 Felly, ddau'n gwneud i fynd i ddarparu mae'r gw yn ddweud i ddarparu. Rwy'ncychn unrhyw o'r falch, mae'r waith i fod yn ei ddau, mae'r cymdeithas sydd ydw i'n meddwl. Mae hyn yn gofynu arfer, mae hi wedi'i yn ei ddau chi a'i ddweud i diwethaf jaer. I'm going to be with a lot of them more or less at the car for about 10 minutes and talk about arbitration as an echo chamber. It seems to be the vision that I am the public proof of this event. Last year, for those of you who are lucky enough to be here, I and I talked about how arbitration was that way too expensive. Today, effectively, what I'm saying is that it is important to be aware from what is not being too self-referential and to take what we do too seriously. Now, to give you an example of what I mean by the way that this might be fuzzy, you're all familiar with the term arbitration community. Everyone uses it all the time. Nobody, if I mean nobody, knows what it actually means. There is a fair amount of learning on sociology and arbitration, and Sabia has cited some of it, particularly on investment arbitration. But that all focuses on how things within the community, within the bubble within the echo chamber, are focused on what Moshe Hirsch had, Hebrew University, whose contribution was, I think, the latest, and it's very good work for people on that topic. Of course, the rules, rituals and identity of how arbitrators conduct their business. What it does not, as it were, go beyond the rules of the echo chamber and look at how the arbitration community is constituted and what the effect is of having effectively a sort of bubble of luck as Moshe Hirsch called it, it's flippantly but probably not entirely incorrectly within which he practice. An example of this is a couple of weeks ago I was invited to a dinner. This is one of those events where the good enough feel of Cronge and me. And I was witness to the exchange between a very senior household name type of arbitrator, one of the leading practices, and somebody who was there for the first time. And a senior arbitrator was paying a duty for the complement and said, you've really exploded into the published consistency. What he meant was that the junior guy had exploded into the consciousness of the 80% people in that particular room. And that is, I think, emblematic of the fact that we are very self-referential as a practice, as a community. We are, but we tend to do what we do by reference to those around us. And we sometimes, I start suspecting, you've cited the fact that what arbitration fundamentally is, is a procedural vehicle for the resolution of what was said by the speakers. And all to really be the case, as it often is, that the expertise in the procedure, the icing as it is, is what drives, and it does drive, the point of the devolved traces of interpretation of councillor. And this came across very nicely in, I think, the contribution of all of my career panellists, particularly in recite, in sight again, in the case of the very survey, that says that word of mouth is fundamentally the most important driver. And I include myself in that. I will not appoint any body as an arbitrator, and I don't know of any level in terms of appointing arbitrators. And it is, I think, and this is no more than a vague suspicion, something that we've ought to think about. It is possibly a problem, as we are faced with a large number of public factors that should be established. And it is well known that our investment investment arbitration is basically debt as between the European states, as a result of the European European Commission's strike replacement of that with a pan-European institution. And part of the reason I suspect why that is possible is because in the public eye, insofar as the public, beyond the public, perceives arbitration at all, you'd be surprised how many people don't know what it is for, given how big and important it is. It was possible because arbitration was not a very bad press, not least because it is such a self-denial treaty. And are we taking that on ourselves too seriously? Are we overestimating the importance of the procedural contribution that we are making? Another example of this is the provisions for the appointment of arbitrators by nationality with Mauricio to the Department. In some rules, the ICC rules are probably the most well known example, but it's practically institutionalised that she will end up with arbitrators who are not qualified in the law that governs the substance of the dispute. The challenge must be of a neutral nationality, and arbitrator must be of a neutral nationality as a part of the sphere otherwise, which, by the stage that I'm going on, is to provide you with a very, very good degree of anything. And so you're bound to, given how far nationality is to trace this qualification in most jurisdictions, England is very much a statistical outsider on this one, you are bound to end up with arbitrators who are not qualified. Now, I am to be careful here because I'm a beneficiary of this. I have had three arbitrators so far, and zero of them were governed by either the procedure or substantially the rules of any of the jurisdictions in which I'm qualified. I enjoy that very much. It gives me the opportunity. I at least get tried through the job. It gives me the opportunity to perhaps to apply the capital and pretend to be important. But I can't help having the learning and suspicion that there's something wrong with the system. So, if I am appointed, and I am appointed to be paid in this case, about the need for provisions in which I have been served, then it's true. And that is not just an exit, but that is how the system works. And another aspect of this, of this potential overestimation of self-improvement of us as a practice is self-regulation. I think people are here last year, I can't really see it in the studio, so if all these miracles are taught in trace of self-regulation as being something that is good and that makes arbitration what it is, that sets it apart. But isn't there a danger to self-regulating us and being operating in a space where effectively we get to know each other as we go along? So, I think it's a good idea to try and rule some of the efficient conduct of procedures in digital arbitration. I'm not sure if you're familiar with this, but it's an initiative of the fundamentally civil rule, one of the civil rule backgrounds, as a counterpart to the IVA rules for the project of interest. Now, those civil rules, and I'm part of the civil rule I can write about, sorry, on the IVA rules on evidence, on effectively driven by the fact that the IVA rules institute disclosure on more or less a common of the lines, fairly extensive obligations, which is completely under the civil rule. I understand the gripe of the authors of the problems, and they are in themselves a perfectly fine instrument, but the problem is that we have now self-regulated the legal certainty that we have added the civil rule stage away, basically. These rules on evidence are almost never written into our framework rules, and it was always assumed that the IVA rules would guise each other and if the problems do take off, which remains to be seen, then that certainty would be gone. And so, what I am on about here is effectively we perceive ourselves as only by records, to others who do what we do, and I'm starting to have a slight feeling that that may not be how we are going to be able to roll up records in the next 20, 25, 30 years. One of the reasons why I say this is because that arbitration as a practice is becoming more potent on your centre, both in terms of centres where arbitration gets conducted, where Singapore's life seems to be like London, it was about 30 years ago. And also, particularly in terms of the know-how, the knowledge, the now of practitioners in jurisdictions outside of, you know, effectively the London Paris, and Washington, New York, and Singapore, and Hong Kong, where arbitration is tended in terms of expertise, in terms of particular cosmeticality, these days I have Slovenian co-counseling, Polish co-counseling, I'm perfectly capable of running almost all aspects of the London season to arbitration by themselves. And we got in London far less than they may have needed us 20 or 30 years ago. And if you have such a more fragmented community, is it to really agree with all this about a lot firstly? And will you have to find methods of operating that go beyond the market, that go beyond the personal monitoring? I think something that everybody here has picked up is arbitration intelligence, has been one of this other range out which is yet, I think it could be to be more, to certainly get to the operation so that he generates data that's now asked to depart from the work model way of arbitration requirements. But I think it has the capacity for seriously disrupting the way arbitrage are appointed, where I will go on a point, based on that data, whom I don't know. Who hasn't gone? Who hasn't gone? What the Germans will struggle with, with German language, this one basically means that you smell right. And so currently, and this is, I am working slightly for my preparation for what, but also slightly because what I'm trying to describe is a gut feeling rather than a very high, a gut feeling on data, not just on writing. But it strikes me that it is very much the fact that arbitrators we appoint, council we appoint, have smear rights, that we have gone to the conference's mortgage research. And I think arbitrage intelligence has the, has the capacity is very timely for putting a serious twist on that. And it will be very interesting to see how well it does. And another anecdote perhaps to exemplify, the fragmentation of the practice, which particularly knows, I think, that we are to hear why the staff will have to bear in mind if they want to go into arbitration. Certainly it should sort of factor in arbitration all the time, is there's another senior arbitrator in one of these big, big strata segments that I know is this opportunity person and complained about arbitration becoming all that litigation. It's becoming less international. I know that trouble finding jobs for people in London who are not qualified here. And again I think that is, in the matter of the fact that arbitration in terms of profound change, very easy to change, the extent of which I think hasn't been properly grasped, certainly valuable, because we have found anything that encapsulates this. And that particularly we in these in the most oldest arbitration jurisdiction, I think have yet to really get to grips with where that trend is going and how we're going to handle it. And seeing as I am near now at the time, I think I will stop for a bit and we'll go into questions. Thank you very much.