I think what happens in a complex multi-party negotiation like this is that each country comes to the table with what they're looking for and what they're sensitive to. There's going to be a package of gives and gets that is going to be acceptable for each party.
The reason we operate on the basis of a single undertaking is that we will not be able to assess until the very end of the day whether those gives and gets are acceptable to us. The same is true for every country around that table and there's no real way to have a country move forward on the things that matter to you unless you're willing to move forward on the things that matter to them. So we do it in a stepwise approach, bit by bit by bit, and at the end of the day we will all say this is the best deal we could create. Here it is, this is it. We take it back home and say this is what we have.
In truth, if you've devoted years to doing this and been very careful along the way, chances are hopefully everybody's going to say this is the deal, they're happy with this deal or else they usually just keep negotiating until they are. That's the sort of blood, sweat, and tears that has to go into getting there with a diverse profile of countries around the table. And I think the diverse profile of countries around the table is one of the key reasons that this is such an interesting initiative because it is setting rules, not only for countries that have already got rules like that, but for countries that don't or haven't taken steps in those directions, which sets an example to.... Absent of WTO we're all developing, and all developed countries and the whole global community is there. We've got a microcosm of that here, which I think makes it an extremely useful policy tool.