 Welcome to the Global Symposium for Regulators 2019 here in Port Vila, Vanuatu. We're very pleased to be joining the studio today by Chikewe Kachali, who is the Emergency Telecommunications Cluster Coordinator for the World Food Programme. Welcome to the studio. Thank you, Max. Thank you for the invitation. Okay, let's talk about, first of all, the Emergency Telecommunications Cluster. What is that exactly? That is one of the humanitarian clusters, usually meant for response. It is a grouping of organisations that come together to provide shared communications in humanitarian situations. Okay, now you organise a simulation here at the Global Symposium for Regulators. Perhaps you could tell us a little bit about that, what happened exactly and what it was for? There are a few different parts to that. Of course, there was quite a lot of planning that went into developing the simulation. We developed the scenario from scratch. And one of the reasons we used a scenario based on a cyclone is because we thought it is a common enough phenomenon, not in a bad way, but that there would be more regulators who would be familiar with either a cyclone, a typhoon or a hurricane, which are scientifically the same except they have different names. From there, after the planning, we had to of course deliver the session. All of these months of work went into an hour of delivery. What we wanted was to get regulators thinking what their role is in disaster management. They don't normally think about that and that's probably because of how, shall we say, the telecommunication system is built. Many people think regulation is divorced from what we do every day or what we see every day. But if I give you an example in a country where, say, local roaming is not allowed and in the case of an emergency or a disaster especially, as we had in the scenario today, when you have an affected population moving to a place where only one mobile operator is dominant, we may need to use new techniques like local roaming and in this case the regulator has quite a bit of say and sway. And you asked people to make decisions about what was happening in the event of a disaster. You sent them text messages. Tell us just very, very briefly a little bit of what happened exactly on that. What partly built into the design, again, is not just the interactivity but I always think in cases like this, if the participants leave with at least one message, then we're fine. We only need one message. The questions that the participants voted on were because that was one way to engage them but that was another way of getting them thinking and thirdly, that was another way of knowing what they are thinking. We gave them scenarios based on real life experience. We twisted or knew all the scenarios and the questions so that they weren't say, you couldn't identify where they came from but they were all based on real life events and they had to make decisions. You are a regulator. This has happened. The population is waiting for information. What can you do about it? To reiterate the answers, the multiple choice answers to the questions, there wasn't a wrong answer or a correct answer. What we wanted was the thinking. What was your thought process behind this decision? Of course, it's very personal for the regulator. It's very contextual but it's also good for training and teaching. Did this session live up to your expectations? My expectations are that the participants should leave happy. That's my benchmark. It doesn't matter what I do but the participants need to leave happy. Most of them are happy, so yes, I suppose, but there's always room for improvement. Absolutely. Well, thanks very much for joining us in the studio and we hope to catch up with you again very soon. Thank you very much, Mike.