Paul,

to be precise, categoric and emphatic, we want the reasons (WHY).

We have seen shared the understanding of WHAT the Board is saying.

And apparently we need to find out how to ask the Board, because they seem to have issues with it.

el

-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On 27 Sep 2015, at 15:15, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:

Yes oracle of Delphi.  What is the Board view?  Nobody asked you say.    We are asking now?

--
Paul
Sent from myMail app for Android

Sunday, 27 September 2015, 06:09PM -04:00 from Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com>:

Than what is it, what you are stating?


el

-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On 27 Sep 2015, at 14:14, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:

No El, that is emphatically, categorically and precisely not what I am stating.



Cheers,


Chris


On 28 Sep 2015, at 07:06 , Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com> wrote:

Chris,

are you seriously stating that the Board does not have to give reasons because it was unaware we would like to unserstand why, or are are saying "You gotta ask me nicely"? (Jack Nicholson as Col Jessup in "A few good men")

greetings, el

--
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s

On 27 Sep 2015, 13:31 -0700, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au>, wrote:
[...]

But you did not ask the Board to expand on its comments or explain why it had a problem with anything in the CCWG report.


Cheers,

Chris