[From nobody Sun Oct 7 19:23:23 2018 Return-path: <WSB3ATTYCA@aol.com> From: WSB3ATTYCA@aol.com Full-name: WSB3ATTYCA Message-ID: <505.1eec4d7.31d4aafa@aol.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 00:03:06 EDT Subject: Fwd: [Sclara-cc] [GPCA Official Notice] GPUS Delegate Apportionment Survey To: WB4D23@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part2_323.686a14a.31d4aafa_boundary" X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5027 --part2_323.686a14a.31d4aafa_boundary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1151553783" -------------------------------1151553783 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/28/06 6:14:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time, contacts2@marla.cagreens.org writes: This is an announcement from the GPCA Contact List. For more information, or questions related to the topic of the posting, please do not hit reply. Follow the contact directions listed at the end of the email. ******************************* Below is a questionnaire regarding apportionment issues from the GPUS Delegate Apportionment Committee. Responses are accepted from individual Greens as well as state parties. The responses will influence whether and how much the democratic representation of California Green Party members is improved in the national party. Please send your responses to myself, Greg Gerritt and Dean Myerson (cat801@mindspring.com, gerritt@mindspring.com, greens@deanmyerson.org ). The final deadline for submissions is July 10, but earlier is preferred. I understand it's a complex and sometimes intimidating topic and would be happy to answer questions. 415-897-6989. Cat Woods California GPUS delegation co-coordinator co-chair, GPUS Delegate Apportionment Committee ************************** DELEGATE APPORTIONMENT QUESTIONNAIRE A. Minimum Delegation Threshold: The GPUS has adopted a minimum threshold of 2 delegates on the NC from each state to ensure that all accredited states are represented in our national governing body. Currently there are 44 accreditation states and two caucuses (1 delegate each) with representation on the NC. The number of delegates on the NC is 120 and the number of delegates designated each state based only on the minimum threshold is 90 (44 x 2 + 2). This means that the minimum threshold of delegates allocated to each state accounts for 75% of the NC and the delegates allocated to each state using some measure of proportional strength accounts for 25% of the NC. 1. Do you believe that a higher percentage of delegates should be chosen based on some measure of proportional strength? __ Yes __ No __ Don't Know 2. What percentage of the delegates to the NC should be allocated to each state based on some measure of proportional strength? ___ % 3. To increase the percentage of delegates allocated to each state based on some measure of proportional strength would you support lowering the minimum delegate threshold to 1 per state or increasing the size of the NC? __ Lower the Minimum Delegate Threshold to 1 __ Increase the size of the NC __ Both __ Neither 4. Would you consider changing to a regional allocation of delegates in order to improve both the proportionality of delegate allocation and the proportional representation within that delegation (for example, to facilitate racial balance as well as gender balance on delegations)? __ Yes __ No __ Don't Know B. Proxy or Weighted Voting: One way to increase proportionality without increasing the NC is through weighted or proxy voting, which would allow states to have more votes than delegates. For example a state that currently has 5 delegates could be given 7 votes based on some measure of proportional strength. In this case, the each delegate for that state would cast 1.4 votes during any decision making process. 1. What do you think of weighted or proxy voting, where a state gets more votes than the number of delegates it has? __Support __Do Not Support __Don't Know 2. If you favor weighted voting, is that just for in-person meetings, or for the listserv as well? __ In-person meetings only (e.g a national convention) __ On-line Voting only __ Both __ Neither 3. If you would accept weighted voting, what is the maximum number of votes you would accept one delegate casting? (e.g., 2.0, 3.5, no limit). ______ C. Fractional Voting: A similar method of increasing proportionality is through fractional voting. By splitting a single vote into fractions, a state is better represent minority views, especially with small delegations, in proportion to the support for that view. For example, a state might have 2 votes to cast, but could cast 1.5 yes and 0.5 no in order to reflect a 3:1 split in opinion. 1. Would you consider allowing states to use fractional voting, if it didn't affect overall vote proportionality? __ Yes __ No __ Don't Know 2. If yes, would you consider separating the number of state delegates from the number of votes allotted to that state? (For example, a state with three votes might have six delegates. This might increase participation at the national level.) __ Yes __ No 3. If yes on #1, is there a limit to how small you think a vote can be split (e.g., 1/2 vote, 1/4 vote, etc.)? ____ D. Determining Proportional Strength: One way to determine the proportion strength of the Green Party in each state is to use several criteria to estimate membership size and then take an average value of those criteria. The list of possible criteria currently being discussed by the DAC is included in question 2 below. 1. Would you favor allowing states to choose a subset of criteria from the larger list that best fits the conditions, laws, and bylaws of their state party, or do you think every state should use the same set of criteria? __ Subset of Criteria __ Same Criteria 2. Below is a list of possible criteria we could use to allow states to determine their proportional strength relative to other states. Please check all criteria that you think would be appropriate to use as a measure of proportional strength. __ Number of registered Green voters __ Green membership rolls (for non-registration states) __ Number of elected Greens __ Number of Green candidates that have run for office (any) __ Total number of Greens running for statewide and federal office (partisan races) __ Maximum number of votes cast for a single Green candidate __ Total number of votes cast for all Green candidates in the state __ Total number of votes cast for Greens candidates for local office __ Total number of votes for David Cobb __ Total number of votes for Ralph Nader (2004) __ Total number of votes for David Cobb and Ralph Nader combined __ State population size __Others (please list): i. ii. iii. iv. v. 3. If you favored allowing states to use a subset of criteria in question 1, what number of the criteria that you approved in the question above is the appropriate number of criteria states should choose from that list? _____ 4. If a method for determining the proportional strength of each state is adopted that is based on some calculations of Green accomplishment how often do you think the NC numbers should be recalculated based on new elections? __Every year __Every 2 years __Every 4 years Other comments: [You may wish to comment on whether you think the apportionment formula itself should be revisited periodically and, if so, how often.] _______________________________________________ contacts2 mailing list contacts2@marla.cagreens.org http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/contacts2 _______________________________________________ Sclara-cc mailing list Sclara-cc@marla.cagreens.org http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sclara-cc -------------------------------1151553783 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUS-ASCII"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1543" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY id=3Drole_body style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY:=20= Arial"=20 bottomMargin=3D7 leftMargin=3D7 topMargin=3D7 rightMargin=3D7><FONT id=3Drol= e_document=20 face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2> <DIV> <DIV>In a message dated 6/28/06 6:14:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,=20 contacts2@marla.cagreens.org writes:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE=20 style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>This is=20 an announcement from the GPCA Contact List.  For more information, or= =20 questions related to the topic of the posting, please do not hit reply.&nb= sp;=20 Follow the contact directions listed at the end of the =20 email.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>*******************************<BR>Below is a=20 questionnaire regarding apportionment issues from<BR>the GPUS Delegate=20 Apportionment Committee. Responses are<BR>accepted from individual Greens=20= as=20 well as state parties.<BR>The responses will influence whether and how muc= h=20 the<BR>democratic representation of California Green Party members<BR>is=20 improved in the national party. Please send your<BR>responses to myself, G= reg=20 Gerritt and Dean Myerson<BR>(cat801@mindspring.com,=20 gerritt@mindspring.com,<BR>greens@deanmyerson.org ). The final deadline fo= r=20 submissions<BR>is July 10, but earlier is preferred.<BR><BR>I understand i= t's=20 a complex and sometimes intimidating topic<BR>and would be happy to answer= =20 questions. 415-897-6989.<BR><BR>Cat Woods<BR>California GPUS delegation=20 co-coordinator<BR>co-chair, GPUS Delegate Apportionment=20 Committee<BR><BR>**************************<BR><BR>DELEGATE APPORTIONMENT=20 QUESTIONNAIRE<BR><BR>A. Minimum Delegation Threshold:<BR>The GPUS has adop= ted=20 a minimum threshold of 2 delegates on<BR>the NC from each state to ensure=20= that=20 all accredited states<BR>are represented in our national governing=20 body.<BR><BR>Currently there are 44 accreditation states and two=20 caucuses<BR>(1 delegate each) with representation on the NC. The number<BR= >of=20 delegates on the NC is 120 and the number of delegates<BR>designated each=20 state based only on the minimum threshold is<BR>90 (44 x 2 + 2).<BR><BR>Th= is=20 means that the minimum threshold of delegates allocated<BR>to each state=20 accounts for 75% of the NC and the delegates<BR>allocated to each state us= ing=20 some measure of proportional<BR>strength accounts for 25% of the NC.<BR><B= R>1.=20 Do you believe that a higher percentage of delegates<BR>should be chosen b= ased=20 on some measure of proportional<BR>strength?<BR><BR>__ Yes<BR>__ No<BR>__=20 Don't Know<BR><BR>2. What percentage of the delegates to the NC should=20 be<BR>allocated to each state based on some measure of<BR>proportional=20 strength?<BR><BR>___ %<BR><BR>3. To increase the percentage of delegates=20 allocated to each<BR>state based on some measure of proportional strength=20 would<BR>you support lowering the minimum delegate threshold to 1 per<BR>s= tate=20 or increasing the size of the NC?<BR><BR>__ Lower the Minimum Delegate=20 Threshold to 1<BR>__ Increase the size of the NC<BR>__ Both<BR>__=20 Neither<BR><BR>4. Would you consider changing to a regional allocation=20 of<BR>delegates in order to improve both the proportionality of<BR>delegat= e=20 allocation and the proportional representation<BR>within that delegation (= for=20 example, to facilitate racial<BR>balance as well as gender balance on=20 delegations)?<BR><BR>__ Yes<BR>__ No<BR>__ Don't Know<BR><BR><BR>B. Proxy=20= or=20 Weighted Voting:<BR>One way to increase proportionality without increasing= =20 the<BR>NC is through weighted or proxy voting, which would allow<BR>states= to=20 have more votes than delegates. For example a<BR>state that currently has=20= 5=20 delegates could be given 7 votes<BR>based on some measure of proportional=20 strength. In this<BR>case, the each delegate for that state would cast 1.4= =20 votes<BR>during any decision making process.<BR><BR>1. What do you think o= f=20 weighted or proxy voting, where a<BR>state gets more votes than the number= of=20 delegates it has?<BR><BR>__Support<BR>__Do Not Support<BR>__Don't=20 Know<BR><BR>2. If you favor weighted voting, is that just for=20 in-person<BR>meetings, or for the listserv as well?<BR><BR>__ In-person=20 meetings only (e.g a national convention)<BR>__ On-line Voting only<BR>__=20 Both<BR>__ Neither<BR><BR>3. If you would accept weighted voting, what is=20= the=20 maximum<BR>number of votes you would accept one delegate casting?<BR>(e.g.= ,=20 2.0, 3.5, no limit).<BR><BR>______<BR><BR><BR>C. Fractional Voting:<BR>A=20 similar method of increasing proportionality is through<BR>fractional voti= ng.=20 By splitting a single vote into<BR>fractions, a state is better represent=20 minority views,<BR>especially with small delegations, in proportion to=20 the<BR>support for that view. For example, a state might have 2<BR>votes t= o=20 cast, but could cast 1.5 yes and 0.5 no in order to<BR>reflect a 3:1 split= in=20 opinion.<BR><BR>1. Would you consider allowing states to use=20 fractional<BR>voting, if it didn't affect overall vote=20 proportionality?<BR><BR>__ Yes<BR>__ No<BR>__ Don't Know<BR><BR>2. If yes,= =20 would you consider separating the number of state<BR>delegates from the nu= mber=20 of votes allotted to that state?<BR>(For example, a state with three votes= =20 might have six<BR>delegates. This might increase participation at the=20 national<BR>level.)<BR><BR>__ Yes<BR>__ No<BR><BR>3. If yes on #1, is ther= e a=20 limit to how small you think a<BR>vote can be split (e.g., 1/2 vote, 1/4 v= ote,=20 etc.)?<BR><BR>____<BR><BR><BR>D. Determining Proportional Strength:<BR>One= way=20 to determine the proportion strength of the Green<BR>Party in each state i= s to=20 use several criteria to estimate<BR>membership size and then take an avera= ge=20 value of those<BR>criteria. The list of possible criteria currently=20 being<BR>discussed by the DAC is included in question 2 below.<BR><BR>1. W= ould=20 you favor allowing states to choose a subset of<BR>criteria from the large= r=20 list that best fits the conditions,<BR>laws, and bylaws of their state par= ty,=20 or do you think every<BR>state should use the same set of criteria?<BR><BR= >__=20 Subset of Criteria<BR>__ Same Criteria<BR><BR>2.  Below is a list of=20 possible criteria we could use to<BR>allow states to determine their=20 proportional strength<BR>relative to other states. Please check all criter= ia=20 that you<BR>think would be appropriate to use as a measure of<BR>proportio= nal=20 strength.<BR><BR>__ Number of registered Green voters<BR>__ Green membersh= ip=20 rolls (for non-registration states)<BR>__ Number of elected Greens<BR>__=20 Number of Green candidates that have run for office (any)<BR><BR>__ Total=20 number of Greens running for statewide and federal<BR>office (partisan=20 races)<BR>__ Maximum number of votes cast for a single Green=20 candidate<BR><BR>__ Total number of votes cast for all Green candidates=20 in<BR>the state<BR>__ Total number of votes cast for Greens candidates=20 for<BR>local office<BR>__ Total number of votes for David Cobb<BR>__ Total= =20 number of votes for Ralph Nader (2004)<BR>__ Total number of votes for Dav= id=20 Cobb and Ralph Nader<BR>combined<BR>__ State population size<BR>__Others=20 (please list):<BR>i.<BR>ii.<BR>iii.<BR>iv.<BR>v.<BR><BR>3. If you favored=20 allowing states to use a subset of<BR>criteria in question 1, what number=20= of=20 the criteria that you<BR>approved<BR>in the question above is the appropri= ate=20 number of criteria<BR>states should choose from that=20 list?<BR><BR>_____<BR><BR>4. If a method for determining the proportional=20 strength of<BR>each state is adopted that is based on some calculations=20 of<BR>Green accomplishment how often do you think the NC numbers<BR>should= be=20 recalculated based on new elections?<BR><BR>__Every year<BR>__Every 2=20 years<BR>__Every 4 years<BR><BR><BR>Other comments:<BR>[You may wish to=20 comment on whether you think the<BR>apportionment formula itself should be= =20 revisited<BR>periodically and, if so, how=20 often.]<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>contacts= 2=20 mailing=20 list<BR>contacts2@marla.cagreens.org<BR>http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/= listinfo/contacts2<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Scl= ara-cc=20 mailing=20 list<BR>Sclara-cc@marla.cagreens.org<BR>http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/= listinfo/sclara-cc<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML> -------------------------------1151553783-- --part2_323.686a14a.31d4aafa_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: <sclara-cc-bounces@marla.cagreens.org> Received: from rly-yi01.mx.aol.com (rly-yi01.mail.aol.com [172.18.180.129]) by air-yi02.mail.aol.com (v109.13) with ESMTP id MAILINYI23-7ab44a32979ee; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:14:55 -0400 Received: from marla.cagreens.org (marla.cagreens.org [64.142.114.98]) by rly-yi01.mx.aol.com (v109.13) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINYI17-7ab44a32979ee; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:14:34 -0400 Received: from cagreens.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marla.cagreens.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5T1DOvL021516; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:13:24 -0700 Received: from cagreens.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marla.cagreens.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5T19CAQ021465; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:09:22 -0700 Received: from smtp106.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com (smtp106.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.198.205]) by marla.cagreens.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id k5T196S7021449 for <contacts2@cagreens.org>; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:09:06 -0700 Received: (qmail 3172 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2006 01:09:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO greens.org) (jimstauffer@sbcglobal.net@69.110.2.168 with plain) by smtp106.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Jun 2006 01:09:00 -0000 Message-ID: <44A328D1.3E821E6F@greens.org> Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:11:45 -0700 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: County Contacts <contacts2@cagreens.org> From: "New contacts list 10 Apr '04" <contacts2@marla.cagreens.org> X-BeenThere: contacts2@marla.cagreens.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list Subject: [Sclara-cc] [GPCA Official Notice] GPUS Delegate Apportionment Survey X-BeenThere: sclara-cc@marla.cagreens.org Reply-To: ginnycase@greens.org, contacts2@marla.cagreens.org List-Id: Sclara County Council <sclara-cc.marla.cagreens.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sclara-cc>, <mailto:sclara-cc-request@marla.cagreens.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://marla.cagreens.org/pipermail/sclara-cc> List-Post: <mailto:sclara-cc@marla.cagreens.org> List-Help: <mailto:sclara-cc-request@marla.cagreens.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sclara-cc>, <mailto:sclara-cc-request@marla.cagreens.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: sclara-cc-bounces@marla.cagreens.org Errors-To: sclara-cc-bounces@marla.cagreens.org X-AOL-IP: 64.142.114.98 This is an announcement from the GPCA Contact List. For more information, or questions related to the topic of the posting, please do not hit reply. Follow the contact directions listed at the end of the email. ******************************* Below is a questionnaire regarding apportionment issues from the GPUS Delegate Apportionment Committee. Responses are accepted from individual Greens as well as state parties. The responses will influence whether and how much the democratic representation of California Green Party members is improved in the national party. Please send your responses to myself, Greg Gerritt and Dean Myerson (cat801@mindspring.com, gerritt@mindspring.com, greens@deanmyerson.org ). The final deadline for submissions is July 10, but earlier is preferred. I understand it's a complex and sometimes intimidating topic and would be happy to answer questions. 415-897-6989. Cat Woods California GPUS delegation co-coordinator co-chair, GPUS Delegate Apportionment Committee ************************** DELEGATE APPORTIONMENT QUESTIONNAIRE A. Minimum Delegation Threshold: The GPUS has adopted a minimum threshold of 2 delegates on the NC from each state to ensure that all accredited states are represented in our national governing body. Currently there are 44 accreditation states and two caucuses (1 delegate each) with representation on the NC. The number of delegates on the NC is 120 and the number of delegates designated each state based only on the minimum threshold is 90 (44 x 2 + 2). This means that the minimum threshold of delegates allocated to each state accounts for 75% of the NC and the delegates allocated to each state using some measure of proportional strength accounts for 25% of the NC. 1. Do you believe that a higher percentage of delegates should be chosen based on some measure of proportional strength? __ Yes __ No __ Don't Know 2. What percentage of the delegates to the NC should be allocated to each state based on some measure of proportional strength? ___ % 3. To increase the percentage of delegates allocated to each state based on some measure of proportional strength would you support lowering the minimum delegate threshold to 1 per state or increasing the size of the NC? __ Lower the Minimum Delegate Threshold to 1 __ Increase the size of the NC __ Both __ Neither 4. Would you consider changing to a regional allocation of delegates in order to improve both the proportionality of delegate allocation and the proportional representation within that delegation (for example, to facilitate racial balance as well as gender balance on delegations)? __ Yes __ No __ Don't Know B. Proxy or Weighted Voting: One way to increase proportionality without increasing the NC is through weighted or proxy voting, which would allow states to have more votes than delegates. For example a state that currently has 5 delegates could be given 7 votes based on some measure of proportional strength. In this case, the each delegate for that state would cast 1.4 votes during any decision making process. 1. What do you think of weighted or proxy voting, where a state gets more votes than the number of delegates it has? __Support __Do Not Support __Don't Know 2. If you favor weighted voting, is that just for in-person meetings, or for the listserv as well? __ In-person meetings only (e.g a national convention) __ On-line Voting only __ Both __ Neither 3. If you would accept weighted voting, what is the maximum number of votes you would accept one delegate casting? (e.g., 2.0, 3.5, no limit). ______ C. Fractional Voting: A similar method of increasing proportionality is through fractional voting. By splitting a single vote into fractions, a state is better represent minority views, especially with small delegations, in proportion to the support for that view. For example, a state might have 2 votes to cast, but could cast 1.5 yes and 0.5 no in order to reflect a 3:1 split in opinion. 1. Would you consider allowing states to use fractional voting, if it didn't affect overall vote proportionality? __ Yes __ No __ Don't Know 2. If yes, would you consider separating the number of state delegates from the number of votes allotted to that state? (For example, a state with three votes might have six delegates. This might increase participation at the national level.) __ Yes __ No 3. If yes on #1, is there a limit to how small you think a vote can be split (e.g., 1/2 vote, 1/4 vote, etc.)? ____ D. Determining Proportional Strength: One way to determine the proportion strength of the Green Party in each state is to use several criteria to estimate membership size and then take an average value of those criteria. The list of possible criteria currently being discussed by the DAC is included in question 2 below. 1. Would you favor allowing states to choose a subset of criteria from the larger list that best fits the conditions, laws, and bylaws of their state party, or do you think every state should use the same set of criteria? __ Subset of Criteria __ Same Criteria 2. Below is a list of possible criteria we could use to allow states to determine their proportional strength relative to other states. Please check all criteria that you think would be appropriate to use as a measure of proportional strength. __ Number of registered Green voters __ Green membership rolls (for non-registration states) __ Number of elected Greens __ Number of Green candidates that have run for office (any) __ Total number of Greens running for statewide and federal office (partisan races) __ Maximum number of votes cast for a single Green candidate __ Total number of votes cast for all Green candidates in the state __ Total number of votes cast for Greens candidates for local office __ Total number of votes for David Cobb __ Total number of votes for Ralph Nader (2004) __ Total number of votes for David Cobb and Ralph Nader combined __ State population size __Others (please list): i. ii. iii. iv. v. 3. If you favored allowing states to use a subset of criteria in question 1, what number of the criteria that you approved in the question above is the appropriate number of criteria states should choose from that list? _____ 4. If a method for determining the proportional strength of each state is adopted that is based on some calculations of Green accomplishment how often do you think the NC numbers should be recalculated based on new elections? __Every year __Every 2 years __Every 4 years Other comments: [You may wish to comment on whether you think the apportionment formula itself should be revisited periodically and, if so, how often.] _______________________________________________ contacts2 mailing list contacts2@marla.cagreens.org http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/contacts2 _______________________________________________ Sclara-cc mailing list Sclara-cc@marla.cagreens.org http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sclara-cc --part2_323.686a14a.31d4aafa_boundary-- ]