<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
<font size="3" style="font-size:12pt">Dear all,</font><div><font size="3" style="font-size:12pt"><br></font></div><div><font size="3" style="font-size:12pt">As one of my colleagues indicated, GLIMS (Global Land Ice Measurements from Space, www.glims.org) is a multilateral international consortium, and so the "no-bilateral-collaboration with China" law (passed by U.S. Congress, </font><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; font-family: Times; ">The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriation Act of </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; font-family: Times; ">2012, Public Law 112-55, Section 539</span>) does not pertain to GLIMS, so far as I understand. Hence, I am not taking steps to restrict collaboration within the GLIMS project where China is involved as a multilateral partner. Furthermore, the Chinese who are listed on the "free ASTER" list should remain eligible to receive ASTER imagery at no cost, like any other GLIMS partner, through their multilateral consortium ties to other GLIMS partners, including me (an ASTER Science Team member). Thus, just as my colleague said, GLIMS is not affected by this law. That is my best understanding, and I am proceeding accordingly; I'd like to assure my Chinese colleagues that they will continue to be recognized as partners in GLIMS and continue eligibility to receive ASTER data at no cost, and that no hinderances are involved with respect to this law. </span></div><div><font size="3" style="font-size:12pt"><br></font></div><div><font size="3" style="font-size:12pt">Likewise, other American partners in GLIMS, such as NSIDC and the various GLIMS regional centers, should not be restricted in collaboration with China, so far as I understand, so long as the work is undertaken as part of the multilateral GLIMS project. If I do not hear definitive and authoritative legal decisions going counter to what I say--specific to my particular case of the GLIMS project-- then I will take it as de facto agreement that my understanding is correct within the strict definitions of American law; likewise, American GLIMS partners should--in my opinion--take it as such.</font></div><div><font size="3" style="font-size:12pt"><br></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" size="3">Sincerely,</font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" size="3"><br></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" size="3">Jeff Kargel</font></div> </div></body>
</html>