 I did not do a prepared presentation because I could speak on these subjects for hours. And I've been a person, one of the people, in this middle between communications and vehicles for many decades, and it was mentioned, came from Mobile World Congress, which unfortunately this year was pushed back to be this week because of late Chinese New Year, and it's the first time in more than 20 years that I did not attend the Mobile World Congress because I had to be here for the Geneva Motor Show and events earlier this week. But the evolution, as was mentioned, of automobiles and communications continues to happen. We see that in the Mobile World Congress. I know many car companies had exhibits and had people there. We've seen it at Consumer Electronics Show, where cars now are one of the really big parts Consumer Electronics Show. But generally it means, slowly but surely, we are adding more and more computer and communications technologies to our transport system. And ITS, a name we've used for a long time, Intelligent Transport Systems, basically is adding computer communications technology to transport. And as you're in it every year, it looks like it's slow. If you look back where we were 20 years ago, we've made a lot of change. So automated driving is obviously one of the future steps that will make a big change for both people and society. Technologically, we are getting closer to be able to do it. From a government, economic, political, whatever words you want to use, strategy, we're still struggling. It was mentioned earlier, which is right, that around 1,250,000 people are killed by vehicles in a year. And tens of millions of people are seriously injured. Within the next five to seven years, we can reasonably deploy technology that would probably be able to, as it's fully deployed, and of course it takes time because cars last for a long time and nobody in the car industry has figured out how to get you to throw away your car like you throw away your phone with a new plane. But the technology reasonably would eliminate at least a million of those deaths and 80, 90 percent of the injuries. Now that means you will still have maybe 250,000 deaths and 5 million serious injuries. How do you set up the structure that allows that to happen? We can wait until we can be perfect and maybe in 2050, we might be able to do it in meantime. Between 2025 and 2050, we've killed unnecessary 20 million people. Finding that avenue, and it comes with UNECE, it comes with the suppliers and the vehicle manufacturers, it really is a government discussion to figure out how to enable something that will significantly improve very important areas. World Health Organization has for years at times made vehicle accidents its activity of the year. Machine kills man, politically very hard. Man kills man, we do it. We use a machine to kill them, but as we go to the automated attention, it will be machine kills man. There are some simple ethical issues. Do I decide to hit the old person who is standing on the side of the road because a young kid ran out in front of my car? That's for somebody to decide. The engineers can figure out how to do it if they get guidance on how to do those things. That's one small area where we do have ethical things that have to be handled to be able to do these things. Was discussed earlier about data and driver owns data. Do I as a driver have the right to say I own my data so I won't send the message that says my car has found the road slippery and let somebody else come along with their automated car and not know the road slippery and cause an accident? That's again something that has to be considered not just as a technical thing, it's not just a privacy. Data is a very fundamental piece of government strategy policy decision making that has to be done. So as was discussed earlier, UNECWP 29 meeting next week, I certainly as part of the ITU contingent will be there. We're struggling through these things. Perfectly we've made real progress. I do not know how we're going to handle it. My perfectly working automated car cannot do anything about as it's going down the road properly and somebody runs in front of it. No time to stop, nothing to do. I can't perceive that this person who's ignoring the traffic rules has entered the road. It was asked about why are these things harder than airplanes? Well, one of the things we've done with airplanes, we keep people off the runways and stuff. We don't have people around. We have pilots. We've locked the doors even for the planes so that people can't interfere with it. In cars, we don't have that choice. We can't say, okay, here's the road and nobody gets here. On motorways, we mostly do that unless you go to some parts of the world in Africa or less developed South Asian areas or what have you, where you still do have people running across the motorway. But we don't have in a city, we drive around Geneva, very complex structure. We can't tell bicyclists and pedestrians and what have you well, just stay away from our roads. So they're going to be there. And they're going to do things that aren't right. And do we wait until we absolutely find out some way electronically that we can read people's minds and figure out what they're going to do? Or do we figure out effective ways to put out the technology that is politically acceptable? And every car company is terrified of the headlines of their car killed somebody and somebody important or a young kid or what have you doesn't matter. They can't handle that without having really support. And that's where I think the work from Eva and her people are really important as we look forward. It's not just the regulations. It's everything that we have to put together. So with that, I'll leave it. Think about it, us who are doing the technology, much as we would like to be able to do things without government involvement for this, we have no choice. So thank you.