 Everyone, good morning. And it's wonderful to be here with you. The first thing I want to do, as my claim to fame, is that I suggested that Ben be your keynote to Pete. So first, a big thanks to Pete, but also a really great Ben. That was wonderful, exactly what I anticipated. So thank you very much. It's really a pleasure to be here. I don't usually look out at a crowd of people and not see anyone I know. So I thought I seriously and MSF worked very closely together. So I'm a little trying to find my space. But I've only been at ICRC for six months. It's a new post there, and I'm new in it. So we're working our way through it. I'm very happy to say that I am in contact with Greg and Maya, two of your innovation team in Geneva, but also your TIC folks. And I think you guys are doing some pretty remarkable work. And I'm very impressed. So I'm sure, from the outside, ICRC looks very together, just like from the outside, you guys look very together. However, I'm also sure that we both can share some ways in which we could be more together. So listen, I thought that what I would pick up on in just for a few minutes, talk a little bit about this. ICRC is we're doing a ton of stuff in innovation. Happy to share drones, infrared cameras, new prosthetics with carbon. I mean, from very cool stuff, a lot of technology, not all of it, but a lot of it. But I thought that I would pick up following Ben's piece and very much echoing what I think we're going to hear from our panelists more about the people dimension. So ICRC is working on its new 2019 to 2023 strategy. So this is confidential, however. One of the pillars is about people-centric orientation. So that's not that new, but it's the first time it's in an ICRC strategy so explicitly. OK, I hope I don't lose my job. What's been really interesting for me is to watch how revealing and how important this dialogue on people-centric is at the ICRC and to see how it's landing in the organization. And one thing that I think is quite fascinating is that, and I'm guessing this will resonate here for MSF and for MSF who are online colleagues, is that when we talk about people-centric, there are certainly staff who feel like they have always been people-centric. That is why they do their work. That is why they serve in very difficult places. That is why they take the risk they do. And they actually, I think, some of them feel hurt, confused, and even resentful by being told that they're not actually very people-centric from this new kind of AAP and very intense, like, are you really paying attention? Are you really there? So I think what's interesting is to watch these dynamics in the institution about what is people-centric for people who are core humanitarians, which is about people-centric. So we have some very interesting, does that resonate at all for you guys? Thank you. That's very helpful. So in this vein, I just thought I would pick up on just a few things that I'm observing and think are important around the role of people and why it's important as we think about what we're doing. So there's obviously a long history of beneficiary-centric people-centered orientations. I mean, I've been around for a really long time. I'm really old. And over 20 years ago, I worked on something called the Sphere Project. And MSF was really mean to me at that point. But I think we've moved through it, so it's been OK. But even then, there was conversations about what is people-centric, what do we mean, et cetera. And that continues. But I think here, I really wanted to pick up on some of the key points of why it remains, not only because of the very good analysis that Ben gave us, but a couple of things. One, ethics. Now, how many of you have thought about innovation is just another word for experimentation? This is a really interesting question, particularly from those of you steeped in medical ethics, the Nuremberg trials, the issue of consent. So where is innovation and consent and ethics? How does this come together? This is, to me, the basis of if we want to get innovation right and if we want to get people-centric right, we really need to understand what we mean by consent. And I think, while there's lots of different kinds of consent, what's today? May? What's happening today? Oh, OK, interesting. Ireland? OK, so you see where we're all focused. OK, so it's May 25th. Well, one thing is the GDPR. Who knows what that is? General data protection regulation here in Europe. How many of you have been getting little things? We're updating our privacy plan. And then I click here. How many of you are reading the privacy policies? There's actually a whole NGO that's working on this about actually trying to unpack the privacy policies. It's quite interesting. I can share that with you if I can remember it later. But obviously, some of you are following Ireland. So yes, I've got it. But it goes way beyond data, but I'm just pointing out that because digitalization and data has become such an overwhelming and powerful force in the world and in our humanitarian institutions, this point about consent to data is really big. And not just to consent the first time, but the second and third time, it's used and combined and reused by all of us. But when someone signed up the first time, this is the whole metadata. This is the whole thing about, OK, you understand what I'm saying. So the idea of consent and the idea of ethics is so critical to people-centric. That's the first point. The second point around why is people-centric so critical is the second thing is about feasibility. And here it's about how meaningful and how relevant is it of what we're doing. How many of you have actually started to use a new MSF process in finance or in HR or technology that you think is really not good? It's like, did they not listen to me? Did they not listen to what I thought would be a better way to do my expense claim? Did they not listen to how I think career development should be managed? Well, this is really about feasibility. If you don't get it right, people aren't going to use it. So this is a real dimension. Another one is dignity. And this is a bit to me different from ethics. But I think I was listening yesterday to that wonderful fellow who was speaking about advocacy and the power of outrage. And I sometimes think, and I see this at ICRC, and I've seen this in a lot of humanitarian organizations, the intensity of our outrage at injustice, the power of our compassion, I think sometimes outruns our empathy and our ability to actually listen at an individual level. So I just want us to think a little bit about the power of our outrage can also be a bit, perhaps, in conflict with actually listening to people. And the last point I want to make about people-centeredness is that disruption is coming at everyone. It's not just coming at the humanitarian sector. It's coming at every individual in the world. So the more that we are engaged with each other, the better we're going to be together in managing those disruptions but facing those disruptions together. So I think the why is quite clear. I think what's much harder, and I'm hoping that our panelists will touch upon this a bit, is how do we know we're doing well in people-centric? How do we know we've done it properly? We're struggling with this. We don't know if it's research practice. We don't know if our methodologies are right. We don't know how much to listen. Who is a community leader? I have been wondering this for 25 years. I mean, I really mean it. And I know we continue to go round and round. But both of our panelists talked about community leaders. So I'm going to push them a bit to say, who is a community leader? How did you decide? How many community leaders are there in London? No, I'm very serious. You go to people and you ask them what they want. How do we manage that what I want? How many of you have heard when you walked through a refugee camp, I have heard this for 25 years, I want education and I want a job. I got water, I got a clinic. You know, can we make a deal? I mean, I'm sorry to be so superficial, but this has not gone away. So we are all really struggling with our agility to really be providers of what people want when we don't necessarily have the agility or the skills or the capacity to do it. In a general sense, you guys are perfect, but generally. So the last thing I'll end on here is I think that there's some real conundrums and tensions also in being in this people-centric orientation. And so one is kind of this relationship between rigorous testing, and particularly you all as a medical organization have done a lot of thinking about research methodologies and maintaining an engagement and an empathy. So I'd be curious how you to see that managing. And the other is about inclusivity. And I'll just end here with an interesting observation from my experience, which is that 40 years ago, 40 years ago, I was in a conference on identity politics. And this was about race and class and sexual identity. And so white women, lesbian, who could I be an ally to? Black women, black men, Hispanic men, I mean, all about trying to break down our identity politics to find the things that we could be allies with. So recently I was talking to a woman at ICRC who's our disability advisor. And she was talking about being at a navel fund, a makeup fund that ICRC was doing with disabled people. And her point was, there were too many able-bodied people trying to fix and create solutions for disabled people. And I thought, this is really interesting. I mean, I got it, I wasn't debating it, but I thought, where is this line between being an ally and being patronizing? So, I'll stop.