Good afternoon, I'm Robert Lawrence and I'm going to be moderating this session as you will see certain of our participants are on their way, apparently there are certain impediments to traffic currently that are preventing them making access instantaneously but as they arrive we will be absorbing them into our discussion. We have an important topic today which is basically the global trading system. What's striking if you look at the performance of the global trading system is that it is somewhat paradoxical because at one level it's actually been remarkably robust. We've really put the trading system under huge stress in the aftermath of the global financial crisis and while we have seen some protectionist measures being adopted I think many people have actually been surprised at the restraint which many governments have shown and the economists are starting to do some research into why has that restraint occurred and one of the things that the research is pointing to is the fact that today we operate global supply chains and so we are highly interdependent and from a political standpoint this seems to have made the system somewhat more robust. Nonetheless if we look at the trading system we do see that certain parts are flourishing and one particular part that is flourishing is the regional. We're seeing large numbers of regional agreements being negotiated between major participants in the trading system but at the same time the contrast is with the multilateral system where the negotiations are quite frankly at an impasse. So there's the striking contrast something is driving countries to negotiate free trade agreements. Protectionism has not risen and yet at the same time the multilateral system is not operating well. So what I hope to do in this session is to explore this strange contrast. Firstly what explains the difference in the outcomes that we're seeing bilaterally and pluralaterally versus multilaterally and then later what I hope to ask is how could we improve the multilateral system to really restore its centrality. So I'd like to start off with Pascal Lamy who's sitting at the end. After that we'll go through our panelists. Gladly we've been joined by Mr. Sharma who is the Minister of Commerce and Industry and Textiles from India. Next to Pascal Lamy the Director General of the World Trade Organization. We have Karl Degucht who is the Commissioner of Trade for Europe. On his right is Ron Kirk the Special Trade Representative from the United States. We then have Federico Curado who's the President and CEO of Embraer from Brazil who's our representative of the private sector and then we have Gita Weirjawan who is the Minister of Trade from Indonesia. So let's start with Pascal Lamy please. What explains this contrast between regionalism on the one hand and the negotiating processes in the Doha round? Bob I believe there's not as much as a contrast as you just painted it which I understand is necessary for moving the discussion forward. First because you're right there are many bilateral agreements being negotiated but bilateral agreements being negotiated is not bilateral agreements which are concluded. First and second bilateral agreements which are concluded are not necessarily bilateral agreements which are used. We've published these numbers in the World Trade Report which we issued last July. With all these bilateral trade agreements all over the place not more than 15% of world trade is de facto regulated by bilateral agreements. And why? Because business is reluctant to enter into the preference game in that it implies certificates of origin, rate tape. So there is a huge bit of process which in fact hampers the effectiveness of bilateral agreements. Now but true politically speaking it's a fact and this is by the way among the major players. That's one of the problems of this proliferation of bilateral agreements which is that if I'm US, EU or China and I negotiate with a 20 million developing country we know what the balance of forces is which in doing so creates a risk of debalancing the rules in favor of the big ones or leaving aside a large number of poor developing countries who have sort of no capacity to negotiate bilateral trade agreements whereas around the WTO table they have their say. Second I will totally agree with you and that's obvious that the rules making function of the WTO is for the moment not working. We have rules but we haven't yet succeeded in some areas in improving them, in adjusting them to the realities of what trade is today. But that doesn't mean that the multilateral trading system doesn't keep a comparative advantage vis-à-vis bilateral deals. We have a big comparative advantage in monitoring, surveillance. We have a big comparative advantage in dispute settlement. We have a big comparative advantage in technical assistance and aid for trade. So you're right for the moment, for the moment the rules making of opening more trade we have a problem in the multilateral trading system which is due not to technical issues which is due to political problem. If you go bilateral you can pick and choose your partners. When you go multilateral by definition you have to agree with everybody and that's maybe for the moment where the difference lies. Well thank you. Carl de Gucht, we've heard from the Director General that the problem is political when it comes to negotiating in the WTO. From where you sit would you agree and in a sense what I do notice is the vibrancy of your initiatives when it comes to negotiating with many other trading partners. So how do you experience this contrast? What is it that's leading to this difference? The problem within the WTO is certainly a political one and it has a lot to do with the fact that the Do-Around was initiated more than 10 years ago and in the meantime the world has changed dramatically. The emerging economies have largely emerged and especially China but also Brazil and India have become or fierce competitors in almost all of our markets. Now the starting point of the Do-Around was an asymmetry in efforts and the whole political discussion is about to what extent can that asymmetry in efforts continue? Do we have to narrow the gap and how can we narrow the gap? And then you have different appreciations. Some say look as long as the gap isn't bridged we are not making agreements and others say look let's never the less try to make a compromise. That's a big political discussion so some say it's because now there are more members in the WTO and then it's not any longer the four that dominated. No, I mean if there were a possibility to reach an agreement to negotiate an agreement between the major developed economies and the BRICS we would get to something but at this moment in time this cannot be bridged and we will see whether it would be the case in the future. Now about our own initiative on bilateral agreements there are two reasons for that the one that I'm just explaining but there is another one that we want to engage in a way with strategic partners that is much more deep and comprehensive which means that for example also regulatory approximation is part of the agreement so much more far reaching than you could ever aspire within the WTO so there are two reasons for that. Thank you. Mrs. Sharma I'd like you to pick up on this contrast between the multilateral and the bilateral and you have currently presumably negotiations taking place with Europe which are going towards deep and comprehensive and yet in the WTO we don't seem to have seen movement at all if you will and certainly not in that direction so from where you said how do you explain this this contrast? You see first of all let me put it that I agree in principle with Pascal and Carol de Gucht that it's a political issue political issue in the sense that the leadership of countries heads of states and governments and the ministers who are engaged in the process have to have absolute clarity and courage to take some decisions to say that the changing world had changed the developmental dimension of the debate with all respect I will disagree there for three reasons before I answer your bilateral and plurilateral. First we are talking of making a distinction between the developing countries already a distinction has been made in the developing countries block that is of the LDCs and there is a broad consensus amongst the developed and the developing countries that the LDC must get a package they must be assisted and this is what we discussed today. Secondly we are engaged in frank negotiations but to say that the emerging economies are present everywhere the Doha mandate was to correct the historical imbalances and distortions now for a country like India I'll say we are not an economy which is gaining from global trade we have less than 2% of the share of merchandise trade our goods and services trade put together is barely 4% now we are home to 20% of the world's children 17% of the world's population 1.2 billion people should that be a share fair share but to say that you know because we are emerging now should we remain submerged that's my second question suddenly where America is the per capita income is 48,000 US dollars UK is 36,000 average Europe is 3677,000 we are $3,000 we are still home to one third of the malnourished children of the world we are trying to create wealth and redistribute reinvest so that we can empower our people so to say that you know China has a different dimension but they too has some of the same social issues and challenges Brazil too has Africa has hasn't trade been a major source of dynamism in India but still I've said that you look at our share yes when it comes to India's external engagement economic engagement that has grown and the share of trade in proportion to a GDP which was barely 24 25% today's over 50% but at the same time the enormous pressure on our trade account itself our trade account deficit is huge we are not a trade surplus country at all and we are mindfully cutely so of our challenges and when there is a pressure on the trade account and which is more so difficult now after what has happened in the world in the last one year with the sky rocketing fuel prices and we are primarily a oil and gas importing country fertilizer importing country so it is impacting our agrarian economy it is impacting our current account deficit so let me I would like to urge you are that when we are analyzing this and also our position it should be put in a this wholesome perspective we are back home still not where the per capita incomes of the developed countries were there before the first world war the others may be somewhere there in 1940s but we are not so we are trying to reach we are trying to move forward but that we can do only if we get a fair share so there has to be a balance because the last observation I have to make on this that we are talking of countries engaged in difficult and complex negotiations coming from different levels of development different levels of challenges but we have a common aspiration because we are live we live in an integrated world so that's why we have to find some solutions and move forward well thank you Ron Kirk you've participated in both kinds of negotiations recently concluded successfully and indeed they implemented a range of free trade agreements now doing the Trans Pacific partnership what do you see why are you more hopeful in that direction or could you also do the Doha round well we certainly been more productive in the bilateral forum and I guess to try to lighten the mood a little bit at the risk of being non responsive when you started out asking why the I think the explosion of bilateral agreements one I just think it's a it's a more practical path whether we like it or not to an immediate challenge among all of our economies responding to this particular global economic crisis that some of us have come out of many of us are struggling with it's a fairly efficient way to use trade to help spur economic growth and grow jobs in a more direct path in which you can control I think notwithstanding the differences in the nuances you've heard from many of us having now been in this job three years and met and gotten to know all of the people on stage all of us share a very deep and abiding commitment to the integrity to the need of the World Trade Organization each of us if we had our preference would rather have trade rationalized in a multilateral form for the reasons you'll hear our business friend talk that would be much more sane but I think people do bilateral trade if I can use a story if I can be so crude for the same reason in my part of the world we grew up with a fellow by the name of Willie Sutton who was a notorious bank robber and he was very proficient at robbing banks but equally proficient at getting caught until he literally he he would rob a bank he'd get caught he'd rob a bank he'd get caught and he went to jail and finally the judge says Willie why do you keep robbing banks he said judge that's what a money is and I don't mean you know to be flipping but short term I think you're going to see more and more countries turn to bilateral regional engagements because of the difficulty of finding consensus among a hundred and fifty three very diverse economies and I would say to the defense of the WTO like other global forums at least we do move forward in some areas but whether it's climate talks or others we've seen how difficult it is to find consensus and I think the reality given the current global macroeconomic environment countries leaders have a responsibility to use all of the tools in their economic toolbox the good thing is trade has credentialed itself as a way to be able to move that needle to create economic activity and create jobs so basically you're saying that's where the money is well I mean in the sense that the company where what are the companies saying to you companies are saying create opportunities take cost out of the system now consumers increasingly and again it depends on where you said and I wish you know if you're my colleague from Singapore in which trade is a hundred and eighty percent of your economy you don't have to go sell trade to the public but if you're a trade minister from an economy like the United States in which trade is only thirteen percent of our GDP but contributing heavenly but which more in America more and more Americans frankly questioned the value proposition of global trade a minister Sharman talked about their deficit I don't need to go into our balance of trade but frankly more and more Americans of all persuasions believe that we have swapped jobs for cheaper t-shirts and iPads and say you know then today I need a little more of that and whether no matter where you are in the world now just showing up and saying trade is good doesn't sell with the public most places you have to be able to demonstrate how your trade policy sustains economic jolt growth with a direct line not a dotted line to job creation so as we hear about this it's interesting that you mentioned the iPad and Pasquale me had a fascinating op-ed piece in which he brought out that this product which comes labeled as made in China actually has more a huge amount of American value added in it and it comes from many many other countries the reality today is that we live in a world of global supply chains and I would be very interested Mr. Corrado in your take as you operate your aircraft business which we think of as a Brazilian aircraft how much value added do you actually have that comes from Brazil and how dependent on you are on you on global supply chains well we are very global by nature we are just for to make the general information we are in three businesses are commercial aircraft business aircraft and also the aerospace and defense and the aerospace and defense business is made is global so the supply chain is global to the number is something about 60 to 70 percent depending on the product that we source we outsource so the value added actually in Brazil is 30 to 40 percent this is the same number very similar number to Boeing or to Airbus and that says a lot about bilateral multilateral companies who we which are fundamentally trying to defend themselves in their domestic markets they tend to push probably as Secretary Kirk said towards bilateral where the money is more pragmatic approaches but I would I would try to make a present the other angle the more global we become and of course the door around is political for sure let's say the stall of the discussion process the governance mechanism does not help in my opinion the single undertaking need for consensus and everything so that I'm no expert of course but it is very difficult to find consensus in everything and without that do not move so maybe capturing partial agreements in the WTO in the scope of doha around could be a way to go but companies which are global they would prefer as we are frankly pro multilateralism we believe it's the only way to have a real equilibrium in the international trade so what I hear in this conversation so far is that when we look at the multilateral we have an intrinsic problem we have decision making by consensus we have a hugely diverse group of countries and in a sense they have very very different needs and demands meanwhile there are a lot of pressures from below from the companies to be able to integrate so there's an inherent tension here and I think those are important takeaways as we try to look forward you mentioned a kind of a more plural lateral type of approach so I'd like to hear from other people but I want to give everyone a chance to talk first is that the way forward a more multifaceted WTO that actually can accommodate both deeper agreements for some and yet nonetheless have common obligations for all please thank you Robert well first of all I'm in principle in support of what Pascal has said in terms of multilateralism being the way forward by way of the principle of single undertaking it is the only way to make sure that everybody gets treated fairly but unfortunately as as I said earlier today it's sort of like these 150 and odd countries are sort of like driving in their different cars each one of which might have its own GPS but some may not have GPS on board so some may know where they're going but some may not know where they're going but we're just going to have to wait for somebody that has a better mode of transportation that can basically provide the leadership and take everybody else forward I think there's reason to feel optimistic about getting a multilateral approach done for everybody but it's a question of timing I share the view of Anna and Sharma and that you know India has its own concerns in terms of they're having a GDP of three thousand dollars Indonesia is not far off from there and Indonesia is a country that's probably not in the same category of an emerging economy as China Brazil and India would be in that they have a lot more educated people they have the ability to produce airplanes iPads computers and what have you whereas we're only at the level of being able to produce footwear and garment because we have not produced equally the number of PhDs masters and bachelor's as we might see in those three other countries we have issues to go forward but we do have the desire of wanting to go up the value chain and to the extent that that gets understood in a plurilateral or a multilateral type of an approach I think there is a way to go for countries like Indonesia so in the meantime I think you're bound to see the seduction and addiction to bilateralism and regionalism at the rate that there is no political leadership that basically can think pragmatically realistically and reasonably for us to move forward maybe little steps at a time as opposed to being superly ambitious about some of the bigger goals that we've already articulated earlier so what I hear emerging you call for leadership but I also hear hints that there may be something wrong with the structure that is that is requiring all to accept all obligations I think fundamentally the structure is the right structure Doha was designed to make sure that the interest of those coming from the developing economies does get attended to and that I think is the right structure for anybody that comes from a developing country but there is another part of the structure which I think has to call upon the voices of those from the more developed economies to make sure that this give and take approach gets done going forward Craig Emerson it's good to have you with us we appreciate your arrival I know that Australia is playing in both areas the regional and the multilateral as you look forward what kind of changes would make the multilateral system more attractive well if I could give my apologies for being detained but I can report that the Occupy World Economic Forum movement is not yet fully convinced of the benefits of free trade so I did make it I'd also as a doctor say this about the Doha round it should not be declared dead Doha is not dead it's not alive and well it's alive and unwell but I think there's enough life in the Doha round to persist with it but realistically after 10 years this patient is is pretty feeble and simply pressing on with the current approach doesn't look capable of yielding the sorts of results that we need so I don't think it's fundamentally a problem that there are 153 members or soon to be 157 I mean in the Uruguay round there was well over 100 you're already way past a sort of critical level at which complexity is a defining feature of the negotiations it was then it is now but the sorts of ideas that Pascal has been talking about in Australia certainly has been doing to break the round up into more manageable parts build confidence I think we lack confidence now in the capacity of the Doha round as originally conceived to deliver results and maybe modest early returns now other way to go and this is sort of discussion that we've been having they may not seem to be monumental in their own right but their confidence building and send a message to the world at a time when there's so much protectionist pressure that we can do it in some easier areas but nevertheless important such as trade facilitation such as the accession process for least developed countries there are two examples that seem to be good candidates but you're right we are pursuing regional agreements through the Transpacific Partnership within APEC as potentially a vehicle that to which the TPP could expand over time all the members of the TPP are members of APEC we have bilateral negotiations underway but the benefit of the multilateral system is one that you mentioned on the way and that is that businesses themselves are global there are global supply chains and to pick up the global activity of businesses that may source goods and services from a very substantial array of countries is an argument for a global negotiation and so we would like to do that we're not going to lessen our commitment to the regional and the bilateral forms but we do think that a new pathway is the way to go consistent with still high ambition but let's get some confidence get some results early and once we prove to ourselves that we're capable after 10 years of doing that it's just possible that there will be a newfound momentum so we think that that's the right strategy well that's a nice optimistic tone Pascal and me I know you have to leave soon and you're on your way to Africa so we're pleased about that from an African standpoint but I'd like to hear your views on if you look down the road let's take under the assumption that there was a successful conclusion of the door around if you look forward a little bit what kind of things do you think would make the WTO a more attractive location for for these global the purveyors of these global supply chains and indeed all who look to the global trading system to raise their welfare well I mean I think this this discussion has already answered this question the paradox is not so much between bilateral and multilateral it's between global value chains proliferating and bilateral agreements proliferating this is where the paradox is and what carrell de Gaulle said about bilateral are better because they are deeper especially in the regulatory area is where the potential problem lies there's no problem in countries negotiating bilaterally tariff reductions because at the end of the day the more bilateral preferences you have the less bilateral preferences you have if India and US compromise India's bound tariff ceiling tariff let's say 40% use ceiling tariff let's say 4% if they do a bilaterally they will compromise on 20% which by the way they refuse to do in the WTO that's a question for you guys but why why will you do that why will you do that because they will get the 20% before the others get it so they have a preference now of course India will sign bilateral agreements with others and the more India gives 20% to others the more the EU preference of 20% will lose its value so multilaterally multilaterally that's not a problem there is an asymptote like in a curve to bilateral trade opening tariff wise which is zero which is the multilaterally asymptote so that's not the problem where is the problem the problem is in deep regulatory convergence if EU and India adopt a common standard for telecom equipment bilaterally because that will be good for both your businesses and US and Korea adopt bilateral standards for car emission and all this is just examples right it's not this will be a problem because at the end of the day you will scatter the marketplace with bilateral regulatory regimes which business will not like because it's this economies of scale so this is where the problem lies now does this mean that nothing can be done multilaterally I totally agree with you that the problem for the moment is that you need a lot of political energy to do things multilaterally and it's just not available short supply just like on climate change or currency arrangements or macroeconomic coordination too bad for the years to come very low level of that so the big deal will not be there because the big deal implies that this question which Ron and Anand just mentioned which is what's the right balance of obligations between developed and emerging countries that's they can't find this because they don't have the necessary political energy to compromise India will say I'm a developing country don't you ask me to take the same commitments at the US US will say sorry guys you are now competing with us why should we accept such a difference in tariffs and both of them have a let's say reasonably convincing argument the problem is that when you've got two convincing arguments the only way out is compromise and for the moment the political energy for compromise is not there now what can we do and we discuss that including today and I think the conclusion is that there are things that can be done multilaterally even if the big price is not available for the reasons I just gave there are areas where small incremental significant progress can be made starting by the way with WTO accessions which is a way to extend the perimeter of rules short of changing them extending the perimeter has a value using instruments like the government procurement agreement after years and years of negotiation in December the members of the government procurement agreement in WTO succeeded in reopening the issue and concluding a new deal which will open more trade so these things are possible and I'm quite convinced after having heard everybody including ministers today that if we leave aside the sort of big battle big price for the moment which doesn't mean we should have it in mind there are areas where progress in a multilateral context can take place and this is what we have to test in the coming month but please do not expect trumpets and drums in the present macroeconomic circumstances which are not looking good governance governments will not trumpet this let's go to a sort of more quiet mode for some time get things done and then maybe the bigger price will be doable any others who have ideas about how we get beyond this please I would have one thought I think one common theme has been the political constraints each of us has to operate on to sell trade but but considering that and I loved Craig's honesty and that the fact he was delayed because of the protest he couldn't get here but the elephant not in the room is the principles on which the statement trade is good for the world have not been visited in some time and for the most part even the way you phrased the question was there's doing bilateral agreements making it more difficult for presumptively the global supply chain than if we were to do it multilaterally when the question is how do you convince that poor child in a village in India in lusaka in harland to believe why do you care if it's all about making it easier for the global supply chain you never build a political base of support that a non-sharma has to have to go to a population that is struggling to understand how is this going to improve my life whereas I think we have to take advantage of the challenge of this form recognizing the transformation in our economy to talk about trade differently yes it's important for the supply chain but the supply chain has to be relevant to help people live their lives and that we empower consumers all over the world making it easier for them to feed their families in a time of rising commodity prices and put all on the table we can create jobs but if we don't change and attack the fundamental premise on which why we should do this in a global forum in which all of us have to give something in order to get something then I think you never build that sort of global political consensus to make those very tough decisions and it becomes easier frankly to just do something practical and say I can explain this to the American public why I'm doing this with Korea Columbia Panama versus why we continue to add to our balance of trade by signing on the agreements to which the American public believes there's no benefit for us so I think we need a more honest address assessment of why we're who benefits from trade well I sorry by speaking of the supply chains I should have made it explicit that what we're actually talking about is how do we get the poor farmer in Africa to be part of the food supply chain to supply the large markets that are emerging or the person who works in in in many different places around the world to be supplying in that chain and therefore enjoying productive labor so that's what I meant by the supply chains Anand you've been very patient and then I'll come to you Carl because then I want to have some time at least for the audience you know I want to make three short points first I didn't respond so far to the bilaterals and the plurilaterals bilaterals are plurilaterals are decisions by sovereign nation states make it has been happening for a long time economic integration regional in particular started with NAFTA North America South Americas have had to European Union is a reality ASEAN is a very vibrant regional economic community in Africa there are seven wrecks the regional economic communities which work under the overarching umbrella of the Africa Union you mentioned about India negotiating yes that's true and Pascal too mentioned about our ongoing negotiations which are complex and difficult negotiations whether between two countries or between a regional economic community like European Union and India they have been prolonged complex and you have to have patience and pragmatism guiding those negotiations but the issue here is that if there is slow progress in the WTO negotiations which was the only 21st century mandate after the Uruguay round and this is the longest any multilateral or global trade negotiations have ever taken so that raises a fundamental question that should those issues which be left as Pascal I mean said to the multilateral order and the multilateral organization upholding the values of the principles which we all have accepted in GATT and WTO be taken over by plurilaterals my answer would be that multilateral pathway even if there is a block like I was saying earlier in the ministerial Craig is a doctor I'm not but if the main artery is blocked a good doctor will look at it that okay let's see that if it can be cleaned out and put a stand there or then to take the heart out and do the bypass so that's a larger issue government procurement competition these are the issues which should be within the domain of a multilateral regime and the biolaterals and plurilaterals otherwise which countries do should supplement like the small streams moving into a mighty river what about investment they should not yes and invest shouldn't invest so invest investment should be part of the WTO you see I would say rules of investment like multi-order I'm not saying there's not to suggest that countries will not engage with each other in plurilaterals but the same time if when we talk of a global trading order that is what the mandate is to correct the imbalances to ensure that it is fair and balanced but how we look at fair and balanced they could be different perspectives I would like to give one message to everyone contrary to the prophets of doom without singling out which section who are saying that this is dead and well there is a difficulty there has been a impasse because there are issues on which different perspectives are there that's why negotiations take place but what we do regionally or by plurilaterally should not replace the multilateral system fundamentally because that would undermine the very credibility of a multilateral trading regime and we all are convinced and lastly what I'm saying that we have to bear in mind that we can look at what is doable what can be harvested and not sequentially and use that as a building block towards the larger objective countries will eventually find through negotiations a middle ground the developing countries have paid the price and will continue to pay price which is fair but lastly what I'll say before Pascal leaves is that it's not what we negotiate as the tariffs the fact is that whether it was the get the tariffs have come down even after that we have unilaterally brought down our tariffs to an average national average of 15 percent that will keep on happening but the fundamental issue is about the bound tariff and the applied tariff the bound tariff and applied tariff that is the policy space which countries would need at the same time I don't foresee a situation where a bound tariff is say 30 percent the countries will invoke the bound tariff unless and until they are compelling reasons to do so so while there is no perfect solution it in search of a perfect solution it will be a never-ending negotiation we can at least have a fair solution and find a middle ground I want to turn Carl the hood you pioneered as Europe an effort to try to introduce some of these deeper integration issues into the WTO things like investment and competition policy now at the end of the day it seems to me that those are perfectly reasonable topics for a multilateral system even though perhaps not all countries are ready for them so is there a way forward to deal with this on the one hand drive for deeper integration and on the other hand the need for inclusivity I believe that we not only continue to need but we even need more than in the past multilateral agreements because there are a number of topics that are very difficult to resolve at the bilateral level also for example the ones that you are mentioning about also about the intellectual property rights about services about investment investment is as important as straight you know for the the economic system and we can only address them at the multilateral level what I believe is that together we first have to lift a precondition and that's reaching an agreement on an LDC package and that's I think we should try to have this road as possible duty free quota free problems with cotton you have also export competition fishery subsidies and it's it's almost a stepping stone to trade facilitation because that can benefit to developed developing and also LDC countries and that's I think what we should do lift that precondition because it's only if we manage to do that that I believe that at the multilateral level we will be able to address a number of new and very important topics the world is changing very rapidly and the topics that are discussed in the WTO are not changing at the same pace so we get lost in that we are still talking largely about the problems of I wouldn't say the past but in any case not the problems of the future you know why it's stalled in Geneva it was because of subsistence agriculture and the special safeguard mechanism those are the kind of things we should resolve within the LDC package so that we can move to for example investment to the global supply chain where you see a developing and developed countries working together to get to a product thank you we only have very short period of time but if you have a question from the audience please indicate and we can take a few and then I'll ask the panelists as a group to respond so anyone want to ask a question here at the back sir a simple one final Islam channel for news how's the EU India deal going okay let's just hold that one yeah others please Danny Gross Center for European Policy Studies in Brussels I'm a bit confused because I hear about all these supply chains but that would should tell us if a large enterprise are able to integrate then maybe barriers to trade are not that important so I would like to hear from the business representative what is really the problem in expanding the supply chains they already exist the problem of terry barriers other regulatory barriers or is it more a question of the industrial organization in your partner countries that you have reliable partners that can produce according to certain standards which you said in your industry so it is more governmental action that is needed or more an industrial backbone which has to exist in a country before it can really participate in the global supply chain okay and let's just take one more yeah please thank you I'm Aaron back with Dow Jones I would just like to ask about some comments at this forum yesterday by the by Timothy Geithner from the United States who spoke about China's state-led economic model and how this poses a challenge to the global trade system this is actually a relatively new rhetorical turn in the trade debate and I wonder what the panelists think this implies for the negotiations on multilateral multilateral trade negotiations okay I think that thank you so us sorry India EU how how's the progress going is that symbolic I know it's it's not the same as if Mrs. Merkel is looking at Mr. Sarkozy it's not the same you have a better understanding now well we are we are making steady progress but are still a number of problems that have to be resolved I'm very confident that we get to an agreement that it's that it will be a deep and comprehensive one and that it will also change over time India in a way that it also becomes more attractive for other trading partners I mean it's also to a certain extent going to change the morphology of India for example with respect to services and that's not only important for Europe it's also important for other for other parts of the world but you should not underestimate that kind of negotiations because it's also about confronting cultures you know and finding a common solution so you have to put in a lot of political capital and that's that's effectively what is missing at the multilateral level but not at the level of the ambassadors who are negotiating in in Geneva they are working like hell I wouldn't even say at our level it's at the level of what we call our leaders you know the G20 that comes together is at all the time producing a very nice declaration that we should come to an agreement in in Geneva and then they don't give any mandate to their ministers or to their ambassadors that's what is really happening and you are not facing that in in discussions bilaterally because you only start that kind of negotiations if there is the political capital I think that's one of the big differences and Anshamda very briefly please we are moving forward I entirely agree with Carol DeWitt that our negotiators are meaningfully engaged and both of us periodically keep on exchanging notes and if required we both intervene to see that how they can fast forward it's complex there are few ends which we or gaps which we have to close and depending on how ambitious it is it will be fairly broad based and deep and it will have positive spin-offs not only for EU and for India but also perhaps in a global context when you have a grim economic backdrop continuing slowdown job losses the only way for the global economies to remain stable robust and to keep on growing is by engaging with each other and that's why these processes plus the multilateral becomes an imperative thank you would you like to comment sure look if you've already operating your global supply chains why do we need these trade agreements because in here we need an level playing field on one side countries economies which have to have access as you said to the global supply chain if there's no playing field their difficulty is much much higher on the other hand when we see large economies such as China and I'll make just a quick point here about the bricks the bricks are more like a political group because those are for very very different countries in all aspects so the real powerhouse threatening on the on the industrial side the whole world is China Brazil has a 50 billion dollars deficit of industrial goods in its trades balance so brazil is actually the concern is about the domestic market not we're not being actually too much aggressive on the international market so the level playing field some some governance mechanism over those large economies russia and china in particular level playing field is what they should seek for access and making sure the rules are the same for everybody and in the end the business will always be seeking efficiency productivity obviously based on on technical standards of always well that's a great segway and i have to get ronkirk to tell us uh uh sim guide was it was said that these state trading companies are a challenge to the trading system could you could you elaborate on that or answer that question well i think mr. gangler spoke fairly clearly um in terms of his um recitation of the problem i would only say that not just state-owned enterprises but it speaks a little bit to what i think i heard carl say earlier in terms of the difficulty of what we're doing now a lot of what we're dealing with in doha is being with a trade model that served us well for the last 25 30 years but you didn't have the dominance of state-owned enterprises involved in trade you didn't have the proliferation of different regulatory regimes and sanitary and phytosanitary regimes um we'd never heard of the email there was no blogging there was no such thing as facebook there was no such thing as twitter and implications for business the implications for government in terms of control of how we do business there are so many more elements that can frustrate trade beyond tariffs and duties which anond is right uh many of the obstacles to trade now have nothing to do with tariffs and duties and so i think what uh at least in our case the united states was honestly saying uh that we have to begin to inject some honesty into how governments can otherwise tilt the playing field and deny our friend here the same thing every american business every one of these men and women in the audience basically asked us just tell us what the rules are and give me some assurance government can't come up with some more creative way to put their thumb on the scale and i will be honest one of the reasons we are so bullish on this trans-pacific partnership with new zealand and australia and others we think it's time the trade agreements have to reflect the reality of doing business today they have to be much more nimble we have to be willing to recognize that business moves so many more times faster than government but that would be a bit flexible enough to do that but in the case of state-owned enterprises we just can't ignore that they don't exist we shouldn't be afraid of having an honest conversation about it and coming up with the way to moderate that and this is where the world trade and organization can really demonstrate its vitality and its need and how we regulate and govern that so and and and finally because i've had a number of you approached me and people said oh my god the united states wants a trade war with china we do not want to trade trade war with china china has very quickly become one of our top four trading partners it is our number one agricultural trading partner we think it is a great thing that china has gone through the explosive growth that it has that's why we invited them into the world trade organization we want to see the same for india and brazil and africa that's how we credential trade but it doesn't work if you only take from the system and believe you can deprive the rest of us to access to the markets that we so freely grant yours i'm craig emison you have half a minute i just wanted to round out the discussion on plurilateral and the role of plurilateral negotiations plurilateral negotiations can be entirely consistent with the multilateral trading system the information technology agreement the government procurement agreement both approved dynamic both have enlisted increasing membership over time and my view is that we shouldn't pre-negotiate the negotiations let's allow groups to form see what momentum is achieved by groups looking at these individual elements it does prevent hostage taking where someone says well we don't have a fundamental problem with this but we're linking it to something to which it is unrelated and therefore won't agree to progress on the primary issue so i can see a facilitative role for plurilateral negotiations that ultimately advance the multilateral system so i think that's a great point when i what i take away from our discussion today is firstly there's some some modest hope perhaps for reaping something still from the door around some sort of forms of early harvest but looking down the road there is a fundamental challenge which i think is finding the right balance between this drive on the one hand for deeper integration which is clearly coming from the operations of the global supply chains and yet on the other hand a legitimate need by many countries for policy space which we also heard referred to so it's a search for some kind of balance and i think the real challenge is can we create a multilateral system can we do in a multilateral system an approach which can actually balance these two and and can we incorporate perhaps not for all but within the multilateral context some of those deeper initiatives patent after the plurilateral agreements which craig emerson pointed out have been successful starting with just a few and then growing to meet the needs of many so ladies and gentlemen please join me in thanking this panel we apologize for not having enough time we apologize for the interruptions but i still think we've been able to touch on the major challenges that face the trading system so please join me in thanking our panel


Welcome to Toffy TV, it is the Everton News Daily, but Charleston has given an interview to Brazilian outlet Globo Esporte, talking about his Everton future and his future in general. It's a later the few Evertonians got them a bit worried with what he said, but he did say that he hopes to evolve with Carlo Ancelotti and Everton hopes to improve and do more next season. He said that Carlo Ancelotti has told him he'll be with Everton next season. I don't know why he thought he wouldn't be. But he did say that if an important bid comes in, they'd have to sit down and discuss. Us as Evertonians are likely to worry whenever we hear things like this, but I guess he's just being honest if every player's got the price, but I don't expect Everton will allow him to leave this summer. He's already said he'll give the club one more season, see where we are, see what players we're bringing. I guess it's up to Everton to match him now, isn't it? Try to get the players in to improve, make sure he improves next season, have a good season and see where we are next summer. If he's done well and the team's done well then the situation may change again. We're natural warriors and when we see these kinds of interviews it does kind of get your anxiety up a little bit. One of the weirdest links has appeared already. Today, and that is a move for Branislav Ivanovic, the former Chelsea defender who's currently at St Petersburg according to Novasti, which is a rushing news outlet. He's in the final stages of negotiating a deal with Everton. It seems weird, it seems mad. The Liverpool Echo have come out and said it's untrue anyway. I don't know whether anyone thought it was true, but it's just such a weird link. But I guess it's quiet news though, so Ivanovic obviously played under Anciolotti at Chelsea. So yeah, he is leaving Zenit as a free agent, so who knows. Everton again linked with a move today for Wilfred Zahard, that's according to the mirror. They report that Everton still remain interested along with Bayern Munich and Arsenal. But they still maintain a crystal palace one upwards of £65 million to £70 million, which means Everton won't be going anywhere near them at that price. That ship seems to have sailed last summer when Everton was interested. Palace price them out of Everton's price range and Zahard ended up staying. He scored four goals and got four assists this season. And I think of Everton, that's £70 million to spend. They probably spend it on two or three players rather than just a one. Let's be honest, he's probably worth more than £70 million to crystal palace anyway, with where they finish in the league, he's imperative to the way they play so. Reports today coming out of Italy that Napoli are just waiting for a bit from Everton for midfiel player Alan, that's according to Il Matino at News Daily in Italy. The 29 Brazilian being linked with Everton probably every day since January. Everton definitely looking for reinforcements in midfield, looking for energy. Alan brings that, but so far no bid for the 29-year-old from the Blues. Finally, Everton under 23s begin their pre-season training next Monday. Ella Sims, Kyle John and Benny Benningham will be given extended breaks to their involvement with the first team during project restart. Evans first team is due back in just under three weeks for a shorter than usual pre-season before the Premier League begins on September 12. That is your news for today. Make sure you subscribe. Give the video a thumbs up and if you want more videos, join us on Patreon. See you later.


SCP-630 is a 130 meter wide underground glacier and, according to surface sonar scans, at least 12 kilometers long, moving at an estimated 30 meters a year. It is composed of what is theorized to be a mixture of water ice, which is an opaque black and does not reflect any form of visible light or electromagnetic radiation. The leading edge of the glacier is fragile enough to take samples from. However, they have been shown to withstand ambient temperatures of over 1500 degrees Celsius without melting. Temperature probes indicate that the glacier is cooled to about negative 10 degrees Celsius, and any significant melting can only be achieved by a sustained exothermic reaction, with the water molecules within the ice. When melted, SCP-630 reverts to ordinary, slightly impure water and displays a normal reflection absorption spectrum.


I thank you everybody for coming this afternoon. I'm really pleased to welcome Chris and Amelia for our programme for the 360 group to do their session, with the intention of moving the rights in front of you. I'm pleased you have access to the ability to come from the short and the long list is out. So thank you very much, Chris and Amelia for havinglawn to you. Thank you very much, good afternoon everybody, I hope you're enjoying the show so far. It's great to see so many of you in here. You had a choice of which session to join and you chose ours, so thank you for doing that, I really appreciate it. My name is Chris Bull and this is my colleague Emilia Krzewska. She'll correct me on that later. It's amazing, Emilia, in terms of pharmacy. That's okay. So we're really thrilled to be exhibiting here and sponsoring the theme of diversity, equity and inclusion. We'll talk a little bit about how that's important to us at Echo and of course the customers that we support. And glad to see some of you are represented today as well, so it's really good to have you here. And by the way, shameless plug for the stand downstairs if you haven't been on the stand downstairs. It's the stand downstairs by this room but the lower one right at the end by the main doors. And we have some good suites, so please come by. Find the warmest place in the area and that's where we will be. So let's just talk about what we're going to do. First of all, let's talk about who we are. So we provide tools, software, technology, if you will, to support our customers on their journeys towards providing, engaging, equitable and inspired learning experiences to their students. We help them through what we call the ecosystem, sorry, the ecosystem, not the ecosystem because we're eco, not eco ecosystem, which is a suite of interconnected solutions that include video, interactivity tools, engagements, assessments, and content authoring. Or at university plus many others trust our solutions to help them drive their learning outcomes. So that's who we are over to you. Thank you. And I think that equity and inclusion are super important to us. I think they are actually now we're DNA we've been doing or we've been providing at tech for number of different institutions for over 20 years and echo. E three pillars are grounded in sort of three main principles and this is the educational equity. This is the evidence and also engagement. And I think the fact that the equity is is the first makes a real impact because it's in a way it sort of sets the bar and pays the way for the evidence and engagement. And here at echo 360 we're trying to do our best to make sure that equity and inclusion and accessibility boxes are ticked. And this is done through many different things and predominantly by the fact that most of our products. Yeah.  Apart from that we also work with the your kind of product our product and engineering teams work with people like yourselves to make sure that we address the challenges that you might be having in the kind of regularly held customer success meetings and then the challenges related to accessibility within the hybrid learning, as well as as in whose learning are addressed. Apart from that obviously we work apart from that we work with third party companies that help us to understand what's the next trend in terms of the accessibility criteria is we also have internationally recognized qualification qualification. accreditation accreditation, thank you. That allows us to be compliant with accessibility. Thank you very much. I didn't quite work as well as I would have. So in terms of embedded accessibility tools. We have examples such as old text within echo poll and echo exam. We've got so that helps with things like vision impairments and things like that. The ability to extend testing times in echo exam as well or in our assessment tools again for those that are going to kind of need a little bit longer in terms of processing time and things like that. And also on the echo video side which we're going to take a little look at in a moment. Things like areas of the accessible rich internet applications labelling for screen reader support for example. And lots of other interactivity tools within echo video that allow us to again make sure that we've got engagement across across the group regardless of capability and ability and so forth. The other sort of thing to mention that's really important is we have our E3 grants program as well where we award grants effectively to particular lecturers and academics that are looking to extend the capabilities of the echo system to help better the student experience. So for instance, I think this year it was something like 100,000 US dollars were awarded to various institutions in the UK Glasgow and Strathclyde in particular were amongst the recipients of those grants. So essentially it's a really big part of what we do. It's you know the student experiences are key parts of it and we support our customers in many ways. So lastly, death by PowerPoint is shortly coming to an end. So 30 Minutes, it really is not long enough for us to talk about all of the, it's less than that now of course, the capabilities that we have to support engagement and things like that. I'm going to cover off two key ones today so echo video I've just mentioned and we'll talk a little bit about some of the echo in echo poll which sits under the echo engage umbrella in our ecosystem, just in terms of some of the tools that we have in there. So just bear with me while I change over. Okay, so what I'm going to show you now is. So what you're looking at. Yes, what you are looking at is a typical sort of student view, as it were, of the the echo video platform now. This may be integrated into your chosen the early so whether it's canvas mood, etc. But this is the, as it were the the echo video interface, and what I've got a number of options in here so I'm just going to press play on this. Hopefully, her voice won't come booming through the speakers. My God, I think I've set this up correctly. And, but straight away, I can, as a viewer, I've got a couple of options around how I can change what I'm looking at so I can either look at my sources here and select a specific. I'm going to click us in on one particular area so maybe the having the lecture, having the lecture actually talking to me as it were may not be something that I want to engage with I just want to engage with the content and listen to the, the sound as well. As you can see I've also got some closed captioning running as well. All of the videos in echo video are are transcribed automatically through AI effectively machine generated text. But the captions this probably won't be a good example of it because we've not had this recaption but a lot of our customer partners work with the a lot of the third party. So the likes of speech matics and people like that who then caption the content according to the correct terminology etc particularly useful in sort of science and very deeply technical content. And equally I might say well actually I'd rather see. I'd rather see the. Let me just bring it back up again. So I've lost her. So I'd much rather engage I rather engage with the visual elements of the the lecturer actually talking to me I may have the slides on a separate or maybe maybe we're talking about specific content that I can't sort of see at the moment. And again, I don't know if any of you've got sort of teenage kids, but most of them now are watching things like Netflix and things like with the captions on even if they can hear perfectly well. I don't know that sort of thing so again, the idea of having some access to to closed captioning is quite useful. And the nice thing about this is I can make this as big as I need it to, depending upon my needs. Again, I can sort of play around with the look and the feel of the, the actual how it's presented to me depending upon what it's going up against the back of. I can move the the actual place of the content around as well so I can again position it according to best best to how I want to engage with it. So lots of different options in there based on to this accessibility in in in its in its broadest sense from an engagement standpoint as a viewer I've got a number of options as well here. So I'm able to add some notes in as I'm going along, which is going to be useful to me maybe as I'm kind of going through the content Q&A. And so, you know, I might well have a specific question that I want to post either live during the session, or maybe if I'm watching this asynchronously, because I missed the session. I still want to be able to ask my question. I still want to say, yeah, great. I've got some commentary here. I'm also able to bookmark the session as well. So if I'm looking at a particular interesting area, or maybe an area I want to come back to because I didn't quite follow what was going on, I can bookmark it according to that.  I don't think you can see the text of the area says flag is confused. So if I click on that, that means I'm telling the the lecturer or the whoever is actually running the session. Actually, I didn't quite follow that part. And again, when we look at things like analytics and engagement analytics as an instructor, I can sort of see which parts were maybe collectively being not being followed, should we say. So very, very simple suite of very sort of tools that allow you to actually get some sort of understanding of make sure that you're kind of catching all those folks and make sure that you're not missing any, any folks from that standpoint. So next part, I'm just going to show you, I'm just going to jump into a different screen. So bear with me. Where are we? There we go. So, so what you're looking at now is more the sort of instructor view of the same, the same video. So, as you can see as an instructor, I've now got access to some data around how many people have viewed the content, whether, you know, where have they engaged? When did they kind of all watch it all the way through? Maybe they didn't watch it all the way through. Can I find out which parts resonated? Maybe some parts didn't. And as I go into things like sort of questions and so forth, I can start to look at, you know, where are the, oops, my bad, error loading analytics, so that's probably not a good time to show that. And the point is, I've got certainly access to the ability to then sort of bring up those questions that I showed before. I can respond to those questions in real time as well. Let me reload the videos, probably what it needs. Yep, bear with me folks. This is the trouble with live television, isn't it? These things always, at least you're going to see the very quick login access into the system there, which you can either do via the VLE or directly into the system. This is actually the admin view as well, because you've got a few more things up here, but actually I've now gone into the bit I wanted to show you. And again, yes, as you can see, we've changed that a little bit now, so we've actually got some more content in that we can actually use. So the last thing I was going to show, oh sorry, I will just quickly show you the ability, so the transcription side of things as well. So this is a tool that enables me to, you can't see it probably, but the ability to actually go in and edit if I wanted to, if I had the time, and the inclination to actually edit the content of the transcripts as well. So again, that's quite useful to do if I want to make absolutely sure that it's spot on. And that icon there gives me the ability to go ahead and push that into the closed captioning if I wanted to as well. Last thing to show then, and I'll hand back over to my esteemed colleague, is around interactivity.  So what do I mean by edit the media? Well, it might well be that I want to remove certain tracks or maybe re-record the audio or maybe I want to re-record my bit again, a sort of lecturing that I'm able to do that and then build in my new version of the video into here, so it's easy for me to remove and add as I'm going along. I can also trim it down as well, so there's big sort of quiet period somewhere where I was thinking about something, or maybe I got it slightly wrong so I wanted to start again, I've got that option as well. But the last bit was just around the polling capability. So, particularly for an asynchronous video, this would be useful, the ability for me to go in and add live questions, live questions in asynchronously, but certainly questions into the video that as I'm watching it as a student, I can go along and as a lecturer helps me understand, am I getting that level of engagement? And actually, you know, the group of people maybe that didn't quite catch what was going on during the live session, I've got the ability to go over the information again and really get a sense of whether they've got the content or not. So, my last point on this is that I'm not going to show you the polling aspect now, because our newer polling capability, Echo Poll, is going to be integrated into this, which is going to make the polling capability that much more brilliant. So, at this point, I'm going to hand over to Amelia again. So, thank you so far. Thank you, Chris. OK. You're on slides, aren't you? I also wanted to add that I'm already mentioned that I'm really passionate about equity and inclusion to that level that I'm actually doing extra qualification in CIPD to be better equipped with the information that we, as an agtech provider, should give to educational institutions. Bear with me. Consult your notes. Yes. It's so stressful, you know. You're doing well. I knew we were doing well. You're doing well. I knew we were doing well. You're doing well. You're doing well. You're doing well. We do, do we? I mean, it's quite afternoon, normally in my nap time, by the way. If you could go to state after this. Yes. My boss knows that he cannot call me in between two or three, but yes. So, Chris mentioned and showed you the Echo video, a pillar of our company. I also wanted to mention that from my point of view, and not from company's point of view, my engagement is really connected with students, the feeling, the sense of belonging, and a sense of inclusion, let's say. So Chris has shown you different features of Echo video and the fact that we can get students engaged in here. You can actually see how we track the engagement. So throughout the course, you can actually monitor how well we're students involved in your classes. I also think that sometimes the kind of the belongingness and different engagement variants are diluted because of the, in a maybe the lack of our understanding of diversity, of sometimes maybe we kind of forget or don't realize necessarily that there are very, the multiple intersection that represents us as human beings. So we are not only, you know, one, let's say. There are many intersections in terms of our physical aspects, about social aspects, our, our life experiences as well. And I think based on that, I don't necessarily believe there is one size fits all solution. Every university is different, every student is different. And for that reason, putting everything in one, you know, putting all the eggs in one basket is not necessarily the way to move forward. Having said that from Echo perspective, we try to make sure that the accessibility criteria are there across all our products. Chris has already mentioned the alt text, which can be found, or the accessibility feature can be found in most of our products. This gives the students who are visually challenged ability to consume products. We also have the extended time, timers on the assessments that we have. But today I also wanted to show you what we have done. Old, someone from Oxford University actually said, classic clickers. I don't know if you've seen them before, if you use them before, have you? You have, okay. So I know, who was that? Was that Manchester? But anyway, so there is a, generally speaking, there is a trend. So either universities go away or they actually purchase more. So I recently sold 500 to Bristol University. I felt university, LSE, they all use our polling solution. We also have charities like Scope using our polling solution. And the main reason is obviously the fact that they can, they can get students engaged by answering their questions. But some of them, not all of them, but some of them have the Braille on it. Sorry, there is one going around at the moment. There is a Braille version. I think that might be over there. It also has the inbuilt vibration motion. So it's not about providing everyone with the same tool. I think it's more about making sure that we provide the tools that are necessary for our students to thrive and succeed. Do you agree? Yeah. That's my boss by the way. Yes, my boss. My boss. My boss. My boss. My boss. My boss. My boss. My boss. My boss. My boss. My boss. My boss. Yes, my boss. Come in. Take a seat. I don't think that I also wanted to say that obviously in your classrooms you can have the less sort of extroverted, quieter students, more introverted students. They are not really comfortable saying their opinion out loud and sharing their thoughts with the rest of the students. So click us or even your phones because our solution can be also used with a mobile phone. We can use that and so the instructors have the kind of opportunity to see and to check the polls of the class, to check if everyone is on the same page in terms of the understanding. You can also do polling anonymously. Great. I mean I'm sure you have seen that before, but the fact that you're giving students the anonymity on foreign by the way, it gives them more freedom and more security to answer the questions. And obviously the timely manner that the solutions are, the answers are shown to peers on these structures also give the sense of belonging and acceptance. Let's say. Let me check. Other thing, I'm sure some of you also deliver, obviously all the things I've mentioned here are great if you want to have engaging synchronous session, but some of you or some of your instructors also deliver asynchronous sessions or they give asynchronous tasks or assignments, correct? Yes. So with this, we are giving students a possibility to answer the questions in their own speed, in their own time to gather the thoughts and also some students who are not necessarily native speakers, they might need a little bit more time to answer. So that solution or giving the sort of asynchronous tasks gives them time to answer the questions. So that is my last slide. Thank you very much for being patient with us. Do you have any questions? Go on. I will do my best to answer, OK? I'll do my best to answer. Going back to the slide, you have the options. Are those anonymous? Yes, it can be anonymous. Again, I guess there's two views on that, because of course if they're requiring an answer or maybe a session that I'd like to spend a bit of time one-on-one to kind of talk about them, then clearly we're going to need to know who they are. But yes, you're quite right. There is the ability for an anonymous feedback and questions as well. Any other questions? Anonymously or otherwise? So any questions or comments? Yeah, comments will be great as well. I mean, we know that there are some, yes, so we do have echo video users, right? There is one. Lecture capture, yes. Do you have a special name for it? Because some universities do have. So it's lecture capture or? Yes. Oh, okay. It's still. Yeah. Go on. You see that's what I'm saying. So if we had clickers or if we had the mobile phones, you could have answered anonymously. We can definitely talk about this. How did you get that? Which solution are you interested in? Video. I went back in. So the video just really attracted me. I was thinking about Ed puzzle. But what you shared looked really cool. Gosh, it must have been good off my demo because that was a poorly even by my standards. No, absolutely. Pop down and see if that's okay and we can talk more about what you're looking at. So echo 360 is not only the lecture capture, but it's great that you actually like the idea. There are various products under our portfolio. And I think that's what kind of separates us from other players on the market, that we have the engagement, we have the assessment tool, which is relatively new and also the content creation tool. So if you'd like to learn a little bit more, we are downstairs. We'll be happy to show you or demo it to you either today or after. But yeah, we'll be more than delighted to talk to you. As I said, we work with a number of different universities in the UK and outside. So if you aren't a customer yet, please join us. But if you are a customer, please come and learn a little bit more about other products. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you.