<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><BR><DIV><DIV>On 31 okt 2007, at 16.39, Gomes, Chuck wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">Glen - I believe it is incorrect to say that motion 1 (IGO DRP PDP) was passed.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>Please correct me if I am wrong on this.</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><BR></P> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>i neglected to respond to this one.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>#1 needed 13 out of 25 votes to pass and if I remember correctly, which Glen can confirm, it only got 12 votes. </DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>The confusion has do to the question that arose between Dan's original impression and my interpretation of the by-law that indicated that a motion needed a majority of the quorum number to pass and not a plurality; i.e. more votes then the other.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Later in the meeting Dan confirmed, and he can correct me if i misremember, that the rules required a majority of the quorum number to pass.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>I do believe, however, that we still have the by-law obligation to vote on the PDP as this was not a vote on the PDP (33% threshold) but rather was a vote on an activity (50% threshold) that would be done before voting on the PDP. I will confirm the accuracy on my belief with legal counsel.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>thanks</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>a.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV></BODY></HTML>