in the executive branch, my focus will be on two things: transparency and security.

Transparency

Transparency of government is something I believe very strongly in. While some element of privacy is required for the government to function properly, and some element of secrecy is required to protect, well, secrets, by and large the citizenry should never be forced simply to wonder what their government is doing behind closed doors. There ought to be strong, robust mechanisms for discovering this, and at least in my opinion, default behavior on the government's part toward openness as much as possible.

During my term as Chief Justice, I was able to institute transparency reforms on the Court - a body which is historically closed off, and which is legally not required to release its documents. I proposed we adopt a policy of releasing all records which were older than one year, and later drafted an amendment to the Adopted Court Rules that requires future Courts to do the same.

During a term as Vice Delegate, I would like to investigate the possibility of similar reforms within that body - another one which is historically very closed off and, at least as of recently, not legally required to release its documents. I will seek to ensure that that matters of genuine secrecy remain secret, while still allowing the general public to get a better idea of what the SC does, how it operates, and what it's been up to for the last few years.. or, well, ever.

Additionally, I will be pursuing massive reforms to the existing Freedom of Information Act, to reverse the power dynamic. In a region like ours, where transparency is one of the cornerstones of our Bill of Rights, it is utterly backwards to demand the average citizen to justify why they want the government to be transparent on an issue - made even more difficult because, due to the lack of transparency, the citizen is usually unable to make a coherent case for something which they have no access to. Instead, given our commitment to transparency, the burden of justification ought to be on the government whenever it chooses to hide and conceal. There are reasons to do so - but it should never be the default.

Security

The Vice Delegate chairs the Security Council, and as such they are the higest ranking government official responsible for regional security. It is therefore the VD's responsibility to ensure that the SC does its job well, and that it has all of the tools and authorities it requires for that purpose. Tools we are pretty well set on, thanks to our tireless turtle, but authorities is an area that can, in my opinion, use some improvement.

While r3n's reforms to the line of succession are an excellent step in this direction, there is still more that needs work. Once I have gotten a feel for how the SC operates and what it needs, I will be looking to overhaul both the Regional Security Law and the SC Procedure - both for legal improvement and verbal clarity. The vast majority of Vice Delegates during my time in the region have stumbled over the law in some way - from disagreements over whether COE is correct to remove SC members who don't log onto the forum, to questions under Aba over whether the SC/VD is subject to FOIA, to both FOIA and security block court cases under DD... Enough is enough. It's time to tackle this nonsense.


To be clear, I am interested in pursuing these reforms (both security and transparency) regardless of whether I am elected. They are important to me. They matter. It is my strong belief that they will make our government and our region better. However, these particular issues are tricky to get right. What I believe is best for the region as a citizen, an RA member, is informed without deep knowledge of the Security Council's needs and requirements. Serving as Vice Delegate will allow me to work closely with the Security Council to gain an inside perspective, in order to ensure that the reforms ultimately streamline and improve the processes they go through, rather than complicate, impede, or obstruct.
 
You have my support for VD. You seem to be the most active, intelligent politician running. As for Delegate, it's a tossup.
 
Helllo SillyStirng,
I know you have many credentials to fill the office of VD. I've watched you serve and I have no doubt in my mind that you can effectively benefit the region. But you do have a strong opponent, Tombs, he seems like a real dedicated TNP member who has been in many government positions like yourself and has grown to be well liked among the TNP population.

So what makes you different than Tombs?
What would you do differently, in terms of policy reform than him?
And why we vote for you rather than him?
 
Thank you for your questions, Leekem!

I think both Tomb and Malvad are strong candidates, and have made impressive contributions as ministers in the executive branch. This actually sets both of them them apart from me, as I have not served as a minister or even a deputy minister in the executive branch, and if I am elected, I do not intend to take a ministerial position.

I believe that this is actually an asset to my campaign, and not a detriment. While the Vice Delegate exists in both the Executive and non-specified Security branches of government, the executive responsibilities of the role are primarily emergency/temporary in nature - that is, they take over for the delegate during an absence or vacancy. The VD's primary functions are within the Security branch, and that is where the vast majority of my attention will be during the term. I will not be pulled in different directions with trying to run the SC and a ministry, or need to split my time and focus between important or critical issues in different areas.

You may notice that mcmasterdonia laid out a multifaceted plan for the executive government, covering all of the departments - as Delegate, it's his role to oversee them. Although I support mcm's ideas for the executive government, and am and will always be available to him if he wants advice or input, I do not see it as my role to affect or change executive policy. As Vice Delegate, my plan is exclusively two-pronged: Security and Transparency.

And I think this is why you should vote for me instead of my opponents. While they are both active, trustworthy members and huge contributors to the region, I think it is accurate to say that their interests lie primarily within the executive government - with running their respective ministries and maybe, down the line, running the Executive Branch as a whole. This is not the Vice Delegate's milieu.
 
I've always believed that Security Council discussions regarding specific nations and to what extent they may be a threat to regional security should be kept confidential indefinitely, for a number of reasons:

1. To avoid inadvertently creating a guide for how to avoid the Council's close scrutiny.
2. To avoid prejudicing the public based on speculations that the Council necessarily must engage in. (Hope for the best... expect the worst.)

Under what circumstances do you believe it appropriate to declassify a Security Council discussion regarding a particular TNP nation?
 
This isn't the sort of overly procedural question I have come to love and expect from you! D:

It's difficult to to be truly precise with the exact circumstances where I think discussions should be declassified - I haven't ready any SC discussions yet, so I don't know all that much about how they generally go (though this is part of the problem, in my opinion).

So with the caveats that this is not exhaustive and that any of these could be revoked if I were to be elected and came to the realization that their release would be harmful, here is a preliminary list of possibilities:
  1. The nation in question is of historical interest, such as an SC discussion of a notable or (in)famous figure.
  2. The nation in question is both currently interesting (by which I mean an influential or well-liked or otherwise currently notable figure) and cleared of all suspicion, such as an SC discussion on someone like mcmasterdonia (as he now sits on the SC, there would seem to be no security value to keeping any former suspicions about him hidden).
  3. The nation in question is on trial for some act and the security council discussions on them are directly relevant to the trial.
  4. The discussion in question is both lacking in tangible information and currently irrelevant, such as a "Hey, what do we think about nation=TotesCouping?", where nation=TotesCouping no longer exists and there was no substantive discussion on the original concern.
  5. The discussion deals with information which is already entirely public - for example, if Ravania were to apply to the RA and the SC supported a VD block because of his Espionage conviction, I would probably be ok with declassifying that discussion. It's already a matter of public record, and I don't think it reveals a ton about necessary secrets to see that the SC might see a convicted spy as a security threat.
I am uncertain how I feel about old SC discussions on long-gone nations - while part of me thinks there's benefit to declassifying them, another part of me is hesitant - in part because of your hesitance, and in part because, as I said, I don't know enough yet to know if there's a detriment to doing so.

I would like to clarify though that any declassification under the situations I describe above would necessarily not include disclosure of information about proprietary SC tools, secret information about TNP intelligence activities or agents, or any personal information about the subject. This could take the form of either redaction or non-disclosure, depending on specifics.
 
Hello Asta!
I hope you do not mind me posting in your campaign thread.
Thank you so much for the compliments you made towards Malvad and I in your response to Leekem. First of all, I want you to know that I have nothing but utmost respect for you. And that regardless of results of the elections, I do hope that we can both work together to improve the office of VD in anyway possible. Asta, while I do think your answer was very well constructed, I wanted to point out a few things. First of all, if my interest was primarily in running my ministry, I would not be running for Vice-Delegate. McM has expressed satisfaction in how I ran the HA ministry, and I think I would have been able to easily arrange something with him. But I did not do that. I have also long denied the fact that I might want to run the whole executive branch. I made this clear numerous times in declining to run for delegate when asked. I have also clearly set a policy for the VD in my campaign throughout the S.C. policy and RA admissions that I outlined. My activity in the Executive Staff and cabinet is because I love this region. And when I decided to run for VD, I understood my role, and I would not have run for it, unless I knew that I would give it my total and utmost dedication.

Thank you,

~ Tomb
 
The Democratic Republic of Tomb:
Hello Asta!
I hope you do not mind me posting in your campaign thread.
Click to expand...
I don't mind at all! Let me know which delicious baked goods I can best bribe you with. :P

To respond to your points, I'm certainly not going to dispute that if your primary interest was running a ministry you'd choose stay on as a minister rather than running for a different position - and I personally can't see any reason why the new delegate wouldn't reappoint you. But you did say two specific things that stood out:
I do plan to participate in the Executive Staff in anyway possible. I also plan to keep contributing to Home Affairs in every way possible. This is because I want to be connected to the Cabinet and know what's going on in case I ever need to assume the office of Delegate during my term.
Click to expand...
However, one thing that concerns me is her lack of participation in the Executive Branch of the government. As you know, the Vice-Delegate is part of the Executive Branch, and it would be an advantage for a member to have experience in that area when running for a position of delegate and vice-delegate.
Click to expand...
I think these quotes demonstrate that you and I conceive of the Vice Delegate's office in very different ways. The Vice Delegate is legally classified as a member of the Executive branch for the purposes of elections and determining conflicts in holding multiple offices. As long as there is a legal Delegate, the Vice Delegate actually holds no executive duties at all - and they are only temporarily saddled with them during something like a resignation, recall, sudden WA ban, nation deletion, or other emergency situation.

So where you see membership in the cabinet as a qualification I'm lacking, I see it as simply a job I have not held and you have - just as Justice is a job I have held and you have not, but is not realistically a necessary qualification to serve as VD.

Additionally, where you see your continued participation in Home Affairs and other areas of the Executive Staff as a selling point, I think it would be more accurate to say that they're unrelated to serving as Vice Delegate (just as my choice whether or not to stay on as AAG is not related to being Vice Delegate). This is simply due to the realities of the law: the Vice Delegate temporarily assumes the duties of the Delegate during a vacancy without actually filling the office itself. Thus, being prepared to fill the office is being prepared for an entirely different role - which is why I mentioned that in my earlier post.
 
This is simply due to the realities of the law: the Vice Delegate temporarily assumes the duties of the Delegate during a vacancy without actually filling the office itself. Thus, being prepared to fill the office is being prepared for an entirely different role - which is why I mentioned that in my earlier post.
Click to expand...

I find that statement to be very controversial, Asta. For one thing, I am sure you do know that it takes at least 5 days for candidacy declarations, and at least 5 more for voting. This is without thinking or considering the possibility of run-offs or delays. With that information in mind, let's assume that any of the scenarios you listed was to happen to the Delegate. Would you keep a stagnate government for ten days? I mean, it's true that each ministry flows on its own, but let me tell you from experience, it doesn't do it on its own. It has to have support and direction from the Delegate. And I don't believe a vice-delegate who has no interest in the cabinet or who doesn't plan to play a major role in it can be of much use then at that point. I'm by no means suggesting that you're not qualified because you have not served in the Executive before. And yes, we do conceive the office in different ways. But I do reiterate the fact that, to me at least, it seems important for the Delegate to have someone who they can rely on if an emergency arise by knowing that they can keep the government flowing and by contributing to their cabinet. I am not anticipating delegacy for myself by assuming that emergencies occur, I am merely trying to put all things into account to be well prepared if an emergency arises. And this is not because I want to be delegate, but because it's part of the Vice-Delegate's job, as you know, to be prepared for emergencies of that sort.
 
I appreciate your comments. It's clear that we have very different visions for the Vice Delegacy. If an emergency situation were to arise, my primary focus would be on transitioning myself and the successor Delegate quickly into the Delegacy and closely monitoring any developing security situation. Unexpected issues in the delegacy have historically been prime times for unendorsement campaigns and endotarters to make a move. Leading the Security Council in countering these threats and preventing the damage they can cause is the most important job that the Vice Delegate has.

Again, thank you for your comments, and good luck with your campaign!
 
I think that would be an excellent addition.

In its absence, I encourage you to use "~~~" where you would otherwise wish to insert such an excellent emoticon. :)
 
The issue relating to the removal vs the suspension of SC members has been one of the more controversial decisions that Vice Delegates must sometimes take in the course of their duties. I am going to ask you a few questions related to that.

As it stands, when do you think it is appropriate to suspend an SC member rather than to remove them entirely?

How would you approach the inactivity of an SC member if you were aware that they might be removed without making some necessary changes - Would you make attempts to reach out to that member? Or do you believe it is their responsibility alone to maintain their membership?

Are their any SC members at present who are at risk of being removed for failing to meet the minimum requirements?

Are there any nations in the region at present, who you would like to see serve on the Security Council? Would part of your goals for the term be to reach out to possible SC members and encourage them to apply to join?

What do you think of the current line of succession? Do you like it as it is, if not, how would you prefer it to be?
 
Ooh, goodie! ^_^

Richard:
What is 2+2 3+3 and 7+7
And what does 42 mean to you?
Click to expand...
2+2 is 5, for sufficiently large values of 2.

3+3 is also 5, assuming sufficiently small values of 3.

7+7 is 14, assuming one is sufficiently large and one is sufficiently small.

42 means many things! It is the number of roads a man must walk down. It is the answer to the question "What is 6 times 7?". It is an even number with an odd number of prime factors, and thus perfectly represents the complexity which is our own favorite Eluvatar. And it is so many more things as well.

mcmasterdonia:
As it stands, when do you think it is appropriate to suspend an SC member rather than to remove them entirely?
Click to expand...
It is appropriate and necessary to suspend an SC member if their endorsement count drops below 200, or if their SPDR rating drops below 270, and is not rectified within eight days of being warned of that by the Vice Delegate. In all other cases of loss of eligibility to serve, including prolonged forum absence, removal is required.

My interpretation of this law is based on two factors: The first is that an interpretation of the Regional Security Law which provides for suspension in the case of abandonment of office is in direct conflict with the relevant portions of the Legal Code and the Constutution. The second is that the Enforcement section of the RSA itself only allows for reinstating suspended members who "[come] back into compliance with the endorsement and influence requirements", so suspensions issued in other cases of ineligibility would be permanent.

I do not believe this is ideal, and as Vice Delegate I plan to explore changes to the Constitution and Legal Code to institute a more appropriate process, but it is what the law currently requires.

How would you approach the inactivity of an SC member if you were aware that they might be removed without making some necessary changes - Would you make attempts to reach out to that member? Or do you believe it is their responsibility alone to maintain their membership?
Click to expand...

I would answer in the affirmative to both of those questions. I would absolutely reach out to a member nearing removal, via TG, PM, or both, and attempt to spur them to return to activity. Sometimes things happen and people need a gentle nudge.

However, I do believe that the ultimate responsibility for maintaining their membership lies on SC members individually. I don't think the Security Council or the region is served well by members who are basically inactive, and I don't think it's in anybody's interest for prodding from the Vice Delegate to become a crutch. So while I would absolutely reach out to members who lapse into inactivity briefly, I would likely notify members who do so consistently and repeatedly that the responsibility for maintaining their membership is on their shoulders going forward.

Are their any SC members at present who are at risk of being removed for failing to meet the minimum requirements?
Click to expand...
Happily, there are not! All SC members are well above the influence and endorsement minima, with GBM in the rear at a mere 123 extra endorsements.

Are there any nations in the region at present, who you would like to see serve on the Security Council?
Click to expand...
Well, I would love to see r3n on the SC... if he can manage to take the oath. :P I also think COE, Abacathea, and flemingovia would make excellent additions, if any of them is interested in joining. If Eluvatar were interested I would support him whole-heartedly, though I don't know if he wants to give up his current WA mobility, and should either Kiwi or Blue Wolf return to activity I would also encourage either of them to reapply.

Would part of your goals for the term be to reach out to possible SC members and encourage them to apply to join?
Click to expand...
Goals, to me, are extra achievements above and beyond the base requirements - things to be striven for, but which are ultimately discretionary. Looking after the overall health of the Security Council, including contacting individuals whose membership would be beneficial and urging them to apply, is an inherent part of the Vice Delegate's role in TNP governance.

So no, I wouldn't say that that would be a goal for my term. The Vice Delegate - or any government official - doing their job should never be a goal. It should be a given.

What do you think of the current line of succession? Do you like it as it is, if not, how would you prefer it to be?
Click to expand...
I think the current LOS is a little outdated given that there are a few members who have been added and others who have been removed since it was last properly voted on. If elected, I would like to take a look at the order as it stands and propose some changes that reflect current members' activity and endorsement levels.
 
When is it sensible to hold a Security Council deliberation outside of The North Pacific's official forum?

When is it permitted?

Suppose the Delegate has begun posting erratically, using visibly different posting styles from post to post, and occasionally acting coldly toward members they have long been friendly with. What would be the appropriate Vice Delegate & Security response? What would the appropriate alert level be? What should the Alert message look like?

Under what circumstances would it be appropriate for Romanoffia to open a vote in the Security Council Chambers? Suspend a member of the Security Council?
 
[me]squees :tb2:

Eluvatar:
When is it sensible to hold a Security Council deliberation outside of The North Pacific's official forum?

When is it permitted?
Click to expand...

If you don't mind, I'd like to reverse the order of the questions.

It is permitted under Article 7 of SC Procedures, which allows for discussions outside of TNP's forum when "a threat to regional security may be discovered which is of an immediate and pressing nature." In my interpretation, this allows for discussions over speedier media like IRC or Skype, but also held on another forum.

Within this category of "immediate and pressing", I think there are basically two categories of threat where an extraforum discussion is warranted:

1) When a sufficient number of SC members can be included on a live discussion via IM, IRC, or Skype to be able to come to a majority decision, or enough of a majority that the agreement of the missing members can reasonably be extrapolated. If only one or two are available and the body is ten or more members, though, it seems to make little sense to try to hold a formal discussion or a vote off the forum.

2) When the threat under discussion concerns an administrator of the official forum or a member of the security council. Given the privileged nature of those two groups in terms of access to both secure areas and the delegacy I would consider nearly any threat from either one to be both immediate and pressing. And, given the inability to hold a private conversation on the official forums about someone in either of the above, I believe the best way to approach such a situation would be via discussion on a separate, secure forum.

When possible, and once the threat has passed (particularly in the latter case), I would also strongly prefer that all records of such off-forum discussions be transferred to the SC's chambers - IRC logs, copies of posts from other areas, and so on. Failing to do so risks vital information being lost.

Suppose the Delegate has begun posting erratically, using visibly different posting styles from post to post, and occasionally acting coldly toward members they have long been friendly with. What would be the appropriate Vice Delegate & Security response? What would the appropriate alert level be? What should the Alert message look like?
Click to expand...

I think the first appropriate response would be to quietly consult an administrator, to seek verification on whether the Delegate's posts display multiple IP addresses not accounted for by home/work/school and the like. Assuming that Admins did not find clear evidence of an account hack or transfer, my next step as VD would be to have a conversation (or several) with the Delegate, hoping simply for a friendly conversation about how they're doing, see if they're under any unusual stress recently... basically attempt to determine if there are reasonable explanations for the behavioral swings.

Simultaneously, I would be opening up discussions (off-forum if necessary) with the SC in order to deal with the worst-case scenario - a delegate about to go rogue. My goal would be to come up with a strategy that could be implemented immediately upon the delegate doing so, or if we uncovered conclusive evidence of such an intent.

However, having perused the Legal Code, Terms of Use, and Terms of Service, I'm not finding anything that prohibits two people accessing one account - so long as neither of them also has another account, under the Proxying law. That being the case, I'm not sure whether, in the absence of evidence of intent to commit wrongdoing, such an act would merit pushing for a recall and a special election. I think my inclination would be that the citizens have a right to know if their delegate is in fact two people, and so I would probably want to present the known facts to the RA and allow citizens to discuss and decide whether to try for a recall - but this is another question I would want input from the SC on.

Edit: With respect to the alert level and any alert message, that would very much depend on what investigations and discussions turned up. If there were evidence of intent to coup, I would raise it to at least Yellow, and possibly Orange, and release a message which laid out the basis for doing so. If there were no evidence of intent to coup but the RA wished to pursue a recall vote, I would likely raise it to Yellow because a recall makes a coup more likely. If there were no recall, and no intent to coup, I would likely not change the alert level.

Under what circumstances would it be appropriate for Romanoffia to open a vote in the Security Council Chambers? Suspend a member of the Security Council?
Click to expand...
Romanoffia would be empowered to open a vote or suspend another SC member, assuming that there is a vote to be opened and an SC member in need of suspension, and that Romanoffia remains active, available, in the SC, and first in the line of succession, in the following situations:

1) There is an absence or vacancy in the office of Delegate and the Vice Delegate, who is not Romanoffia, is filling in as Acting Delegate.
2) There is an absence or vacancy in the office of Vice Delegate, and Romanoffia is neither the Delegate nor the Vice Delegate (whether or not he can be Delegate may vary by interpretation; my interpretation of the SC procedures and Articles 3 and 7 of the Constitution is that he cannot).
3) The Vice Delegate has not put that motion to vote, suspended that SC member, performed some other mandated duty, posted in a government thread (as unclear as that is), or logged into the forums (this one is redundant) within 24 hours.
 
Thank you for your detailed but clear and concise answers.

To be clear: you see the obligation of the chair to "account for the Council's votes and recommendations" after the threat has passed as including the posting of all relevant logs in the Security Council's area?
 
I actually see that particular clause as applying to the SC's relationship with the citizens, and not to the relationship between the Chair and the SC. I think the Chair has an obligation to inform the TNP public of its votes and recommendations in their final form (that is, the final vote tally and the final recommendation, and not necessarily the vote breakdown or prior drafts of text).

Of course, ensuring proper record-keeping would make maintaining such accountability easier to do, and reduce the risk of a vote or recommendation being forgotten and thus never told to the public. It would also ensure that future SC members, or those excluded from a discussion for whatever reason, would not be permanently out of the loop.
 
Why vote SillyString over Tomb? What is the one thing that you will do that Tomb won't (or that Tomb will do that you won't) that you believe is the #1 reason I or anybody else should vote for you?
(I'm asking the same question of Tomb, by the way.)
 
Thank you for your question, Alta Italia!

My service in government has focused on yanking out outdated, inconvenient, confusing, or otherwise problematic laws, procedures, and regulations, and swapping them with replacements that are not only clearer and better written, but more practical and which better serve our needs as a region and the specific needs of the body they correspond to. And this is how I will approach the Vice Delegacy as well.

As Deputy Speaker, I coauthored changes to the Legal Code, RA Rules, and Speaker's Policies that transformed and streamlined the way things go to vote - changes that have been largely unchanged a year and a half later. As Justice, I got the Court to pass new Adopted Court Rules and convinced the RA to make changes to judicial areas of the Legal Code, which radically simplified and improved our criminal trial processes and clarified expectations and guidelines in other areas of Court business. As AAG, I have reexamined all of the rulings the Court has issued and have begun the process of challenging those whose legal basis no longer exists.[note]Naturally, I wish I could say that I completed this project, but owing to the molasses-like nature of the Court that's really a pipe dream.[/note] And as an RA member, I have drafted or assisted in the drafting of nearly all major pieces of legislation during my time here - I can come up with a list if desired, but it's rather long.

In the same spirit of reform, I will pursue much-needed changes to the Regional Security Law and the SC Procedures, as well as possible Constitutional amendments if necessary, so that future Vice Delegates do not face the legal conundra and quagmires that basically all of the past half-dozen have had to wrestle with. And thanks to my prior work on problems of a similar nature, I have the legislative experience and skills to do this effectively.

Tomb has many excellent qualities, but he does not have the same track record of revolutionizing government offices and structures that I have - and that is the #1 reason you should vote for me.
 
They are all close enough to the right answer. One might also say that the answers are

2+2= Fish

3+3= Eight/8

7+7= Triangle.

And 42= Can also mean """""The number 42 is, in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams, "The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything", calculated by an enormous supercomputer over a period of 7.5 million years.""""" (Google Wiki yes I know its a sin to use wiki, but hey they have something correct for once)
 
So, to provide a more TL;DR version (although that was not very long): Experience in streamlining government is your strong point. If elected, you would use this experience to draft new legislation that would do so even more.
Would that be a fair summation?
 
That's pretty close, but I think streamlining is an oversimplification. While it's true that one of my goals is to make government more efficient at the things it's already doing, I also work hard to make it do better things instead, and to be more accountable to its constituents.

So I'd say "government reform" would better summarize my post than "streamlining government".
 
SillyString, may I be the first to congratulate you on your win! Though I didn't vote for you, it was a very, very tough call, and I am sure that you will do a great job as VD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top