With the seven companies that would be added to this restricted list would it require us to divest of any positions. Are there ones where we would potentially have to take our position and divest . Correct. Those are the only two . This would be on page 2 of the memo. In the third column 2. 36 million in the electric. 3. 94 million in se s iemens tht we could make subject to our investment restriction. The determination was that by and large the u. S. Has lifted sanctions. These companies are providing as commissionter pointed out services to the citizens, and i think there are necessary communication and Power Services that the citizens do need. There is a consideration here of and as we proceed and evaluate the benefits of allowing companies to operate in a Company Versus benefiting a government that is subject to sanctions or is enacting human rights abuses against citizens. That is the balance that we are trying to understand. They havent changed the investment policy as a result of the sanctions being liftedded, is that correct . We have seen two public funds in the u. S. Remove the restriction completely. New mexico education, then colorado Public Employees retirement. Our state funds here still seem to have restriction in place, although it appears that the legal mandate requiring them to do that has been repealed with the lifting of sanctions. That is not my legal opinion, just a reading of the law. I guess my concern is, i think people with funds leave the restrictions in place because they are monitoring the unrest in the country. Maybe the countries operating in the country under that same duress, right . I dont know if it is prudent to monitor it in the same sense . This is why our recommendation is sort of somewhere in the middle ground. We are not removing the restriction. It would apply to the companies we have determined previously fell under it, but pausing the expansion of it while we monitor the ongoing evolution. Before we call for Public Comment we need a motion. We need a motion before you speak. Is there a board motion . This is an action item. I will move to accept the staff recommendation on this. Is there a second . I will second it. The motion is made and seconded i heard a voice. Point of clarification. What is the staff recommendation . Twoparts. Can you reiterate . The recommendation to reaffirm the existing restricted lift that we have put in place since 2006 and has evolved over time. Not add any new companies to that list. Then monitor the progresses of the Transitional Government and come back with a recommendation what we should do Going Forward in a year. You are not barred to wait for another year. If you have useful recommendation to change it. This is what it is today. Thank you. The action item would come back to remove restriction. At any time a special stand alone section, but we are not there yet, but that is just to inform you that is what it would take. It seems like the investment operation has never stopped. We have the motion. The motion is made now speak under Public Comment. I thought you were going to vote for the motion without Public Comment. In addition to sudan, i would like you to put on your wish list to not invest in a country named china, Mainland China, not hong kong or taiwan. The Chinese People in Mainland China are governed by one of the most brutal governments of the world. Look at hong kong and tibet. If you Board Members lived in china, you would all be in the education camps right now. My recommendation is you dont have any direct investments in china. Obviously the investment in the s and p500 practically every company is invested there. You dont have to make any direct investments in china. I would like you to not invest in Mainland China. No further Public Comment i call the question. Those in favor of the motion. A. Opposed. Did you get that. One no. Commissioner chu was a no. That takes us to the next item. And all report and recommendation on investment restriction in firearms and ammunition manufacturers and retailers. This is related to our investments in firearms and ammunition, Manufacturing Companies and retailers. It does include a recommendation. Thank you. Provide an update here on the investment restriction on firearm and ammunition for manufacturers in place since 2016. We use the research and a variety of sources to determine what companies are in the criteria to make them subject to investment restrictions. Based on this review we recommend adding one Company Korean ammunition maker to the restricted list this year. We currently have no direct investment in this company. Also, i want to highlight on this item we have made efforts over the last year to engage with retailers of firearms, companies we have not divested from around the gun retail practices. The companies we have contacted were not as responsive as we hoped. We did get a letter back from Dicks Sporting Goods but did not directly engage with the company. We have seen a willing necessary for certain retailers, namely Dicks Sporting Goods and walmart. Walmart was forced to do that with the shooting in el paso earlier this year. They have taken steps to strengthen practices in response to be and customer concerns about their gun retail accident. They have taken out handguns in their stores completely and are strengthening the background check process. Duckducksduck dicks are dg inventory of certain products, preliminary evaluation says these stores outperformed therapies due to the merchandise they replaced the gun products with. In november last year we did become signatory to the responsible firearms industry along with 13 other investors. This is being staffed that is seeking to engage with manufacturers and retailers as well as the entire distribution chain of civilian firearms and ammunition to encourage them to put in place better and safer practices around the manufacturing andy sign of their products and retail practices. It is in recognition and consistent with Second Amendment rights. It is not seeking to get rid of the industry but engage it to operate in a safer way. We will continue engagement over the next year, and, hopefully, collabberate with other investors. We want to amplify our voice and engagement in this area. Board questions . This is an action item that will require a motion. I make a motion to accept staff recommendation. Motion made by commissioner chu, seconded by commissioner bridges. Public comment. Thank you. I am a resident of san francisco. I read today Dicks Sporting Goods destroyed 5 million worth of guns. That is guns in all stores. The c. E. O. Was quoted as saying people say when i suggest things like that this we arent going to stop mass shootings. I say you may be right. If we save one life, isnt that worth it . I feel like this is an example when sociopaths are not in charge of corporations. I want to highlight the difference between what we are talking about some players in this industry and what we are talking about since 2013 with the fossil fuel industry since 1989, 1991, these companies could have been taking actions out of their own independent human moral drives or just a drive to make money from a resource that will not become scarce error time or unburnable over time by entities that will no longer be able to inhabit the plaplanet. Industry making moves is a possibility. That we have not seen in decades from the fossil fuel industry. We are way, way past the time of engaging in an orderly fashion to see if they will respond to a letter and need to get rid of these investments. Thank you so much. I would like you to have a talk with your Hedge Fund Managers to tell them they cant invest in firearms, tobacco and fossil fuels. I call the question. Those in favor of the motion say aye. Those opposed. That takes us to item 11. Action item annual report and recommendation on investment restriction in her malCoal Companies. Board members this is level three of the esp policy related to dievesment of thermal Coal Companies and it includes a recommendation. Thank you. We have had the investment restriction in place since 2017 for thermal Coal Companies. As we outlined and describe in the memo the industry has a weak outlook, it appears to be in decline. We continue to review our exposure to this sector using msci research and other resources and yearonyear derm based on criteria if we should add companies to the restricted list or remove them. This year we are identifying four new companies to add to our restricted list that derive more than half of their revenue from thermal coal. We currently have no direct investment in any of these companies. In addition, as we propose in october of last year in the climate update we engage with companies that receive less than half of their revenue but more than 10 of revenue from thermal coal. Between 10 to 50 of revenue from thermal coal. To understand their plans and strategic outlook for that segments of their business. Based on that review and our engagement with these companies, we are recommending restricting investment in 13 companies that did not respond to our engagement outreach or have not communicated any plans to exit or strategically review thermal coal business. We hold approximately 100,000 of direct investment in one of the companies and none in the remaining 12 companies. We recommend retaining ownership in three companies that receive between 10 to 50 of revenue from thermal coal because based on our engagement and reserve they do have plans to exit or drastically curtail the thermal coal activities. There are two Additional Companies that we need to obtain more information on before we can make a recommendation for those companies. So the list of all of these is on page 9 of the staff memo. I am happy to answer questions about any of those areas. I am prepared to make a motion to adopt staff recommendation. Second. Motion and second. Board questions . You might alter this list if more information comes in. Are any of these companies you mentioned we had a certain amount of holdings, are they with active Investment Managers or commingled funds . The page four outlines whether those are held in separate accounts or commingled funds. Whether they are held in an actively managed fund or not, we have not outlined here, but i could let you know. Some are in both . Okay. Commingled is awkward. That clarifies that. No further questions. Motion is made and seconded. Public comment. Hello everyone. I promised another retiree that i would mention the Energy Sector has been the worst performer in the past 10 years within the s and p. Coal is part of that. I hope you get rid of all coal three companies and two companies and all of the rest of them. Thank you very much. Thank you. We are very proud of having really struggled to get this process going. We appreciate staffs like the level of analysis and the systematic nay turof nay turf the analysis. On nature of the analysis. I will speak why it doesnt make sense to have these investments. In terms of good faith following the process you are talking about, i want to highlight using percentage revenue as a measure what defines a coal company has afalas see. They get a small amount of revenue from coal but have a huge percentage of the coal. The idea is if i had 51 of the coal but also 71 of the gold and 41 of timber and keel is do coal is doing poorly. I have 51 of the coal. Given the nature of the investment restriction is to do with carbon asset risk, how much coal they have, not how much revenue they are getting from coal, i would propose that actually you come back next month and make an amendment to your level three coal restriction, which uses the actual amounts of coal, basically the top 100 Coal Companies by reservoirs of coal they control and use that as the locust you are trying to pivot as opposed to revenue. A colorado go from a company could go from inside to outside with the assets. That does not change the material nature of the coal business. We are measuring the wrong thing entirely in this particular example. Thank you. I call the question. Those in favor of this motion for the staff recommendation police say aye. Opposed. That takes us to item 12. Action item. Annual update to strategies to address climate risk and recommendation on investment restriction in certain oil and gas companies. Board members. , this is an update on strategies to update climate risk. It is a threepronged recognition and information. This is an update on the effort to manage climate risk. As i am sure you are aware Climate Change is the single Biggest Issue we deal within the ability to Impact Global growth and have major negative implications for nearly every sector of the economy. We are already viewing negative impacts from Climate Change. Folks were faroff track from the necessary emissions caps we need to have in place to really avoid the most catastrophic effects of Climate Change through the end of the century. We believe some of the negative impacts from Climate Change that we as investors will feel are systemic in nature and likely very hard or impossible to fully diversify away from. While there are others we feel are likely to be more industry or Company Specific and there may be an ability to manage that risk. Those are the ones we are trying to focus on in our Climate Strategy approach. The climate update here is in three parts. First, i will provide a quick overview of the overall strategy we adopted october of last year to analyze and manage climate risk in the plan. Next i will discuss the updates to the framework to analyze oil and gas exposures and their Climate Transition risk. Lastly, we will provide an update on a new framework we developed to analyze the climb amount risk for the Utilities Sector. To start we adopted a four part framework to manage climate risk across the plan last october. This is an extension of the strategies to manage climate risk the board approved in the january 2018 meeting. The four pillars that form this are on page three of staff memo include investing capital, opportunities well positioned for the transition to a low Carbon Economy. Think renewable energy, low carbon technology. We make investments across this in the public and private market portfolio. It is a central part of climate Risk Strategy to provide capital for those opportunities that are Growth Opportunities but also are helping with the Energy Transition underway. Two is engage in efforts as we previously discussed. We are engaging with Companies Directly to understand if and how they are aligning the Business Model and strategy with transition to low Carbon Economy to inform or Investment DecisionsGoing Forward. Third, we do have divestment as part of our strategy where we have determined that companies have a high unmitigated risk from Climate Change that cant be addressed through engagement, we will restrict investment in them. As we discussed earlier we divested from the thermal coal sector by and large. I will provide an update in a minute on the target de investment in oil and gas. Fourth is advocacy given the climate risk has the systematic component i mentioned. We are trying to support climate regulation to protect capital cl markets over the longterm working with other investors to engage with policymakers and financial regulators in climate risk into the prudential policy. Fundamental for all of the work is research and analysis that we do to try to understand what makes a company well positioned to a low Carbon Economy versus one that doesnt. In october of last year we introduced this framework we developed to evaluate the risk for oil and gas sector. This involved using seven different metrics in four parts. Working with Carbon Tracker Initiative and influence map to develop key metrics and measures for this analysis. This resulted in the board voting to restrict investment in seven companies to put 24 Additional Companies on a watch year for a multiyear engagement from staff. We rerun this this year as we plan to do each year, and i will provide updates on what the outcome of that analysis is, but stepping back slightly, we also looked overall at the exposure to the oil and gas sector and do want to highlight we are meaningfully less invested in the oil and gas sector on both an absolute and relative basis compared to a year ago as well as five and 10 years ago. As of june 30th we had approximately 242 million or 2. 1 of the Public Market portfolio in this sector compared to 437 million or 3. 3 one year prior. We are meaningful underweight in this sector relative to the public equity policy benchmark as well by about 140 basis points. Over the past five years, our exposure dropped more than half to this sector and twothirds when measured on an absolute dollar basis, half on relative and twothirds on dollar basis. That is it. We continue to have material exposure to the sector so we continue to evaluate the risks. We have reone the quantitative analysis the outcome is consistent but incremental from last year. It begins on page 29 of the memo and consists of engagement recommendations and divestment recommendations. First, we propose to expand the watch list of companies from 24 to 36 companies. Really focus engagement on 12 companies where we have a meaningful Equity Investment in those companies. Those lists are specifically on pages 32 and 33 of our memo. If the board wishes to continue to pursue a phased divestment. We recommend adding six new companies to the restricted list for 3. 9 million from four of those companies, two other companies we do not have investment in. We recommend taking three companies off the restricted list that no longer appear to have high unmitigated risk but adding them to the watch list for monitoring and engagement. The list of companies we recommend for restriction, that is on page 30 of the memo. The goal here would be to continue to engage with companies in the sector over the next year, rerun the analysis next year and present more analysis and set of recommendations. I will pause and pass it over to luke now to discuss similar analysis we have done in the Utilities Sector and what we have done here is conducted a similar analysis to identify companies to engage within the Utilities Sector over the next year. This is a separate memo attached to the same item. The way the pages are numbered it is broken up. We tend to say boards recommendation. On which page is the item. I see several items. We can make up the motion but i want to make sure we are on the same starting point. Page 36 has the summary of recommended actions. This is three parts. It references tables on the other pages that contain the list of companies. This is the company name. Okay. It is all the same starting point. We dont have to adopt 36. Lets work off that point. Board questions . Just a comment that on the cover page there is three recommended motions. Page 36 also has three. We can do it one by one. We could also reference the table, right . Reference to table 10, table 13. It needs to be clear. We still need luke to present the analysis on the utility companies. We are not finished yet. It is very complicated. A lot of work went into this. Board members want to start with questions before the motion is made . A motion is always in order. You want to go to the next piece of the puzzle, utilities . Go ahead. There is no voting item, but it is an update on the planned activity for the sector. Good afternoon, commissione commissioners. I will present the findings of the report. This represents the early stages of the investigation into the Utilities Sector. This work is relevant for understanding the portfolio vulnerabilities and use full for voting in any investment decision. On electricity generation. This is being a more immediately impacted part of the sector. For the reasons outlined in the report. We do not not have a physical risk in this report. Two points. The transition is accelerating and the bulk of the electric grid is likely to happen within the next five years in developed countries. The electric grid is likely to be a priority of policy members. It is easy for economic and technology. It is 235 million out of the total exposure of 378 million. The public portfolio is well placed in the index can lower carbon intensity. The holdings are placing challenges. Considering the approximately 300 companies to cover globally, we developed the framework that is similar to the oil and gas framework last year. It is the current position of the companies as well as management plans for the position in the companies. The contribution of coil, oil and gas to the generation. The carbon intensities are relative to revenue. The management quality in financial leverage. The results shows at least half of those are companies by portfolio do not meet all of thresholdses which are reasonably lenient and they have vulnerabilities to the Climate Transition. The vulnerabilities rather than risk within this sector is Climate Change and policy response. I very much is the consideration rather than specifically for the sector. We have monitoring and reporting which we can repeat. We have strict engagement. We will be participating in four collaborative engagements. We have a better understanding that will inform our proxy voting and more for engaging managers with Material Holdings in the sector. I will take questions on this or on the report. Thank you. Thank you for that briefing on the plan you hope to follow in the utility area. It is a plan. Thank you. Lets go back to basically the main recommendation. There is no motion on the floor yet. May i suggest a motion. I suggest the process for voting on this. They have three and i would say from the cover sheet, for example, motion one, if it is moved and seconded, it is identified by the table of memorandum a. I would like to put the pages to each one so that somebody looks this up later then they can reference the pages. I would include the pages on each one of these. If that is an editing thing, that can be done, right . Any more questions . I have one Technical Company about renewables. Exons name comes up all of the time. They are big company in energy. Do you distinguish between company in this area who may be investing to try to develop renewables as well as still working in the fossil fuels, oil, gas . Do you look for that or see that . There is not a direct metric in our framework that focuses on Renewables Investments or revenue from renewables activity, but in theory if companies effectively transition their Business Model in a material way away from hydrocarbons to renewable sources of anything, their risk in the metrics we do measure would improve. It would indirectly show up in our metrics. Staff has found renewable dedicated funds. That is good. The Major Players there is a large amount of market to invest in. Some people are using the distribution to capture the renewables. That is part of this whole thing which we will discuss for the next many years. No motions on the floor. In terms of the way staff has written the recommendation it can be one motion for three or for each or combination or independent board motion a member would like to make. I will make a motion to adopt the three staff recommendations along with the edits i suggested earlier. Second. Okay. Got it. Any more questions . We will call for Public Comment. Mr. Coker, on one end you came to be an environmentalist. On the other hand you are the biggest pusher of hedge funds. Please tell your hedge funds managers not to invest in fossil fuels, firearms or tobacco. Thank you. Thank you, president driscoll and commissioners. We started coming here april 2013 following the board of supervisor resolution and stopped when you hired the esg director to let you guys do work for a while and we are checking back in. We are happy with the quality of the work in general. That doesnt change the take home message. We note the fossil fuel investments are down to 242 million. We think this is the result of either managers kind of getting out of the status quo thinking and looking at actual numbers and or just the fact as mr. Pace stated the Energy Sector has gone down 30 over the last five years while s p is up 50 . It might be attrition that your investments have halved since we started talking about that. September 17th u c announced it would divest the endowment by the end of the month. That is two weeks. That has now been completed. So far as those things are officially reported. Really to everyone from the outside accident many of whom are not in the meeting, some of you have have seen their faces plenty of times, it illustrates a real farce how in 2014 the idea that a five year divestment period was too far discussed. We are now in 2019. We had uc divest a larger amount of money by the end of the mom i think as much as we appreciate the systematic approach, i guess the Climate Emergency belies the pace that we are seeing here and as we have seen from tobacco, there was concern that about tracking error and loss of funds. I will close by saying your staff report shows that the investment restrictions you made in coal and fossil fuels had aa negligent impact and gained a tiny amount of money. Thank you. If there are no further questions. I am sorry. Thank you, commissioner driscoll. I think i understood. I read in the report that within the fixed income sector of this first portfolio, we are be low average in th the amount of mony we he are invested in fossil fuels compared to other organizations in the united states. At the same time we are doing better than average with the public equities. The private markets and hedge funds are a mystery. My general comment is i want to help you all celebrate the progress that we have made with the public equities, but whether it is public equity or fixed income, there has been on behalf of you and me and behalf of all of us, i think we have all been doing too little too late to help change did amount of pollution in the atmosphere. In the report that andrew wrote, he said at current rates due to the amount of emissions there is going to be catastrophic impacts. Hhe didnt spell out what those are. Friends of my wife a ago were living in the town of paradise. November 8th this year they were run out of their house while this thing was burning down. As they tried to get out of town they watched people burn to death. These are not just numbers and words on a piece of paper. It is real misery, real pain. I know there is a lot of money involved and it is a lot of deliberations to make and headaches you have to figure out about the details and i appreciate your work with that and getting the pension check every month. I also appreciate that this catastrophe that is coming according to the report is going to be so much worse than what most people realize. If you can help with that, i really appreciate it. Thank you. I wanted to hear your response. It would be interesting to get on the record. The u. S. System moved quickly is that true for your knowledge. What do you think the challenges are in terms of what we are faced with . We outlined on page 13 other peers responses to thinking about climate risk and considering fossil fuel divestment. Based on our understanding in september last month, uc will divest 13 billion endowment portfolio from fossil fuels. This was a joint statement. It signaled an intention that the 70 billion pension plan quote will soon follow. It didnt outline a timeline or specific material. That is the most current information that i have. Just on your report on page 14, it looks like the new york city pension fund, which is 200 billion in assets has a three year plan to divest completely, is that correct . It was a stated goal of the new york city mayor to divest the new york city pension. They are currently in an r. F. P. Process for three of the five funds to determine the Feasibility Study if and how they could divest. So like our own cal serve has a plan but no actual date they are moving in that direction. To be clear there are five pensions plans in new york. Each has a board. I was calking about c talking about cal. They were talking about three out of the five. I was talking about our own system. The state funds certainly have taken many steps to analyze and mitigate climate risk and invested in low carbon and renewable opportunities. There is no stated plans to consider divestment or evaluate divestment that i am currently aware of. We will call the question on item 12. All in favor of the motion to adopt all three items on page 1 and 30 with the appropriate edits police say aye. Opposed. Standby. So through the chair i would like to make a motion on item number nine to have it voted on again to reconsider. I second. He is allowed to make the motion but it still needs a second. I second it. No discussion. I just want to vote. Vote to reconsider it. Then we can call it. Does everyone understand to bring back number nine on the table . At a future Board Meeting . I think motions to reconsider are not debatable. Commissioner stansbury can participate. It was a 51 vote with commissioner chu voting against and the rest of the Commission Voting in favor of it. It is parliamentary issue. He can vote on the new motion. If there is a new motion. Motion to reconsider item number 9. All iall in favor say aye. Aye. I thought this was a motion to reconsider. That was already passed. We are reopening item 9 for discussion and a new motion or the same motion with a new vote. I would make the same motion to adopt staffs report and then it is going to a new vote on i make the motion. Second . Can i ask what is going on . I just walked in the room. I am sorry. Can you explain what is happening. Is there a second . I will make a second. Is a vote to adopt staff recommendation including two parts on sudan. One part to bring back to the board a consideration to reverse the policy every stricting investments should there be additional changes in the government we heard or goodwill we heard about changing changing in sudan. Second included keeping the dye vestments as is without adding to it. If we continue to follow our policy we so have added seven Additional Companies to the restricted list. The staff recommendation is twoparts. One bring back consideration for removal of policy if there is initial information from the ground about what is happening there. Then the second part is to keep the current restricted list as is and not additional seven we otherwise would with our existing policy. I voted to oppose the recommendation not for the first part to bring back the information but really because our policy hasnt changed yet. For us to suspend it isnt something i was comfortable so i opposed it for that reason. I have a question on the policy with the companies. Those companies are on a list or is there a vetting of everyone company. In the past we vetted all companies. They didnt all wind up on the list. We contacted and had correspondence with both of those companies, confirmed they do conduct business in sudan, which fits within the criteria that we restrict investment for Business Operations in the country. Next would be to confirm with Investment Managers they are sable to confirm that without any issues with portfolios. We have no Additional Research with those companies. The company by company was researched. We didnt divest of all of them. It is how broadly that is written. Once data are screened through msci indicates a company has restricted Business Activity, we take proactive steps to reach out to confirm whether or not the information we have is accurate before we recommend them to be added to the list. We have gone through those steps with these companies in question. You confused me. You have information to put them on the list or you dont . We have information for those companies that they meet the criteria to be placed on the list. We are recommending not expanding the list this year by adding those companies. I can see the contradictory position that confused some of us. To the chair that is why i asked for reconsideration. If it is our policy to not do business with those companies that would likely meet our criteria for divestment i dont understand staffs recommendation to proceed with not adding those companies to the list until we have changed our policy. Likely . That is what it says. Companies that likely. They contacted the companies to better understand the Business Activities. Like you said. I dont know if they have done an analysis to determine if all seven would meet the list or not. Maybe there is a better way forward on the second part of the recommendation. Part of the report was we somewhere confirmed the two companies we own are not supporting the genocide but they are supporting life in sudan. They are electric company. That is the basis of not expanding the list if everything rolls out the way everyone anticipates that it could there would be reason to bring it back to say we should no longer have this restriction period. We are not there yet. It is an interim measure saying we dont want to expand the list, we will come back to you if we want to remove the restriction. Correct. Our investment restriction for a Business Activity in sudan is very narrow or restrictive in scope. Other plans have loser criteria with which they allow companies to do business in sudan. We have a set of criteria that is very restrictive. Those companies do meet that criteria for divestment. As compared to other plans, many plans restrictions are spreads indicated on the fact the u. S. Government has sanctions on the government of sudan. Those sanctions have largely been lifted by the u. S. Government. We are be beginning to see a few plans remove the investment restriction for sudan. It is evolving with our criteria with what others are doing as they monitor it. Again, the state law that requires cal pers to divest according to the government code has been repealed by its own provisions. The provisions state it is repealed once the factions are lifted. They have yet to take action to remove the restrictions. However, it is certainly an evolving situation with several parts in term of the actual on the ground situation with the government in sudan as well as the criteria with which we identify companies with restricted Business Activities. You have a question . Yes. Why did you only analyze two of the seven . Did you analyze more . We directly had contact with those two companies. The other companies we asked for clarification of their Business Activities we did not get a response from. It included the response from snider here. The rest of the companies did not respond to us. Wouldnt it make more sense if you have the recommendation be restricted to those two and the other five to maybe potentially have them added to the list rather than proceeding with not adding anyone to the list . Iif that is the boards pleasure, certainly be we would proceed with you want these companies. We made the best recommendation based on what we have determined to be the current status of the change in government. You know, we believe that our recommendation made sense. We understand there is a disconnect and potentially us going against our policy by not adding these companies. It really is a recommendation that we not add anything to the list until we find out whether the new government is going to resolve the issue of needing the restriction. I would like allen to give us guidance. Do you have any thoughts . They have abandoned the restrictions on the grounds andrew suggests. The situation has improved. The u. S. Government dropped sanctions. Arizona was statute and it is being changed. The situation in the sudan has moved aware from the circumstances that caused the restrictions to be adopted in the first place. I would urge you to not additional to the list. You probably should eliminate did list. Andrew is wise to say you should be assured the situation is better and not accept the lack of sanctions as an indication