short note on comments received so far and interest in our report by the EPO
Dear all
just had a second look into the answers (while being aware that two further answers are announced).
My conclusions so far:
all companies are mentioning platforms where breeder can go and ask for license. We were dealing with this issue in our last reports. I think we still agree that this approach is not solving the problem because this system is based on patents, it allows for control, it might still hemper access and is not mandatory for all companies. It is also not legally binding in future. I would not open up the report to introduce this discussion.
on Corteva: We do not say that there are involved in this specific patent application. However it is known, that Corteva is cooperating with the UC. The company is just mentioned to show that UC is not just basic research - many times they are acting in alliance with companies. To clarify: We could add further companies which are cooperating with UC and leave Corteva in the text - would you agree? or should we delete all names of companies and try to find a more neutral sentence giving the same information?
on Keygene: I do not think we have to use this information in the report. It would not change our message, but it would need further explanations.
on Rijk: we already have a short statement included, referring to their position. We could enlarge this passage to quote from their letter. This would be the only substantial change of the report I would be in favour.
We announced the report to be published within next two weeks. I would be happy if we could agree to publish next week and keep the changes to a minimum.
Further, we have interest for insight in the report prior to the publication from the EPO (! very good, Mr Osterwalder kindly asked... ) and from a Belgium Ministry of Agriculture (I will forward to Nina from CEO). I guess we should send something till end of the week.
Cheers
Christoph
Dear Christoph
I agree.
Would be good to introduce a slight change regarding Corteva. To say that UC is not just in basic reseach but also cooperates with companies as Corteva (and mentioning more). Would add these alliances onyl in chapter 8.3 - but not in the short version at page 5.
.. and to add a quote from Rjik Zwaan.
But not include other changes.
François
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Npos_2018 npos_2018-bounces@testbiotech.de Im Auftrag von Christoph Then Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. April 2020 10:57 An: npos_2018@testbiotech.de Betreff: [Npos_2018] short note on comments received so far and interest in our report by the EPO
Dear all
just had a second look into the answers (while being aware that two further answers are announced).
My conclusions so far:
all companies are mentioning platforms where breeder can go and ask for license. We were dealing with this issue in our last reports. I think we still agree that this approach is not solving the problem because this system is based on patents, it allows for control, it might still hemper access and is not mandatory for all companies. It is also not legally binding in future. I would not open up the report to introduce this discussion.
on Corteva: We do not say that there are involved in this specific patent application. However it is known, that Corteva is cooperating with the UC. The company is just mentioned to show that UC is not just basic research - many times they are acting in alliance with companies. To clarify: We could add further companies which are cooperating with UC and leave Corteva in the text - would you agree? or should we delete all names of companies and try to find a more neutral sentence giving the same information?
on Keygene: I do not think we have to use this information in the report. It would not change our message, but it would need further explanations.
on Rijk: we already have a short statement included, referring to their position. We could enlarge this passage to quote from their letter. This would be the only substantial change of the report I would be in favour.
We announced the report to be published within next two weeks. I would be happy if we could agree to publish next week and keep the changes to a minimum.
Further, we have interest for insight in the report prior to the publication from the EPO (! very good, Mr Osterwalder kindly asked... ) and from a Belgium Ministry of Agriculture (I will forward to Nina from CEO). I guess we should send something till end of the week.
Cheers
Christoph
_______________________________________________ Npos_2018 mailing list Npos_2018@testbiotech.de https://lists.testbiotech.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/npos_2018
Dear Christoph, Francois,
Good to hear EPO is showing interest in the upcoming report. In general, I agree with your suggestions below. I would like to add a few points:
- For the quote from Rijk Zwaan, we will need to inform and ask their permission. Please send me the revised section that includes the quote so that I can inform them. I expect they will respond for quickly. - For the text on the pepper patent: in needs to be clear that Corteva is not involved in this patent application. From the current text, I also took it that Corteva was involved in that research. I would therefore prefer to rephrase without any mention to specific companies. If Corteva is still mentioned, Oxfam US wants to share the revised text with Corteva again. This can be done very quickly as well (i.e. 1 or 2 workdays max.) - If the above two aspects are fulfilled, we may opt to mention in the report (e.g in a footnote) that the patent applicants discussed in this report have been provided the Opportunity to Comment, and to mention the companies from which we received a response, adding that any errors remain our own. In this way, we can provide context to the inclusion of Rijk Zwaan's quote and we can include (or hide) any other information that we may want to incorporate without including it in the body of the text. We can also simply state that we are happy to continue a dialogue with companies and other stakeholders on this important topic. But, as I said before, this is just a suggestion and we can also leave this out.
Best regards,
Bram
-----Original Message----- From: Npos_2018 npos_2018-bounces@testbiotech.de On Behalf Of francois.meienberg@prospecierara.ch Sent: Wednesday, 15 April 2020 11:29 To: 'Christoph Then' info@no-patents-on-seeds.org; npos_2018@testbiotech.de Subject: Re: [Npos_2018] short note on comments received so far and interest in our report by the EPO
Dear Christoph
I agree.
Would be good to introduce a slight change regarding Corteva. To say that UC is not just in basic reseach but also cooperates with companies as Corteva (and mentioning more). Would add these alliances onyl in chapter 8.3 - but not in the short version at page 5.
.. and to add a quote from Rjik Zwaan.
But not include other changes.
François
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Npos_2018 npos_2018-bounces@testbiotech.de Im Auftrag von Christoph Then Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. April 2020 10:57 An: npos_2018@testbiotech.de Betreff: [Npos_2018] short note on comments received so far and interest in our report by the EPO
Dear all
just had a second look into the answers (while being aware that two further answers are announced).
My conclusions so far:
all companies are mentioning platforms where breeder can go and ask for license. We were dealing with this issue in our last reports. I think we still agree that this approach is not solving the problem because this system is based on patents, it allows for control, it might still hemper access and is not mandatory for all companies. It is also not legally binding in future. I would not open up the report to introduce this discussion.
on Corteva: We do not say that there are involved in this specific patent application. However it is known, that Corteva is cooperating with the UC. The company is just mentioned to show that UC is not just basic research - many times they are acting in alliance with companies. To clarify: We could add further companies which are cooperating with UC and leave Corteva in the text - would you agree? or should we delete all names of companies and try to find a more neutral sentence giving the same information?
on Keygene: I do not think we have to use this information in the report. It would not change our message, but it would need further explanations.
on Rijk: we already have a short statement included, referring to their position. We could enlarge this passage to quote from their letter. This would be the only substantial change of the report I would be in favour.
We announced the report to be published within next two weeks. I would be happy if we could agree to publish next week and keep the changes to a minimum.
Further, we have interest for insight in the report prior to the publication from the EPO (! very good, Mr Osterwalder kindly asked... ) and from a Belgium Ministry of Agriculture (I will forward to Nina from CEO). I guess we should send something till end of the week.
Cheers
Christoph
_______________________________________________ Npos_2018 mailing list Npos_2018@testbiotech.de https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.test...
_______________________________________________ Npos_2018 mailing list Npos_2018@testbiotech.de https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.test...
Dear Bram
thanks for organising the phone call with Plantum. Although there was not very much outcome, it is very good to exchange views.
on the points raised beyond I see no problem, at least the first two pints. I will try to draft these two changes in the text asap.
cheers
Christoph
Am 15.04.20 um 14:17 schrieb Bram de Jonge:
Dear Christoph, Francois,
Good to hear EPO is showing interest in the upcoming report. In general, I agree with your suggestions below. I would like to add a few points:
- For the quote from Rijk Zwaan, we will need to inform and ask their permission. Please send me the revised section that includes the quote so that I can inform them. I expect they will respond for quickly.
- For the text on the pepper patent: in needs to be clear that Corteva is not involved in this patent application. From the current text, I also took it that Corteva was involved in that research. I would therefore prefer to rephrase without any mention to specific companies. If Corteva is still mentioned, Oxfam US wants to share the revised text with Corteva again. This can be done very quickly as well (i.e. 1 or 2 workdays max.)
- If the above two aspects are fulfilled, we may opt to mention in the report (e.g in a footnote) that the patent applicants discussed in this report have been provided the Opportunity to Comment, and to mention the companies from which we received a response, adding that any errors remain our own. In this way, we can provide context to the inclusion of Rijk Zwaan's quote and we can include (or hide) any other information that we may want to incorporate without including it in the body of the text. We can also simply state that we are happy to continue a dialogue with companies and other stakeholders on this important topic. But, as I said before, this is just a suggestion and we can also leave this out.
Best regards,
Bram
-----Original Message----- From: Npos_2018 npos_2018-bounces@testbiotech.de On Behalf Of francois.meienberg@prospecierara.ch Sent: Wednesday, 15 April 2020 11:29 To: 'Christoph Then' info@no-patents-on-seeds.org; npos_2018@testbiotech.de Subject: Re: [Npos_2018] short note on comments received so far and interest in our report by the EPO
Dear Christoph
I agree.
Would be good to introduce a slight change regarding Corteva. To say that UC is not just in basic reseach but also cooperates with companies as Corteva (and mentioning more). Would add these alliances onyl in chapter 8.3 - but not in the short version at page 5.
.. and to add a quote from Rjik Zwaan.
But not include other changes.
François
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Npos_2018 npos_2018-bounces@testbiotech.de Im Auftrag von Christoph Then Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. April 2020 10:57 An: npos_2018@testbiotech.de Betreff: [Npos_2018] short note on comments received so far and interest in our report by the EPO
Dear all
just had a second look into the answers (while being aware that two further answers are announced).
My conclusions so far:
all companies are mentioning platforms where breeder can go and ask for license. We were dealing with this issue in our last reports. I think we still agree that this approach is not solving the problem because this system is based on patents, it allows for control, it might still hemper access and is not mandatory for all companies. It is also not legally binding in future. I would not open up the report to introduce this discussion.
on Corteva: We do not say that there are involved in this specific patent application. However it is known, that Corteva is cooperating with the UC. The company is just mentioned to show that UC is not just basic research - many times they are acting in alliance with companies. To clarify: We could add further companies which are cooperating with UC and leave Corteva in the text - would you agree? or should we delete all names of companies and try to find a more neutral sentence giving the same information?
on Keygene: I do not think we have to use this information in the report. It would not change our message, but it would need further explanations.
on Rijk: we already have a short statement included, referring to their position. We could enlarge this passage to quote from their letter. This would be the only substantial change of the report I would be in favour.
We announced the report to be published within next two weeks. I would be happy if we could agree to publish next week and keep the changes to a minimum.
Further, we have interest for insight in the report prior to the publication from the EPO (! very good, Mr Osterwalder kindly asked... ) and from a Belgium Ministry of Agriculture (I will forward to Nina from CEO). I guess we should send something till end of the week.
Cheers
Christoph
Npos_2018 mailing list Npos_2018@testbiotech.de https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.test...
Npos_2018 mailing list Npos_2018@testbiotech.de https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.test... _______________________________________________ Npos_2018 mailing list Npos_2018@testbiotech.de https://lists.testbiotech.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/npos_2018
Dear Christoph Could you give us a short summary of the conversation with Plantum? (When you have time ...)
Best François
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Npos_2018 npos_2018-bounces@testbiotech.de Im Auftrag von Christoph Then Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. April 2020 16:29 An: npos_2018@testbiotech.de Betreff: Re: [Npos_2018] short note on comments received so far and interest in our report by the EPO
Dear Bram
thanks for organising the phone call with Plantum. Although there was not very much outcome, it is very good to exchange views.
on the points raised beyond I see no problem, at least the first two pints. I will try to draft these two changes in the text asap.
cheers
Christoph
Am 15.04.20 um 14:17 schrieb Bram de Jonge:
Dear Christoph, Francois,
Good to hear EPO is showing interest in the upcoming report. In general, I agree with your suggestions below. I would like to add a few points:
- For the quote from Rijk Zwaan, we will need to inform and ask their permission. Please send me the revised section that includes the quote so that I can inform them. I expect they will respond for quickly.
- For the text on the pepper patent: in needs to be clear that Corteva
is not involved in this patent application. From the current text, I also took it that Corteva was involved in that research. I would therefore prefer to rephrase without any mention to specific companies. If Corteva is still mentioned, Oxfam US wants to share the revised text with Corteva again. This can be done very quickly as well (i.e. 1 or 2 workdays max.)
- If the above two aspects are fulfilled, we may opt to mention in the report (e.g in a footnote) that the patent applicants discussed in this report have been provided the Opportunity to Comment, and to mention the companies from which we received a response, adding that any errors remain our own. In this way, we can provide context to the inclusion of Rijk Zwaan's quote and we can include (or hide) any other information that we may want to incorporate without including it in the body of the text. We can also simply state that we are happy to continue a dialogue with companies and other stakeholders on this important topic. But, as I said before, this is just a suggestion and we can also leave this out.
Best regards,
Bram
-----Original Message----- From: Npos_2018 npos_2018-bounces@testbiotech.de On Behalf Of francois.meienberg@prospecierara.ch Sent: Wednesday, 15 April 2020 11:29 To: 'Christoph Then' info@no-patents-on-seeds.org; npos_2018@testbiotech.de Subject: Re: [Npos_2018] short note on comments received so far and interest in our report by the EPO
Dear Christoph
I agree.
Would be good to introduce a slight change regarding Corteva. To say that UC is not just in basic reseach but also cooperates with companies as Corteva (and mentioning more). Would add these alliances onyl in chapter 8.3 - but not in the short version at page 5.
.. and to add a quote from Rjik Zwaan.
But not include other changes.
François
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Npos_2018 npos_2018-bounces@testbiotech.de Im Auftrag von Christoph Then Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. April 2020 10:57 An: npos_2018@testbiotech.de Betreff: [Npos_2018] short note on comments received so far and interest in our report by the EPO
Dear all
just had a second look into the answers (while being aware that two further answers are announced).
My conclusions so far:
all companies are mentioning platforms where breeder can go and ask for license. We were dealing with this issue in our last reports. I think we still agree that this approach is not solving the problem because this system is based on patents, it allows for control, it might still hemper access and is not mandatory for all companies. It is also not legally binding in future. I would not open up the report to introduce this discussion.
on Corteva: We do not say that there are involved in this specific patent application. However it is known, that Corteva is cooperating with the UC. The company is just mentioned to show that UC is not just basic research - many times they are acting in alliance with companies. To clarify: We could add further companies which are cooperating with UC and leave Corteva in the text - would you agree? or should we delete all names of companies and try to find a more neutral sentence giving the same information?
on Keygene: I do not think we have to use this information in the report. It would not change our message, but it would need further explanations.
on Rijk: we already have a short statement included, referring to their position. We could enlarge this passage to quote from their letter. This would be the only substantial change of the report I would be in favour.
We announced the report to be published within next two weeks. I would be happy if we could agree to publish next week and keep the changes to a minimum.
Further, we have interest for insight in the report prior to the publication from the EPO (! very good, Mr Osterwalder kindly asked... ) and from a Belgium Ministry of Agriculture (I will forward to Nina from CEO). I guess we should send something till end of the week.
Cheers
Christoph
Npos_2018 mailing list Npos_2018@testbiotech.de https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist s.testbiotech.de%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fnpos_2018&data=0 2%7C01%7CBram.de.Jonge%40oxfamnovib.nl%7C4d33385de90b4111186108d7e11f6 58a%7Cc42c6655bda0417590bab6e48cacd561%7C0%7C0%7C637225397283672797&am p;sdata=GagpBW4sTTBv73ekgcxybQMNNJUnwGGyj3Dzy59U%2Fik%3D&reserved= 0
Npos_2018 mailing list Npos_2018@testbiotech.de https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist s.testbiotech.de%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fnpos_2018&data=0 2%7C01%7CBram.de.Jonge%40oxfamnovib.nl%7C4d33385de90b4111186108d7e11f6 58a%7Cc42c6655bda0417590bab6e48cacd561%7C0%7C0%7C637225397283672797&am p;sdata=GagpBW4sTTBv73ekgcxybQMNNJUnwGGyj3Dzy59U%2Fik%3D&reserved= 0 _______________________________________________ Npos_2018 mailing list Npos_2018@testbiotech.de https://lists.testbiotech.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/npos_2018
_______________________________________________ Npos_2018 mailing list Npos_2018@testbiotech.de https://lists.testbiotech.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/npos_2018
dear Francois
From my side, there also was nothing really new.
as before, Plantum is some like minded to our demands, but not 100 Percent clear.
They still find try to find a way how to get rid of patents on genome editing as well and think it might be a good idea first to confirm 28 (2) and then start to work on all mutations. If you ask them whether they think that patent law would need changing (not only change of Implementing Regulations), they say yes. But they do not want to ask for a conference of the contracting parties yet (see below).
If you ask them whether it would not be a good idea to first get a wide exclusion under rule 28 (2) (including random mutations) and then see for the rest, they seem to agree. But I doubt they really do.
They are considering not only two scenarios but three: To their opinion, the Enlarged Board might say that the EU has to show that the statement of the EU Commission is legally binding. This might mean we somebody has to to the EU Court. They also think, to get an exclusion of genome editing, it would be a good idea to change the EU Directive.
I tried to explain that this scenario might not be so relevant. The EU cannot take decision about the content of the EPC. If Rule 28(2) is in contradiction to the EPC (this is the essence of the question, the Enlarged Board has to answer) then it does not matter, what the EU Court says about. Somehow, they seemed to agree.
All in all I am not sure about their strategy. They seem to wait for the decision of the Enlarged Board and then try to find a diplomatic way to go on. It reminds me to the situation when Plantum hoped to achieve a full breeders exemption under the Unified Patents system, although it was clear that this strategy will not work.
In the best case, thy now are rethinking their strategy being aware that they might loose a opportunity if they do not have a clear strategy. But I do not expect anything substantial. Good news: They are still somehow our allies. But they could have much stronger impact ...
Cheers
Christoph
Am 20.04.20 um 17:58 schrieb francois.meienberg@prospecierara.ch:
Dear Christoph Could you give us a short summary of the conversation with Plantum? (When you have time ...)
Best François
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Npos_2018 npos_2018-bounces@testbiotech.de Im Auftrag von Christoph Then Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. April 2020 16:29 An: npos_2018@testbiotech.de Betreff: Re: [Npos_2018] short note on comments received so far and interest in our report by the EPO
Dear Bram
thanks for organising the phone call with Plantum. Although there was not very much outcome, it is very good to exchange views.
on the points raised beyond I see no problem, at least the first two pints. I will try to draft these two changes in the text asap.
cheers
Christoph
Am 15.04.20 um 14:17 schrieb Bram de Jonge:
Dear Christoph, Francois,
Good to hear EPO is showing interest in the upcoming report. In general, I agree with your suggestions below. I would like to add a few points:
- For the quote from Rijk Zwaan, we will need to inform and ask their permission. Please send me the revised section that includes the quote so that I can inform them. I expect they will respond for quickly.
- For the text on the pepper patent: in needs to be clear that Corteva
is not involved in this patent application. From the current text, I also took it that Corteva was involved in that research. I would therefore prefer to rephrase without any mention to specific companies. If Corteva is still mentioned, Oxfam US wants to share the revised text with Corteva again. This can be done very quickly as well (i.e. 1 or 2 workdays max.)
- If the above two aspects are fulfilled, we may opt to mention in the report (e.g in a footnote) that the patent applicants discussed in this report have been provided the Opportunity to Comment, and to mention the companies from which we received a response, adding that any errors remain our own. In this way, we can provide context to the inclusion of Rijk Zwaan's quote and we can include (or hide) any other information that we may want to incorporate without including it in the body of the text. We can also simply state that we are happy to continue a dialogue with companies and other stakeholders on this important topic. But, as I said before, this is just a suggestion and we can also leave this out.
Best regards,
Bram
-----Original Message----- From: Npos_2018 npos_2018-bounces@testbiotech.de On Behalf Of francois.meienberg@prospecierara.ch Sent: Wednesday, 15 April 2020 11:29 To: 'Christoph Then' info@no-patents-on-seeds.org; npos_2018@testbiotech.de Subject: Re: [Npos_2018] short note on comments received so far and interest in our report by the EPO
Dear Christoph
I agree.
Would be good to introduce a slight change regarding Corteva. To say that UC is not just in basic reseach but also cooperates with companies as Corteva (and mentioning more). Would add these alliances onyl in chapter 8.3 - but not in the short version at page 5.
.. and to add a quote from Rjik Zwaan.
But not include other changes.
François
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Npos_2018 npos_2018-bounces@testbiotech.de Im Auftrag von Christoph Then Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. April 2020 10:57 An: npos_2018@testbiotech.de Betreff: [Npos_2018] short note on comments received so far and interest in our report by the EPO
Dear all
just had a second look into the answers (while being aware that two further answers are announced).
My conclusions so far:
all companies are mentioning platforms where breeder can go and ask for license. We were dealing with this issue in our last reports. I think we still agree that this approach is not solving the problem because this system is based on patents, it allows for control, it might still hemper access and is not mandatory for all companies. It is also not legally binding in future. I would not open up the report to introduce this discussion.
on Corteva: We do not say that there are involved in this specific patent application. However it is known, that Corteva is cooperating with the UC. The company is just mentioned to show that UC is not just basic research - many times they are acting in alliance with companies. To clarify: We could add further companies which are cooperating with UC and leave Corteva in the text - would you agree? or should we delete all names of companies and try to find a more neutral sentence giving the same information?
on Keygene: I do not think we have to use this information in the report. It would not change our message, but it would need further explanations.
on Rijk: we already have a short statement included, referring to their position. We could enlarge this passage to quote from their letter. This would be the only substantial change of the report I would be in favour.
We announced the report to be published within next two weeks. I would be happy if we could agree to publish next week and keep the changes to a minimum.
Further, we have interest for insight in the report prior to the publication from the EPO (! very good, Mr Osterwalder kindly asked... ) and from a Belgium Ministry of Agriculture (I will forward to Nina from CEO). I guess we should send something till end of the week.
Cheers
Christoph
Npos_2018 mailing list Npos_2018@testbiotech.de https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist s.testbiotech.de%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fnpos_2018&data=0 2%7C01%7CBram.de.Jonge%40oxfamnovib.nl%7C4d33385de90b4111186108d7e11f6 58a%7Cc42c6655bda0417590bab6e48cacd561%7C0%7C0%7C637225397283672797&am p;sdata=GagpBW4sTTBv73ekgcxybQMNNJUnwGGyj3Dzy59U%2Fik%3D&reserved= 0
Npos_2018 mailing list Npos_2018@testbiotech.de https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist s.testbiotech.de%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fnpos_2018&data=0 2%7C01%7CBram.de.Jonge%40oxfamnovib.nl%7C4d33385de90b4111186108d7e11f6 58a%7Cc42c6655bda0417590bab6e48cacd561%7C0%7C0%7C637225397283672797&am p;sdata=GagpBW4sTTBv73ekgcxybQMNNJUnwGGyj3Dzy59U%2Fik%3D&reserved= 0 _______________________________________________ Npos_2018 mailing list Npos_2018@testbiotech.de https://lists.testbiotech.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/npos_2018
Npos_2018 mailing list Npos_2018@testbiotech.de https://lists.testbiotech.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/npos_2018
Npos_2018 mailing list Npos_2018@testbiotech.de https://lists.testbiotech.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/npos_2018
participants (3)
-
Bram de Jonge -
Christoph Then -
francois.meienberg＠prospecierara.ch