This is an odd scneario I'm having a hard time getting my head around.
Scenario:
An external for profit company wants access to the expertise and resources of a
University's core facility, however they need the work done on a specific
instrument the core does not currently have. The company purchases the
instrument and gives it to the core/university. The core then assumes operating
costs and staffing needs for it. Core is free to roll excess capacity into
their normal operation.
Should the company get free access to that instrument until the original
purchase cost is paid for, or should they get free access to that instrument
forever?
Does the scenario change if the company retains ownership of the instrument but
keeps it on core property? --Matt
I don't see why this would be different that if the instrument is bought on a
grant. If services are provided on a recharge model, the cost to operate and
maintain the instrument would be charged at the time of service delivery. Those
costs could not be distributed to other users of the core.
Having said that, I could see a scenario where the institution decides to "give
away" those services in exchange for the contribution. In that case, you would
either need to subsidize the cost to zero, with funds outside the core, or move
those expenses out of the core (i.e. fund on a department account or similar).
Either way you are funding those costs from an source external to the core. You
are not giving away, just charging someone else. Question would be just how you
choose to track.
This could open a huge can of worms as why would an department/school
compensate a company for contributing a piece of equipment, but not a PI for
getting a grant the sites equipment in a core. I would hesitate to pursue that
path unless the cost of the equipment was extremely high, in the strategic plan
of the core, and the resource requirement to provide the services is relatively
small.
Andy
Director of Core Facilities Administration
Office for Research
ph: 847-467-1622
ph: 847-491-3032
email: <email obscured>
Rest of post
-----Original Message-----
From: Core Administrators Network Forum <email obscured>> On Behalf Of Matt
DeVries
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:10 AM
To: <email obscured>
Subject: [core administrators network forum] External Company buys the core an
instrument - Free usage forever?
This is an odd scneario I'm having a hard time getting my head around.
Scenario:
An external for profit company wants access to the expertise and resources of a
University's core facility, however they need the work done on a specific
instrument the core does not currently have. The company purchases the
instrument and gives it to the core/university. The core then assumes operating
costs and staffing needs for it. Core is free to roll excess capacity into
their normal operation.
Should the company get free access to that instrument until the original
purchase cost is paid for, or should they get free access to that instrument
forever?
Does the scenario change if the company retains ownership of the instrument but
keeps it on core property? --Matt ―― View topic
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://list.abrf.org/r/topic/36bvKxLSVsO2wqTNp94x7N__;!!Dq0X2DkFhyF93HkjWTBQKhk!CXjGbh2wIazdjNroTd_Ji5sgbEq5e4IE-pQtI-w_MCPEzcH2KWFmQ2uaEnVabA5CC3zx$
Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe
Hi Matt -
My initial opinion is that the external company must pay to access the
technology. There are multiple principles that make me lean that way.
In general:
1. The company is essentially giving you equipment but asking you to “repay”
them by not charging them for normal service fees. This feels more like a cash
loan to purchase equipment with the repayment being made by “lost revenue” for
you.
2. Is this equipment important enough to your internal user base to make it
worth considering? (I have no understanding of your market analysis.)
Rates:
1. I assume your normal rates include the direct costs of providing the
service including staff salaries, reagents, maintenance costs (service contract
or self-funded repairs). Ownership of the equipment does not pay salaries.
2. I assume your rates DO NOT include University costs of housing the
technology including electricity, administration and other routine F&A costs.
Ownership of the equipment actually increases university costs.
3. Would the rates for use of the new technology include instrument
depreciation? If so, you could exempt the company from paying depreciation
(just like is done for equipment purchased on federal grants) but they should
still pay the remainder of the other components that make up the rate.
4. If the company does not pay for non-equipment fixed costs, those costs
get spread across the university users of the new equipment resulting in those
users paying the external company’s share of the fixed costs.
Mission:
1. The university, not the company, must bear the long-term risk of owning
the technology including maintenance, use of space, eventual disposal. If the
campus user base does not embrace the technology or it is too expensive for
them to use (not everyone needs a Lamborghini), you bear the burden of keeping
it.
2. Is the University is a public or private institution? Policies for
public universities may be more restrictive with regard to a focus on efforts
to assist for-profit companies in making money.
Please do ask if this raises more questions than answers. It was a bit of a
stream-of-consciousness response for me. ☺
All the best,
Rest of post
Julie
On 11/10/20, 8:10 AM, "Core Administrators Network Forum on behalf of Matt
DeVries" <email obscured> on behalf of <email obscured>> wrote:
This is an odd scneario I'm having a hard time getting my head around.
Scenario:
An external for profit company wants access to the expertise and resources
of a University's core facility, however they need the work done on a specific
instrument the core does not currently have. The company purchases the
instrument and gives it to the core/university. The core then assumes operating
costs and staffing needs for it. Core is free to roll excess capacity into
their normal operation.
Should the company get free access to that instrument until the original
purchase cost is paid for, or should they get free access to that instrument
forever?
Does the scenario change if the company retains ownership of the instrument
but keeps it on core property? --Matt
――
View topic http://list.abrf.org/r/topic/36bvKxLSVsO2wqTNp94x7N
Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe
I agree with Andy - if someone else is willing to pay for those expenses for
the company, it could be done. But that begs the question, why wouldn't that
internal source of funds just buy the equipment outright, then? If you don't
think the company will ever use the equipment enough so that service fees equal
the cost of the equipment, then it is a plus for the institution. But there
still has to be an institutional source of funding willing to cover those fees.
Best,
Julie
On 11/10/20, 8:29 AM, "Core Administrators Network Forum on behalf of Andrew
Wayne Ott" <email obscured> on behalf of <email obscured>> wrote:
I don't see why this would be different that if the instrument is bought on
a grant. If services are provided on a recharge model, the cost to operate and
maintain the instrument would be charged at the time of service delivery. Those
costs could not be distributed to other users of the core.
Having said that, I could see a scenario where the institution decides to
"give away" those services in exchange for the contribution. In that case, you
would either need to subsidize the cost to zero, with funds outside the core,
or move those expenses out of the core (i.e. fund on a department account or
similar). Either way you are funding those costs from an source external to the
core. You are not giving away, just charging someone else. Question would be
just how you choose to track.
This could open a huge can of worms as why would an department/school
compensate a company for contributing a piece of equipment, but not a PI for
getting a grant the sites equipment in a core. I would hesitate to pursue that
path unless the cost of the equipment was extremely high, in the strategic plan
of the core, and the resource requirement to provide the services is relatively
small.
Andy
Director of Core Facilities Administration
Office for Research
ph: 847-467-1622
ph: 847-491-3032
email: <email obscured>
Rest of post
-----Original Message-----
From: Core Administrators Network Forum <email obscured>> On Behalf Of
Matt DeVries
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:10 AM
To: <email obscured>
Subject: [core administrators network forum] External Company buys the core
an instrument - Free usage forever?
This is an odd scneario I'm having a hard time getting my head around.
Scenario:
An external for profit company wants access to the expertise and resources
of a University's core facility, however they need the work done on a specific
instrument the core does not currently have. The company purchases the
instrument and gives it to the core/university. The core then assumes operating
costs and staffing needs for it. Core is free to roll excess capacity into
their normal operation.
Should the company get free access to that instrument until the original
purchase cost is paid for, or should they get free access to that instrument
forever?
Does the scenario change if the company retains ownership of the instrument
but keeps it on core property? --Matt ―― View topic
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://list.abrf.org/r/topic/36bvKxLSVsO2wqTNp94x7N__;!!Dq0X2DkFhyF93HkjWTBQKhk!CXjGbh2wIazdjNroTd_Ji5sgbEq5e4IE-pQtI-w_MCPEzcH2KWFmQ2uaEnVabA5CC3zx$
Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe
――
View topic http://list.abrf.org/r/topic/6iDWkGbj8eiSu3RhbUfKwB
Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe
I am in complete agreement with Julie’s comprehensive response!
Susan
> On Nov 10, 2020, at 12:18 PM, Julie A Auger
<email obscured>> wrote:
>
> Hi Matt -
>
> My initial opinion is that the external company must pay to access the
technology. There are multiple principles that make me lean that way.
>
> In general:
>
> 1. The company is essentially giving you equipment but asking you to
“repay” them by not charging them for normal service fees. This feels more
like a cash loan to purchase equipment with the repayment being made by “lost
revenue” for you.
> 2. Is this equipment important enough to your internal user base to make it
worth considering? (I have no understanding of your market analysis.)
>
> Rates:
>
> 1. I assume your normal rates include the direct costs of providing the
service including staff salaries, reagents, maintenance costs (service contract
or self-funded repairs). Ownership of the equipment does not pay salaries.
> 2. I assume your rates DO NOT include University costs of housing the
technology including electricity, administration and other routine F&A costs.
Ownership of the equipment actually increases university costs.
> 3. Would the rates for use of the new technology include instrument
depreciation? If so, you could exempt the company from paying depreciation
(just like is done for equipment purchased on federal grants) but they should
still pay the remainder of the other components that make up the rate.
> 4. If the company does not pay for non-equipment fixed costs, those costs
get spread across the university users of the new equipment resulting in those
users paying the external company’s share of the fixed costs.
>
> Mission:
>
> 1. The university, not the company, must bear the long-term risk of owning
the technology including maintenance, use of space, eventual disposal. If the
campus user base does not embrace the technology or it is too expensive for
them to use (not everyone needs a Lamborghini), you bear the burden of keeping
it.
> 2. Is the University is a public or private institution? Policies for
public universities may be more restrictive with regard to a focus on efforts
to assist for-profit companies in making money.
>
>
>
> Please do ask if this raises more questions than answers. It was a bit of a
stream-of-consciousness response for me. ☺
Rest of post
>
> All the best,
>
> Julie
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11/10/20, 8:10 AM, "Core Administrators Network Forum on behalf of Matt
DeVries" <email obscured> on behalf of <email obscured>> wrote:
>
>
>
> This is an odd scneario I'm having a hard time getting my head around.
>
>
>
> Scenario:
>
> An external for profit company wants access to the expertise and resources
of a University's core facility, however they need the work done on a specific
instrument the core does not currently have. The company purchases the
instrument and gives it to the core/university. The core then assumes operating
costs and staffing needs for it. Core is free to roll excess capacity into
their normal operation.
>
>
>
> Should the company get free access to that instrument until the original
purchase cost is paid for, or should they get free access to that instrument
forever?
>
>
>
> Does the scenario change if the company retains ownership of the
instrument but keeps it on core property? --Matt
>
> ――
>
> View topic
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flist.abrf.org%2Fr%2Ftopic%2F36bvKxLSVsO2wqTNp94x7N&data=04%7C01%7Cs.meyn%40vumc.org%7C00b7e104370041a391d008d885a4f51e%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C0%7C637406290828174329%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=cyQMSWneW4htIVawrFpqOLjA5AyBbuCS9Xwm4UOZqWc%3D&reserved=0
>
> Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe
>
>
>
>
>
> ――
> View topic
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flist.abrf.org%2Fr%2Ftopic%2F6eVoI0PydT7iXwnPmrTdL8&data=04%7C01%7Cs.meyn%40vumc.org%7C00b7e104370041a391d008d885a4f51e%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C0%7C637406290828174329%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=EnAAdVNB2Awr%2FLTV7Znc6CEpkI53LpTDy97SbKmoVLk%3D&reserved=0
> Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe
>
> [ WARNING : This email came from an external source. Please treat this
message with additional caution.]
Hello,
Most cores charge internal and external rates for their services, of course.
I'm wondering what you all think about the following scenario:
Assuming someone wanted to go through with obtaining the instrument in
collaboration with an external company, could they then offer the company a
reduced rate to the company for the services. The rate would still need to be
at or above the internal rate, but it could be below the rate normally set for
the external commercial entities. My understanding is that would still be in
compliance with federal guidelines, but also might incentivize the partnership
with the commercial entity.
Andy Chitty
On 11/10/20, 10:21 AM, "Core Administrators Network Forum on behalf of Meyn,
Susan M" <email obscured> on behalf of <email obscured>> wrote:
I am in complete agreement with Julie’s comprehensive response!
Susan
> On Nov 10, 2020, at 12:18 PM, Julie A Auger
<email obscured>> wrote:
>
> Hi Matt -
>
> My initial opinion is that the external company must pay to access the
technology. There are multiple principles that make me lean that way.
>
> In general:
>
> 1. The company is essentially giving you equipment but asking you to
“repay” them by not charging them for normal service fees. This feels more
like a cash loan to purchase equipment with the repayment being made by “lost
revenue” for you.
> 2. Is this equipment important enough to your internal user base to
make it worth considering? (I have no understanding of your market analysis.)
>
> Rates:
>
> 1. I assume your normal rates include the direct costs of providing the
service including staff salaries, reagents, maintenance costs (service contract
or self-funded repairs). Ownership of the equipment does not pay salaries.
> 2. I assume your rates DO NOT include University costs of housing the
technology including electricity, administration and other routine F&A costs.
Ownership of the equipment actually increases university costs.
> 3. Would the rates for use of the new technology include instrument
depreciation? If so, you could exempt the company from paying depreciation
(just like is done for equipment purchased on federal grants) but they should
still pay the remainder of the other components that make up the rate.
> 4. If the company does not pay for non-equipment fixed costs, those
costs get spread across the university users of the new equipment resulting in
those users paying the external company’s share of the fixed costs.
>
> Mission:
>
> 1. The university, not the company, must bear the long-term risk of
owning the technology including maintenance, use of space, eventual disposal.
If the campus user base does not embrace the technology or it is too expensive
for them to use (not everyone needs a Lamborghini), you bear the burden of
keeping it.
> 2. Is the University is a public or private institution? Policies for
public universities may be more restrictive with regard to a focus on efforts
to assist for-profit companies in making money.
>
>
>
> Please do ask if this raises more questions than answers. It was a bit
of a stream-of-consciousness response for me. ☺
>
> All the best,
>
> Julie
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11/10/20, 8:10 AM, "Core Administrators Network Forum on behalf of
Matt DeVries" <email obscured> on behalf of <email obscured>> wrote:
>
>
>
> This is an odd scneario I'm having a hard time getting my head around.
>
>
>
> Scenario:
>
> An external for profit company wants access to the expertise and
resources of a University's core facility, however they need the work done on a
specific instrument the core does not currently have. The company purchases the
instrument and gives it to the core/university. The core then assumes operating
costs and staffing needs for it. Core is free to roll excess capacity into
their normal operation.
>
>
>
> Should the company get free access to that instrument until the
original purchase cost is paid for, or should they get free access to that
instrument forever?
>
>
>
> Does the scenario change if the company retains ownership of the
instrument but keeps it on core property? --Matt
>
> ――
>
> View topic
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flist.abrf.org%2Fr%2Ftopic%2F36bvKxLSVsO2wqTNp94x7N&data=04%7C01%7Cs.meyn%40vumc.org%7C00b7e104370041a391d008d885a4f51e%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C0%7C637406290828174329%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=cyQMSWneW4htIVawrFpqOLjA5AyBbuCS9Xwm4UOZqWc%3D&reserved=0
>
> Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe
>
>
>
>
>
> ――
> View topic
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flist.abrf.org%2Fr%2Ftopic%2F6eVoI0PydT7iXwnPmrTdL8&data=04%7C01%7Cs.meyn%40vumc.org%7C00b7e104370041a391d008d885a4f51e%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C0%7C637406290828174329%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=EnAAdVNB2Awr%2FLTV7Znc6CEpkI53LpTDy97SbKmoVLk%3D&reserved=0
> Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe
>
> [ WARNING : This email came from an external source. Please treat this
message with additional caution.]
――
View topic http://list.abrf.org/r/topic/4yb4ZeYgFrb7tPvjdtsSTK
Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe
I would be game for this as long as it is in the core's roadmap and not a way
to foist an instrument on the core.
At NU, we would just make sure that anytime a core wants to charge an external
rate that is below 2x the actual cost to deliver services, the units that
provide operational support provide consent. This is to avoid using school
funds to subsidize external work. The 2X number ensures that all UBI is
collected and that it is not cheaper for companies to use facilities on a fee
for service than to go through a grant which would receive F&A costs. With a
sizable equipment donation, I am sure that would not be an issue.
Andy
Director of Core Facilities Administration
Office for Research
ph: 847-467-1622
ph: 847-491-3032
email: <email obscured>
Rest of post
-----Original Message-----
From: Core Administrators Network Forum <email obscured>> On Behalf Of
Andrew Chitty
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 8:23 PM
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [core administrators network forum] Re: External Company buys the
core an instrument - Free usage forever?
Hello,
Most cores charge internal and external rates for their services, of course.
I'm wondering what you all think about the following scenario:
Assuming someone wanted to go through with obtaining the instrument in
collaboration with an external company, could they then offer the company a
reduced rate to the company for the services. The rate would still need to be
at or above the internal rate, but it could be below the rate normally set for
the external commercial entities. My understanding is that would still be in
compliance with federal guidelines, but also might incentivize the partnership
with the commercial entity.
Andy Chitty
On 11/10/20, 10:21 AM, "Core Administrators Network Forum on behalf of Meyn,
Susan M" <email obscured> on behalf of <email obscured>> wrote:
I am in complete agreement with Julie’s comprehensive response!
Susan
> On Nov 10, 2020, at 12:18 PM, Julie A Auger
<email obscured>> wrote:
>
> Hi Matt -
>
> My initial opinion is that the external company must pay to access the
technology. There are multiple principles that make me lean that way.
>
> In general:
>
> 1. The company is essentially giving you equipment but asking you to
“repay” them by not charging them for normal service fees. This feels more
like a cash loan to purchase equipment with the repayment being made by “lost
revenue” for you.
> 2. Is this equipment important enough to your internal user base to
make it worth considering? (I have no understanding of your market analysis.)
>
> Rates:
>
> 1. I assume your normal rates include the direct costs of providing the
service including staff salaries, reagents, maintenance costs (service contract
or self-funded repairs). Ownership of the equipment does not pay salaries.
> 2. I assume your rates DO NOT include University costs of housing the
technology including electricity, administration and other routine F&A costs.
Ownership of the equipment actually increases university costs.
> 3. Would the rates for use of the new technology include instrument
depreciation? If so, you could exempt the company from paying depreciation
(just like is done for equipment purchased on federal grants) but they should
still pay the remainder of the other components that make up the rate.
> 4. If the company does not pay for non-equipment fixed costs, those
costs get spread across the university users of the new equipment resulting in
those users paying the external company’s share of the fixed costs.
>
> Mission:
>
> 1. The university, not the company, must bear the long-term risk of
owning the technology including maintenance, use of space, eventual disposal.
If the campus user base does not embrace the technology or it is too expensive
for them to use (not everyone needs a Lamborghini), you bear the burden of
keeping it.
> 2. Is the University is a public or private institution? Policies for
public universities may be more restrictive with regard to a focus on efforts
to assist for-profit companies in making money.
>
>
>
> Please do ask if this raises more questions than answers. It was a bit
of a stream-of-consciousness response for me. ☺
>
> All the best,
>
> Julie
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11/10/20, 8:10 AM, "Core Administrators Network Forum on behalf of
Matt DeVries" <email obscured> on behalf of <email obscured>> wrote:
>
>
>
> This is an odd scneario I'm having a hard time getting my head around.
>
>
>
> Scenario:
>
> An external for profit company wants access to the expertise and
resources of a University's core facility, however they need the work done on a
specific instrument the core does not currently have. The company purchases the
instrument and gives it to the core/university. The core then assumes operating
costs and staffing needs for it. Core is free to roll excess capacity into
their normal operation.
>
>
>
> Should the company get free access to that instrument until the
original purchase cost is paid for, or should they get free access to that
instrument forever?
>
>
>
> Does the scenario change if the company retains ownership of the
instrument but keeps it on core property? --Matt
>
> ――
>
> View topic
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http*3A*2F*2Flist.abrf.org*2Fr*2Ftopic*2F36bvKxLSVsO2wqTNp94x7N&data=04*7C01*7Cs.meyn*40vumc.org*7C00b7e104370041a391d008d885a4f51e*7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab*7C0*7C0*7C637406290828174329*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C1000&sdata=cyQMSWneW4htIVawrFpqOLjA5AyBbuCS9Xwm4UOZqWc*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!Dq0X2DkFhyF93HkjWTBQKhk!CtsDFoFgOthiDy_MuHUL8OTeIHqJwUG14c6zKYevfotWltkr5KfjaTJq9nkgczLjdEqg$
>
> Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe
>
>
>
>
>
> ――
> View topic
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http*3A*2F*2Flist.abrf.org*2Fr*2Ftopic*2F6eVoI0PydT7iXwnPmrTdL8&data=04*7C01*7Cs.meyn*40vumc.org*7C00b7e104370041a391d008d885a4f51e*7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab*7C0*7C0*7C637406290828174329*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C1000&sdata=EnAAdVNB2Awr*2FLTV7Znc6CEpkI53LpTDy97SbKmoVLk*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!Dq0X2DkFhyF93HkjWTBQKhk!CtsDFoFgOthiDy_MuHUL8OTeIHqJwUG14c6zKYevfotWltkr5KfjaTJq9nkgcxSHIxVV$
> Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe
>
> [ WARNING : This email came from an external source. Please treat this
message with additional caution.]
――
View topic
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://list.abrf.org/r/topic/4yb4ZeYgFrb7tPvjdtsSTK__;!!Dq0X2DkFhyF93HkjWTBQKhk!CtsDFoFgOthiDy_MuHUL8OTeIHqJwUG14c6zKYevfotWltkr5KfjaTJq9nkgcxBkaA5z$
Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe
――
View topic
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://list.abrf.org/r/topic/3JX0Vi4UrUIm7ttg0loDKE__;!!Dq0X2DkFhyF93HkjWTBQKhk!CtsDFoFgOthiDy_MuHUL8OTeIHqJwUG14c6zKYevfotWltkr5KfjaTJq9nkgcyBwSnSd$
Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe