 We're here at the ITU studio in Geneva, and I'm very pleased to be joined by Ms. Salma Khalife, who is International Affairs Coordinator for the National Research and Education Network in Mexico. And she's also Chairman of the Council Working Group on a Stable Constitution. Ms. Khalife, thank you very much, indeed, for being with us today. Thank you for the invitation. I'd like to start off by asking you, what is the need to have a stable constitution? Well, I have to go back in years to tell you what the stable constitution means. In the ITU, they have produced a constitution, and back in the years, they decided that this constitution should not be modified every time the plenty potential is met. So they did a first exercise to produce a new document that perhaps would not be ratified. So they created the convention, but in the end, they decided the plenty potential representatives decided that this convention was also to be ratified by their member states. This is the second time we have this exercise. The plenty potential representatives and member states of the union decided in 2010, in Resolution 163 from Guadalajara, that there was a need to review the current status of the constitution and see if by separating those organizational procedures and articles in a different document, they could give more stability, meaning not modifying this constitution continuously and provide a single document to ratify and other documents that could support the organization of ITU. So they created this group, which I'm chairing, and I have finished my work in April of 2013. So now I'm reporting to the council the results of the group. So do we have a definition of what is stable and what would be fundamental to include in a revised constitution? From the point of view of the group, they were discussing from a legal framework what does stable and fundamental meant to all those different member states. And we find that they might have differences in how they decide stability and fundamental. But in the end, there were common decisions that fundamental would be those principles that needed to be in the constitution because they were the substance of how the ITU would work. And those provisions that were related to how they would be organizing and how many times they will be meeting or they will be preparing for conferences or so, could be left in another document that would not be, and those articles would not be as fundamental as those provisions that lead the way the ITU should work together with this membership. Now you say the council working group has finished its work now. I wanted to find out from you, what have been the results from this exercise? Well, it has been an interesting experience because we had almost 32 member states participating in the group in the five meetings we had for the past three years. And this working group cooperated a lot in building a document that could separate those fundamental and stable provisions and separate those who were on the decision of this group not stable and fundamental. And we produced a document which still has some questions to be answered, but our mandate didn't allow us to modify any text of the constitution. So we found repetitions in certain provisions. We found that there was no answer to the question of, is this constitution going to be ratified or it's just an amendment, a new constitution or it's an amendment to the previous constitution? So those questions will be answered perhaps in the Plenty Potentiary meeting of 2014. I was going to ask you, finally, what are the next steps that council needs to take? The council is currently reviewing the final report of the group. Many administrations are doing and making comments on their views of how we should move forward. But there are a diversity of possibilities of how to move forward. One, a very simple one, could be, despite all the work we have done, we could still go back to article 55 of the constitution and try to set a more strict rule of when the amendments should be made, perhaps eight years, 12 years before an amendment can be approved, or we can go in the way of separating these two documents and either ratifying the amendments or approving a new constitution. It will depend on how all those member states that did not participate in the working group will take these proposals into their countries and how they will react as individuals in the Plenty Potentiary meeting where they will have to decide if we go in a simple way or if we try to discuss further if the final document being produced by the working group was the final document and they approve it straightforward in the Plenty Potentiary meeting. Ms. Khalifa, thank you very much for being with us today. Thank you.