[Lnc-business] LNC blogging / LP News columns
Arvin Vohra
votevohra at gmail.com
Wed Feb 22 00:40:57 EST 2017
I don't think linking to personal social media is a great idea. On personal
social media, people post all kinds of things on all kinds of topics. If
linked at lp.org, it would make it seem like every view posted by an LNC
member was endorsed by the LP.
I think creating an online blog with APRC oversight is the way to go on
this.
>From my understanding of the policy manual, this would not require a formal
motion, but can be essentially decided by the ED with the approval of the
chair. Given that the ED is responsible for communication, and can "hire"
any volunteers he wants, including LNC members, it seems pretty
straightforward.
I'd also be happy to cosponsor a motion on this, if people feel that is
more appropriate to do it that way.
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Ken Moellman <lpky at mu-net.org> wrote:
> Yep. And that's the way to handle it. On Facebook, I have a personal and
> a political page. The political page was my old personal page, converted
> to a "fan page" after I collected a bunch of crazy FB stalkers when I ran
> for office. Interestingly, all of those stalkers seem to have dropped off
> soon after that switch. I'm very selective about who I add to my personal
> FB.
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> This got me curious, so I went to a few websites that link to their board
>> members' social media. From the brief survey I did, either their board
>> members are hyper-focused, or they are using multiple twitter feeds and
>> only linking to their "official" one.
>>
>> Joshua A. Katz
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think it is very grey but it certainly can contain things that have
>>> nothing to do with libertarianism and things that are not on LNC time or
>>> image.
>>>
>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:23 PM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So your answer is yes? I disagree, but if it were going to be treated
>>>> that way, I would not put mine up either.
>>>>
>>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Precisely why I will not put my social media info up. I am not a 24
>>>> hour LNC bot.
>>>>
>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:11 PM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What about the discussion we've had about putting links to
>>>> twitter/other social media on the site? Would you also see that as an
>>>> endorsement of the contents of those feeds?
>>>>
>>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Steven Nekhaila <
>>>> steven.nekhaila at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> While having external links is a nice idea, and would benefit people
>>>> like me who run a blog, it is not representative of the LP as an
>>>> organization and should not be permitted. Personal blogs are strictly
>>>> personal, and if someone wants to have one that is fine, but all blog posts
>>>> connected to LP.org or the Libertarian Party, or endorsed by the LP, should
>>>> be vetted for quality by the APRC. Not to mention, that would just drive
>>>> traffic to personal blogs rather than LP.org which defeats the purpose. If
>>>> anything, we should just allow our staff, representatives and members to
>>>> contribute to the official blog.
>>>>
>>>> In Liberty,
>>>>
>>>> Steven Nekhaila
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Ken Moellman <lpky at mu-net.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm pretty indifferent on this, but to provide a bit of clarity I want
>>>> to note that websites are not places where interactions occur these days.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you need to have a website. Yes, it should contain good
>>>> information and should be pleasing to use. But typically websites are for
>>>> research -- when's the next meeting, how can I donate, etc. Most
>>>> interaction happens on social media now. So what we're really doing is
>>>> linking blog entries posted on LP.org to social media. This can have
>>>> various effects.
>>>>
>>>> If someone writes something controversial, it could become a viral link
>>>> that boosts hits to that specific entry, but not to anything else on the
>>>> website. That boosts our hits, which is nice for metrics, but how many are
>>>> looking at anything else on the site? We should try to measure that, if we
>>>> go forward with this plan.
>>>>
>>>> We do have a "hit limit", after which we get charged extra for hits.
>>>> Now, if we're getting hits that turn into memberships or donations, that's
>>>> awesome and we don't care about the hit limit. But if these hits are just
>>>> "garbage" hits, then that's not so awesome.
>>>>
>>>> And there's always the "remorse" factor. Does anyone here want Root's
>>>> old blog entries out there? It's not even about the content, but that he
>>>> went turncoat and for Trump. That sends a bad signal to external people, I
>>>> believe. The upside of using externally-linked sites is that if someone
>>>> turns traitor, we just take the link off the website and we're done (and
>>>> thus the reasoning behind my compromise proposal).
>>>>
>>>> Just things to think about.
>>>>
>>>> ken
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 9:18 AM, David Demarest <
>>>> dpdemarest at centurylink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Like Starchild and Caryn Ann, I agree with Arvin’s line of reasoning.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now, what do we need to do to make it happen? If it requires a motion,
>>>> I will co-sponsor.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ~David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Oct 20-22 2017 Omaha Libertarian Strategy Un-Convention*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ~David Pratt Demarest
>>>>
>>>> LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
>>>>
>>>> Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
>>>>
>>>> Cell: 402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
>>>>
>>>> Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On
>>>> Behalf Of *Starchild
>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, February 18, 2017 9:42 PM
>>>> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] LNC blogging / LP News columns
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think alternates can *formally* make motions Ken,
>>>> but the distinction is minimal; you or anyone with access to this list can
>>>> post proposed language for a motion, and any libertarian reading this and
>>>> not able to post to the LNC list who has ideas for a motion can send them
>>>> to me, and I will post them here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But what do you all think of Arvin's suggestion? I think
>>>> he makes a good point about links to our personal websites not doing much
>>>> to draw traffic to LP.org, which imho ought to be one of the goals
>>>> here. Not that I have a problem with links to outside sites – I continue to
>>>> feel that we should link more movement sites like Libertarian Republic on
>>>> the liberty links page (https://www.lp.org/liberty-links/), and don't
>>>> see anything wrong with Ken's proposal, as far as it goes, though I agree
>>>> that an LNC member having a personal link on LP.org to a site in which
>>>> they had a financial interest would be questionable. However it does little
>>>> to address the bullet points I raised in my previous message below.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Love & Liberty,
>>>>
>>>> ((( starchild )))
>>>>
>>>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>>>
>>>> (415) 625-FREE
>>>>
>>>> @StarchildSF
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 18, 2017, at 2:33 PM, Ken Moellman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Dr. Ruwart did post blogs in the past. As did Wayne Root, and
>>>> others. The problem, of course, is that when a member posts a blog entry on
>>>> LP.org, they're creating confusion for the public as to who that
>>>> person is speaking for -- the individual or the party? Will APRC really say
>>>> no to a fellow LNC member?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, my compromise idea was come upon to meet several goals,
>>>> including keeping the site cleaner and on-point while also allowing LNC
>>>> members to have a way to have their personal opinion easily found.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I remember correctly, I can make a motion, but it doesn't count
>>>> toward the number of sponsors. Also, it doesn't look like many people
>>>> support the idea. So to keep things clean, I'm not going to make such a
>>>> motion unless more members want the compromise proposal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ken
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So much this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 9:52 AM Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Having LNC blogging on LP.org, subject to APRC review, is a good idea.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First, we already have people producing content on facebook, personal
>>>> blogs, etc. While what goes out on facebook sometimes tends to be more
>>>> incendiary, there is also plenty of content that is toned down and entirely
>>>> appropriate for the website.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> More importantly, it draws people to LP.org, where they can then learn
>>>> how to volunteer, run for office, donate, etc. That part is the more
>>>> important part. LP.org should be exciting, not tedious. People should
>>>> want to go there to see what's new.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would generally oppose personal website linkage from LP.org. That
>>>> doesn't bring people to LP.org site, but rather just advertises our
>>>> own personal web pages. I don't think it is at all appropriate for
>>>> LP.org to be used in that way. As a simple example, if Austin Petersen
>>>> were on the LNC, would it be considered above board to link to The
>>>> Libertarian Republic, his ad-supported news page?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It also robs Lp.org of all viral marketing. Under this suggestion, if
>>>> a post goes viral, it will just send people to the LNC member's personal
>>>> webpage. If content is hosted at LP.org, viral posts will bring people
>>>> back to Lp.org.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In terms of staff response: I believe this may be underestimating our
>>>> staff. Staff in the past has been very quick to oppose phrasing that they
>>>> consider problematic, or facebook memes they consider problematic, etc.
>>>> Staff members have been perfectly open with suggested rewrites of my
>>>> materials, or of the writing put out by the Chair.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I recommend we take steps roughly like this:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. Do a 2 month test run with a few LNC volunteers, ideally those who
>>>> have some kind of measurable track record.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. Maintain APRC oversight on blog content, as is done now with blog
>>>> content.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3. At the end of the trial period, revisit the issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note that similar things have been done successfully in the past. Dr.
>>>> Ruwart and others posted things at lp.org, and the long term virality
>>>> of those posts kept bringing people back to lp.org.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let's make LP.org an exciting destination. The potential gains are
>>>> huge, and the risk is minor.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Arvin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 10:35 AM, David Demarest <
>>>> dpdemarest at centurylink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ken, if you offer your compromise in a motion, I will co-sponsor.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am excited about this opportunity!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ~David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Oct 20-22 2017 Omaha Libertarian Strategy Un-Convention*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ~David Pratt Demarest
>>>>
>>>> LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
>>>>
>>>> Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
>>>>
>>>> Cell: 402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
>>>>
>>>> Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* David Demarest [mailto:dpdemarest at centurylink.net]
>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, February 18, 2017 9:31 AM
>>>> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> *Cc:* 'Ken Moellman' <ken.moellman at lpky.org>; 'David Demarest' <
>>>> dpdemarest at centurylink.net>; dprattdemarest at gmail.com
>>>> *Subject:* RE: [Lnc-business] LNC blogging / LP News columns
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I like Ken’s suggestion for a "Personal Website link under the image
>>>> of each LNC member who wishes it”. His proposal is an excellent
>>>> compromise and very practical starting point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ken’s approach would not only simplify the APRC task of keeping the LNC
>>>> collaborative message on point. It would also achieve Starchild’s purpose
>>>> of encouraging individual LNC members to speak their mind in a setting that
>>>> that gives them the freedom to express their individual Libertarian
>>>> perspective without the imperative to regurgitate the necessarily cleansed
>>>> official collaborative LNC message.
>>>>
>>>> The text of our individual links under our LNC page images could say
>>>> “Dear Starchild”, “Dear Ken”, “Dear Caryn Ann”, “Dear Joshua”, “Dear
>>>> Daniel”, “Dear David”, et cetera. LOL – that would likely draw some traffic
>>>> and enhance the official collaborative LNC message while maintaining the
>>>> Libertarian spirit of individual voices of freedom!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ken, what a great compromise!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ~David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Oct 20-22 2017 Omaha Libertarian Strategy Un-Convention*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ~David Pratt Demarest
>>>>
>>>> LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
>>>>
>>>> Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
>>>>
>>>> Cell: 402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
>>>>
>>>> Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
>>>> <lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org>] *On Behalf Of *Starchild
>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, February 18, 2017 8:30 AM
>>>> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> *Cc:* Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] LNC blogging / LP News columns
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The point of having a more interactive website, with more
>>>> blogging and ability for site visitors to post comments, isn't only to help
>>>> people find out more about who we as LNC members are, although that would
>>>> be one benefit. Other positives would likely include:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> • Drawing more traffic to our website, thereby raising it in search
>>>> rankings, and making more people more likely to discover it, resulting in
>>>> more inquiries, memberships, donations, etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> • Giving the LP the bandwidth to publicly address topical issues with
>>>> greater frequency than we do now, and increasing the likelihood of media
>>>> coverage of our statements
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> • Making the party more participatory and bottom-up by decentralizing
>>>> power a bit and giving members more of a soapbox than they are currently
>>>> allowed to have
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> • Reinvigorating the party and making LP News and LP.org more
>>>> interesting to read by having more Libertarian voices and less
>>>> institutionalism and sterility, as per David and Caryn Ann's comments below
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Love & Liberty,
>>>>
>>>> ((( starchild )))
>>>>
>>>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>>>
>>>> (415) 625-FREE
>>>>
>>>> @StarchildSF
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 15, 2017, at 5:03 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A personal website is even more problematic... would rather things be
>>>> vetted by APRC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to propose a compromise.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How about, on the LNC members page, we put a "Personal Website" link
>>>> under the image of each LNC member who wishes it. In that scenario, it
>>>> keeps the primary LP.org "clean" or on-point, but also allows us to
>>>> each, individually, allow people find out more about who we are.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That will prevent the APRC issues with approving content. That will
>>>> prevent fights over content on our party's website.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just a thought.
>>>>
>>>> ken
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
>>>> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
>>>> LPKY Judicial Committee
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2017-02-15 19:47, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think this is better discussed in person, but I am generally in
>>>> favour. Frankly what comes out sometimes has been sanitized to death and
>>>> we have become a bit sterile, and not the vibrant passion-filed wildfire to
>>>> liberty I see in our historical documents. This isn't meant as a
>>>> criticism, it is I think natural. And I think we have to consciously go
>>>> back to the vanguard voice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Joshua Katz <
>>>> planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This topic came up, if I recall correctly, early last term. When first
>>>> suggested, it made perfect sense to me - how can we, the board, delegate
>>>> the authority to do these things without having it? I lost interest as the
>>>> direction of the discussion turned towards wanting a uniformity of message
>>>> or tone, which pointed out to me some of the practical difficulties with
>>>> implementation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> While Mr. Demarest is correct that, philosophically, it is nonsensical
>>>> to speak of organizations as having a voice, it isn't meant as a
>>>> philosophical claim, but rather as a description of how (some)
>>>> organizations present themselves. I want to ensure that everything that
>>>> comes out from this party, with our stamp of approval, is true,
>>>> professional, on-message, and strategic. We pay staff to do that (although
>>>> they could do it better with some advance strategic and image guidance from
>>>> the board). Starchild speaks of anything written by board members passing
>>>> through the APRC, which does solve the objection that, as I said
>>>> separately, our position vis a vis the party is as members of the board,
>>>> not as individuals - would it also be evaluated by staff for the things I
>>>> mentioned, and possibly edited? If so, will it be signed when it comes
>>>> out?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If it is, I find that problematic. Staff might not be in a great
>>>> position to say that a piece is not useful/timely/etc. to a person who
>>>> votes on their contract and pay. EPCC and EC members might be viewed
>>>> differently in this regard, as well. If not, well, we've made staff's job
>>>> of presenting this party to the world a little harder by providing another
>>>> channel outwards from the party, and it's not clear to me exactly what we'd
>>>> be getting in return. Yes, many of us may well have things worth saying,
>>>> and many of us do say them, in our personal capacity. Do we really have
>>>> such indispensible insights that they must be distributed by the party
>>>> itself? (If we do think that, well, feel free to organize a giveaway of my
>>>> book.) Personally, I am satisfied with staff and our chair being our
>>>> public voice. Certainly, of course, board members often make media
>>>> appearances and identify ourselves with our board position, speak at
>>>> various events, and so on, and I think that's all well and good, but,
>>>> again, we're not speaking as the party when we do that. At this point, it
>>>> is hard for me to see what is gained from this proposal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 7:24 AM, David Demarest <
>>>> dpdemarest at centurylink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Starchild: Your suggestion certainly opens a can of worms. However, it
>>>> is a can that must be opened if we are to effectively embrace our
>>>> ideological and methodological diversity and connect effectively with the
>>>> broader audience within and external to the Libertarian Party. Your
>>>> blogging brainstorm presents an exciting challenge and long-overdue
>>>> opportunity to develop and refine our personal Libertarian messaging
>>>> technique and targeting strategies.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We need to keep in mind that individual living, breathing Libertarians
>>>> are the voices of our institutions, not vice versa. The notion that
>>>> inanimate institutions have a "voice" is philosophical nonsense and a
>>>> classic example of authoritarian groupthink that we Libertarians are or
>>>> should be fighting against.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are at least as many Libertarian philosophies as there are
>>>> Libertarians. Nevertheless, individual Libertarians each have inspirational
>>>> message worthy of an equally remarkable messaging technique and targeting
>>>> strategy. It is high time to develop innovative individual messaging
>>>> technique and targeting strategies so we can effectively communicate our
>>>> inspirational personal Libertarian messages of freedom.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Daniel: I agree that website integrity takes precedence but should not
>>>> be used as a delaying tactic to prevent the discussion of the viability of
>>>> Starchild's ground-breaking blog proposal. While the website is a critical
>>>> tool, it is only a vehicle to express our individual voices, the core of
>>>> our Libertarianism.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ~David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Oct 20-22 2017 Omaha Libertarian Strategy Un-Convention*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Celebr*
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
--
Arvin Vohra
www.VoteVohra.com
VoteVohra at gmail.com
(301) 320-3634
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170222/7fd9c2d2/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list