 It's very, very important for the consortium board to really appreciate what the centers are, get a firsthand feel for the work that's going on, get a little bit of a chance to interact with the scientists, so that the board has a personal identification with the centers that make up the system, with the people that make up the system, and also get a little bit of a flavor of the constraints we face. And on the operational side, we have changed the way that the centers are doing research by shifting from a center focus to a CRP focus, progress focus, and we have been able to see in the last few years the adoption by farmers of a number of very success stories coming from the research outcomes, such as the rice, the flooding tolerant variety, the school of rice, the maize, and beans, and cassava drought varieties, biofortification, and I think that this all goes well for the health of the system. And we continue to work on these success stories. Yes, this is a very positive time to be in the CJI, both because of the importance of the mission and because of the confidence of our investors in the new CJI. And I think, certainly from the perspective of rice research, the transformation of the system has allowed us to realize a dream that many of us had, I personally had since the late 1980s, and that is to develop a global rice research community that developed a global agenda to address problems of global importance, as well as local importance. And I think that the centers and ourselves, we have to continue to advocate in front of the international community that agricultural research for development is part of the solution to food security, to quality elevation, to sustainable development, and we have been able to do so, but there are many sources of demands for finance, and I think that we should be focusing on what is very, very important. The move towards accountability for our work, I think is great, and I think it's a big step in the right direction. You mentioned quality control, I couldn't agree more. I think we need to make sure that the CGIR is the place for excellence in research sharply targeted towards development outcomes. The Consortium Board asked the Consortium Office to first develop a CGIR-wide gender strategy, and subsequently we asked the CRPs to come up with their strategy to make sure that gender research, research that ensures that both men and women have equal access or fair access to the new technologies that we develop, aren't favoring men, but we develop technologies that are suitable for female head of households for women working in agriculture. All sorts of things that we do this appropriately, because of course agriculture is still very much a male-dominated business. Now we're making good progress on that. We're hiring probably more gender researchers than ever before. Some of our programs are really strong. Gender in agriculture is enormous. Women in agriculture is enormous. Certainly in rice we see what's called the feminization of agriculture, you have outmigration of men from the rural areas. Women are becoming more and more managers of the overall farming sector in many parts of the developing world, certainly in rice-based economies. When we look at the situation of women in rice cultivation, rice cultivation could be among the worst jobs in the world in terms of preparing the land, transplanting rice, weeding, in the mud, up to your knees is very, very... It's picturesque with backbreaking. It is backbreaking. And women are the people who typically do the transplanting, who typically do the hand-weeding, who typically are engaged in the harvesting. All of these are very, very difficult operations. Not only difficult, but time-consuming. I think using human capital for that is the worst use of human capital. So I think anything we can do that can free up people from this burden that falls disproportionately on women is probably one of the most effective gender approaches that we can have. Basic philosophy is still very much the same. We get money from the taxpayer, we put our results out for everybody to use. But how we have to do that, the tools we use for that have changed a bit. So we have come up with intellectual asset principles. We still say in principle everything we produce is in the public domain, but we recognize that in some cases we may have to collaborate with the private sector. In some cases it may be necessary to either have licenses from the private sector that allow us to use some of their intellectual assets, or in some cases the best way to get our knowledge to farmers is indeed through seed companies. We may need to have some arrangements, some licensing for specific conditions. Our intellectual asset principles basically say if the centers can justify that to have higher impact for the pool we can do a licensing deal, then it is justified. Now it's a bit similar with open access. Now we are saying, yes, our stuff should be in the public domain, but how do people actually use it? And the modern approach to that is to say we take our data on, we make sure that they have the right metadata, we make sure that they are machine readable and that they sit there in repositories so that people can grab them and use them. So on our side I think it's a commitment to say not just everybody can use it, but that actually everybody has easy access to it, so that they can actually use our data in a way that makes sense. If we want to give away as it were what we produce, and we expect someone else to take it up and use it, there has to be a clear ability for us to say, okay, this is ours, we want you to use it, if you use it these are the terms. So that changing landscape of public-private sector interaction has major implications for how we manage our intellectual assets, how we protect, and giving something away for free you can do it if you own it. If you don't, you can't say, oh, that's a very nice piece of technology that he owns, you can have it. And I find this actually intellectually very stimulating as well as personally satisfying. The capacity to have engaging conversations about critical issues, not everybody agrees on everything. It should be very clear that, from my perspective at least, that we share a very solid, common platform of departure. We also share a common vision of where we want to end up, and that's not to bolster how we get there. Yes, we definitely share love for robust conversations. I think people who know us know, and I think that's necessary to move us forward. I would say that only situational reforms are difficult, and that was no exception to that, but I think that during the course of the last three years we have been building trust and confidence, and I think that now we are looking at common objectives and working together to bolster, which I think is a significant change from the first days in which things, there were tensions and uncertainties and a number of things. I'm very glad we're not there yet, but I think we're moving in the right direction.