On Ms. Alleslev's amendment, happily I'd say that I had noted something very similar to the fact that it would be useful to expand the terms of the original text proposed by Mr. Genuis to include something along the lines of “and/or envoys of His Holiness the Dalai Lama”. “Envoys” is usually used as a term of art but the term “representatives” works just fine.
I do think it's important that we expand it out. I am in agreement with what Ms. Alleslev has suggested in terms of her recommended changes. The reason, for the benefit of Mr. Harris and others, that I think it is important to zoom out a little bit here—pardon the pun, since we're on Zoom—and to broaden it is that historically this dialogue actually occurred with envoys of His Holiness the Dalai Lama between 2002 and 2005. It came to an abrupt end once the Central Tibetan Administration became a known entity with political power. If we restrict it to just dialogue between the CTA and the People's Republic of China, it might be very simple for that overture to be rejected. If we broaden it, that would allow for more options and permutations, which would be beneficial for the overall objective, which is that this dialogue needs to restart.
I would be in favour of having a broader approach, including the language that Ms. Alleslev mentioned.