 We are back with corporate governance and we have been talking about the role of directors but the directors are basically constituted within a particular board which is called the board of directors and today what we are going to do is that we are going to see the difference between active and passive boards because in some cases boards are very active in other cases they are passive and there are different direct and indirect implications for a particular organization. Now the idea portrayal of the board is an active deliberate and decision forum for the business. So, again when we are talking about an ideal situation for the board it should be active, it should be deliberative and decisive forum for the business. Board of directors collectively determine to the decision they make the fate of the corporation. So, the destiny of the organization is basically in the hands of the directors who basically give it direction, who give it vision and also give long term strategies to the organization. Boards are inevitably part time due to the necessary extensive external other commitments of the directors that enhance the potential contribution they make to the company. Board work tends to be concentrated in very intensive short periods of time. So, again what we see is that the role of the board is not continuous, the role of the board is staggered tends to be unpredictable and would depend upon the situation where strategic direction is needed, where certain decisions are needed, where the authority of the CEO ends, the authority of the board tends to begin and all of those approval and sanctions also have to take place. So, all of these things are very very important and they constitute an active board. Egon Zander in the U2000 in the survey suggested that the average directors in the North America and Europe dedicate around 100 hours or even less to their task with an average seven meetings in a year. So, Egon Zander basically carried out this survey and talked about average directors and the amount of time they put in is around 100 hours or even less to their task with an average of seven meetings a year. So, that basically means again in only seven meetings they dedicate about 100 hours and that is the average director. Now, the growing importance attributed to the work of the board committees and the increasing emphasis on internal financial controls and risk management has taken control on the minimum commitment role. So, first the board used to be passive, used to be dormant, but now because of corporate governance they are responsible for internal financial controls and risk management which has enhanced their roles in a big way. It is likely today that being a non-executive director of an active and engaged board of directors might involve at least double the effort. So, that is also very important that one cannot be dormant anymore. The extent of non-executive involvement and the intensity of the commitment core for together with the resulting stress is greatly amplified when the responsibilities of the position are put to test in times of crisis. So, again what we see ladies and gentlemen is that the non-executive board and the non-involvement actually leads to more important because of the amplified level of stress and the intensity of the commitment which basically tends to flourish on a negative side during the times of crisis and therefore there is a great need to be careful and to ensure that such things do not happen and that all work and acts are done with the highest level of responsibility. One large company in Australia reported 83 board meetings in a single year during a prolonged crisis which involved proper restructuring, divestment, adopting a new financial structure, setting out an entirely new strategic direction. So, some companies have actually been able to work harder and work more and they have been able to create their own niche and their own markets. There is much evidence that in the past board of directors enjoyed a fairly passive existence carrying out their duties in the United States for example much of the 20th century was accepted in many countries that the CEO would select and control the board. So, now this is a conflict of interest that the CEO is selecting and controlling the board then the board is definitely going to make a decision to reinforce the CEO and ensure that all of the company assets are basically taken care of in a much better way. So, that is something that we have seen over the years. The growing prosperity of the US economy in the middle decades of the 20th century encouraged the sense that all was well in the corporate world the best thing boards could do was to offer unqualified support their management. So, again what we see is that a stronger relationship was being developed between the board and the CEO and in many times it was seen that the CEO would be nominating the proposed board and therefore would compromise the neutrality and the merit of that particular board. So, this is extremely important. Now, let us look at what Bill Weyman basically mentioned about the board. He states that I was proud to serve on the GM board but we operated in a very passive manner. We were invited to join the board by the CEO and really met alone to share our thoughts on the company's progress and more particularly on the performance of the CEO and management. The board endorsed the annual plans and long term strategy but any role in developing or refining these plans was going to be decided to be small. Board meetings were crowded with the presentations but little time eluded for discussion. So, again we see that most of these workshops and most of these meetings are more of a monotone and there was no deliberation, there was no sharing of ideas, there was no opposition and that led to lesser refinement at the end of the day. So, it is very important that the boards play their role in a very active way and ensure that there is no intrusion within the ecosystem that they are developing because through intrusion it can be demotivating and plus they can also jeopardize what is being done and therefore the CEO and the board have to spend a lot of extra time to ensure that the other employees do not get embroiled in these different situations and therefore the active load plays its role in the best possible way. Thank you.