 Thank you very much for being here. I know it's a Sunday evening, so not the ideal time of a day or of a week, but I'm grateful that you are here. So we are back from what I believe was a constructive trip, very short, but very constructive trip, which I believe helps keeping the process in a good direction and will hopefully bring us closer to solve some of the important issues that we still have to solve. I would say that my first concern when traveling there was that we had a major communication breakdown with Iran, which of course is something we cannot afford, having so many important issues that we need to solve. I think that was solved, but perhaps through your questions we can get some more interesting aspects on it, but I wanted to start by saying that and by thanking you and at your disposal for your more specific questions, if you do have. If you could please identify yourself. Francois Murphy from Reuters. DGI, I have two questions to start off with. One on continuity of knowledge. Your monitoring equipment has never gone more than three months without being serviced, so your source of inner kind of a no man's land right now in terms of how much of the memory and a lot of these devices have been used up. So how confident are you that continuity of knowledge has been maintained before you go and service this equipment? And then secondly on the other main issue, safeguards, the open questions about these uranium particles, etc. What's in the joint statement is very vague, so have you, has Iran committed to anything more specific than that with you, or is this just another vague promise to discuss things with you because we had one of those recently from Iran and as you've said yourself that basically got you nowhere. Yes. Well thank you very much for the question. On the first one you may have seen in my reports that I said that the situation was with regards to the verification and monitoring equipment in Iran and because of their technical capacity and specifications we were coming to a point where we need immediate rectification of the situation and I think today's agreement gets us just that. This is going to be rectified and we are going to be able, when we complete the servicing of the equipment that we need to do, we will be able to keep the information needed to maintain continuity of knowledge. As you know, this is predicated on a system which was agreed last February whereby we keep monitoring, registering, taping, keeping information and the reconstruction and the coming together of the Jigsaw puzzle will come when there is an agreement at the JCPOA level but at that time we will have all this information and there will not have been a gap. So I think with this agreement we had today we are going to be able to do exactly that. The other? Of course we have to reconstruct it when we do the actual work but with this we have all the technical elements that we need to have to do that job. That's important. And your second question, of course, that is very important and I think again I've said it loud and clear to you and to the Board of Governors and through my reports. These issues that are outstanding require to be solved. But as I also said, there is a new government in Iran and I need to sit down with them and to discuss in a clear way what is their take on these issues. I could have some preliminary discussion but of course the government has higher levels and I got a very cordial invitation to return very soon to Iran to have this conversation on how to get to a solution. I had certain agreements with the previous administration. I need to recommit, I need them to recommit to them or to endorse them or to change them but in a way that leads us to a solution which is of course part of my desire. No one could expect me in 10 hours to go solve these issues and come back with that. It would be unrealistic. What we need to do is to set the platform which is needed to do this. This is diplomatic work. This may take time. It's not heroic but it's much better than any alternative. You said basically continuity of knowledge has been restored in principle but this knowledge is in the kind of a black box, right? So for how long, for how many more months can the IEA safeguards team afford to have this knowledge in a black box rather than being able to read it because it doesn't seem like the Chacy Puea is going to be saved next month or the month after that even if talks were to restart tomorrow. I would agree that this is not a permanent solution. This cannot be a permanent solution. This has always been seen for me at least as a stop cap, as a measure to allow time for diplomacy without us losing the basic information and data that we need. In terms of metrics, if you ask me how many months, how many days, it's difficult for me to say but I don't see this as a long-term prospect. That's very clear for me. That's very clear. Thank you. I'm Stephanie Liechtenstein. I'm a freelance journalist. I would like to have posed you two questions. The first one says in your report it says that there are one broken and one damaged camera that you found in the Karaj facility. Are you going to be able, according to the agreement that you have struck now, to replace those cameras as well? And for all the other cameras that you are going to service now, when exactly are your inspectors going to do that? Is it going to be now, next week, before the end of the Board of Governors meeting? Can you give us an indication of the exact timing? The answer to your first question is yes. So everything, we are going to be looking at everything. We are going to replace whatever may be broken or missing. Yes. The second is within a few days, very soon, very soon. Before the end of next week, whether... It's been agreed that we start very soon. Okay. It's been agreed that we start very soon. Yes, Stefan. Stefan Lögenstein, Frankfurter Allgemeine Verhaltung. Sir, would you assess that this agreement has been achieved as a result of the pressure exerted by the IEA, by criticism and the recent reports ? Well, it's very difficult to say what is at the source of the origin of an agreement. I think, first of all, we said what we had to say. And we were very clear on our assessment of the seriousness of the situation and the need for Iran to take steps to rectify it. So that is one thing. And on the other hand, there is Iran and they have their own views, their own expectations, their own readings of the situation. And they decided to agree to our request. There is a constellation of factors around this. There is a constellation of factors. And everybody knows that when it comes to Iran, there are other actors. There is the JCPOA. There are the individual actors within the JCPOA. But it's not for me to say whose actions, words, or otherwise may have done the trick. For me, it was very clear that we needed to say things in a very clear terms. And at the same time that I should express in all clear terms my availability to come to Tehran to discuss with them face to face and try to solve that. My question is, did you discuss about the other concern you expressed in your two reports? For example, the uranium trace in the undeclared site also about the uranium enrichment. We discussed in general terms, but in line with my assessment, these issues require resetting, require that I sit down with a new government and that we have a clear agreement on how we are going to proceed. It is true, many in the journalistic community and other commentators are saying it a long time has passed since the agency brought for the first time these issues to the attention of Iran in the first place. And some other issues were added to this. Nothing will be sidelined. Nothing will be hidden from my side. But I feel that there is a new administration, an administration that has clear views, has expressed clear views on these issues. So I, as director general, need to sit down with them, expose the problems and discuss them. I am glad to note that they have agreed that this is the way to go and that we are going to have meetings here in Vienna first because as you may have seen in the joint statement, the vice president and head of the AOI has decided to come to Vienna. So we are going to be continuing that. And then I will go to Tehran to have meetings with the higher authorities of the country. Any other questions? To what extent were discussions about whether or not to table a resolution an element of your trip here? Are you confident now that there won't be a resolution? Are you not involved in those discussions at all? Where do we stand on the resolution? Well, I think there has been a lot of comment about this. Of course, I am not part of the decision that states sitting at the border governors may have. Of course, there is an impression that in the, you know, confronted with the situation, I was presenting to the board. Some may have thought or may still believe that there is a need to take action. This is why I have expressed what I have expressed clearly and today I have already issued complimentary information to the border governors explaining what we have achieved now. So I believe that seeing this on the table, members of the board will have new additional elements that will allow them to weigh the different possibilities. But of course, as DG, I should abstain from saying resolution. Yes, resolution. No, this is not my purpose. I think we managed to rectify the most urgent issue, which was the imminent loss of knowledge that we were confronted with until yesterday. Now we have a solution. This is, let me repeat, this is very important. This is going to allow us to ensure continuity of knowledge about the inventory, the production of heavy water, rotors, bellows for centrifuges, uranium or concentrate. Very important things that would have been lost. Now this ability to continue to count on this has been restored. And on the bigger issues, as you were referring to, we have a way forward and I hope to be able to be seeing the highest authorities of the country to express what I believe that must be done. Yes, sorry, just one final question. So you are saying that the continuity of knowledge has now been restored. But again, at least from the media community, we never heard that this February temporary agreement has ever been formally extended. So how do you know how long is this now going to be restored another three months? Or how do you know, how do you have trust that this time this is going to work out? Well, my discussions with the new head of the AOI were very frank, were very, I would say, honest. We have our differences. But these were constructive discussions. And I believe if they have taken this decision now, it's because they know that if we were to go back to the same situation, the director general of the IEA would have to say this again. So I believe that there is a realization that this is a situation that needs to be preserved to give space for diplomacy so that, as it has been the case since February, so that wider solutions can be reached. But that is not my table, that is somebody else's table. But of course, the IEA is there, as always, to provide solutions. We are there to provide solutions, to provide a space where countries can meet halfway. And this is what the agency does, among other things. Any other questions? Thank you very much for being here. Thank you very much for, I suppose we'll be seeing each other in the next few days and weeks. And I will be happy to continue the conversation as we continue getting more information. As you can see, there is a path now in front of us. There will be more meetings and hence more information for the public to analyze. And I thank you for your work. Thank you very much. Have a nice evening. And apologies for having made you work until so late on a Sunday. Have a nice end of the weekend. Thank you very much.