Larry, why don't you give us an introduction. I'm Larry from the George Mason University. And director of center for E-business. Looking at the solutions of E-commerce and it solutions to improve business processes and I also have a company called KRM which is a consulting firm and I sit on the expert panel for the EFS. Alex? I'm Alex, also from George Mason. My expertise lie in guidance systems and building a methodology for support. Yeah, and I will explain in a few minutes exactly why both Larry and Alex are here. I know we have Ted on the phone and Tom... Ken. Welcome. Sorry to be late. And I guess that's it. Kate, you on. Is Mike on? Don't know if Mike is on. I know I'm on. Jennifer is supporting us. We are recording this. I think we are doing the caption on it, too. Aren't we Jennifer? Closed captioning, aren't we doing that? Yes, we are, this will be captioned and transcribed. I will quickly go through the reason why we are meeting here. And I recall back in the last two meetings the one in Anaheim and Oak Brook. We had two round table discussions. With a we have done in the past is basically looked at other groups or participants of IBWG for great products going forward. We haven't done that because we were so focussed on CTIP and getting it off the ground that we didn't feel like we could entertain any more projects for sometime. However, the work that was done in the Anaheim conference on disaster related operations and data sharing using the expert panelist, it felt like they were potentially two projects that could be brought forward from those round tables and that's what we will talk about today. Two potential projects that may have some merit and move forward for funding. We are going to go through those real quickly. Projects and open it up for discussion. What I wanted to do is briefly go back to our project process where in the project process particularly on the IFTWG industry panel. Really giving the endorsement and supporting these projects going forward is critical stake holders. We wanted to turn this around a little bit from allowing basically an initializing the project as a concept, bringing it forward to the panel and then get an understanding exactly what each project's merits are. What possible solutions are and then move it into the next phase which is the high level business processes that we will cover in just a second. As you recall, we also have done quite a bit of work in looking at seven areas of funding that we can take potential projects through, everywhere from the ITS funds that we traditionally used for the projects all the way through six more that are really viable avenues for the projects. We need to decide if a project is not specifically an ITS project or an area we can go to next. We will talk briefly about the projects and open it up for discussion. The projects we will talk about is basically Intermodal Freight and also the Coordinated Freight project. We will ask the industry participants, Ted, Tom and give us feedback to the scoring. We will also on the government side Kate and Mike and myself will also provide scoring and as we see on the project. And that will come back in to Paul. This the forum that we have used. I think, Paul, you sent that out and you want to briefly talk about that real quick? Those of you on the phone, I think most of you are familiar with this school. We asked for a numeric score in each of five dimensions and that's weighted based on relative importance to each of the dimensions and overall scores are awarded. We traditionally have done this as a comparative tool because we had large numbers of projects in the past and we needed to dwindle them down to a select few. In this case we only had two to start with. What we are looking for is strengths and weaknesses of each project and some kind of an overall rating as to whether they are worthwhile to pursue. The sheet shows. As Randy mentioned earlier this session is recorded. I have indicated to people on the industry review panel they will have a opportunity to look at the recorded session and provide their scores using this format and will provide a follow-up and guidance along those lines and they are offered at the bottom the sheet a chance to throw in an additional comment for the project. Again, the next test we will go through is complete the scoring and then we will get to a point for the next week after the scoring forms that come back in whether or not we will proceed with the project to the next level. And the next level is the as-is business processing and the cost benefit methodology. Again, going back to our process map, this is the area that we next level that we take it which is after the go, no-go is to do this high level business revamping and evaluation from a cost benefit side whether or not the project is viable to move forward. This is where Larry and Alex come in. We divided up the capabilities and Larry and Alex are representing the GMU Center for George Mason university. E-center for E-business. And what we have done is taken the preliminary concept definition, the as-is processing, look at the high level concepts, possible preliminary measures for the project. Cost drivers. Again, which is our support contractor. Basically produce a concept document presentation. Kind of a preliminary measure summary of the project. The next step that will be handed off to Larry and Alex to do a to be process mapping and give us a what are the strong technology options. What can they bring forward from the identification of the technology, what potential benefits that the technology offer. This also gives us the ability to use our cost benefit tool that we developed and doing the analysis of whether these technologies have strong benefits and moving them into some type of technology summary and cost benefit summary analysis. Are there any questions on this before we move forward? No. Okay. I thought that the George Mason E-center for Business would give us a good basically unbiased approach to technology recommendations and also a good strong recommendation on the cost benefits. We will try that on a couple projects and see how it works out. Okay, real quickly I will run through, the first one I will run through is the coordinated congestion mitigation project. This one came out of the most recent IFTWG meeting in Chicago. I'm going to boil this down into a few simple -- I'm not going to read these slides, but with a we are talking about is this project is focussed on the lack of data exchange to mitigate traffic congestion around major ports at intermodal terminal and border crossings or any other place where we are exchanging freight between modes. There is today really no exchange of traffic information indicating any type of R&D capacity or roadway demand. There is no exchange information associated with the arrival and departure of trains or vessels to within the roadway network to be able to give it to the ITS traffic management. And also incident data on both sides. There is not a whole lot of ways that information is exchange between these public/private partnerships. The proposal solution that we are offering really is to build information bridge between the public agency traffic managers and the private companies that rely on the roadway network. We can do this by creating a data exchange that leverages the ongoing work that we are currently doing on the information highway, electronic freight management using the service architect environment. Potential partners could be state DOT, motor carrier supports and same type of partner this that we developed with the Kansas CTIP project. This is an example. And Paul did a great job putting this together of how we can share realtime situational awareness information between these entities, public and private. And not all of the data as we discussed at the Chicago conference, of course is proprietary. Some can be seen but it's not shared between all of these entities. What we are proposing again is the bridge that will give us that availability to share these traffic reports, traffic advisories, roadway conditions, riding advisories getting into specifically where the only private side, where the arrivals and departures that may influence all of this capacity and bringing this information together in applying applications that would support a giving strong capacity information to the companies and to the traffic managing network. Benefits, of course, are reduced congestion and pollution in metropolitan areas we feel that sharing this information in and out of ports would help better balance the demand and more effective network management. And private side reduce delay for carriers attempting to get through, better for the terminals. And finally the planning to be able to do real and accurate origin destination data. Hopefully this will build a good, solid network that would allow transportation planners on both sides of the public and private side to be able to plan their logistics out from origin to destination better. Again, we run up challenges and barriers of information sharing, whether or not the information can be shared without being in the environment and how can we get to this information. So it's usable and reliable and accurate. Right now we were just in the initial standpoint of this was the concept that was put forward in Chicago. And we talked about it in detail, quite a few comments about it and questions. I will put it to the industry panel, is there any questions? Do you think we are on the right track to having a project that we can take part? I think that it makes sense. You know, when Tony spoke to our class, he was sort of talking about this one effort to have where they are getting Qualcomm data after the fact and sort of moving it up into realtime. That be part of this? Yeah that can be part of this, right. I mean, it seems to be in that same sort of sweet spot area that we are doing in Chicago and Kansas City, and it's about collaboration and improved efficiency. I was saying it could be a component of the CTIP eventually. I agree. You think probably maybe, Kate, you think it fits on the ITS environment? Yeah, but I don't see how it's -- I mean, you will have to get a real big -- it's kind of like one more little project. You can sell it as an ITS project but not in the world of initiatives. You would have to package it a lot bigger because it seems a lot like some of the stuff that's been tried before and I'm not sure why this one in particular is different and exactly how big the problem is that you are trying to solve. I mean, the typical questions that get thrown at new ITS projects. I guess that's really the next stage is really understanding, is it really an ITS initiative and that's where I'm going to look to Larry and Alex to give us a real what's the impact of this project overall as we look out and do the analysis on. Randy, I ask a question. This Tom. Yeah, Tom. And the question is to Ted. Ted, you may be more familiar than I am with the create project. Is there any potential integration? No. No? Okay. I mean, create is about rail infrastructure. Right. But it's also with the terminal impacts, but is it still inwardly focussed just terminal ingate, inside the property? Not focussed terminal at all. It's about trains to the effect that it's an intermodal train that it affects our industry. Box cars, carload. Right, it's all... The steel wheel side. I didn't know if they had anything that extended beyond that. No. Okay. Welcome, Mike. Hi, how are you doing? All right. We just went through the first project. It's Ken, let me ask a couple things. Okay. I guess what I was wondering was, well, at this point do do we need an understanding what would be done in the pilot test? Or just whether a pilot test of this kind of problem would make sense? That's where we were at now. Whether or not a pilot test would make test. And whether or not the project is to the point that it would create a pilot test would create benefits and again, we have done these type of project concepts before, and really not knowing what the potential benefits of it would be and that's why we are trying to utilize not only the cost benefit tool in comparing technologies, but also looking at how we can really get what the magnitude, what Kate was talking about, of what this project could bring to this bottom line. It's something that can be done that would have tremendously effective benefits that we could take to an ITS initiative and that is where we are at today. Only question I'm asking, you think it's a of the concept good enough to take it to the next step? The concept mentioned on one of the earlier slides mentioned the service oriented or architecture of that information highway is, is that part of the concept? Is it because it would seem to me that it could get swamped by all of the technology have to do with FIH, and overlook the problem that they are trying to address which is really coordination amongst the, you know, between the ports and the truckers and stuff. I mean probably that's not the right terminology in here but the freight information highway are the service oriented architecture that we are developing to support this. Basically supports sharing data between. Again, that is just the concept we would look at. So it could be something like saying it simpler than that if people thought that was economical. So cell phone use or something of that sort. Yeah, I mean it would all be driven off of that. With a we were looking at is would it be more economical to build it under this architecture and that's where Larry and Alex can give us that answer. Hopefully is that the architecture of the freight information highway will be less expensive to build than setting up the web services between each one of the sharing partners versus building a huge database somewhere and housing the information and somebody maintaining and that's why we are looking at the technology evaluation. Okay. Hey, Randy? Yeah? Maybe part of the problem here is it might be useful if we tried to sort of focus this a little bit so that people had a better comfort of getting their arms around it. And what you might want to think about is going back to Tony's presentation to the class and that I'm trying to remember what he calls that data collection effort. But if you can sort of say, look, we will take this data in realtime so that we can develop a national realtime flow model of the interstates, you know, it's kind of like what we did with the crosstown and everything. We sort of scaled it down to a manageable nugget. And I think if you did that, it's more discreet, more understandable and also it's probably more likely to succeed. Okay. I mean, everything that you say here we all agree with. But it's like a motherhood, apple pie thing. It's kind of intimidating when you think about the true scope of everything you are proposing. Yeah, I think we probably need to get it and that's what we will do in the next step is we will pair it down. We were trying to capture quite a bit of the information that was put forward in the panel. I believe we referred to that as the work that crystal is doing. The travel time. Travel time and fixing the corridor. Freight performance measures. This Paul, I just wanted to again I'm trying to get as much guidance out of you guys as I can. If you look at the diagram here, maybe if I elaborate a little bit on why some of these bullets are there maybe that will help us figure out the best way to focus this. One of the questions that was raised out in Oak Brook was that it was asked of Dave who is the DOT representative was if you had information about train arrivals, not only dates and times but also sizes of trains, number of containers likely to leave a facility within a certain time window, plan an actual schedule information from a real terminal, would that be of use. I only asked about real terminals because he is in Chicago. He said absolutely. I think his response was something along the lines that although they don't know what the granularity of that data might be, they certainly think it would be valuable in helping them to understand how to do two things. One is to do whatever planning they have to for expenditures on roadway improvements in and around terminal area, but more importantly from an operational standpoint if they knew when those things were coming in and basically when you start to see a surge in containers hitting the roads around the terminals, then they might actually be able to do some modifications or operations including changing signal timing, changing travel direction if they have reversal lanes. Those kinds of things. That's kind of what the genesis was for this project in general. Many of the other things you see on here were basically a combination of educated guesses and maybe a little bit of creative reaching to see what else possibly might be out there in terms of available data that a traffic management center could use to literally actively manage the network. And then we started to think, what about the other direction, if they have this information and they can combine it with whatever they might have from things like what you were talking about with what Tony talked about, the travel time, having realtime information. If they could combine that back and put it back into the hands of whether it's terminal operators or trucking companies or whoever else might actually use it about conditions on the network, then they can make decisions about when it's best to schedule pickups for individual shipments. I guess my question is, is from a practical standpoint, do you see the private industry, A, feel like it's worthwhile engaging and getting information about scheduled to the public's sector and B, do you think there is any likelihood they would alter their travel patterns and pickup and delivery times, are those realistic expectations? I think I think short answer is yes, that's one of the underlying assumptions of CTIP. The problem is when you start talking about schedule information I start getting weak in the knees. That's such a black hole. It's so subjective in various contexts that in my mind in something like this schedule information it may be phase four. Because it's so difficult to quantify other than straight back to back pickup and appointment, everything else becomes conditional. You have failure scenarios. I used to argue with the railroads. The train was on time but the container was late or the container was on time and the shipment was late. So your existing in a multi-dimensional universe that's why I'm saying postpone the schedule. If you can't collect realtime then school is out anyway. That's why I suggested that if Tony is talking about collecting Qualcomm data on realtime to use as markers on information on the velocity of the national highway system, that's a great start you have a way to do it. You have an architecture to collect it. If you got that success, you will get people to say, okay, what's the next step? Let's talk about scheduling, it's like the bunkers at the British Open, you will never get out of them. Basically the biggest issue is that the schedules, they aren't necessarily reflective of reality, is that...? I will give you an example. Just a couple activities. One is you got train schedule. You got an airline schedule. You are flying like me from Richmond so you are always checking. I'm flying from Richmond to Atlanta, and Atlanta to San Francisco. The plane was on time but I miss mid connection. So data doesn't mean anything. It's not a meaningful metric. The key performance educator is Ted's travel time. You have to drill down several levels to do it. Problem number one. People are playing games with scheduled. And pulling this out of the liner shipping industry. You go in and look at an alliance that has four steam ship lines all sharing the same vessel and if you look at the published schedule from Hong Kong to L.A., and they are all using the same vessel and they have different schedules. That's right. All I'm saying is, there is a lot of mumbo-jumbo on schedules. I'm saying let's stay out of that for now. You go in and you never come out. What are they relying on if they are not relying on the credit schedules? Just relying on contact from... They are relying on when it shows up. I mean they got some ideas. I'm just saying it's a challenge, that's all. All I'm saying is we could spend hours talking about schedules. And all I'm saying is don't start with schedules. What I'm saying is to do this you need two pieces. One is you need the schedules and two you need the actual updates and then third is the delta between the two. Right. All I'm saying is start on the actual collection first. Demonstrate that you can do that. Because if you can't demonstrate that you can do that, it's pointless to talk about schedules. So demonstrate the first part first to generate and validate that it can work. That's what I'm trying to say. Before you start getting into trying to analyze when a shipment will come in based on schedules and historical information and all those kinds of things. Worry about make sure the connections to the information exchange links are in place, that would facilitate the information changing hands. Right. And then worry somewhere down the road whether or not the schedules are good. All I'm asking is that you need to worry about the schedules. What I'm hearing is the idea of getting realtime data of high quality... Whoever is talking, seems to be in the background there. It seems to me from the conversation that getting high quality realtime data is the key to any confidence someone would have in using such data. Right. So if we can show that the viability of collecting this realtime data from different sources aggregating it into the composite and then making that available, that would be a value added resource that various companies could use and the government. Right, even without schedule information it's got value. Right. You know, United Airlines will publish a flight, but we all know that particular flight may be 100% delayed. And it will never go on time. So we can actually, look at performance over time how is the various operators performed versus the published schedules and actual arrival. Something that would help us determine quality of service or whatever commitment say agreed to. My second question is, would companies in this working group use the data to survive some value added services that they could use to perhaps optimization of routes? Something that we could show there is a real benefit to industry from having this realtime aggregate data. It's possible. The problem is, you are just going to run into -- all I am saying is if we don't keep this focus on something very specific, we'll be talking about this two years from now rather than trying to go out and do something to fix it. It may be that the term scheduled is not the right term to use. Maybe we are talking about here is just the latest expectation in terms of arrivals. Not to publish schedule so much as anticipated arrival information. I see where you are coming from and that does make sense. Can I ask the question? Who is the sponsor of this particular project? This project team -- month we actually put the concept together based on what was presented in the round table. It really doesn't have a project sponsor at this point. It doesn't seem like it's got the basic thrust of this is something we've got to get down. It was based partly on, I think I mentioned this before you joined. This was based partially on input from Dave from Illinois DOT and regret feedback from Phil, on both of these and an expression of interest for land start to take place in both of them. That was relatively little information. He had seen a copy of the presentation in that was it. There seems to be interest, but there isn't someone that you could say is the sponsor of this yet too. I think that's one of the things Randy was hoping would find. If we can't find a sponsor for it, perhaps it needs to be re-engineered or put on the back burner or what ever else. It seems that if Dave and Bill feels strongly about it, they should be here and taking part in this discussion. Fell is on a plane and the past that to we make this available for him to review it. All we are trying to do here is get feedback from the industry panel, is this a viable project? And that is what we are asking now. Looks like there has been all lot of work that has gone into putting these thoughts and ideas together. Maybe scheduling is not the thing to be concentrating on. At the same time, if you are just gathering data, what are you getting it for? It seems like there's going to have to be some user on the industry or government side. If you have real time data, people are going to use it. I'm just asking for what too. How is that return on investment going to take place? Their should be some feeling for the operations group that feels that just having that did and enables you to use the network more efficiently. If we are talking about the travel time for mission that we are collecting, primarily that is being identified, to identify bottlenecks and knowing where investments should be focused to try to help eliminate or reduce bottlenecks. From a government perspective, it does make sense to do that, especially if we are trying to facilitate freight movement. This is in that same vein, maybe that philosophy holds up here as well. A right. I think it does none. Obviously we need to develop the idea for there. We will take the feedback from the scoring sheets and develop it to the next point. We've got one more here on the disaster Emergency preparedness response. This cannot of our 2005 roundtable in Anaheim. Again the problem here was no effective methods or tools exist for government caught in the straight and NGOs to plan and conduct transportation logistics operations and emergency situations. Several things came out of the discussions, which included lack of active information systems for automated alerts and messaging, mechanisms by which planners and responders can communicate and exchange information, lack of mechanisms and tools to a core activities involving multiple organizations in the delivery of emergency supplies and then the lack of mechanisms and tools to quickly configure and coordinate a supply chain. We have come out of this, this has been ongoing, their have been several discussions that Paul has been part of and we have had several people from the two participating. We put together a project that we feel has some viable feasibility in moving forward with looking at the analysis that would support the cost-benefit analysis associated with it. The project would basically be a portal that would be able to provide these alerts between all of the partners. Basically, it would have for parts. April feasibility study, design of a just-in-time information infrastructure, design of a virtual supply chain configuration tool and the development and deployment of the IMF portal. Quickly, going over the just in time, what we are talking about is our getting the information from multiple sources and giving it to the decision makers in. We don't know exactly what the architecture would be, but being able to bring this information together and get it to the right people at the right time. And then on the virtual supply chain configuration tool, we're talking about being able to manage the supply chain with a tool so that the managers could react and adapt with emergency information using simulation models or mathematical models for being able to develop what the response times would-be and looking at what the infrastructure would be to be able to get that information aggregated and available. This is a diagram that has been put together basically which consists of all of the pieces that we are talking about and the interfaces of the users in the infrastructure to support it. The benefits would be improved response time and reduce costs of disaster and operations the real time information access and distribution, reduced cost to state voters by using the tools and improve robustness and flexibility of response by providing timely data to adapt quickly to changing conditions and improved prepared as through training exercises using pre defined response scenarios and. Again, we are running up against me challenges. This was a summary of what the Anaheim panel basically brought forward. Talked-about the events of Katrina. This is our first attempt to get something in a project form that might be something we can take the word. I'm going to open it up to the floor for discussion. Randy, I'm not sure how you would plug these folks and, but I would run on whatever project is a buy some of the emergency response, emergency management folks within DOT a pick on thinking about Linda Dodge, down here in the JPO is involved in some projects, just to get some emergency sponsor response to it rather than just the freight side of things. I would definitely do that earlier rather than later. We were going to involve Vince, Pierce, and me in looking at the product but we really wanted to get it to the next stage as a project before we take it any further. All we have here is a bunch of ideas, concepts. Are they really viable? And do we want to take it to the next level? Gwen? To add, are you still here? Someone else joined, I thought. Maybe not. Any thoughts on this one? Some want. You are cutting out him of bifurcate. Was that Ted or can? We may be having phone system trouble. Do you know if Ken was on his cell phone or on a regular line? He may be on a cell phone. Ken are you there? You can cross cell phones off of the Emergency preparedness list. (laughing) I was going to just look on this one. I don't know if this works in conjunction or not. But from a security perspective, I attended a Marine at recovery symposium, I guess it was this past week and one of the items up for discussion was the need for a coordinating mechanism here as it related to freight that is inbound to ports. The intention was to keep freight blowing rather than shut down the entire system. Remember there is only about 20% and absorption on the West Coast, according to the figures that we had gotten. Where do you send the rest of these containers so that they continue to move and get to their and destinations? A coordinating council would be important from a policy perspective, making policy judgments is important and and how to adjust to the scenarios. It looks to me like in a situation with, whether there was a natural disaster that occurred or whether it was a terrorist action, it seems like there is a need for something like this that doesn't exist but how to bring it together as a government industry collaborative tool is another critical piece. This came out of Anaheim, right? This came from the Anaheim round table. I guess after Katrina we propose a thought process to join and maybe you, Tom. Each industry has different ways of dealing with this. In the intercourse nation between various industries and probably governmental entities is where there still seems to be a gap in that could possibly be helpful in getting products to market and also making sure that the transportation network was tendered to it in a way that it might need to be. For whenever it is worth, I thought I would share that with you from the Coast Guard, Customs and all of the Marine folks at this particular conference. Mike, in fact, that was one of the pieces we had in this presentation prior to me taking it out last week. Alex and Larry had worked on something very similar to that. It was market based mechanisms exactly of the kind you are talking about. If you have some reduction of capacity, for example how do you adjust demand and supply among a bunch of different partners in order that the capacity would not collapse in such a way that the economic loss but a lot of men private and public sectors would be limited. Maybe we should put it back in there. Ted, are you still on? My phone and died. I've got to get off in a couple minutes. We are going to finish this up. I had intentions of only going for one hour. Did you catch much of this presentation? Yes. The question I had was, pursuant to what Mike was saying and what Alex just said, when we had the port shutdown in a Long Beach, when it came time to deal with starting to pull freight back through there, was that a matter of First come first serve or was there a matter of prioritization of shipments? There was no prioritization. They made decisions about which vessels they wanted out first. Say that again? It was pretty much first in, first out. They did run around, they diverted. I would not go back to that as a model that we are seeking to replicate. (laughing) The reason I brought the question up was whether or not to, let's say you are in that kind of a disaster situation, whether or not there are natural market mechanisms that would kick in. The problem you've got there, is that most steamship lines do not report a vessel arrival on a container level. The first time you see a container is when it is discharged. Off the vessel. Off the vessel. It's not like the railroad where they say the train arrived but the container was not to discharge. You know the vessel is there but on a per container basis, which is what everybody needs for visibility, they don't have a record that says arrived, not discharged yet. This is my whole point about going in there and really getting the reporting issues first. You are thinking that the previous project has some linkage, and other words, putting the data together first in there are all kinds of other potential uses for that day? Exactly. You are going to have to identify gaps or you don't have real time data, such as the one I it just mentioned. We plan to do in the project is get partners together to define emergency scenarios and how the partners would respond and coordinate a response. In a sense, if one of the scenarios were a nuclear explosion, a nuclear device in port, one could develop a scenario involving government agencies, industries to respond to that kind of a event. That is what we are proposing in that project is to try to identify one or two scenarios. And all due respect, if there is a nuclear device that explodes in a poor, there not going to be making decisions on facts, they're going to be making decisions on politics. Does it really matter to know which container melted? (laughing) I'm sorry. Let's address issues that people can understand and get behind. I think that was an extreme example. I agree. Due to what ever reason, whether it is terrorist induced or disaster, you have a sudden reduction of capacity and the question is what do you do. One of the problems that we have not discussed is that you cannot collect real-time data from a lot of private parties trying to move containers through the port. It will take the government to make the best decision based on real time data. Private parties would not like to share this information. I disagree with that. I will give you a commercial example of something I am working with. Our company provides real-time software that enables you to sort large amounts of data in real time. And the AAR which is a private sector is actually putting something together for the FRA and we are putting it together for FEMA and DHS that says we don't want routine access to private sector did. However, in the event that there is a disaster, we need their right now. It's kind of like there is a glass wall, and in the event of an emergency, break the glass. That is going into effect in the next week or so. I do think that's about having data and making it available in the event of an emergency but not routinely. Right. If the data is available, it's much better in terms of making those decisions. But basically, the missing piece was addressing the problem of how decisions are made in terms of giving priority is so that the economic loss by the parties is minimized. If you have the data you describe, then it is much better for the system to use. But if you have a limited amount of data, we have in mind, it could work better if you have more data of the kind you are talking about. Okay. Well, in the interest of trying to stay on schedule, I'm going to wrap this up. Are there any crucial questions that we miss that we need to get some answers for or me can we continue this offline in respect to any questions that may come up, get back in touch with me or Paul. Sure. Sure. How soon do you need the score sheets? As soon as you can get them completed. Where we send the slides earlier or not? No, you were not. It would be good to have those. Yeah. It will be about a week, Jennifer, before we get the presentations posted to the web? I believe so. With Harry being out, I will see how quickly we can get it up. If they could be e-mailed to us while we are filling the things out, I would like to be able to look at them carefully in filling out the score sheet. I don't think we need the recording. No, not at all. Just the slides. I agree. As part of the 508, you have to have been closed captioning online. We will get you the slides today. That's a good idea. If we can get your responses back by the 25th of August. Oh, yeah, that will give a chance for people to listen to the webcast and some questions back and forth in to their scoring as well. Okay. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it and we will give you the results as soon as we get them compiled. Thank you. See you. Bye-bye. (end)