 We had three questions to answer, but before going to the questions, we started with a brainstorming about what partnerships are about. So we said, first, we need different partners for different objectives. So, then we did it for different models of partnership. But then we said, in our 9BDC, we have immediate partners who are really core members of the 9BDC, who potentially are easier to influence. But we have also other key players, what we call boundary partners, who are doing something similar to ours, but we don't have any direct control and influence. So they are more difficult to influence. So we said, we should start from the easier side, but we style by generating evidence and by communicating better. We should broaden the area of influence of partnership to the bigger and wider partnership. But we said there are also other potential partners that we don't know much about and those probably are doing something similar like ours. They don't know about us, we don't know about them. So with time, probably through other partners, we made it to reach those partners to know about our own systems and share lessons. And then coming back to the questions and lessons learned from the partnership, we said most cases resources are by the issue. But there are partners who are more interested in engagement than the money because they could have probably more money than ours. But they know what they want. It's probably how they work and then probably they would be in a position to even finance and generate additional resources for that to happen. And we said also communication is a very important strategy so we have to really communicate with partners as much as possible and we need different communication channels and strategies for different partners. We said for partnership to work we should identify common goals and objectives. So we should overlap certain stages and be some interest for the partnership work. And partnership should be dynamic and we should probably learn from the lessons learned and remember as a nation we should move to the next partner. Probably dropping the trust in partner if there is a laser coming up from that partner. We said strength in partnership is for interest of all and we said partnership can be strengthened by working with other partners. So if a relationship is partner with multiple partners whom we are partnering with then the partnership can get much more stronger. On the identification of partners I think that's also part of the lessons learned but we said the need for common objectives and goals mapping of partners really knowing who are there who are connected to what are the major areas of influence but also saying we should meet our partnership and this partnership of course should be called for different objectives. So we don't need all the partners at the same time. We may need some partners at the beginning, we may need other partners at the end but also we could really depending on the priorities of the agenda in the program we could also change partners. Monitoring partnership advice case is another issue which is probably not easy to do. On the communication we said partnership should of course include the inclusive so we need to include of course communities as many partners. So partnership stands from community to national business scale needs different strategies. So we have to know the subject of communication what we're communicating for the different partners. We have to have different media of communication we have to have a target of communication for achieving our goals and for partnership function as I just said there could be probably some influential individuals who could make or break the partnership so aligning with those individuals is equally important for partnership to work. And we said for this protein of partnership the most important tool that we are trying to use is the platforms. So platforms and price levels could bring more partners on board that could list things in the end of this agenda.