that a new approach to joint measurement would provide timely and believable information in a different way and that with that information new joint management under different sets of circumstances would be improved even if the treaty isn't changed then say that but not more than two or three ideas that could be expressed in a couple of sentences as the contribution to your discussion about diplomacy. Because otherwise it's too much. Okay. It's impossible to follow all the different lines of diplomacy that are implied by the different maps and the different bargaining chips and the different relationships and what might be done and it's just too much. Just choose two, no more than three, but even those two ideas about changed diplomacy and highlight those, okay? I know that you have lots of other stuff. I think for the paper, the power of the paper will be improved if you zero in on just a couple of ideas about changes in the diplomacy going forward that haven't been given enough or the right attention in the past. Professor, in that case, maybe I will try to speak about the, I mean, one point that I said, maybe instead of three or two, I will just focus on one. That is the bargaining chips, the alternate bargaining chips. Maybe I can choose just this one and go deeper on that. What do you think? I think that there are different bargaining chips that are more or less attractive to one country or another, and that instead of saying bargaining chips is one thing, I would specify the bargaining chip. Pick one bargaining chip. Which ones