Ed Brill

Post a Comment

1. 1  Patrick Kwinten  | 8/25/2009 1:38:34 AM

   I assume those 'idealists' believe that MS is the ideal software provider?

1. 2  Edward Lee  | 8/25/2009 2:45:47 AM

   Interesting article.

   Ed, if this true, what does IBM know about the migration?

1. 3  Stefan Lattermann  | 8/25/2009 3:08:41 AM

   What a silly migration wasting money which could be far better used. What does IBM do about it?

1. 4  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 8/25/2009 3:22:41 AM
   
   

   I have not directly been involved so I can't comment on the direct interaction. I do know that my IBM colleagues have worked with the client for years.

1. 5  Ed Maloney  | 8/25/2009 4:38:49 AM

   Who can blame them for wanting Outlook/Exchange based on the outstanding experience the White House had after migrating from Notes? Must be that 'wagon wheel' thing again.

   { Link }

1. 6  Henry Ferlauto  | 8/25/2009 9:57:24 AM

   Unfortunately, I think this is another case of what IBM is up against when it comes to migration battles.

   Ed - While this is no formal "ownership" statement, there is contact information listed on the website. It's the United Nations itself:

   { Link }

   Here are ways to contact us:

   Inner City Press, Inc.

   United Nations office:

   UN Secretariat building, 42nd Street & 1st Avenue

   Room S-453A

   New York, NY 10017 USA

   Desk tel: 212-963-1439

   E-mail Attn: Matthew Lee, Senior Reporter (or appropriate staff) Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com

   Mobile: (718) 716-3540

   General: Editorial [at] innercitypress [dot] com

   Attn: Janine-Marie Boulad or appropriate topic editor

   About publications: books [at] innercitypress.com

   Regular USPS mail: P.O. Box 580188, Mount Carmel Station, Bronx, NY 10458 USA

   For Federal Express only, due to delay in other UN mail: Inner City Press, United Nations Office, Room S-453A, New York, NY 10017 USA

1. 7  Sean Smith http://www.aviall.com | 8/25/2009 11:39:49 AM

   It amazes me that in analyzing future costs associated with migration from notes to outlook that IT departments do not stop to focus on the detrimental virus issues with an outlook/exchange environment.

1. 8  Darren http://www.dadams.co.uk | 8/25/2009 12:28:23 PM

   So, $5.8 million buys you:

   1) an e-mail system which allows you to send / receive e-mail, work with calendars, etc... just like the one you had (but requires more servers).

   2) funding for a number of projects involving protecting children from violence, exploitation and abuse, HIV / AIDS care and prevention, improved education, reduction of child poverty, and so on.

   Funding option #1 will take funding away from option #2, and I think that any who donated to UNICEF would have expected the money to go to option #2, not to further feather Microsoft's nest. Remind me to put any spare money in the Salvation Army collection tin.

1. 9  Petetm  | 8/25/2009 12:42:01 PM

   Ummmm, why didn't someone just install DAMO for Ms.Veneman?

   I understand it's been EOL'd but does anyone truly believe she would know the difference?

1. 10  Charles Robinson http://www.cubert.net | 8/25/2009 12:48:53 PM

   @7 - It amazes me that people still make uninformed statements like that. You'd get more mileage if you talked about Windows' flaws and exploits, not specifically Outlook or Exchange.

1. 11  Tim Paque  | 8/25/2009 1:09:33 PM

   As you can clearly see, the End users will just put in IT guys that agree with them.

   I bet if Ms Veneman had seen a commercial that said Lotus Notes is what all the cool Executives are using she would have not put up such fuss to go to Exchange.

1. 12  Kevin Pettitt http://www.lotusguru.com | 8/25/2009 1:32:22 PM

   Lotus Knows it will be much harder to push such rash and misguided initiatives if more of the people you need to fool in order to do so know Lotus better.

1. 13  Henning Heinz  | 8/25/2009 2:55:54 PM

   I missed some of those comments when Continental announced a forced migration from Exchange to Notes.

   In my opinion IBM has been very silent where Notes and Domino are going. What can you expect from the platform in 2 or 3 years? Will it move forward. Will it solve your problems that you are likely to have?

   From a developers perspective the roadmap for Domino is very disappointing. Even the features of 8.5.1 are not entirely announced and this is due for release in a couple of weeks.

   And if you are a CTO and read and hear about all those migrations then you may ask yourself what you risk if you don't follow the mainstream. If IBM decides to give on Notes and Domino then every CTO will look like an idiot.

1. 14  Alan Dalziel  | 8/25/2009 3:13:30 PM

   @13 Henning,

   At least compare apples to apples. The Continental project was part of a business acquisition to bring the new business unit into the corporate messaging umbrella. This is a non-profit humanitarian organization wasting almost $6M to gain what exactly? A pretty UI in front of an inherently unstable data storage subsystem?

   As a somewhat impartial observer (as if you couldn't guess already) I know IBM is committed to Lotus Domino (and other Lotus products) for the foreseeable future. They have announced plans for the next two releases (although not much in detail) which is more than can be said of Microsoft for their impending release for Exchange and beyond. MS have even told their customer to NOT USE the current release of OS and messaging platform with not much in the way of explanation other than "just wait". Not exactly forward planning in my book. Sounds more like flying by the seat of your pants . . . .

1. 15  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 8/25/2009 3:43:55 PM

   @13 - Are you SERIOUS!??! This stuff has been published for months and months, RIGHT HERE.

   { Link }

   Try again please.

1. 16  Darren http://www.dadams.co.uk | 8/25/2009 4:06:21 PM

   @13 - have a read of Microsoft's article on 'New High Availability and Site Resilience Functionality'. See here... { Link }

   The message is that it's all change, having changed a lot from Exchange 2000 to 2003 to 2007.

   I mention this not to have a go at Microsoft (no, really) but to illustrate the fact that Domino, by comparison, is very consistent. So the question of "What can you expect from the platform in 2 or 3 years?" doesn't demand an answer on all fronts. You can expect consistency and you don't expect wholesale sweeping changes with chunks being removed. Boring, but customers like boring when it comes to the server - boring means upgrades rather than rip and replace.

   Okay, you want to know new features. That's more difficult to nail down, but I think that Ed (and the rest of us) have always been very honest about the need to get 8.5.1 out of the door, reasonably on-time and only when the quality meets expectation. Then the hard work starts on '9' and the feature list will be bedded down.

   Who said 8.5.1 was due for release in a couple of weeks? ;o)

1. 17  Keil Wilson  | 8/25/2009 4:35:11 PM

   @8 - I'm not usually this cynical...and I'm a believer in the adage: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." But, The Gates foundation donated 50MIL to UNICEF last year and well over 150MIL over the last ten years. Microsoft is a regular corporate donor. Not a corporate donor: IBM.

   { Link }

1. 18  Keil Wilson  | 8/25/2009 4:38:56 PM

   Where's this research paper that shows that "end-user demand, for example, senior executives who came to appreciate Outlook on their previous assignments, is the No.1 e-mail migration driver"? Is this in the 12/22/2008 Gartner report the author refers to?

1. 19  Henning Heinz  | 8/25/2009 4:58:18 PM

   @13 Well Nathan. I know the presentation and I don't want to argue if EdBrill.com is the place where you get your information but the presentation only says little about Notes and Domino from a developers perspective in 2010 and later. Your link also is from August 2009. I would not consider this being months either. I don't need a detailed roadmap for the mail part but I really miss it for the part that makes Notes and Domino so unique (applications).

   @14 True. Unfortunately you don't read much about Exchange to Domino migrations nowadays (that does not mean that they don't exist).

   @16 Darren. If customers really want boring platforms and no rip and replace why is Exchange so successful? Is it really that if you decide your plan for the next year that the CTO says. "Well, you know I don't have any big plan, everything is running fine". I have seen a lot of CTO that just want to migrate something. It starts with moving to SAP (this has been very popular) and goes on with Notes to Exchange or product X to Y.

   I don't say that the decision of the UN is a good one (I know nothing about their IT infrastructure). I would just not trying to solve this problem with the hope that stupid CTO's are going to disappear anytime soon.

1. 20  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 8/25/2009 6:23:05 PM

   @19 - C'mon, are you really a regular reader here and miss the conversations on devWorks, blogs, OpenNTF and every other place in the Yellowverse? There's a lot of things that IBM does wrong with the Lotus platform, but failing to provide a future direction isn't one of them. Not anymore at least.

   @17 - Bingo. Spending $5.8 million to raise $50 million makes PERFECT sense.

1. 21  Henning Heinz  | 8/25/2009 7:00:29 PM

   Yes, maybe I miss those conversations. It would not matter anyway because I don't work for the UN. But as we found out the Gates Foundation bribed the UN for moving over to Exchange.

1. 22  Mike Robinson http://www.invcs.com | 8/25/2009 8:03:18 PM

   Aside from whether this is real or not, I'd like to see how the approximate $5.8M was derrived. Assuming 30K users it's ~$200/user to migrate. Then there's app remediation/migration which I'm sure isn't figured into it.

   You know this sorta thing could very well blow up for Unicef, not quite the same but here in Charlotte,NC, the United Way took a major hit simply due to the notion that funds were misappropriated for things other than going to services for the needy. There was an out-right revolt and donations went down significantly.

   However you slice it, when people give their hard-earned money towards a helping service they don't want to hear about "administrative overhead" or, we now get the new Outlook UI Ribbon.

1. 23  @Karlo  | 8/25/2009 8:42:44 PM

   This is a typical CTO decision, it sound to me that someone got a very good cut from MS to do this migration. Most CTO that make this kind of decision most time are influence by article they read on some technical magazine proclaiming how good ms stuff are. I know of very large financial firm that got a good funding from MS to move their Notes network to Outlook/Exchange, that was three years ago, today their are still trying to migrate with a lot more servers and huge increase in hardware expending.....and only because one business unit where making deal with ms....This posting sound very similar....

1. 24  Pete W  | 8/25/2009 10:28:16 PM

   Sounds like #17 nails it.

1. 25  Darren http://www.dadams.co.uk | 8/26/2009 12:05:21 AM

   @19 - Exchange is successful because Outlook is its client and because of Microsoft mindshare... I don't believe it has anything to do with Exchange being a great platform.

1. 26  Paul Robichaux http://www.robichaux.net/blog | 8/26/2009 1:01:32 AM

   @14: if you were "somewhat impartial" you wouldn't say things like "inherently unstable" about the Exchange database format. If you can muster a technical argument about ESE, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise... well, it's just more FUD.

   @22; the text Ed quoted in the original post says 12K users.

   In general: I am amazed, and saddened, at how many of these posts immediately assume venality, greed, stupidity, or bribery as the motive behind this particular switch. I guess there's a human tendency to view decisions we don't understand (or agree with) as being made from base motives. If you take it on faith that Microsoft can't do anything right, as so many of the regulars here do, then of course there must be some sinister motive behind the switch.

   I can tell you that in my own experience, the customers I've worked with who wanted to move from Notes to Exchange did so because Exchange is light years beyond Notes *as an e-mail system*. Sure, you can deride e-mail as a commodity app (oh, wait, that's Google's line), but the fact is that Exchange is delivering features that companies want: rights management, transport rules, and integrated UM being just 3 examples. Couple that with Microsoft's demonstrated excellence in integrating the pieces of their platform (compare, say, directory integration in the MS stack to the Lotus stack, or presence integration in the client across applications) and suddenly an actual reason for some of these migrations become clear.

   I don't excuse MS when they do something stupid (yeah, Kevin Turner, I'm looking at you), but you'd have to be willfully blind not to be able to acknowledge the reasons why Microsoft is stealing your lunch money.

1. 27  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 8/26/2009 5:45:45 AM

   "I am amazed, and saddened, at how many of these posts immediately assume venality, greed, stupidity, or bribery as the motive behind this particular switch."

   Huh? Ann Veneman's job as Director is to secure maximum funding for UNICEF's mission. If securing $50 million of funding required spending $6 million on a mail migration, then that's not venality, greed, stupidity or bribery. That's SMART BUSINESS. And if I had her job, I'd have done exactly the same thing.

   Yes, it's possible that there was something about Exchange as a target platform that made it technically desirable. I doubt it was rights management, which has been excellent on the Domino platform for the last decade, or transport rules, which have been excellent on the Domino platform for the last 8 years or so. It could be UM, except that IBM ships unified messaging too, and it would cost a lot less than $5.8 million to implement for an organization of 12K users.

   Exchange does have a leg up on Active Directory integration. There's simply no denying that at the moment. It would be surprising, but not impossible, for that to justify $5.8 million that could have been spent providing clean water and food to malnourished children.

   However, spending $5.8 million in order to make your single largest private donor happy? Spending 10% of a donation in order to make sure those donations keep coming? That's not surprising at all. That's just good business sense.

1. 28  Henning Heinz  | 8/26/2009 6:47:49 AM

   I have never heard that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation got involved in Microsoft business. I would be happy to read more about it (really). What about .Net as a development platform? I mean Lotus Notes and Domino may play well in a Microsoft shop with a .Net environment but it is not positioned as such. Isn't it quite easy for Microsoft sales to spin a story here?

1. 29  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 8/26/2009 8:37:41 AM

   @28 - Why would you ever hear about it?

1. 30  Henning Heinz  | 8/26/2009 9:31:32 AM

   Well maybe not. I am just curious if there is any indication for some truth in this theory. Without such it reads poor to me. I am always curious why companies migrate (besides the CTO is stupid and Microsoft gave it all for free theories). If you know why customers move you also know more about how to get them back (at least in theory).

1. 31  Edward Lee  | 8/26/2009 9:56:31 AM

   @27 That's a dangerous game to play for a charity. If for arguments sake UNICEF secured $50 million of funding because they moved to Exchange what guarantees they will get anymore funding after that. It's just like all the pharmaceutical companies that donate medicine to Africa, you cannot depend upon it because it can stop at any time (plus one of the reasons they do it is for tax benefits). If said company was so nice they would donate that money whatever email system they were on - don't you think? Anyway, it's not as if the migration is going to be a straight swap and think of the loss of service that is going to happen when they move to a product that is not as stable.

1. 32  Darren http://www.dadams.co.uk | 8/26/2009 10:03:57 AM

   @27 and @31 - a true philanthropist would give money unconditionally, not to gain something. If there was any condition to denoting, it would be that the money was spent on the charity's main cause.

1. 33  Danny Lawrence  | 8/26/2009 10:14:52 AM

   I'm willing to bet that there wasn't a direct quid pro quo with the Gates Foundation, but that some MSFT salesperson implied that there might be such a thing. Given the lack of ethical behavior that MSFT salespeople have shown in the past, this is the likely scenario IMHO.

1. 34  Paul Robichaux http://www.robichaux.net/blog | 8/26/2009 12:13:55 PM

   @31, @32, @33 the Gates Foundation has given away an awful lot of money and done a hell of a lot of good in the world. Before smearing them, I'd encourage you to check out their grants database at { Link } I'm too lazy to cross-reference which grant recipients are running Microsoft products, but maybe one of you can help me out.

1. 35  Devin Olson http://www.devinolson.net | 8/26/2009 1:58:59 PM

   @34 - I read those comments a few times, and I can find no smear or attack on the Gates Foundation. All three of those comments appear (at least to me) to be referring to the behavior of groups and individuals *other* than the Gates Foundation.

   The only statement that I would interpret in any way as a smear is Danny's; however even that is based on a historically *accurate* pattern of behavior.

   I believe Outlook/Exchange to be a shit system as compared to Notes/Domino. I believe that 9 times out of 10 a migration from Notes/Domino to Outlook/Exchange will eventually take over 5 times a long, and cost 10 times as much as originally estimated. My preferences for Notes/Domino over Outlook/Exchange have exactly zero to do with this discussion.

   I think Keil (@17) absolutely nailed the true reason for this migration, and I think Nathan (@27) explained the reasoning perfectly. Neither of those comments is an attack on the Gates Foundation either; they are both discussing other people's behavior.

1. 36  Charles Robinson http://www.cubert.net | 8/26/2009 2:47:29 PM

   @26 - Paul - "Couple that with Microsoft's demonstrated excellence in integrating the pieces of their platform ..." That literally made me laugh out loud! Thanks for the injection of humor. :-)

1. 37  Charles Robinson http://www.cubert.net | 8/26/2009 2:54:27 PM

   @26 - Oh, and "Exchange is light years beyond Notes *as an e-mail system*". Really? Care to elaborate?

1. 38  Kevin Mort http://www.theglobalmind.com | 8/26/2009 6:24:57 PM

   @19 - I am curious, what time line would make you happy that Domino isn't going away in the next year? It seems to me that Lotus gets held up to some other standard that nearly no other vendor is held accountable to in this regard.

1. 39  Kevin Mort http://www.theglobalmind.com | 8/26/2009 6:28:03 PM

   @26 "...presence integration in the client across applications."

   Seriously? Wait, so Sametime doesn't integrate into, oh well...pretty much everything under the MS universe? Including Office, Outlook etc?

   Oh wait, it does. : )

1. 40  Henning Heinz  | 8/27/2009 4:32:17 AM

   @38. I am not afraid that Domino is going away. As a RAD platform you are more dependand on what the vendor implements (and what not) because you normally use components to build your applications. Isn't there a competition between different platforms and it is up to the customer what to choose? Customers are asking me those questions. They see that IBM put other products like Workflow and Doc on maintenance and ask me about Domino. Sometimes I am sure that the customer does not even know much about Workflow and Doc but they got feeded by clever Microsoft sales people (IBM Lotus Workplace worked very well for them).

   Peter Presnell tries to maintain a list about what is coming at { Link }

   - Improved Search

   - Group Calendar

   - Adding RSS Feeds to Inbox

   - Contacts and Mail Federation

   - Unified Task Management

   It is great that Peter maintains this page but I would love if IBM would have such a page too (maybe they even have one). A landing page where I can send customers that are in doubt. And of course from a developers perspective this list is a bit (well, let's just say short). I would be quite easy to spin a story here that Notes development is on hold. I am very surprised that nobody is aware that the competition is telling a different story.

1. 41  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.comT | 8/27/2009 5:47:52 AM

   Yeah, it's easy to tell that development is on hold.

   { Link }

1. 42  Kevin Mort http://www.theglobalmind.com | 8/27/2009 8:14:28 AM

   @40 And that's precisely my point. The mentality that IBM needs to tell you 100% of what they're doing in detail, or we have to have the lifespan discussion.

   Sorry to say, but you brought it up. And yes customers have asked. I had one the other day ask why the "coming attractions" slide didn't go past 2010. About all I could think was "are you looking for a reason to move, because it sure sounds that way." This is more of what additional pressure they want to put on Lotus vs what they'd expect of ANY other vendor. The never ending "the end is neigh" commentary is just plain FUD.

   So back to my original question. How far into the future is acceptable? What number gives you confidence? 2010 sure doesn't seem like enough. Which is funny, because again, to my original point show me where you'd be getting much further from the competition.

   Maybe they need a 2015 slide reference point? But then if what was stated in 2009 wasn't precisely what gets delivered in 2015, there would be comments to that too. So I guess there's just no win here.

1. 43  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 8/27/2009 8:21:57 AM

   @42 - Isn't Lotusphere at the Swan & Dolphin booked through 2015? You could tell them that. :-)

1. 44  David Hablewitz  | 8/27/2009 11:14:08 AM

   My thoughts on this topic:

   1. Other than the result of a corporate acquisition, a mail migration is not cost justifiable, regardless of which platforms you are moving to or from. (UNLESS someone else is paying for it.)

   2. The choice to migrate is never founded on objective, technical merits, although such reasons are usually vaguely referenced to justify it publicly while the true motives are concealed.

   3. There is a weak correlation between being the BEST product and being the most SUCCESSFUL product. However, there is a very strong correlation between being the best MARKETED product and being the most successful. Not surprisingly, the best marketing appeals to emotion rather than logic. Review Superbowl commercials for examples.

   4. These science behind how these decisions are made are described in behavioral science. Behavioral science does not follow the same principles as computer science because people are not computers. There is a great book on this topic: "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" by Robert B. Caildini, PH.D.

   5. It looks like this may be the second Notes-free "nation", assuming they also go through the lengthy, costly process of moving all those Notes apps too. Notes is the Energizer Bunny of software.

   6. In the "Lotus Knows" department: Maybe IBM should start using hot models in scantily dressed outfits to showcase the products. That is a long proven technique. Or get a big name as a spokesperson, like Bruce Willis "Yippie ka-yeah, M"

1. 45  Frédéric Fanchamps  | 8/27/2009 3:46:36 PM

   UNICEF is an incredibly heavy organization, using 90% of budget just to make things working.

   OXFAM is using 90% of budget for real help.

   I never donate to UNICEF, but to OXFAM.

1. 46  Kevin Mort http://www.theglobalmind.com | 8/28/2009 10:34:06 PM

   @43 - Hey good point. : )

1. 47  xyz  | 9/10/2009 12:35:14 AM

   Check the history when Ann Veneman was the Secretary of Agriculture. She did the same thing forcing their main office to move to exchange while they were doing find with Lotus.

   The pattern here is Bill Gates existence, as he was funding many projects and donating for USDA. Isn't it illegal to abuse your donation to make money and sell your company's products??? Microsoft has a black record of that.

   The USDA move to Exchange has been reverted back once Ann Veneman left them. The whole thing cost the USDA a seven-figure number of tax payers' money. Now is it the turn of UNICEF donors' money to be wasted?

   We trust your integrity and honesty to research and publish those facts . Maybe you will be able to stop wasting millions of dollars in this tough time.

   ----- Original Message -----

   From: "UNICEF FACTS"

   To: Editorial@innercitypress.com

   Subject: Att. Matthew Russell Lee - Scandal in UNICEF

   Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 16:46:25 -0500

   --

   An Excellent Credit Score is 750

   See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!

   From: UNICEF FACTS

   To: Editorial@innercitypress.com

   Subject: Att. Matthew Russell Lee - Scandal in UNICEF

   Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 16:46:25 -0500

   Dear Mathew,

   Referring to your previous report regarding UNICEF move to Outlook. Please allow me to correct some points:

   1. The figure you mentioned (5.8 M$) is completely INCORRECT. The correct amount of the first phase for that project is more than 10 Million $$ (this is without the training cost for 14000+ users)

   2. Not only the UN has upgraded its Notes version to ver. 8 from 6.5 but UNICEF recently upgraded its email system to the latest Lotus Notes 8.5 for more than 14000 employees. Everyone I know in UNICEF is sending his positive feedback to the IT people as the new version has many useful enhancements.

   3. The reply from UNICEF spokesperson is a total LIE, he doesn't know what to say (organizational needs and priorities!!?? please check any news broadcast and count how many children are dying everyday around the world from hunger and fatal diseases). Isn't UNICEF supposed to help and save these children? Instead of using the donors' money for a single source contract!!!!!! Mathew please be assured that their priorities are to satisfy Ann Veneman so she keeps everyone on his chair.

   4. The spokesperson is manipulating the truth saying "cost-savings". As you mentioned earlier Gartner Group said there is no cost-savings at all. And it is an established fact that the running cost of Outlook is higher than Lotus Notes in such a big organization. (To be honest: Outlook is more cost effective for a small organizations 2000~4000 employees). These are facts (not openions) that anyone IN THE WORLD can easily verify.

   5. The spokesperson LIED again saying "UNICEF is one of several UN agencies taking this step" Couldn't he mention who are these agencies??? do they have a similar number of employees? do they have the same number of offices??? with the existence in the most challenging locations on earth??? is it necessary that UNICEF would spend that much money instead of doing their business because OTHER agencies are doing that??

   6. Currently UNICEF is having troubles keeping up with the running projects (Child protection, Health, Education and Emergencies) due to the economy constraints. Money is a big issue in UNICEF now. What kind of priorities that force the organization to spend such amount of money for something that is not justified? Instead of doing what UNICEF is supposed to do: saving children's lives????

   7. UNICEF is depending on the current email system since 2000. UNICEF has ALL the organizational memory stored in Lotus notes format. That worth years of conversion to Outlook. Ironically, this cost is NOT included in the 10 M $$ I mentioned!!!

   Unfortunately I do not expect my message or any other message to stop UNICEF from wasting that money and start saving children's lives. We are counting on you to raise this issue. Maybe the needy children can find someone to defend their right to exist.!!

   It is very sad to see such an organization (which you referred to it, as the "Jewel") is diving down like a burnt dying star.

   We have spent so many years UNICEF and we used to be very proud of our participation and direct efforts to save children's lives. It is so sad now, as we feel really embarrassed by what the management is doing to that "Jewel".