This is an observation that's just off the top of my head, and it's personal. I would say that we are seeing a variety of efforts to deal with this challenge. They're based within, as I said, the social and political context of each country, and the level of immediacy and severity being applied to the issue reflect local pressures. The difficulty for us still remains understanding those social, economic and political pressures and the context within which we can interpret them, using our systems to deliver a result that's acceptable to those jurisdictions, governments and societies. From country to country, one thing we've seen is that, if there's a more coordinated and collaborative effort to arrive at complementary and similar approaches, if not shared principles and legislation, that effort can have a broader and more recognizable impact, especially for users.
I'll point to an example. You have a juxtaposition between New Zealand and Australia in reaction to the Christchurch attack, where the Prime Minister of New Zealand took on this approach to develop a call that brought in all the stakeholders to develop an aggressive approach to dealing with this, but not an immediate approach. Australia went the other way and implemented legislation, which, it was quickly realized, needs to be reconsidered in Parliament. That's not to say the intent and execution of that legislative process was wrong; it's just that it still needs further deliberation. I think that's the challenge we face. We're in the space now where, as I said, we all share concern, we all want to act on it, and we want to act on it in a way that has impact.