This document discusses strategies for global collaboration in the 21st century. It provides two examples of collaboration at the grassroots level and two examples of collaboration at the global level. The first grassroots example is the Global Giving Foundation, which links donors to small social projects around the world. The second is Ushahidi, a nonprofit that maps reports of violence and has since expanded to track other crises globally. At the global level, it discusses the Japan Platform model of cooperation between NGOs, businesses and government for emergency relief. It also mentions the potential for an Asia Platform to replicate this model of tripartite collaboration.

1. Not For Public Release/Translator Copy Only
“Strategies for Global Collaboration in the 21st Century”
2012 Asia NGOs International Development Conference
Diana Aviv, CEO Independent Sector
September 14, 2012
Taipei, Taiwan
Thank you, Professor Wang and colleagues, for your kind invitation to
discuss strategies for global collaboration in the 21st century. Forums like
this one help build lasting ties between nations and I’m grateful to be with
you today.
The people of Taiwan and the United States share a long friendship
based, in part, on our enduring commitment to freedom, individual rights,
and the rule of law. These are the building blocks of a society in which
engaged citizens may pursue their highest ambitions, voice their opinions
freely, and organize peaceably to promote the common good.
Our nations also share an abiding belief in the opportunities afforded
by free, open markets. Competition comes with costs, but it also offers
tremendous opportunity to reward innovation, encourage creativity, and
spread wealth. Over past decades, Taiwan and many of its neighbors in the
Pacific have enjoyed unprecedented economic growth. This achievement is
the result of hard work as well as a clear, focused vision on creating a
society where peace and prosperity dwell.
While democratization and economic advancement have strengthened
civil society in Taiwan, the charitable community deserves credit as well.
There was a time when protecting human rights and promoting democracy
carried grave personal risk. Having grown up in South Africa during
apartheid, a system of legalized oppression, I have immense respect for
those with the unwavering courage to pursue justice. Today civil society
organizations (CSOs) have blossomed into “constructive and influential roles,
which would have been unimaginable 50 years ago.”1 Yours is truly a proud
history – and your accomplishments at home are matched by Taiwan’s work
abroad.
For over 5 decades, your nation has extended its hand to other
counties. What began in the late 1950s with assistance to farmers in
Vietnam has burgeoned into a sophisticated operation that ranges from
Eastern Europe to Central America to the South Pacific to Africa and beyond.
According to the Taiwan International Cooperation and Development Fund,
Taiwan is one of the few nations in the world that has moved from being a
recipient of aid to a donor nation.2
Continued engagement in the international arena couldn’t come at a
better time. In the few seconds that it takes me to utter this sentence, a
1
Civicus Report, 2005, page 14. https://www.civicus.org/new/media/CSI_Taiwan_Report.pdf
2
http://www.icdf.org.tw/50th/english/index2.html
1

2. Not For Public Release/Translator Copy Only
child will perish. That is because almost 9,500 children around the world die
every day from hunger and related causes.3 A quarter of the world
population currently lives in poverty. 4 Some 50 countries suffer amid
regional conflict and violence.5 When we consider the widening gap between
rich and poor as well as the damaging effects of climate change, it becomes
clear that such problems are insurmountable by any government or group of
organizations. To be successful, we must consider a combination of strategic
partnerships that will better align the resources, capacity, and potential of
different entities toward a common goal.
The international development community, as you know, works
through bilateral and multilateral partnerships among governments,
international NGOs, and often the private sector. We have the opportunity to
collaborate on a global scale like never before thanks, in part, to
technological advancements and a willingness by people to embrace them in
the service of our missions to unlock greater potential for collective action.
As I prepared to address global collaboration, I consulted with various
US nonprofits6 working in the field of international development. I asked
myself ‘what wisdom can I share regarding collaborations that might help
your organizations offer even greater good in the international sphere?’
Four models came to light: two target change at the grassroots level.
Their objective is to improve one life at a time – in doing so, they have
already reached tens of thousands. The other two models of collaboration
involve setting the conditions for successful cooperation at the regional and
global level. Such coalitions maximize their value when each participant
adheres to a set of common principles and standards. I’ll review several
bedrock principles in the field of international development: delivering
sustainable impact and embracing transparent and accountable practices.
These ideas are reflected in the “8 Istanbul Principles” (which I’ll explain
momentarily) but also stem, in large part, from my work as a long-time
member of the American charitable community.
US Charitable Sector
The United States is home to a little over a million public nonprofits,
private foundations, and religious congregations that work to improve the
lives of individuals and communities. 7 About 90,000 of them are private
foundations and, for our purposes today, some 7,000 organizations are
exclusively focused on overseas relief efforts, development assistance, or
humanitarian programs.8 There are many thousands more that have
3
Mercy Corps Report, “Home Grown Ways to End Hunger,” Summer 2011.
4
http://www.cso-effectiveness.org/map/
5
http://www.japanplatform.org/E/work/index.html
6
Mercy Corps, Global Giving Foundation, InterAction, and others
7
http://nccs.urban.org/statistics/quickfacts.cfm
8
Urban Institute State of the Sector: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412434-NonprofitAlmanacBrief2011.pdf
2

3. Not For Public Release/Translator Copy Only
affiliated networks all over the world or that have, as part of their portfolios
of programs, an international component. As is the case here in your
charitable sector, missions range widely. From symphonies to universities to
zoos to homeless shelters, the US charitable sector is vast. It accounts for
5.5 percent of our gross domestic product.9
Even so, most US nonprofits are small. Almost three fourths of US
charities reported annual expenses of less than $15 million Taiwan dollars
(or $500,000 US).10 Revenue is generated from various sources such as
individual donations, corporate giving, and foundations. But the largest
share of our revenue – almost half – may be attributed to dues, fees, and
charges. This includes membership dues, payment for childcare facilities,
money earned by selling used clothing, or tickets to a cultural event. 11 In
addition, approximately 32.3 percent of our revenue comes from
government grants and contracts for services such as providing health care
services to people over age 65.
Whatever an organization’s field of practice, it shares one attribute
with all others in the sector: a commitment to achieving the common good.
Our federal and state governments have long recognized this special
purpose by making charitable organizations tax-exempt, which enables them
to dedicate funds to fulfilling their missions. 12 To encourage donations,
government also allows citizens to deduct a certain portion of their charitable
contribution when they calculate their income taxes.
Because of their unique role in society, distinct from business and
government, we call these organizations the “independent sector.” That is
also the name of my organization, a leadership network of approximately
600 charitable organizations. Some are large foundations working to
improve health care access for all or alleviate poverty worldwide. Others are
small nonprofits that protect endangered species, train college students in
conflict management, or build safe playgrounds for children. Still others
represent business interests in training future nonprofit professionals.
Included in this group are nonprofits, foundations, and corporate giving
programs that are located all over the United States. Because Independent
Sector sits at the nexus of so many different types of organizations, we are
well positioned to observe trends unfolding sector-wide.
One trend involves the way that collaboration is changing on multiple
planes – between grant makers, grant seekers, and their stakeholders;
between nonprofits, businesses, or government agencies. Technical
advances have been a driving force behind these new partnerships, along
9
http://www.independentsector.org/economic_role
10
http://finance.yahoo.com/currency-converter/#from=USD;to=TWD;amt=1 Conversion rate is based on roughly
$1US to $30 Taiwanese dollars.
11
Ibid / entire paragraph.
12
In contrast, the government of the Philippines has essentially delegated responsibility for certifying or re-
certifying nonprofits and foundations to the charitable community itself. This sector, which is highly organized, does
so by conducting extensive peer reviews.
3

4. Not For Public Release/Translator Copy Only
with a willingness by people to conduct their work differently. Some marshal
funds from online donations. Others use ‘visual mapping software’ to show
relationships between all the entities working on a specific issue. (I’ve done
this at my organization and am happy to share more during Q&A.) Others
use social media to galvanize a movement, as demonstrated though Arab
Spring. Smart phones are nearly ubiquitous in the developed world and have
reached about 70 percent of the developing world. They too are a
tremendous resource to facilitate partnerships and build networks.
In the US, nonprofits and foundations use technology with varying
degrees of sophistication. Some simply do not have the resources, skill sets,
or wherewithal to invest in computers – an understandable constraint given
the economic challenges we have faced for the past few years. Others are
simply too overwhelmed by their day-to-day operations to experiment with
new methodologies. Still others are risk adverse and, like the proverbial
ostrich, would rather bury their heads than face change.
In contrast, many US nonprofits and foundations are willing to
experiment, take prudent risks, and learn from mistakes. They are blue jays
that dart and dash on the wind.13 Nicknamed the “Camp Robber,” they have
been known to swoop down from a branch and steal your lunch in a
moment’s notice. They are agile and opportunistic, characteristics of two
organizations that I will highlight. The first is a grant-making organization
that connects resources to recipients; the second is a grant-seeking
organization that began as an advocacy effort in Kenya, not far from my
native homeland.
I) Collaboration @ Grassroots Level – 2 Examples
A) The Global Giving Foundation
In 1997, the World Bank asked two of its executives, Mari Kuraishi
[koo ra ee shee] and Dennis Whittle, to develop innovative ways to combat
poverty. They created the first-ever “Development Marketplace,” where
people from around the world competed for World Bank funds. The event
underscored tremendous untapped potential to create a global marketplace
for philanthropy.
Kuraishi [koo ra ee shee] and Whittle left the World Bank and launched
the Global Giving Foundation. It is based on the notion that individuals -- a
farmer in Sudan, widow in Mexico -- know what they must do to pull
themselves, their families, and their communities out of poverty. In most
cases, they lack the means to do so. Said differently, solutions dreamed up
in London or Geneva to solve social ills thousands of miles away are well
intentioned, but will not work unless local inhabitants are an integral part of
the solution.
13
Enjoyed this image; will include it next time as suggested.
4

5. Not For Public Release/Translator Copy Only
Global Giving offers an online marketplace that links donors to
recipients; it specializes in helping small social entrepreneurs grow their
business. Donors can browse the website by country, area of interest (such
as education, animals, sports), or any other number of ways. They can make
very small tax-exempt contributions; in return for a one-time gift or monthly
contribution, they receive periodic email updates on the impact of their
donation.
One project, “Rehabilitation of the Visually Impaired,” is based in
Taiwan. The Taiwan Digital Talking Books Association seeks fund to create a
computer literacy rehabilitation program for Taiwan's visually impaired. A
modest donation of $300 Taiwan dollars ($10 US) gives an individual a
talking book; $480 Taiwan dollars ($16 US) provides 2 hours of computer
training. The small donations add up. Thanks to about 80 donations, this
organization has received 75 percent of the funds required to reach its goal
of $300,000 Taiwan dollars ($10,000 US).14
As an aside, I might mention that “Digital Talking Books” was the only
nonprofit from Taiwan on this website. If yours is a grant-seeking
organization, you should consider registering at GlobalGiving.org.
Since 2002, Global Giving has raised over $2 billion Taiwan dollars
($68 million US) worth of donations for projects in about a 100 countries. 15
This successful model of collaboration leverages existing technology to link
grant-makers and grant-seekers all over the world. According to Kuraishi
[koo ra ee shee], the co-founder (and a native of Japan by the way)
GlobalGiving is now moving from operating as a “resource platform” to an
“information platform” where all parties, donors and recipients, can
exchange best practices and cross-cultural solutions. That leads me to my
next example: an “information platform” that marries digital volunteers with
veteran agencies.
B) “Ushahidi” [oo sha he dee]
“Ushahidi” [oo sha he dee] is the Swahili term for “testimony.” It is
also the name of a nonprofit that formed in 2008 to map reports of political
violence in Kenya.16 Journalists, activists, and others submit reports via the
web and cell phones, that are then displayed online using Google Maps.
Over time, Ushahidi [oo sha he dee] grew to 45,000 users in Kenya.
Its leaders realized they needed to adapt their model. They built a broader
platform using free and open-source software. Volunteer software
developers in Africa (and to a lesser extent in Europe, South America, and
the U.S) continuously improve it. Their efforts have paid off.
Representatives from government agencies and seasoned NGOs have
praised the platform. It has been used by official voting monitors in Sudan,
14
http://www.globalgiving.org/dy/v2/content/search.html?q=taiwan
15
http://www.globalgiving.org/seeresults.html
16
http://ushahidi.com/about-us
5

6. Not For Public Release/Translator Copy Only
India, and Mexico along with international NGOs tracking supply shortages in
Zambia, Malawi, and in other hunger stricken nations. Many are using it now
to document the civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a conflict
that has received little coverage in US media outlets.
You don’t have to be a nonprofit tech company or crowd source your
mission to be agile and forward leaning in international development. You
just have to be willing to use resources around you in innovative ways and,
when appropriate, collaborate with others. Some partners may be from a
different sector or may be pursuing missions different from your own; others
might come from within your own sphere of practice though living in other
countries around the globe. Similarly, there is no single model for enacting
positive change. Improving lives takes many forms; thus far, I’ve talked
about change from bottom up. Consider two of many collaborative models
that work from the top down.
II) Collaboration @ Global Level – 2 Examples
A) Japan Platform / Asia Platform17
In 1998, armed conflict erupted in southeastern Europe between the
Yugoslav government and Albanian separatists fighting to establish Kosovo
as an independent nation. By spring of the following year, war and genocide
caused an exodus of some 500,000 Albanians from Kosovo,. In response,
Japanese NGOs began to explore how they might help distribute food,
provide medical relief, and improve sanitary conditions for the refugees.
These organizations soon discovered that they did not have the capacity to
help – if they worked independently. To cooperate more closely, four of
them established a refuge camp in the nearby country of Albania. They
named it “Camp Japan.”18
Shortly thereafter, refugees began returning to their homeland as the
conflict abated. Camp Japan never fully materialized but a new framework
for collaboration certainly did, based on the notion that even cooperation
between NGOs and government entities is not enough. In many cases, also
needed are representatives from the business community, media outlets,
and academia.
The “Japan Platform” is based on a tripartite cooperative system for
emergency relief in which NGOs, businesses, and government work together
in equal partnership to deliver emergency aid. The Platform funds Japanese
NGOs, according to its website, through a joint fund provided by Japan’s
Foreign Ministry and the private sector.19 Over 30 Japanese NGOs currently
participate on the Platform. Already dozens of projects have been completed
17
http://www.japanplatform.org
18
http://w3.japanplatform.org/E/index.html
19
Ibid.
6

7. Not For Public Release/Translator Copy Only
in the Middle East and Africa; more are unfolding in northeast Japan in the
wake of the earthquake and tsunami.
While the Japan Platform continues to make improvements, it has
achieved enough acclaim that there is talk of creating an Asia Platform to
replicate success. Find out more by contacting the organizers at
JapanPlatform.org.
Elsewhere similar networks are forming. Four groups -- the United
Nations Foundation; the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs; Vodafone Foundation, and the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative – are
collaborating in Haiti. The situation there is still dire, but this network is
facilitating the delivery of aid in new ways. Read more in their report,
“Disaster Relief 2.0: The Future of Information Sharing in Humanitarian
Agencies.”
As more regional networks form, the need for common standards of
practice at the global level is becoming more urgent – a task taken up by the
“Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness.”
B) Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness
In 2003, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) began to raise questions about the effectiveness of aid provided to
recipients through donor governments and CSOs. 20 In the years that
followed, stakeholders from different nations have come together in the
Open Forum initiative to improve the practices of CSOs, among other
things.21 The initiative included input from thousands of CSOs at regional and
national consultations as well as “high level forum” and global assemblies in
Busan, Istanbul, Cambodia, and other sites. The Open Forum generated an
“International Framework for CSO Development Effectiveness,” the “first
ever global statement on the effectiveness of CSO work.”22
I understand that Taiwan is an observer of the OECD23 and faces
limitations to full participation. However, the Framework may still serve as a
resource for you. It benchmarks the status of the development efforts in the
world community and thus offers a standard against which you can measure
your own performance. In addition, the 8 Istanbul Principles and its online
tool kit (available at cso-effectiveness.org) are invaluable resources to
improve practices, methodologies, and governance.
The 8 Istanbul Principles include the following:
1. Respect and promote human rights and social justice;
2. Embody gender equality/equity while promoting women and girls’ rights;
20
http://www.cso-effectiveness.org/home,091
21
Ibid.
22
Ibid.
23
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2008/03/21/2003406455
7

8. Not For Public Release/Translator Copy Only
3. Focus on people’s empowerment, democratic ownership and participation;
4. Promote environmental sustainability;
5. Practice transparency and accountability;
6. Pursue equitable partnerships and solidarity;
7. Create and share knowledge and commit to mutual learning; and
8. Commit to realizing positive sustainable change.
Two of them warrant further mention: delivering sustainable impact
and embracing transparent and accountable practices. Then I’m happy to
field your questions.
1) Deliver Sustainable Impact
In 2005, an earthquake shook the Pakistani-administered region of
Kashmir. It registered 7.6 on the Richter scale (to put that into perspective,
the earthquake that shook the southeast coast of Japan in June was 6.4).
The quake in Kashmir killed over 80,000 people and left 3.5 million
homeless. People in Afghanistan, Tajikistan and elsewhere were left without
food or shelter. Making matters worse, the icy fist of winter was fast
approaching this rugged mountain region.
Government agencies and international NGOs offering assistance faced
not only immense human suffering and inhospitable terrain, but territory
hotly contested by two countries armed with nuclear weapons, who have
fought at least three wars over the region in the past.
Trying to help earthquake victims in such a scenario is difficult for
veteran personnel with deep pockets and wide networks. Getting involved is
the right thing to do – if your organization has the expertise, experience,
and wherewithal to do so. If not, the best form of help you can offer may be
extending financial support to your fellow organizations. If you are bent on
providing in-kind help, then first consult your colleagues. Ask them what
kind of assistance would be the most useful and keep the end goal clearly in
mind: helping the victims in the most effective and efficient way possible.
That is not to say that organizations should refrain from direct
humanitarian relief or partnering with aid agencies or government entities
steeped in emergency response. My point is that international NGOs should
be deliberate and realistic about their own capacities, work to support others
better suited to some tasks and, above all, they should commit to making a
lasting, sustainable impact. There are several ways to do so.
One involves education and training. Take the organization that
generously sends ten individuals to clear a minefield in a war-torn region. In
a month, they clear a sizable area that local inhabitants might now farm or
otherwise occupy. But what happens when they stumble across another
mine or the town grows beyond the safe zones?
8

9. Not For Public Release/Translator Copy Only
Such an organization might have achieved longer lasting effects if their
experts had trained local officials, police officers, volunteer groups, or others
to clear mines. Under this approach, the inhabitants would benefit from
having safe procedures and well-vetted processes in place when they faced
danger; capacity of their own to clear and then use mine-free areas; and the
opportunity to teach others in neighboring towns.
A second way to make a lasting impact is to develop an exit strategy
before setting out.
The international development world is filled with examples of good
intentions that left a community worse than before receiving assistance.
Perhaps one of the most egregious examples was committed by my
own nation. In 2001, the US Department of Defense scattered millions of
Humanitarian Daily Rations (or HDRs) from airplanes above the skies of
Afghanistan in South Asia, sandwiched between Iran, Pakistan, and others.
The purpose of the program was to help prevent starvation and win the
“hearts and mind” of unarmed civilians caught between warring parties.
Each of the 2,200-calorie meals included a full day’s ration and food
acceptable by all faiths. Since their introduction in Bosnia in 1993, HDRs had
been used successfully countless times for humanitarian relief.
The problem was that each HDR came in a small yellow package,
about the size of a can of soda. It was the same shape, size, and color as a
small cluster bomb that was also airdropped into the country. 24 When
detonated, the bomb would kill anyone within a 100-meter radius. As soon
as the US government realized the mistake, it changed the color of the HDRs
to pink but eventually discontinued the program for a number of reasons.
Among them, enemy forces were collecting the food rations and selling them
on the black market.
This example, while extreme, drives home the importance of
understanding the broader context in which assistance is being offered.
Beyond the obvious dangers of people confusing an aid package with an
explosive devise, this scenario underscores the importance of a developing a
cohesive strategy. In this case, US editorials were filled with headlines
questioning how we could bomb people from the sky one day, then air drop
food the next.25 Elements of the US strategy were counter-productive to the
overall goal of helping civilians caught in a violent conflict.
In the US charitable sector, some organizations strive to “put
themselves out of business” by solving whatever social problem they set out
to tackle. The September 11th Fund offers a good example. Created by The
New York Community Trust and United Way of New York City, the Fund’s
24
http://matadornetwork.com/change/7-worst-international-aid-ideas/
25
http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/%22humanitarian+daily+rations%22+Afghanistan. See also stories
in the Boston Globe and LA Times.
9

10. Not For Public Release/Translator Copy Only
mission was to support victims of the terrorist attacks immediately after the
event. Their vision was deliberately short term.
The Fund collected $16 billion Taiwan dollars ($534 million US) from
more than two million donors. It issued over 550 grants in recovery
programs.26 Its exit plan took effect in December 2004, when the Fund
finished distributing the lion’s share of its funds and closed its doors. As part
of its exit plan, it directed donors to support other reliable charities and
invested any remaining funds into programs offering mental health
counseling, employment assistance, and legal advice. 27
Whether you operate in Washington, D.C., Taipei, or elsewhere, it’s
fair to say that public confidence in the charitable community is one of our
most precious assets. If people lost our trust, we would cease to exist.
Embracing transparent and accountable practices is more important that
ever in development work.
2) Embrace Transparent and Accountable Practices
People tend to empathize with those who have lost their home or loved
ones. They donate time or money because they are motivated by a deep,
abiding commitment to relieve human suffering after a crisis.
Because people’s intentions are motivated by such impulses, we have
a special obligation to shepherd the resources entrusted to us with great
care to ensure they lessen others’ misfortune and improve lives in the long
haul. Fraudulent acts of a few can easily taint the rest of us, no matter how
conscientious we are about fiscal responsibility; how effective at
accomplishing our missions; how diligent in linking donor intent to
measurable, lasting results. This is true in general as well as in times of
great crisis.
I was reminded of this lesson following the attacks in American on
September 11, 2001. On that day, terrorists hijacked commercial airliners
and slammed them into the Pentagon (our military headquarters – not far
from my office) and into busy office buildings in New York City. A third jet
bound for the White House crashed, thanks to heroic passengers on board,
into a field in the Pennsylvania countryside. Some 3,000 people died in the
attacks.
In the aftermath of this tragedy, some unscrupulous people collected
money on behalf of the victims. Instead of helping them heal and recover,
however, they used the money for personal gain. Such incidents offer a
cautionary tale: donations should be directed to organizations with high
standards of good governance. The best of them will be transparent in
showing how they deliver concrete, measurable results in times of crisis.
26
http://www.september11fund.org/press.php?id=120804
27
http://www.september11fund.com/
10

11. Not For Public Release/Translator Copy Only
My organization offers free resources called, The Principles for Good
Governance and Ethical Practice” and an online “Resource Center.”
Unfortunately, they are only available in English and much of the material is
specific to US legal requirements. Nonetheless, many of the fundamental
principles about accountability and transparency may be of interest. I
encourage you to learn more at our website at independentsector.org.
Before closing, I’d like to summarize some practical “dos” and “don’ts”
that apply to both domestic and international work.
a) On working with local communities
- Do consult & empower them
- Don’t assume they need not be consulted
b) On achieving sustainable impact
- Do commit to the long haul (with an exit strategy)
- Don’t create a vacuum that would leave local inhabitants or the
environment worse
c) On practicing transparency & accountability
- Do practice good governance & ethical behavior
- Don’t risk losing the public trust. No amount of short term gain is
worth risking your reputation or honor.
Conclusion
Some people see international development work as a train. It pumps
down a pair of iron tracks, hurling itself forward kilometer upon kilometer.
Ultimately it sinks beyond the horizon never to be seen again. 28
Instead of a train, I’d offer an alternate metaphor: a boxcar. The most
effective international NGOS are linked in a long chain that includes other
players: government, business, volunteers, and the like. Together they
create a much more powerful, sustainable engine of change. Each boxcar is
as effective as the ones it is coupled to on either end – which is why
collaboration can be so powerful. You move toward a common destination
together.
We must give up the idea that we are trains. Each of the models that
I’ve shared with you is like the boxcar. Success in development work abroad
– and in programs at home, for that matter – rarely comes from a single
entity or isolated intervention; it comes through collective action,
systematic, long-term investment, and empowering people in crisis, so that
they may transform adversity into opportunity. Thank you.
###
28
Credit for this metaphor goes to Paul Dudley Hart at Mercy Corps who shared this notion and generously offered
background material.
11

12. Not For Public Release/Translator Copy Only
12