<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Response to response to response, etc<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>2.1 General Remarks<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>"The submitting organizations of the GeoServices REST API are and have been supporters of OGC since its earliest years. They have actively contributed to many of today's OGC standards and have implemented many of them in their software products. They continue to be committed to the goals and mission of the OGC."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>All very motherhood and apple pie. I'm sure that the submitters help old ladies across the road too. What does it have to do with the standard though?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>"Most aspects raised in the justification comments are not new and have been discussed at length before."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The fact that the comments have been discussed before does not mean that they have been satisfactorily dealt with.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>"It is also worth to point out again that the backward compatibility requirement with the existing implementations applies to the version of the candidate standard that is under vote. Once the standard has been adopted, changes will follow the OGC procedures and, for example, a future major revision could also break such backwards compatibility. However, OGC policies emphasize the importance of backwards compatibility between revisions of a standard and the careful considerations that are necessary in this process."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>So backwards compatibility overrides every other consideration now, but not in the future, except that it will because of existing OGC policies? This makes no sense at all.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>"As part of the SWG deliberations, the specification has been reviewed and changes have been made to remove any implementation specific artifacts."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The specification precisely, and in great detail, describes the entire functionality of a single piece of existing software. Simply deleting the company name from well-known constants does not constitute "removing implementation specific artifacts".<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>"They have been implemented for a range of use cases that involve non-Esri implementations."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Of the implementations listed, the following are all existing Esri partners:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Exelis<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>http://partners.esri.com/PartnerDetail?id=a2T70000000TNQPEA4<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Interactive Instruments<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>http://partners.esri.com/PartnerDetail?id=a2T70000000TNWMEA4<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>52 North<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>http://52north.org/about/partners/<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Voyager GIS<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>http://partners.esri.com/PartnerDetail?id=a2T70000000TNiAEAW<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>These are all already inside the Esri tent, pissing out.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>2.2 Responses to justification comments<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>"The shape file as a data format is greatly valued by the GIS community. The geodatabase data format from Esri is also of great interest to the GIS community."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>And these are relevant how?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>"It is true that the specification comes out of an existing implementation. But that should in many ways be treated as a positive sign."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Please elaborate on the “many ways”.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>"It is unclear why adoption of the GeoServices REST API would stifle innovation as expressed in the comment."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Because those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. I quote directly from OGC Document 05-003 "Position Paper on GO-1 Specification", section 3.3 (my emphasis):<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>"The GO-1 specification was initially developed as part of a government software implementation for creating, displaying, editing, and storing graphic objects and features. Because the specification dictates a very unique, fine-grained implementation, it is unlikely to be supported as a standard aspect of commercial software products. *<b>By defining so much of the environment within which feature objects may be used, it essentially constrains future creativity and innovation</b>*."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Those words were provided by David Arctur, on behalf of Esri. Now that the boot is on the other foot it seems that fine-grained implementations are just fine and dandy, apparently.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I would also note that the Geographic Objects Implementation Specification lists the grand total of 4 (four) implementations on the OGC Registered Products page. The somewhat related GeoAPI 3.0 Implementation Standard lists 1 (one) implementation on the same page. Impressive.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Finally, and most serious of all, the Architecture Board clarified the TC voting rules as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>"The TC Policies and Procedures was not entirely clear about how long the vote would remain open and what happens if additional NO votes are submitted. Therefore, the OGC Architecture Board discussed the adoption vote process and agreed to the following clarification:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Once the vote restarts, if additional NO votes are submitted but the reasons <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>for the NO vote have already been stated in previous NO votes, the vote <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>remain open. The TC Chair shall review each new NO vote and determine if the <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>reason for the NO vote is similar to one already submitted. However, if two <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>or more new NO votes provide new technical reasons for voting NO, then the <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>vote is suspended and the SWG shall respond to the new comments. However, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>the SWG can ask that the vote to be suspended at any time."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Did the members of the Architecture Board who are also members of the SWG take part in this discussion and vote? There seems to be an obvious conflict of interest if they did, because these rules blatantly favour this SWG and all current and future SWGs over the TC voters.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>If a TC voter is not satisfied with a response to their No vote, then that is just tough luck because of the way that these rules have been written. That is clearly and outrageously wrong, and anti-democratic.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>It is the SWGs who should have the responsibility of convincing the TC and PC voters, not the other way around. If the process has a built-in assumption that the SWGs - and therefore the proposed standards - are correct, when it is a matter of opinion, not fact, then the process is little more than a rubber-stamping exercise of a standard that need not change in the face of No votes<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Resistance is futile, it would seem.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Have a good weekend!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Martin<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> tc-bounces+martin.daly=cadcorp.com@lists.opengeospatial.org [mailto:tc-bounces+martin.daly=cadcorp.com@lists.opengeospatial.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Carl Reed<br><b>Sent:</b> 19 April 2013 15:14<br><b>To:</b> Technical Committee; Planning Committee<br><b>Subject:</b> [Tc] GeoServices REST API vote to restart<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Dear Members -<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>The GeoServices REST API SWG has reviewed the comments received during the start of the adoption vote. These comments were associated with NO votes. The SWG responses to the comments are documented in <a href="https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=53588&version=1" title="https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=53588&version=1">https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=53588&version=1</a> /<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Procedurally, the vote will reopen and 1.) TC Voting members who have voted can change their vote based on the information provided in the response to the comments and 2.) TC Voting members who have not voted can vote.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>The TC Policies and Procedures was not entirely clear about how long the vote would remain open and what happens if additional NO votes are submitted. Therefore, the OGC Architecture Board discussed the adoption vote process and agreed to the following clarification:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Once the vote restarts, if additional NO votes are submitted but the reasons <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>for the NO vote have already been stated in previous NO votes, the vote <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>remain open. The TC Chair shall review each new NO vote and determine if the <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>reason for the NO vote is similar to one already submitted. However, if two <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>or more new NO votes provide new technical reasons for voting NO, then the <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>vote is suspended and the SWG shall respond to the new comments. However, <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>the SWG can ask that the vote to be suspended at any time.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Or put more simply:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Vote opens<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Rule 1. Two or more new NO votes with new technical reasons for NO vote, vote <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>suspended<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Rule 2. New NO votes stating reasons provided in previous NO vote, vote continues.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Other policy considerations:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Assuming Rule 2, the vote shall remain open for the 60 day voting and IPR review period. Due to the 2 week vote suspension, the vote close is extended 2 weeks.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Assuming Rule 2, </span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>For all non-policy related motions, a simple majority of active voting members must vote “Yes” for the motion to pass. For all policy related motions (such as the Technical Committee Policies and Procedures), a 2/3rds majority of the active voting members is required. The number of active voting members is based on the number at the start or at the end of the vote whichever is less.</span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Carl Reed, PhD<br>CTO and Executive Director Standards Program<br>Open Geospatial Consortium<br><a href="http://www.opengeospatial.org">www.opengeospatial.org</a><br><br>The OGC: Making Location Count!<br><br>---------------------<br><br>This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete this communication and destroy all copies.<br><br>"The important thing is not to stop questioning." -- Albert Einstein <br>"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." -- Helen Keller <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>