Re: What to work on next

Under our current charter there are two things we can do.

1) WCAG 2.1 and possibly a follow up. (primary deliverable)
2) The next major version (secondary activity)

 The Charter says this:

​> ​
In addition to WCAG 2.1, and as a result of the research conducted in the
various task forces and the experiences working with WCAG 2.0 for several
years, a substantial evolution of WCAG is also needed to account for the
complex interdependencies of content and user agent capabilities and to
improve the usability of the specification.This incubation work is lower
priority than the primary deliverable (WCAG 2.1). The requirements for the
next major version will be defined in parallel with (and are substantially
informed by) the development of WCAG 2.1.

This allows us
​​
to throw certain amount of
​full group ​
focus
​​
on Silver
​. Once we get the understanding and technique documents for 2.1 in
reasonable shape I think we should focus over on Silver for several months
before the end of this charter.

My reasoning for this is that we want to be part of the development of its
structure. Silver cannot be chartered unless a clear direction is already
decided for it. Currently this direction, research and development fall
squarely on the shoulders of the Silver task force. Although there are many
members of this community group, the reality is that most calls have very
few people on them. I think it would be better if we provide the full
weight of the accessibility working group behind Silver exploration for
several months before the end of this charter.  Let's find out if this can
work ... Let's throw the full depth of knowledge of the existing working
group members to this critical seminal period in the development of Silver.


We've done great work in putting out 2.1. Many of us put hundreds of hours
into it. I think we've met the requirements of the charter for the primary
activity. Once the 2.1 supporting documentation has a certain amount of
maturity then let's move together to the secondary priority in the charter
which is Silver. In several months will know whether we can move forward in
the next charter toward Silver or fall back to an interim version of WCAG.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 2:19 PM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>
wrote:

>
>    - The AC represent the Members, who are the ones mostly footing the
>    bill for staff time and travel to participate in the work
>
>
>
> I wasn’t very clear with my comment – there are many on the working group
> who are invited experts and others on the group who use their own personal
> time toward the work.  So the cost is born by the people on the working
> group and thus the folks on the working group itself should have
> considerable say.    I’d guess that most of the W3C members don’t have
> people on the AG working group and so their contributions are toward the
> W3C person involved.  The travel for events is covered by organizations who
> actually have members on the working group and not covered by W3C members
> who do not have people on the working group.  So it would seem that the
> opinion of those organizations with people actually involved with the task
> force should have more to say about the task force.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:* Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 10, 2018 1:24 PM
> *To:* Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>
> *Subject:* Re: What to work on next
>
>
>
> On 10/07/2018 12:57 PM, Jonathan Avila wrote:
>
>
>    - and the value of the investment clear
>
>
>
> I’ve personally always found this statement frustrating as while there is
> cost from W3C to pay for the part of time of a resource, webEx, etc. the
> bulk of the cost in time and money is born by the people on the working
> group and the organizations that pay their salaries to commit time to work
> on this and to pay for travel to attend TPAC and other conferences.
>
> This is the reason the AC cares about the investment. The AC represent the
> Members, who are the ones mostly footing the bill for staff time and travel
> to participate in the work. Costs managed by W3C directly also mostly come
> from Membership fees, which is why Member organizations care that the money
> is being used in a manner they support. Michael
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:* Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org> <cooper@w3.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 10, 2018 11:57 AM
> *To:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: What to work on next
>
>
>
> I want to reinforce Andrew's point. We don't necessarily have the ability
> to recharter ourselves to do things exactly as we would hope to do.
> Charters are granted by the Advisory Committee, not simply decided by the
> Working Group. The Advisory Committee is likely to look closely at a
> proposed charter and not support it if the deliverables aren't
> well-defined, the timeline unacceptable to them, and the value of the
> investment clear. Our last charter round was difficult even when we thought
> we were addressing those topics, and trends with other group charters since
> then suggest we would have even more difficulty with an upcoming charter
> without even more specificity.
>
> While people in this group have been putting a lot of thought into Silver,
> those thoughts haven't yet come into a form that would convince outsiders
> that it is a viable approach - they will need to see an actual draft of
> Silver with both structure and content. A first draft is projected for the
> end of this year, and it may take some review and adjustment before it's
> mature enough to be convincing to the Advisory Committee that it's a viable
> deliverable. We're also expecting it to take a few more years to develop
> new guidance that takes advantage of the structure of Silver, meaning the
> timeline to completion is longer than is generally supported these days. We
> have good reasons for the timeline to be longer, but from the perspective
> of many in the Advisory Committee, this just means the project is still in
> incubation stage and not yet ready to be included in a charter.
>
> Meanwhile, many people in this group have said new guidance is needed in a
> shorter timeline than we think we can deliver for Silver. I think some
> people in the Advisory Committee agree with that. A charter that describes
> Silver in a well-defined way, but projects a timeline of several years yet
> with no interim work, may raise concerns from people with this view. If we
> attempt to address this by rushing Silver, we will lose the benefits we
> hope to gain by a thoughtful restructuring. A charter that provides for
> updated accessibility guidance on a shortish timeline is more likely to
> keep us in charter and enable us to meet shorter-term needs that have been
> expressed to us.
>
> Concerns have been expressed in this thread, and at other times, about the
> impact of a strict timeline on our work mode and quality. It is certainly
> true that following a timeline strictly requires painful decisions at
> times, but I do not think we will be able to avoid this. The Advisory
> Committee is putting increasing emphasis on this, I believe in part because
> it is required to keep W3C relevant in today's environment where
> technologies evolve faster and other organizations turn around deliverables
> faster. Of course we want to minimize the amount of pain and compromise
> this causes us, and I expect we will learn from the 2.1 process to do
> better in future work. But I don't think we can avoid a situation where
> timeline is a major factor in work planning, and a charter that seeks to do
> so would probably not be accepted. We can of course try to be realistic and
> reasonable in our timeline planning, but I don't think we can deprioritize
> it in our next charter.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> On 10/07/2018 9:40 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
>
> With the challenges we have had with charters, I’m not confident that we
> can give ourselves a loose charter. Increasingly the focus of comments is
> to demand a well-incubated standard when chartering. We don’t necessarily
> need to meet that expectation completely to get a charter approved, but we
> do need to have the clarity around whether the spec is a small/medium/large.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> AWK
>
>
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
> Head of Accessibility
>
> Adobe
>
>
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
>
>
> *From: *David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com> <david@can-adapt.com>
> *Date: *Monday, July 9, 2018 at 17:56
> *To: *Katie GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com> <ryladog@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> <akirkpat@adobe.com>,
> "Newton, Brooks (Legal)" <Brooks.Newton@thomsonreuters.com>
> <Brooks.Newton@thomsonreuters.com>, Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com>
> <melledge@yahoo.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>,
> "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org> <jjwhite@ets.org>
> *Subject: *Re: What to work on next
>
>
>
> What if in the charter we give ourselves permission to go big, but
> permission for that next big thing to roll out incrementally, or even for
> the next iteration to be small if we haven't yet solved all the big issues?
>
>
>
> In other words, we charter to investigate and pursue the big ideas in
> Silver, see which if any are attainable in the desired 18 month (or
> whatever) window,  then bite off the right size chunk. It might be a very
> small chunk or it might be a revolutionary shift... but we'll make the
> right choice based on what is best for the worldwide accessibility
> ecosystem in the time frame ordered upon us by the powers that be.
>
>
>
> We give ourselves permission in the charter to make it as small or as big
> as makes sense, once we get deep into it. We won't know that beforehand.
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Mobile:  613.806.9005
>
> LinkedIn
>
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdavidmacdonald100&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C7b24100cd7fd4338780a08d5e5ffea3d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636667809671361016&sdata=%2F4IDPQICtH9GWxce5MM6eozyhbzOIwVHXixKY9l41HI%3D&reserved=0>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fdavidmacd&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C7b24100cd7fd4338780a08d5e5ffea3d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636667809671361016&sdata=O7GC5hY5S599ILr%2Feev68FmM2Dw%2F28hf4hdWAAFtMAY%3D&reserved=0>
>
> GitHub
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FDavidMacDonald&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C7b24100cd7fd4338780a08d5e5ffea3d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636667809671371025&sdata=5JskZl8q2cNWdmHQCqdTX9VLGwWD5epHDwbzhNAfzJA%3D&reserved=0>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.can-adapt.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C7b24100cd7fd4338780a08d5e5ffea3d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636667809671381035&sdata=modH5kzXg0jL3sLDU2csLSWIJJjQzfZBLWxJKg1AG%2FI%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
>
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidmacd.com%2Fdisclaimer.html&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C7b24100cd7fd4338780a08d5e5ffea3d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636667809671381035&sdata=phiGuzrXCC6CcTOdmcd308SmFkMlVy3Sm5V5zDO3ZJ0%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 7:08 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> A "clear enough vision for Silver" hopefully will be built around
> 'quality' and 'completeness' of the specification, and a true consensus
> around publication - over some arbitrary browser spec-like driven timeline.
> A charter can (and should) prioritize how it chooses - and
> push-back/negotiate on harmful constraints.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018, 6:54 PM Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> wrote:
>
> I think that we all would prefer to be focusing our energies on the next
> big thing, but this gets us into the practical realities of doing so.
>
>
>
> My key questions:
>
> What if we knew that silver would take 18 months to publish? 4 years to
> publish?
>
> Do we have a clear enough vision for Silver that we would be able to
> successfully recharter?
>
>
>
> This is why we need to talk about the Silver requirements now, so we can
> figure out enough about the overall project to make good guesses about how
> it will take shape.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> AWK
>
>
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
> Head of Accessibility
>
> Adobe
>
>
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C7b24100cd7fd4338780a08d5e5ffea3d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636667809671391039&sdata=lOsya2W8ZrcT9yeTIQJT1mBwIg%2FdKri1GkdIhk5MXbI%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> *From: *"Newton, Brooks (Legal)" <Brooks.Newton@thomsonreuters.com>
> *Date: *Monday, July 9, 2018 at 13:34
> *To: *Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com>, David MacDonald <
> david@can-adapt.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "White, Jason J" <
> jjwhite@ets.org>
> *Subject: *RE: RE: What to work on next
> *Resent-From: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Monday, July 9, 2018 at 13:34
>
>
>
> I’m onboard with moving to Silver next.  We need all of our talent and
> experience focused on developing a single standard.
>
>
>
> Brooks
>
>
>
> *From:* Mike Elledge [mailto:melledge@yahoo.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, July 09, 2018 3:26 PM
> *To:* David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>;
> White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>
> *Subject:* Re: RE: What to work on next
>
>
>
> This makes sense to me also.
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 9, 2018, 4:24:35 PM EDT, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> I support David’s analysis here. It seems to me that the difficulties
> encountered in extending WCAG 2.x are largely attributable to problems with
> its design and assumptions, which only Silver offers the opportunity to
> revisit.
>
>
>
> I also agree with David that extending WCAG 2.x further would offer
> diminishing returns relative to the work required to do so, and that
> focusing on Silver would be a more productive effort. In addition, a
> possible WCAG 2.2 would have a very limited life-time, as it would probably
> be superseded by Silver within a few years – assuming that the schedule of
> the latter remains reasonable. I’m allowing for some slippage in that
> regard, but even so, I think the point still holds.
>
>
>
> *From:* David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 9, 2018 3:00 PM
> *To:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* What to work on next
>
>
>
> As I know I don't think we've made a decision about what were working on
> next. It could be 2.2 or it could be silver.
>
>
>
> My thinking at this point  is that it might be best to go directly to
> Silver. Here's my reasoning:
>
>    - Currently in the 2.1 and 2.2 series we are basically locked into
>    backwards compatibility constraints. The trouble we had getting new
>    requirements into 2.1 will be repeated in 2.2. There are not a lot of
>    issues that we tabled for 2.2 that we can successfully address any better
>    than we could in 2.1. Perhaps we could do some more work on target size and
>    a couple of things like that but it doesn't sound like we can do much more
>    Until new assistive technologies come out or new specifications for
>    instance for COGA.
>    - Currently silver is under development and many of us could
>    contribute to that effort if we weren't working on another interim version
>    of WCAG. I think it would be better if we consolidate our efforts and work
>    on the same next big problem which is fleshing out the plausibility of
>    "measurability"  versus " testability"  and seeing if this is a viable
>    way forward for the standard .
>    - I'd be more comfortable if we were all working together on the
>    problem rather than in tandem where most of us can't give it more than a
>    passing glance to what's going on with silver because we have our heads
>    down on the current version.
>
> I'm interested in other people's opinions.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *CanAdapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Mobile:  613.806.9005
>
> LinkedIn
>
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.linkedin.com-252Fin-252Fdavidmacdonald100-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cjjwhite-2540ets.org-257C3642bf4a5afb46ef085708d5e5ce6526-257C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65-257C0-257C0-257C636667596975927717-26sdata-3D8MZMv89FujzHZN-252BpXJiOTovcgRUdIwt3zkang4PifxM-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3D4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY%26r%3DW3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw%26m%3DYt_N3RLAX8JPSXiW1H893ge25nbTKZ-YQ19dYxnOevI%26s%3DHnNTgD-p430pm25aRsst9mbWQMPJynIL77TjQJAwnJ8%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cfe013bebf45c4b3bf35008d5e5db686e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636667652874447112&sdata=rKFEj%2BALH4KlsfHUwCMi4qfN7f1aE7L%2FWZ8wQoImHyY%3D&reserved=0>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Ftwitter.com-252Fdavidmacd-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cjjwhite-2540ets.org-257C3642bf4a5afb46ef085708d5e5ce6526-257C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65-257C0-257C0-257C636667596975937726-26sdata-3DDBTBM4PXxSLy3mOnLBSiXRrEN5mw7BHJ9e8IOqCXaxc-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3D4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY%26r%3DW3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw%26m%3DYt_N3RLAX8JPSXiW1H893ge25nbTKZ-YQ19dYxnOevI%26s%3DpO4amrQi-UwzSpPozxfS6pgfb90LfjTWTtADZr0NLUc%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cfe013bebf45c4b3bf35008d5e5db686e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636667652874447112&sdata=sLh952wOkxgaN1FzkoiOe%2FN1iDQqlK6mbVpsTOQ86k8%3D&reserved=0>
>
> GitHub
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fgithub.com-252FDavidMacDonald-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cjjwhite-2540ets.org-257C3642bf4a5afb46ef085708d5e5ce6526-257C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65-257C0-257C1-257C636667596975947734-26sdata-3D7yBrQpTFhdi-252FvtjQe4Aqp-252BWZJMPbgbkPEpWZz7QTa8g-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3D4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY%26r%3DW3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw%26m%3DYt_N3RLAX8JPSXiW1H893ge25nbTKZ-YQ19dYxnOevI%26s%3D1yqFV4WsUKVWZjrZ_0sgDhNqxmS4k7sq1Re6kkCp4Dg%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cfe013bebf45c4b3bf35008d5e5db686e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636667652874457116&sdata=KdYuwESOJXa%2F5%2FQwb5UflLrZeBB6NlEoocRdgcrJ%2FOk%3D&reserved=0>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.can-2Dadapt.com-252F-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cjjwhite-2540ets.org-257C3642bf4a5afb46ef085708d5e5ce6526-257C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65-257C0-257C1-257C636667596975957747-26sdata-3DluBayfw1XEjzSP0gSlyY44eWeh9UlvUPUYg0yXEV3aE-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3D4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY%26r%3DW3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw%26m%3DYt_N3RLAX8JPSXiW1H893ge25nbTKZ-YQ19dYxnOevI%26s%3DPLdq6pr5e6ds1JhjMVPjgmQphgH3Sm8vE_6GU8dLkj0%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cfe013bebf45c4b3bf35008d5e5db686e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636667652874457116&sdata=O85KAnEF9Y2N249ACuNr8%2B6zP8RDzcjyXTvcPV%2BVzgQ%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
>
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.davidmacd.com-252Fdisclaimer.html-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cjjwhite-2540ets.org-257C3642bf4a5afb46ef085708d5e5ce6526-257C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65-257C0-257C1-257C636667596975957747-26sdata-3DSMY2GxauYWDsRRJohdbHQZzSZY88dW5lufU2qZteSuE-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3D4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY%26r%3DW3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw%26m%3DYt_N3RLAX8JPSXiW1H893ge25nbTKZ-YQ19dYxnOevI%26s%3DflAO0Gpg1TGBTja_GSuTcsH5XWafhXjUQmdsN1MfSuw%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cfe013bebf45c4b3bf35008d5e5db686e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636667652874467121&sdata=CkNPhMYwwVAP6D1unaRbD2ElRgG7vlv76BMVoMDxvGI%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>
>
>
> Thank you for your compliance.
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>