it's like a joint responsibility, not the responsibility of government only. I agree. I agree. You'll have to excuse me. I'm trying desperately to get the folks planning Glasgow to approach the problem in a different way than they did in Paris. And they have chosen this hour, at least I have a chance to talk to them. I'm not making any progress. This is the third try, but I feel obliged. If they just meet in Glasgow and do again what they did in Paris, we're doomed. And there has to be a different discussion. And there's a group of us who are trying to promote a different global discussion on this question. So I'm going to disappear. But the conversation about IWRM is important because you need, each of you, needs to formulate, to take a stand, to formulate an idea of how you think water should be managed and how you think disputes over the management of water should be resolved. And I don't think either Anamesh or I thinks we know all the answers and I don't think there's only one solution for all places and all times, but we need to be thinking prescriptively. And if the best language we could say is social needs are important, common goods should be taken into account. Water should be managed in a comprehensive fashion. Look at the linkage between water and everything. I don't think that inspires action or policy. I think it's too vague. So I'm pushing you to think in more explicit, prescriptive terms and then to be able to argue for it, for that view. Before you leave