Thank you for the question.
I think perhaps the easiest way to understand the engagement of other countries is also to start by recognizing the internal review, which we heard testimony about previously, that the AIIB is conducting in respect of some of the issues that have been identified. Those partners who continue to be engaged at the board of directors of the institution while Canada steps away from that board are looking at that review and are trying to hold the institution to account on issues of governance and culture and the complaints mechanism and HR issues. Those matters are the focus of that review and some of the issues those countries are engaged in.
For us, for our review, those 19 recommendations that have been put forward and are being looked at and examined by the board are important, but they're not sufficient. They do not fully satisfy the extent and the seriousness of the allegations that have been put forward. We need to layer on top of that some additional areas of review and some additional elements that we would like to undertake as part of the continuation of our own review.
Those four partners and others we've been speaking with do share commonalities across some elements of the review, but I wouldn't want to speculate on whether or not they share all the elements of the review we have under way.