And yet, on re-reading the FAQ, the Answer has focus on "non-binding" not on "request".

I know it's pedantic, but if the BOD had focus on "request" and thus felt they had no binding need to actually do anything (i.e. thanks for the request but "No") why go to such lengths as to refer to the "non-binding" aspect?

However, the FAQ doesn't say that - it has focus on "non-binding" and that they decided not to make the change.

So their focus seems not to be on "request" per se.
Indeed it seems that they accept that the proposal was approved, deliberated on it with "careful consideration" and decided not to implement the change.
So their focus is on "non-binding" which returns me to the question: "When was it determined to treat it as "non-binding" and how and when were shareholders informed of this (other than today)?

A: As you are aware, last year at our 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, our stockholders voted on a proposal (Proposal No. 3) which requested that our Board of Directors initiate a process to amend our governance documents to provide for majority voting with respect to the annual election of our Board of Directors. While this proposal was approved by the requisite vote at our 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, the proposal was non-binding upon our Board of Directors and therefore its implementation is at the discretion of our Board of Directors. After careful consideration, the Board of Directors has decided to retain the plurality voting standard and not implement the proposal...