Postcodes, PAF and Pseudonymisation

Filed under: Assets,Innovation — lenand @ 7:56 am
Tags: , , , ,

Toby Stephens provided the headline in his blog on Computer Weekly.  His scheme for personalising postcodes could have traction – although £33m per annum income might be ambitious and may not include the admin costs.

As he says:

“PAF is already a tightly-regulated product, with strict controls imposed on Royal Mail’s access fees. Postcodes were originally introduced by Royal Mail to facilitate automated sorting of deliveries, back in the days before computers were available to support that process. They’re now used for a whole host of purposes, from insurance and credit rating, through to navigation and lotteries.”

Quarkside adds that Postcodes only give a postman’s walk, and additional information from the address is needed to find the right letter box. Postcodes are not Unique Identifiers for properties.  Properties are uniquely identified by a Local Government controlled Unique Property Reference Number (UPRN).  Personalising this 12 digit code is potentially more practical.  The UPRN is presumably free, open data.  The Royal Mail could use it to minimise final local delivery errors via their own data processing systems.

As an aside, it is Local Authorities that are the official registrar of addresses – not the Royal Mail or Post Office.  It is part of the UK taxation system and includes properties that do not receive any post.  Try sending a letter to an electricity transformer.  To get a bit more income, perhaps Local Authorities should start charging the privatised Royal Mail for the copyright of property addresses!


Quick Win #2: Additional Income from Council Assets

Filed under: Assets,Governance,Innovation,Technology — lenand @ 12:19 pm

New Money for Old Infrastructure

The alternative to reducing expenditure is to increase income.  Local authorities (LAs) are often not tuned into the potential value from the assets they control.  Hence, this next no brainer.  Simply stated LAs should:

  • Charge a fee to telecoms suppliers for a concession to use street furniture and rooftops;
  • Request a proportion of income generated by the concession.

Why is this not commonplace?  Timing.

Mobile communications are now ubiquitous, especially smartphones with Wi-Fi capacity.  Many sections of society do not have fixed telephone lines or broadband and are dependent on mobile devices.  They are demanding data communications in addition to voice communications.  They welcome Wi-Fi, especially if it is free.  Telecoms suppliers want to attract and retain such valuable customers.

Early LAs get the Worm

The good news is that telecoms suppliers are now prepared to pay local authorities for a concession in town centres.  This will provide an element of free Wi-Fi for visitors and an additional source of income.  The evidence comes from the early entrepreneurship by Westminster and Colchester Councils.

Metro wireless networks are not a new concept. They have been used in the United Kingdom for a number of years with varying degrees of success. Originally, they were a commercial deployment in town centres for public Internet access via laptops – with the user paying a subscription fee.  This model was, in most cases, relatively unsuccessful.  As access to the Internet via mobile handsets and PDAs has increased, justification has moved away from a chargeable service towards a value added free service.  Suppliers can derive revenue from many sources, such as sponsorship, advertising, digital video services, games, music and backhaul for other telecoms companies. The current economics do not require a subscription model.

A major barrier for private sector suppliers is the need for numerous access points at street level.  LAs can provide a solution by offering locations for mounting equipment, such as on street furniture and rooftops.  Private sector suppliers can now deliver Metro Wi-Fi in town centres by paying commercial fees for the use of public assets and sharing some of their income.

LAs should open up for business, obtaining additional value from current infrastructure.

Brownie Points and Benefits for LAs

Town Centre Wi-Fi immediately attracts the attention of local shoppers and retail outlets.  It can be launched with a fanfare, showing how the local council is providing something for citizens – without costing a fortune.  Local politicians love it. The public applauds unlimited free access to commercial and local information.  Look at the potential:

  • Retail Development: Retailers can publish promotions for local shoppers.  Both national and local retailers benefit from technology that attracts and retains new customers.  Free Town Centre Wi-Fi offers a unique selling point for retailers.  Footfall can be increased with mobile vouchers for shops, cafés, hotels or restaurants.
  • Tourism: Visitors can be attracted to tourist, cultural and entertainment venues. Commercial opportunities will arise through advertising promotions and events. Interactive tour guides can enhance visitor experience and encourage more visitors.
  • Economic Development and Regeneration: A modern and flexible infrastructure supports modern businesses.  It sends a positive signal to inward investors that could support training, education and other community services.
  • Social and Digital Inclusion: Free Wi-Fi could be a channel for digitally excluded communities that do not have the Internet in their homes.  Many younger members of this group have smartphones with a Wi-Fi capability (projected 75% by 2014).  Community engagement becomes possible through free access to a local authority portal.
  • Channel Shift of Council Services: Digitally and social excluded people are normally the greatest users of council services.  Easy access to council content and information will help to bridge the “digital divide”, shifting some service delivery to more efficient channels.

Just do it

It may be a no brainer, but LAs must take care.  They must be scrupulously fair in offering concessions and be aware of State Aid regulations – to say nothing of the technical and planning requirements.  There may be other communications and shared service projects in progress that could impact development plans.  Finally, don’t expect suppliers to deliver perfection.  LAs must follow all the basic principles of good project governance, especially by assuring the quality of service.  The public may think it is an LA service even if it is totally provided by the private sector.


7DIG: Time needs more than philosophy

Filed under: Assets,Governance,Objectives,Outcomes,People,Process,Risk,Time — lenand @ 10:08 am
Tags: , ,

The Time component of the seven dimensional information governance (7DIG) framework was of little practical interest.  The spatio-temporal paradigm may hold the philosophical high ground, but a treatise on Gantt charts would have been out of place.  Serendipity has revealed a practical product, which is free, and is based on a philosophy of teams doing the right thing at the right time.  It brings together the People who have to do the information governance with the Process that sets Objectives and uses Assets to achieve the desired Outcomes.  And it has a Risk register.

It is project based – ideal for setting up an Information Governance process and should be adaptable for continuous monitoring. Look at some of the features:

  1. People from any department or supplier
  2. Assets, such as an information asset register and documentation, as a sharable resources
  3. Objectives, as part of the textual description including a breakdown into areas of interest or phases of work
  4. Process description in the form of tasks, which can be repeatable, taking us through the identification to deletion cycle
  5. Outcomes by the way of documented completion of tasks and compliance with targets
  6. Time charts, calendars, milestones and the possibility to export to your favourite Gantt chart tools
  7. Risk register, very simple to input and understand but good enough in most Information Governance régimes

The openness is especially encouraging.  It is completely Web-based and viewable from your iPod, iPhone or iPad.  Even the name is encouraging – Teamwork.

Quarkside wondered why such a simple product has not popped up in the radar previously.  Maybe it has only been promoted within the systems development community – and not yet reached public sector ICT managers.  Another job for Socitm?


IG Assets: Data Quality and ISO 8000

Filed under: Assets,Governance,Standards — lenand @ 11:25 pm
Tags: , , ,

 “Without trusted information government would have to exist on hunch and guesswork.”

The quotation above came from the Eurim report on “Improving the Evidence Base“.  It’s another way of saying that data quality matters.  Quality is an attribute of information assets, a primary dimension in the 7 Dimensional Information Governance framework (7DIG).  The Audit Commission provide the dimensions of data quality as:

  • Accuracy – accurate enough for the intended purpose.
  • Validity – recorded and used incompliance with relevant requirements.
  • Reliability –  reflect stable and consistent data collection processes across collection points and over time.
  • Timeliness – captured as quickly as possible after the event or activity and made available within a reasonable period of time.
  • Relevance – relevant to the purposes for which it is to be used.
  • Completeness – data requirements should be clearly specified based on the information needs of the body, and data collection processes matched to these requirements.

The now defunct Data Connects Forum also commissioned an excellent report on Data Quality Management. It has a framework which inspired the 7DIG framework.  A lot of work went into developing the detailed recommendations and supporting software tools.  However, as with the Eurim report, it is the work of a small group of professionals.  Neither refer to nor comply with any international standard.  ISO standards are produced by a wider body of people over long consultation period.  ISO standards have to be rigorously tested.

ISO 8000 is the Emerging Standard for Data Quality.  It has been many years in gestation with ISO TC184/SC4, the ISO subcommittee that looks after industrial data. However, it has been recognised from the start that this standard could have a much wider usage.  Should the UK Public Sector be interested?  Perhaps the Cabinet Office and LeGSB should keep an eye on progress, in case it could help to improve the quality of shared data.


QA may madden Maude

The 2011 Government ICT strategy preaches standards.   Tick box = Good.  People who bore for standards preach, ‘to do it properly you must define the standard and check later that the standard has been followed’.  This blog compares the strategy against a standard (standard with a small ‘s’) – in this case against the same set that was used to review the SOCITM ICT Strategy, released in draft last month.

The target for all public sector ICT is established in the introduction:

“6. Information and communications technology (ICT) is critical for the effective operation of government and the delivery of the services it provides to citizens and businesses. It offers key benefits by enabling:

  • access to online transactional services, which makes life simpler and more convenient for citizens and businesses; and
  • channels to collaborate and share information with citizens and business, which in turn enable the innovation of new online tools and services.”

Everybody must agree with this, and observe that sharing information across multiple agency boundaries is critical for citizens, businesses and agencies.  It has led to much discussion about shared infrastructure, shared services and the benefits this will bring.  Fortunately, we can use a standard for quality assuring the Strategy and highlighting any gaps that need to be addressed.  It has nine dimensions for assessing multi-agency information sharing partnerships.

  • Business Scope and Plans
  • Governance
  • Legal Issues, Policies, Rights and Responsibilities
  • Information Sharing
  • Identity Management
  • Federation
  • Transactions, Events and Messages
  • Infrastructure
  • Sustainability

Overall these can be summarised into Process, Governance and Technology – the Quarkside mantra.  A quick traffic light assessment against the standard dimensions is as follows:

  • Business Scope and Plans: Amber

The reasons are good and there is an aggressive, but risky timeplan.  Dependence on on word ‘Agile’, is a recipe for systemic obscuring of progress.  It provides opportunities for hiding problems that only emerge when the end-users in multiple location are expected to change time-honoured processes, and new systems are not interoperable with old systems.  The needs of 450 local authorities must not be ignored.

  • Governance:  Amber

A structure has been developed, but it omits the input of local delivery agencies, such as local authorities.

  • Legal Issues, Policies, Rights and Responsibilities: Amber

Apart from the Policy, other issues are not raised

  • Information Sharing: Amber

Use of open standards and APIs will help at a programmatic level, but additional useful services, such as Master Data Management and systems interoperability standards are not mentioned.

  • Identity Management:  Red

Avoidance of a cross public sector strategy for citizen, employee and agent identity management risks complete failure of the strategy and policy objectives will not be met.

  • Federation: Red

Federated trust by all involved agencies is vital for both accuracy and efficiency.  Nowhere is this mentioned or implied.

  • Transactions, Events and Messages:  Green

Operational systems usually find technical solution for inter-system data transfers.  The use of Web services on the Cloud should help.  Channel issues are addressed

  • Infrastructure:  Greenish

The overwhelming weight of the document is technology and infrastructure, there are eleven actions planned.  However, one suspects that the thought process has ignored local government and external agencies in the calculations.  Are local authorities expected to reduce ICT costs by 35%?

  • Sustainability:  Red

The standard means to ability to sustain a shared service for operation over many years, not reducing carbon usage.  Most shared services fail because of the inability to agree funding for operations, and all the development investment is wasted.  Central Government must agree a sustainable funding model at the very beginning of every information sharing project.  The Cabinet Office should feel responsible for the whole of the public sector, not just central government departments and agencies.

So how do you react to 3 Reds, 4 Ambers and 2 Greens?  It is low on Process and Governance and higher on Technology.  Quarkside thinks it is good enough for a first draft to get the ball rolling.  But if Francis Maude thinks this document is going to deliver all his policy objectives, then I fear that he, or his successor, is set for a big disappointment and some explaining to do.


IG Process: Due Diligence

Filed under: Assets,Objectives,Outcomes,People,Process — lenand @ 9:50 am
Tags: , ,

“Information Governance is the setting of objectives to achieve valuable outcomes by people using information assets in a process that considers both risk and time constraints.”

Information Governance (IG) must have Process. The Process must consider IG Objectives, Outcomes, People and Assets.  Theses are the critical first five dimensions of the Seven Dimensional IG ramework (7DIG).

Again, we can use the magic number seven to subdivide the Process dimension. Seven transitive verbs, Acquire, Validate, Store, Protect, Update, Publish and Dispose cover most governance operations. It is a continuous life cycle, capable of being monitored and controlled at every stage:

  • Acquire: Data acquisition, in the 7DIG Framework, includes action around analysis of the information assets and data modelling. The context of data collection is vital to onward processing and re-use in further processes. Quarkside subscribes to the concept of Master Data, Operational Data and Derived data. Master data is relatively static reference data. All data has to be acquired and subjected to further governance processes.
  • Validate: Incorrect data causes inefficiency, often accounting for 80% of administrative effort on systems; but far worse is the impact of poor information on decision making and information sharing. Good governance requires metadata and the use of standards to be embedded in the culture. Validation implies comparison of input data with a standard that is enshrined in metadata. Even paper-based publications are subject to validation against standards of grammar and probity before they are published.
  • Store: Imagine data stores as silos. Individual grains of data are added until required for further processing. Vast volumes of operational data are stored for subsequent processing. Documents are added to filing cabinets or archive shelves. In the best regulated environments there are custodians who know where the data is and how to retrieve it.
  • Protect: Data protection and security of access is an industry in itself. It makes sense to protect any valuable asset and information is no exception. Identity management, likewise, is an all pervading topic. It has to cover the identity of the data subject and the identity of the data investigator. For information sharing between agencies, accurate data matching depends on the quality of subject identities.
  • Update: Over the course of time, there are changes to facts and figures. Records need to be retrieved and modified. There are elements of feedback to make corrections as a result of performance monitoring and analytical processing. Derived data can be added to the data stores.
  • Publish: Data should be published only to those who are entitled to use it or see it. This could even be open data provided to the general public, such as the £500 contracts with local government.
  • Dispose: Oft forgot is the need to delete data. The DPA requires that data should be held only as long as necessary. Whereas this is probably true of major corporate systems, this governance step may not always extend to private document files, emails and spreadsheets. Many operational documents can be safely shredded in less than ten years; others, such as children in care records, have a statutory limit of 125 years. The key to a good disposal policy is the Information Asset Register, wherein the metadata should include the disposal policy. Transfer to the National Archive should also feature as a category when documents may have historical importance when not required by a local authority or other public body.

Governance matters, but it cannot be a universal set of rules. Neither do frameworks guarantee good governance. Frameworks can only provide simple diagrams and checklists, they cannot provide the thinking or knowledge needed in any specific context.

So why bother promoting a framework? The justification is that that requirements are so diverse that a team is needed to cover all aspects at sufficient depth. People need at least an overview of some specialist issue. Hence the importance of a MECE approach that does not drill into the detail, but tries to cover all important topics (aka dimensions).


Bureaucracy Blocks Broadband Bonanza

Britain wants the best broadband in Europe.  But bureaucracy may beat our best endeavours is a message that could be gleaned from a recent Eurim meeting.

The keynote speaker was regulator, but now works for an equipment supplier.  Apparently the predicted demand from mobile devices with Internet features is going to fill the available capacity remarkably quickly.  Mobile data traffic is expected to increase 30-fold between 2010 and 2015, with smartphone densities of 12,800 per km2.  This needs investment in backhaul capacity and the wholesale suppliers of bandwidth do not see a clear financial case.  They do not think that £30 per month at the retail end can be sustained.

The simple truth is that running competing fibre infrastructure (and mobile masts) is inefficient.  A single national infrastructure is the most efficient.  Some parts of the world, such as Brazil, China, Russia and Australia, have a policy to create such an infrastructure.  They are now advancing quicker than the EU countries and showing benefits to their economies.  This is a cause for concern in Europe and innovative ways of financing are being promoted.  France is doing it via local authority projects.  Most départments are creating joint ventures, partnerships, which include an element of public funding, as much as 50% in some areas.  The private sector are being given a reasonable return on a 10 year investment.  Have UK Local authorities got the energy to create such local partnerships?

Rural areas present special problems.  80% of the cost of the infrastructure is digging holes and civil works.  Farmers have tractors capable of doing the trenching at a lower cost than most contractors – in some countries as much as one third is done by local land owners.  Then you find out that, in the UK, there are arcane regulations about removal of telegraph poles.  Suffice to say, they belong to BT and there is a bureaucratic blockage.  Shared wayleave will also create much entertainment for lawyers.  The UK non-domestic rates are the biggest barrier to investment in rural areas.  In one example, <1,000  lines  >1km  from  exchange, rates are 86% of the operating costs.  Even in urban areas 30% is not untypical.  It needs some rapid legislation to amend the current rules that were developed when there was no concept of the growth in demand for broadband and how essential it is in developing the economy.  Who is going to take the lead?


IG Assets: Value and protect

Filed under: Assets,Governance,Objectives,Outcomes,People,Process,Risk — lenand @ 8:25 am

Information Governance is the setting of Objectives to achieve measurable Outcomes by People using information Assets in a life cycle Process that considers the impact of both Risk and Time.

Information Assets are the end-products of much of Society’s activity.  Like any valuable assets, they should be valued, protected and probably insured.  Even if not insured, money should be spent on reducing the risk of loss. Some might say it is the primary purpose of Information Governance.  One may then ask, ‘Why do so few organisations have an information asset register?’.  Quarkside attempts to explain.

The seven dimensions of Information Governance (7DIG) have secondary dimensions.  But the boundaries between them are nebulous. A common failing is restricting consideration to assets that are exclusively electronic. Huge repositories exist in paper files, archives, libraries and maps. Even though some may be digitised, many are not and most will not have indexes that will allow efficient identification of useful resources. The Data Protection Act does not apply to paper based archives. The candidate secondary dimensions are:

  • Documents: Paper based records may be well protected physically, but least accessible. They do not possess password once they have been retrieved. Military establishments have strict protocols for access. Public libraries do not need high quality identity management. Unless they have been scanned with optical character recognition software, then it is impossible to automatically share the content with electronic systems.
  • Hardware: Computer processors and microfilm readers can both be classified as hardware. Only computers are subject to misuse and cyber attacks and need special protection measures.
  • Software: Computer programs that manage the processing and flow if information
  • Infrastructure: Networks and other facilities that surround information stores.
  • IPR: Rights attached to data, images and documents
  • Data: Raw data, which usually undergoes some form of processing before it is considered useful. It can be held on digital or any other media.
  • Information: It is debatable whether information is fundamentally different from data. Quarkside finds it helpful to define information as sets of data that have been subject to some value added process, such as indexing, mathematical transformation, selection or analysis. Information has been described as useful data.

All assets have a value; therefore they need governance. Only some assets have a tangible value that appears on a company balance sheet; typically books, hardware, some software and infrastructure. Data and information are intangible assets, and even though they may have greater value, they do not have a place on the balance sheet.  However, they should be given equal levels of stewardship.

As Wikileaks has demonstrated, leakage or theft of information can cause huge reputational damage and seriously threaten the viability of an organisation. Most public sector agencies do not have a register of information assets. How can they be controlled with knowledge of what they are or their potential value?  Some standards would be welcome.

Critical data may be held on spreadsheets, or in filing cabinets, that can only be operated by one person. Quarkside says that such behaviour must be identified and governance improved to more professional levels.

Finally, a linguistic point.  The four dimensions already considered, Objectives, Outcomes, People and Assets, are the subjects and objects of Information Governance. Grammatically, they are nouns and they need to be linked by verbs, (dare I say transitive verbs?) to make sentences. Such verbs describe the Process of Information Governance in the next blog in the 7DIG series.


Broadband bags half a billion. Market failure

Filed under: Assets,Education,Local Government,Standards — lenand @ 11:53 am
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

DCMS have taken over from BIS, for delivery of “the best superfast broadband network in Europe by 2015”.  Or so were told the Local Government Delivery Council at a meeting in London recently.  They have a budget of £530 million to oil the market machinery.  It’s supposed to be new money – but in practice it is a TV licence fee top slice, which we are paying anyway.  More maudlin repeats are the true cost.

Apparently we are megabits behind Europe already, judging from comments from the audience reaction.

  • We are ten times the cost of some countries
  • Neither BT, nor anybody else in the market, is going to supply fibre to the home.   This is essential in some definitions of superfast”.
  • Fixed lines are not the only problem.  Local authorities need much broader reach of Wimax to deliver savings from the mobile work force.

The main publicity is about reaching the final third of the population without broadband, who are deemed to be non-profitable to the private sector suppliers.  Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK) have been set up to catalyse the market and ‘de-risk’ final third.  BDUK are seek EU funding and hope to extract more from Local Government.  Market failure means public subsidy has to prop up uneconomic networks.  The carrot is the chance for local authorities to bid for some of the central funding.  But one wonders which services have to disappear to release the additional matched funding.

Fortunately, there are some opportunities for using existing public sector network services.  Is the final third more reachable by using police, health and schools network?  The answer is, YES.

The ‘best in Europe’?   Quarkside thinks, NO.  Just read Eurim’s learned “Making Broadband Investment Markets Work – Draft Paper” .


IG People: Huge gap in skills

Information Governance is the setting of Objectives to achieve measurable Outcomes by People using information Assets in a life cycle Process that considers the impact of both Risk and Time.

People are our greatest asset; thanks to Graham Sadd of PAOGA for promoting this phrase.  It highlights a weakness in the definition above.  In the public service context, consideration has to be given to both the receivers and providers of service. Service receivers are rightly sensitive to, and legally protected for, the sharing of personal data; they have rights. Service providers have roles and responsibilities with respect to processing data about their clients.  Organisations have a duty to administer information Assets securely and use them for improving Outcomes.

People are a primary dimension in the 7DIG Framework. Seven candidate secondary dimensions are:

  • Identity: defines a person uniquely. It is essential in every personalised service for both the giver and receiver. Identity Management is a huge topic and beneficially considered as separate subject, however it is inextricably linked with Information Governance. Correct identity is used to establish rights, roles and responsibilities. Correct identity is necessary for information sharing between organisations.
  • Rights: Whether enshrined in statute or common law, individual citizens have rights of many kinds. Information collected from and held about citizens is entrusted to public authorities for safe-keeping. Entitlements, such as housing benefits, are personally sensitive and there is a right of privacy.
  • Responsibilities: Service delivery staff are charged with administrative duties and may be obliged to follow strict information sharing protocols.
  • Organisation: Government agencies and local authorities, not named staff, are usually nominated as the guardians of information. The management structure and hierarchy needs to identify a senior responsible officer who is accountable for Information Governance.
  • Roles: People may have several different roles at the same time, depending on the context. A police officer would just be regarded as a parent in a school system.  The Information Governance Processes should be capable of verifying that access to information Assets is only given to appropriate roles.
  • Culture: Historically, Information Governance has concentrated on Impact Level Assessment and data protection. Information sharing between agencies is not fully trusted and a Risk-averse culture has a default option not to share. With increasing political demand for many more multi-agency services, reversing this culture may yet take many years.  The new mantra of shared services needs shared information in a trusted environment.
  • Education: Information Governance in the widest sense is not high on political or social agenda. There are pockets of good practice in identity management and data protection but not a high skill base for information analysis and maximising the value of data.

To quote a couple of excellent research reports from the Audit Commission, “Is there something I should know?” showed how poor quality of data and analysis processes in public sector organisations can badly impact decision making:

  • “Members say they receive lengthy reports but still do not have the relevant information they need. Senior officers are frustrated that powerful data are unexploited.
  • Less than 5 per cent of councils have excellent data quality and many acknowledge that their data quality problems are fundamental in nature.
  • Almost 80 per cent of councils say a lack of in-depth analysis is a major problem.”

Nothing but the Truth” was critical of the skills of People, for example:

The special Joint Area Review of the London Borough of Haringey in November 2008 found that ‘the standard of record keeping on case files across all agencies is inconsistent and often poor… Police and health service files are often poorly organised and individual cases are difficult to follow. Health services files include hand-written notes which are sometimes illegible and do not identify the author. The standard of record- keeping in the health records of looked-after children and young people is poor and some entries are inaccurate’ (Ref. 13). Work by the Commission for Social Care Inspection into the quality of care practice with people experiencing abuse found something similar.

Some People may be very pleased that such independent scrutiny is disappearing from the local government sector.  Good quality information is critical to the success of both bottom-up and top-down methods of governance.  Big Society needs even better access to information stores.

Different parts of the total Information Governance environment require different skills and different People. Hence it must be a team effort, bringing together service practitioners, managers, lawyers, administrators, computing staff, information analysts and security experts – to say nothing of the input from citizens who are data subjects. Furthermore there is the Information Governance surrounding intelligence, intellectual property and classified data; there are specialists in all these fields.

Quarkside hopes that a simple framework like 7DIG can expose some basic princples that will help understanding of a complex subject area.  Information Assets will be the next to be published.

7DIG Domains

7DIG Domains
Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.