 So as we try and evaluate through science the status of the sharks in relation to the criteria, we have met a number of challenges. The main one is the vast range of types of information and data that we have to work with. Some of it comes from stock assessments where many of us understand the methods and approaches. Some of it comes from long time series of information that's documented well and some of it has just arrived from anecdotal or qualitative information where someone says oh 40 years ago we had this many sharks and now this year we only have 5% or so. And as scientists it's quite a challenge to bring all those types of information together. This time the proposal lists several species of sharks. Around 19 species belong to the family Kerkarepti and with a clause that all Kerkarepti species coming under the family also have to be listed. So that is the first time in this case. And it personally I feel it is not really justified because there are several sharks with biology that spans across very low to very high vulnerability. So each one needs to be assessed separately. So putting in an entire family of around 50 odd species of sharks doesn't make a real sense. What we've come to have to deal with is many more proposals. The second point is the situations we're having to deal with are a lot less clear and a lot less clear in the sense of what data are available. What we'd accept is the norm and what in fisheries management we wouldn't even look at if we didn't have as the norm. It's things like catch series, indices of abundance and so forth. Many of the cases that we're being presented with here are lucky if they have anything along those lines. Much of the information is anecdotal. That's not a reason to write it off because some of it is the species hasn't been seen in this large region for over a decade. That may not be quantitative, but it is still qualitative to the extent that it is worthy to be taken into account and in some sense refactored into the advice we give. The problem with these proposals is the fact that they're based on species which have very, very, very good information. As such it's very hard for us to evaluate the suitability for these species to be listed. You can look at that in two ways. The absence of data is obviously concerning from a precautionary point of view and so you want to make sure that the information is improved. But at the same time it makes it very difficult when you have a strict list of criteria for which you have to run through to justify whether a species should be listed or not. So when you're assessing these proposals, the first thing we're doing is assessing very rigorously what data sets have been used within those proposals. Are there enough data to support these assumptions and proposals made regarding each species which has been cited within the proposals? So we are going back to those data sets, scoring those data sets depending on set criteria and trying to understand if these are enough and robust to support the proposals. All of the people with different backgrounds, experiences, ideas and approaches are coming together with a common goal that at the end of the day we do want to sustainably manage this species globally and want to do it better. We do have different approaches because our backgrounds are different. For example, some people are fisheries scientists heavily dependent on population studies. Some people are social scientists looking at more people's perspectives. It's extremely important, especially when we're talking about trade which is sociologically probably one of the most complicated issues that we hear about in biodiversity conservation. When we think about ecosystem-based management, we need to think about the health of the ocean, the health of the resources that are exploited and also the well-being of the people that engage in those activities linked to the oceans and oceans. And when we look at CITES listings, we need to make sure that it fits into the arena of ecosystem-based management and with that we need to think not just about the biology and the conservation status but also about the well-being and the equity of the communities that are impacted.