 Alright, let's resume. Let me first start out by repeating the announcement that I made to break that we're going to flip the order of the concepts being presented. We'll start with the annual concept concept, and then move to the Diverse Genome Research Centers. Now I'll remind Council that before NHGRI can publish a funding announcement that has a set aside of funds associated with it. You have to seek concept clearance or approval in a public meeting, and we always use our Council meetings so that the Council members are aware of all the funding opportunity announcements being issued by NHGRI. So we'll start with the analysis visualization and informatics lab space annual renewal. It's actually got two parts to it. The first will be a presentation from Chris Wellington on the renewal of the annual resource. And then Ken Wyler will give a presentation about the clinical component available. So Chris, do you want to show your slides, please? Yes, thank you. Can you see them already? Of course I can. Go ahead. Okay. Well, thank you, Rudy. So today, as Rudy just said, Ken Wiley and I will be presenting on the renewal plans for the NHGRI genomic data science analysis visualization and informatics lab space, or ANVIL. The ANVIL is NHGRI's cloud based genomic data sharing and analysis. It seeks to use cloud computing, democratize access, high performance compute resources, and improve security. It's focused on genomics as a broad view of genomic data to include primary sequence data, variant level data, functional data, genotypic data, and analysis products. It supports flexible and secure data sharing. Data can be completely private, shared within a consortium, or shared globally. No shared data could be open access or controlled access mediated by NIH data access. And finally, the ANVIL is an analysis platform, not only a place for downloading data. The ANVIL was funded through two awards, one to the Broad Institute and one to Johns Hopkins University, starting in 2018 and running into 2023. To evaluate the progress and gather input on a potential renewal, NHGRI held a workshop on the future directions of the ANVIL in October of 2021. The outcomes of that workshop are presented during our last council meeting this past February. And also further discussed the genomic data science working group of council. And now here we are in May, bringing to you a concept clearance. As I said, this concept clearance has two components, each of its own RFA. First to be a limited competition RFA to support and improve the existing infrastructure. I will be talking about this today in three parts. First, where ANVIL is today. Second, where we see ANVIL going in the future. And third, why we think the limited competition RFA is the way to get there. And then Ken Wiley will be presenting on the second element of this concept, open competition RFA to add clinical components to mean. Taken together we think that these two RFAs will allow us to build on the successes of ANVIL and better serve our user communities. So first where is ANVIL today, going to give a whirlwind snapshot of what ANVIL has accomplished. I'd encourage anyone interested to check out the ANVIL themselves for more information. So data sharing is a key goal for ANVIL. To date, the ANVIL has ingested more than four petabytes of data. Over 600,000 research subjects plus more than 20 research networks. This graph shows ANVIL's data ingestion over time by research network. You can see the link at the bottom of the interactive version, but I still want to call out a couple of these. You can see the first major data set, high coverage 1000 genomes. See the centers for common disease genomics. Tissue expression project. Electronic medical records and genomics are merged. And the telomertid telomer group that Eric mentioned earlier this morning. More NHGRI research networks are currently being on board or particularly excited to bring in more functional and other data types and programs such as the impact of genomic variation on function or IGVF. And the genomics research to elucidate the genetics of rare diseases. At current pricing, storing the data shown here on the cloud could cost about a million dollars a year. So you can see the importance of enabling researchers to access those data without copying. And accessing the data is a great start, but we really care about what people can do with those data. And this is where annuals analysis plan secure, federated data analysis ecosystem comes into play. This image is from the same paper I cited earlier and chose a subset, the major tool environments available on info. You can see tarot, stock store, bio conductor, galaxy, Jupiter and gen three with API's and the global alliance for genomics health and the fast health interoperability resources. All of this is within a FedRAMP certified environment. This all gives tremendous capabilities to the envelope, but you can also imagine it being overwhelmed for users. And that's where outreach and user engagement takes center stage. The angle has been hosting and participating many events. Some for specific NHGRI programs, like the magic jamboree with the genome sequencing program. Some have been for groups such as the GDSCN and Howard University's fads. And others have been broader, such as workshops at ASHG. The build cloud credits program has also provided credits for users and build relationships between those users and the end will developers to understand your specific needs. I hope I've shown you very briefly, some of why we think annuals been successful. Now I want to turn to where we want to see and go go in the future. This is one of the key themes that workshop mentioned earlier, we want to see and build increase its presence is a multifunctional discovery platform. This means continue and bill is doing today things like ingesting data, providing an analysis platform and doing outreach. But it also means taking on new responsibilities. Number four, we want to emphasize increasing the availability of tools, improving interoperability, other NIH cloud resources, addressing barriers to cloud computing and supporting the clinical research community. I'll be discussing these first three under this RFA. Well, Ken Wiley will discuss the final under the clinical art. These first three are quite ambitious and I'll start with the first increasing the availability of tools. First of all, why would we even call out tools and just show that angle has already more than 10,000 available to those various component problems. The short answer is that genomics is a data intensive science dependent on having the appropriate tools, data processing and analysis. All the idea of an app stores a great starting point. Our tool ecosystem needs even more than that. We need a workflow ecosystem makes it easy for users to leverage current best practices. We need to make it easy for users to harmonize integrate their data, those data sets already on in. We also recognize that existing tools only get you so far. Users need to be able to bring the wrong tools out compromise security. We also need you might call tools about tools that can do things like estimate the cost for any given analysis. And finally, we need improved search capabilities for data tools workflows and analysis. Even with all of this, you don't want angle to become silent. There are many cloud platforms in NIH and science should not stop the boundaries. We need to be a member of the NIH cloud platforms interoperability and CPI key aims of which include enabling cross platform single sign up commonly known as authentication authorization. Enabling cross platform data discovery and enabling cross platform exchange data sets tools and workloads. We need to make progress toward these aims, specifically through researcher off service, implementation of GA4GH data repository service identifiers and the use of fast health interoperability resource API. Well, the coming phases to turn these efforts into fully functional features and users. We look forward to a user being able to log in once find data across multiple platforms and jointly analyze those data, all while respecting data use limitations, not compromising security. This level of interoperability is challenging. But we think it's critical to realizing the benefits of computing. It's important because we recognize that there are barriers. Another focus of this next phase of angle to continue to address. We hear from Ken later about barriers specific to the clinical space. So here I'll talk more broadly. The cost barriers are many. There's absolute cost, the unpredictability of the cost and then the billing itself. For students to recognize that any model requires pulling out a personal credit card is a huge part. The ability to access is challenging on and off. On and build the richness of the data and the tools available make any challenges access and particularly frustrating user experience platforms including and will still work in progress. Better support for curriculum development is critical for training the next generation users. We finally do want to empower and expand opportunities for human data science limited resource institutions. Dressing each of these barriers will require a combination of technologies policies and training. Just as pick the first for example cost barriers. This might be technologies to prevent runaway charges policies like who's responsible for what costs and training for managing spending. We're working to address all these barriers already, but we think that by further focusing on these in the next phase we can make the platform even worse. Talk about where and bill has been where we want to see it go but why do we think the limited competition RFA is the way to get us. Continuing to support the input through the road and Hopkins allows NHGRI to continue leveraging our investments in those current teams, platforms, tools, services documentation and processes. It's taken four years of hard work to get us to where we are today. It's not just about those past investments. We also recognize that changing the teams now because of significant disruptions for our users. At the same time, though, things have changed over the past four years and so by releasing this as an RFA, NHGRI has the opportunity to add new requirements. These could be scientific and they could also be more about how the program is managed, about how we achieve transparency with the community and how the community shapes the priorities and directions. And finally, the RFA process allows us to incorporate input with your review. We recognize that limited competition RFA's are unusual for us. In this case, we think that the cost of changing the teams is so high that we really don't see being given that we think it's best to be open and up front with the applicant community by making this the lead competition. I want concern and going with the existing teams whether be a limited or open competition. So we're locking ourselves into a single pop. And this is where we plan to take advantage the ability to specify new requirements in the RFA to ensure that annuals position to take advantage of multiple compute platforms. So in short, given the successes of Anvil we're excited to keep moving forward and think that a limited competition RFA is both the best and the most transparent way. Through this RFA we plan to support two cooperative agreement, the 24 awards, five years. The applicants will be limited to the current Anvil awardees. We plan to commit six and a half million dollars per year until the cost is flat with the current cost. With that, thank you for your time. We'll turn this over to Ken and talk about our plans for the clinical side of it. Thank you, Chris. Can people hear me? Yes. So let me share my screen. Okay. And so are you seeing my title slide. You're good. Thank you. Thank you, Rudy. So yes, I'll be presenting the Anvil clinical resource presentation that's part of the annual renewal concept. And so as Chris mentioned, the, we want to leverage the existing ecosystem that we've invested in in terms of providing the next step for Anvil. And so one of the things we wanted to look at is how could this resource serve the clinical resource community. So our process in trying to understand how Anvil could provide the support to the clinical resource community actually began with the Genome Medicine 13 meeting, which was titled developing clinical genomics informatics research agenda, which occurred in February of 2021. And in addition to the future directions workshop that occurred last year, allowed us to be able to identify what Anvil could do to possibly support the clinical resource community. And this was provided by the external communities and participants that attended these meetings. These include the ability to incorporate tools for the genomic based clinical research into Anvil. We want to add investigators with clinical research priorities in the development of Anvil's infrastructure and services. We also want to encourage investigators to identify use cases for clinical research and analysis, while also establishing trust relationships with clinical sites and hospitals so that they would provide their research analysis needs, and also provide support to NHGRI funded programs and their ability to use Anvil also for the genomic based research needs. When we think about the approaches and requirements and process that we want to take to address the our interest in having Anvil support the clinical genomics research community. We want to have a comprehensive approach, instead of a piecemeal approach for this. We want to, in order to do this we realized that, though the current Anvil team is, is capable. We also maintain and provide the resources for, for Anvil and the research community. We really felt it would be useful to have a group that's just focus on the clinic that on the providing the clinical research expertise to Anvil. We're looking for groups that had primarily that the expertise to do clinical genomic based clinical research to be added into the existing Anvil team. In order to do this we felt that an open competition would be beneficial in order to address the approaches and requirements that we're looking for, in order to have Anvil serve the genomic based clinical research community. So the ACR goal is to actually leverage the existing Anvil ecosystem to provide a suite of interoperable clinical components to assist users in the transition to a collaborative all digital environment to foster genomic based clinical research. So the clinical components actually include the point in implementing clinical software tools and workflows, also developing innovative methods for store and generating is returning clinical results, provide outreach and education as tailored to the clinical genomics research community, while also providing building on the current Anvil data access and security, but to help foster clinical clinical genome based clinical research. When discussing developing and implementing clinical research and tools, we want the ACR team because it's really focused on the team here to be able to adopt and integrate software and tools that are more commonly used for users to visualize and analyze heterogeneous data sets. So this isn't just genomics, it's also imaging data, social terms to help data, to develop predictive modeling and burn interpretation capabilities as part of their analysis. We also want the existing ACR team to work with the ACR team to work with existing Anvil team to identify also with the tools and workflows and software that already enable. I understand how those existing tools and workflows and software packages could actually be used to serve genomic based research community. In addition, we want the ACR itself to also provide a foundation for users to develop and develop and provide and do research to use digital health applications that can monitor and manage genomic based health conditions and we want to I want to make this clear. We're expecting the ACR team on the ACR to develop those health applications, but better yet we want them to create an ecosystem within the Anvil current ecosystem to be able to provide a ability for the researchers to develop their own health applications that will actually leverage the data system we have will also bring in additional data sets for those purposes. We understand the health applications are going to play an important role in empowering patients to manage their health, and we feel like the Anvil will be an ideal place for people to, for institutions and research institutions that have a place where they can actually develop those tools and resources. And so we want the ACR to be able to provide that ecosystem or foundation for that ecosystem for those activities to occur. In addition, we want the ACR team to when we look at outreach and education is tailored for the clinical genomics research community. We want the ACR team to leverage the existing Anvil outreach and educational resources to enable the genomic research communities to be able to utilize and analyze genomic based clinical genomics data. These efforts should include, but they're not limited to conducting focus group sessions, developing use cases, providing individualized education sessions that can serve the clinical genomic based clinical research community, while also soliciting and addressing users' feedback about Anvil interfaces, data sets, and general operations. So again, we want the ACR team to actually leverage the existing Anvil outreach and educational resources to help foster those capabilities. When looking at developing innovative methods for storing, generating, and returning clinical results, we want the ACR to provide a foundation again for users to develop innovative methods for conducting analysis and disseminating the clinical reports for research and for researchers. In addition, we want the ACR team to work with the Anvil team to develop an implement policy that will leverage Health Level 7's fast health care and availability resources, as well as global alliance for genomics and health standards and application program interfaces in order to better understand how these standards and APIs can be used to enable for genomic based clinical research. We want the ACR team also to work with users to identify how Anvil can serve their needs in conducting genomic based clinical research. Under data access and security, we want the ACR to be able to, well, the ACR is actually expected to adhere to the existing data access and security firms Anvil, but we also want them to take a step further. We also want the ACR team to actually work with the existing Anvil team to be able to understand how Anvil can address the security needs of clinical research sites in order to, for example, in making Anvil a HIPAA compliant resource. So Anvil is a HIPAA compatible resource now, what's really missing is really the necessary understanding of the agreements that may be put in place for research sites in order to foster the ability to have Anvil support HIPAA data sets. And so we want the ACR team to be able to help provide that level of expertise and to help make Anvil a HIPAA compliant resource. So there's a lot of expectations on the ACR and therefore it means that there's a lot, the ACR team itself has to be diverse in their capabilities. And so when we look at what kind of capabilities that we're looking for as far as expertise for the ACR team, we clearly want the ACR team to have clinical informatics experience. In addition, they need to also have experience and using cloud platforms. We also have to be able to have experience to understand how to leverage and combine diverse data sets to conduct genomic-based clinical research analysis. Well, also they need to have the expertise to build trust relationships with clinical research sites and hospitals in order to assist their efforts in developing use cases for use in ACR for the genomic-based clinical research needs. So we look at the budget summary for the entire Anvil renewal. We're seeing that there's going to be a total of three cooperative agreements, but all of them will be U24 awards. Each of them will be for five years starting FY23 to FY2027. For the Anvil renewal one, we're expecting two awards that are limited to the Anvil primary awardees. Well, the ACR will be one award that excludes the Anvil primary awardees, but will be open to those that are part of the subcontracts. The ACR budget is for $1.5 million per year for five years, and as you can see here, this is on top of the $6.5 million per year for the Anvil renewal. At the end of this, what we're hoping that we'll have will help we anticipate having is really a more comprehensive ecosystem that have for both clinical research, basic research, and education outreach within the Anvil ecosystem. As shown here, you will see Anvil being able to have a test environment for developing genomic-based health applications, be able to combine herogeneous data sets for genomic-based clinical research analysis. You'll see tools that were already existing that will be actually be modified and used to help foster genomic-based clinical research. You'll see an ability to generate reports within Anvil to make them accessible for users to access, and also a HIPAA compliant resource, while also understanding how we can leverage FHIR and GA4GH standards and APIs. So our discussions for the Anvil renewal are Dr. Coulomb, Dr. Rich, and Dr. Troyes-Sacallia. Thank you, Ken. I would like to try to have discussions of the two separate RFAs here. Let's see if we can do that for a little clarity purpose. So do we want to start out with the renewal? So, Iftikar, if you have questions or comments related to the renewal RFA, please bring them up. Yeah, thanks to Chris and Ken for the presentation. I think this is really an important initiative from the EnergyRI. It builds on the previous cycle which started in 2018. This concept sheet is the result of due diligence based on review of the previous output from the Anvil awardees and then the conduct of a review in the fall, which was attended by different diverse experts who provided SWOT analysis and some feedback, and subsequent discussions as were outlined by Chris and that have led to this concept sheet. So I'm supportive of this. This is really an important area. The issue of limited competition was mentioned by Chris. I think that overall the direction is right one. I see this as a particularly powerful force in three areas. One is a reduction of disparities in genomic medicine. I think if Anvil is able to collate disparate data sets from different sources, it will really be a huge step towards reducing disparities. As you know, we have, for example, for GWAS, it's an overwhelmingly Eurocentric collection of cohorts. But there are these different diverse cohorts that are scattered, and they're new ones that are being built. So if it was kind of a repository of those diverse data sets that would really tremendously accelerate the exchange into susceptibility variants with different groups and help reduction of disparities. I think in particular, it would be great to see that there is a conduit between all of us and Anvil in terms of data exchange. It would be sad not to see that both are NIH supported, but both have separate clouds and to that extent the interoperability is critical because NHLBI has data sets that would be very useful for genomic researchers. So I think that's a critical aspect that has to be emphasized. Anvil is a diversity. Anvil can help kind of democratize genomic access so that it's now resident in just the citadels of academia. And I think it would be really nice to engage with the diversity educational R25s and other efforts that were discussed at the last council meeting. Even geographically there are these data science deserts as I would call them that don't have access to computational resources. So I think that is something that Anvil can certainly help promote both ease of access and data diversity. So I guess in terms of the limited competition, we would need to stimulate the existing sites to be as innovative as possible to build on what they've done and incorporate many of these novel innovations or elements going forward looking into the future. So I'll stop there for the limited competition and then I think we can go to the discussion later for the ACRs. Okay, Olga would you like to go next. Sure. Thank you for the presentation. That was great. I think it's clearly a very important effort I completely agree with everything if the car said, I do also think that the interoperability is going to be really critical and clearly you guys get this. It makes sense to do the do the competition for the renewal restricted to the teams that have been very successfully driving this tool forward but of course, that also means that it's really critical to have a very strong advisory structure and really ensure that this goes full speed forward and is proceeding in accordance to these plans. The institutions are obviously excellent and have a very strong track record so there's no concerns but it is also sort of part of that process that I think is going to be really critical. I think the being able to bring this in so that it's not just interoperability within the tools that NHGRI itself can you know focuses on but exactly as if the car said like really trying to think of it as broad as possible within practical reasons I think would be really nice and indeed really bringing in the broadest definition of data sets would be great, especially now that it's going to start moving towards that, you know, clinical aspects of things and I won't talk about that more since we're going to talk about that separately. Okay, thank you, Steve, Rich. Well, thanks so much. And, you know, I'll follow up on the points that if Qatar and Obama made and you know I think that I guess in terms of the limited competition, obviously there's that negative perception that might be out in the community and and as I think one way of dealing with that is to make certain number one that that the, there is no complacency of the applicants that they're, you know, under the grip from NHGRI, but also make certain that whatever peer review input of their application occurs, you know, they take that seriously and NHGRI takes that seriously. And just reflecting on the workshop that was held in the past year, which was outstanding from a standpoint of having different experts coming in and discussing all the issues related to anvil. And how it can be prepared for the next generation. I think, you know, holding another workshop with the, with the recipients of the, of the limited competition in the first year would probably make sense, just to make certain that, you know, they provide everyone with, you know, what was what happened during peer review. What were the comments and then get input from all the other, you know, right folks who think about these a lot, and that way they can avoid that maybe the technical lock in that happens sometimes and make sure that, you know, they're not too restrictive of how anvil is going to evolve. So otherwise, you know, I think this is, you know, obviously something that's important to NHGRI and important to the community. And so I'll stop there. Okay, let's open this up for broad discussion. Gail, go ahead. So it's obviously very important to the community. And the limited competition is clearly justified as you elaborated and I really appreciated that. Given that though, I would love to see a robust structure for feedback from the community that's using anvil and for anvil to address that I think, you know, responsiveness to the users, especially when you don't have anvil open competition would really be helpful in convincing the community that this limited competition will be all positives and no negatives. Thanks. Yeah, I appreciate that. Any comments or thoughts about the anvil renewal segment? Okay, let's go back to the anvil clinical resource. And if to Carl ask you to start off again. Thanks Rudy. So this is a really intriguing and in a way exciting proposal to create the ACR. I believe that my first response would be to make sure that the ACR is distinct from, you know, or distinguishes itself from work that's already being done and has been done for several years. So I'd like to follow the immersion at work for, you know, HR integration of genomic data clinical decision support and informatics pipelines, clean gen for weight and curation. There are other pharmacogenomic efforts to link pharmacogenomic information and electronic health record. And so there are significant investments from energy or I into some of these elements, you know, as part of the genomic medicine portfolio. So, I think the ACR needs to really set itself apart and what I heard Ken was some very interesting thoughts related to making this entity HIPAA compliant, maybe having upgrade the FSMA labeling can mentioned digital apps. And most interestingly relationship with hospitals. So, perhaps we can elaborate on that what exactly is meant by that would, would this serve as a potential clinical tool for clinicians, where they can upload certain data and then expect to get some clinical grade results, or analysis. In that case, you know, would that require, you know, standardized pipelines and working with NIST, for example, would that require a clear kind of label. If we were to extend that would that include potentially a patient conduit where patients for example currently when they have GTC results they have the option of going to different sites where they can upload the VCF and then get to the next course. So, it seems that we're tiptoeing towards a very interesting interface between clinical domain and research domain. I think when we're talking about clinical research that's already actually happening in different formats. I'm, I'm, I would like that to be spelled out in the RFS to exactly, you know what some of those directions entail. So yeah, otherwise I think it's a very interesting intriguing new direction for annual to take. Thank you. Go ahead. Yeah, no, thank you for that. No, you're absolutely right. We have to be very careful about how the ACR is going to be set up within and how it's going to serve the community. In terms of being ample being used as a, as a particular clinical diagnostic tool and was not ready for that. We're not, we're not there yet. What I'm hoping for though, is for the ACR to start off really addressing taking interest steps for us to address the clinical research community's needs and use an angle where we come to those trust relationships where it to me it starts it starts there when it comes to working with hospitals and working with research sites clinical general based research sites to understand how and will can be used to for their needs by having like the ACR team work with them to develop use cases for using an angle. And I think you need to take these areas of steps first to address the researcher's needs. And then after that we can assess where it's ideal for amble to sit in terms of the actual clinical diagnosis area when it comes to do not mess up but I just don't think with the budget that we that we've listed here for and for the ACR and where we are an amble that we can reach that goal of trying to have resources and amble for clinical diagnostic diagnosis. But I do see that know that as far as our ability to try to address the normal based clinical research or community research community. I do think amble could be in a position to help address that but you're right we need to make sure we parse that out in a meaningful way, so we can take those areas of steps to get to where our ultimate goal is. Can you address your question if the car. Yes. Okay, for the ACR. So I think, just like if the car said I'm very also very excited about moving this towards more of a clinical data. You guys completely recognize the fact that this is really exciting but of course the limitations absolutely as you outlined, I mean, that it's, you know, what, what was it one, you know, within the budget provided. And honestly the time and the scope right, it's not going to solve every problem and make this a diagnostic tool. I think the most critical step to get into right as exactly as you said being able to bring in hippocline data and being able to start integrating those sorts of, you know, really more clinical types of data with the genomic data types that are already in Anvil. And so, indeed identifying key scenarios where this works and really making these interoperable and workable I think would probably be the most critical next steps right because there's all sorts of very exciting algorithmic challenges and all sorts of exciting technological innovations. And I don't know if given the budget and the time that's the, this is the right RFA for that. I'm really hopeful that in the future maybe in parallel a sub awards. I will consider going in that direction as well. But I think, you know, for the ACR team, indeed just really making sure that these data are integrated in a way that makes it usable makes it possible to develop approaches in the way that they can integrate across genomic and clinical data, and make at least some of the scenarios that clinical teams would really use in their research possible that would be critical. And I think as Gail suggested for the main in, you know, renewal of Anvil for this to I think feedback right like having robust ways for the community and user feedback would be really helpful. There's more potential scenarios and you won't be able to implement all of them but then you can see what keeps emerging over and over again. Thank you. Now that's very, that's very important. No, thank you for the feedback. Any other comments about the ACR from other council members. So, maybe I can just. Oh, I'm sorry, Rich. Yeah, please. Yeah, that's that's fine. I'm used to being bored. Doesn't work. At all. So, you know, I agree with the car and over again, but it's also the case that I think it would be great if we could, you know, take some a step back and think about the use cases, because those are going to be critical. It might be a good time to think about existing NHGRI resources as use cases, whether it's a merge networks or, you know, these new, especially the new diversity genome research centers that could actually help address the question that if car had earlier we can, you know, we actually utilize something like anvil to help reduce the health disparities and reduce barriers to inclusion, as opposed to building up more barriers that oftentimes happens with, you know, increased technology. So I think, you know, think carefully about the use cases and I think that will help drive a series of applications and the clinical side so. I think that's a very important project and initiative for NHGRI. Any other comments about the CR from other council members. Okay, let's proceed to a vote then let's talk about the anvil renewal first, can I get a motion to approve the concept. Second. Second. All in favor please hold your hand up just a second. Thank you anyone opposed. Anyone abstaining. Great thank you okay for the ACR can I get a motion to approve the concept. And I heard a second in there. Can I all in favor please raise your hand. Anyone opposed. Anyone abstaining. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ken and Chris. Let's move along to Ebony are you with us.