I think we should remove any ambiguities that can be a certain redirection of emphasis towards increasing the level of practicability that was also a point made. And I not in particular in these discussions the emphasis on outcomes is one of the issues. Many issues have been raised on data and the need for a better-disaggregated data. In sum what have seen today from the government point of view and the NGO point of view, and the community point of views the sensitivities on the data questions so anything we say on that has to be carefully finessed. I think we can sharpen up points on budgets, on resources, on minority participation. When we say the word participation in an international context its not just consultation it is so much stronger terms than that. I think it is reasonably understood and I can direct anyone on the literature on the understanding of the term participation as an international standard. We need to talk a little bit more on the mechanisms to challenge exclusions and also I think on accountability and evaluation is another issues. I think the question of inter-sectionality of various kinds including gender but not confined to gender can be given a higher profile. And in relation to the points on indigenous peoples I think we do need for conceptual reasons as well as institutional reasons better coordination with the work undertaken by indigenous mechanisms. Points have also been raised on the forms and varieties of discrimination. But again I think discrimination is a word that when it is used in the international context carries so many meanings. It is not just about the intentional discrimination. It is direct, it is indirect, it is institutional, it is systemic, it is all of those things. So I think if we are going to specify 16 meanings of discrimination in a text it is not going to be very helpful. And what bout the 17 meaning that has been not referred to. Very interesting points I think today on issues to do with secularism and religious symbols. I have taken a careful note of those. And on nomadism, a number of participants have raised issues to do with nomadism. And of course I ask myself is the school a kind of fixed structure. Is it a building? Is it something to witch people must go? Or is it actually something that can go to the community? I think we might not said enough about that kind of issues. Other issues perhaps, a certain degree of adjustment, I think, can be made in the draft to deal with particular categories. One has to be careful of not subtracting from the generality and the general usage of the text. I noted two final [petit]points on here suggestions where I though that very interesting remark on the minority language re-vitalisation because of course once a language goes beyond a certain what we might call “tipping point” the language will be lost and as mr De Varennes said today that is always the loss of any language is tragedy for humanity. I also like professor Gifford’s point on emphasis on agents of change and I like that to also envisage that the draft recommendations as agents of change – a stimulus to a more proactive stances on education.