 Some huge shoes to fill here, because Hilly was able to present to you all that research that was done, what I'm going to present to you like an early stage interpretation of the outcome of the Open Source Congress event. A report is being written on this, but it's not available yet. So we started by thinking, why do we want global collaboration on Open Source? And I think it became clear very quickly that the benefits are immense. We're basically trying to solve the same technical issues or developing technology for the same needs in society all across the globe. Sometimes this is a bit less visible because we'll be looking at our own problems locally. But in the end, if you see what kind of physical and digital infrastructure gets developed all over the world, we are developing or solving the same problems everywhere. There's another aspect and that is, if there is collaboration, we usually see a lot less experimentation in the outcomes. You could also say this as Open Source is no way the big equalizer. If the technology is available once and it's good, it sees widespread adoption. And this comes without the effect of inhibiting future innovations because we also know that if the next generation of Open Source technology comes and is clearly better than the one before, because there's very little cost in migrating to that, we see the next round of innovation. And this reduces the fragmentation and it feels that every time we create an artificial barrier, be it regional or sometimes it's language, fragmentation increases. And every time we tear down such a barrier, we increase or we make the collaboration closer, we reduce fragmentation. And as you heard, fragmentation in the Open Source ecosystem is one of the triggers of why we're worrying about this. And clearly, of course, in terms of long-term sustainability, the ability to develop solutions for global issues once and reuse them everywhere and not reinvent them again, saves cost, enables adoption, especially in economies that really have to look at spending. Yeah, so I think this was the introduction. Why do we see a huge benefit in an apolitical global collaboration on Open Source? Apolitical in the sense that we are trying to say we focus on the Open Source collaboration on technology and that requires us to agree on the mode of collaboration. It doesn't require us to agree on everything. So we are able to reach out, even if we may disagree on other aspects, and collaborate on technology. That doesn't mean that solves all problems, but it may solve the problem of collaboration. So where is the common ground? I have another slide coming up that says where are the differences? Of course, I think it was already clear. We share joint responsibility for digital infrastructure. It's a matter of trustworthiness, efficiency, technical quality. And we see today that the digital infrastructure does not diverge much across the globe. The data centers, the data networks, et cetera, they all look the same. We understand that Open Collaboration is the most powerful driver for technical innovation. It's very difficult to restrict Open Collaboration or restrict self-identification with, for example, development and research tasks and expect world-leading technical innovation. We've seen this everywhere. Empirically, this is a supported phenomenon for observation. But there are more concrete concerns. For example, a very clear understanding in this room with 60 organizations from the open source ecosystem saying we need to safeguard the open source definition. It's a little bit surprising that in 2023 we still say that. And it's also surprising that the open source definition so far has really stood the test of time. But it's still something that maybe it's not a burning problem, but it's something to keep in mind. However, the open source definition covers the understanding of how we license software source code. But now our fields of open collaboration are extending to artificial intelligence, data, hardware, as you heard. And we don't yet have well-adopted norms and principles in these areas. Later today we'll have a panel on what does openness mean in AI. So stay tuned. There are horizontal challenges that are not easily solved with just open source collaboration. We know about cyber resilience, supply chain security. It's 2023 and we're still dealing with the issue that it's difficult to document the ingredients that go into a software system. S-bombs. It's still a topic. It was a topic 10 years ago. It's still a topic. So it's a challenging problem. And we know about cyber security. And we also identified that we do need to work closer with rule makers, policymakers around the world. And that we need to offer them resources and venues for advice and offer them collaboration on technology regulation. Whether they always take it or not, at least we need to be able as an open source ecosystem to offer this interaction. But however, there are points where the positions diverge. Surprisingly, maybe there is no absolutely common set of values. In this room we asked the question, can we come up with a descriptive statement of what is the credo of open source or the basic principles. And interestingly, there was no real consensus on what this was. In fact, the different organizations that have a long history in the open source ecosystem presented different understandings of their way of doing open source. And these understandings in those groups within the open source ecosystem, they have re-solidified. They have become the cultural values of those sub-communities of the overall community. And they're not always fully compatible. So we were not able to say, can we take a step back and find something that's really overarching besides open collaboration? But in detail, the values diverge. In terms of governance, we've already heard, I think, a couple of times today, hints that open source governance is just as important as the licensing of source code. We see the necessity for the long-term viability of projects, and that being threatened, if, for example, the governance of a project is not really driven by a broad, healthy community. But it's not really well understood what open governance entails. If you ask five different people, you get five different answers, basically. So that's something that we have to develop. And internet governance, that's a very interesting aspect, because we're not developing all these technologies in thin air. They're going to be operated on the global internet. And since internet, the internet is not just one, it's a physical resource that is regional. It is actually quite segregated in parts. And that means that with the development of open source common technologies, we are interacting with, let's say, segmentation of the internet. And especially large-scale development efforts like the Next Generation Internet Project in the European Union are developing with a picture that the internet is one global resource. But that's not always the case. So I tried to highlight what is the common ground that we could clearly identify across 60 organizations in the open source ecosystem. And I tried to highlight a couple of things where it was difficult. A couple of topics that we have discussed that I would like to put the spotlight on for a brief moment. Open source security. We do need more common processes and unified best practices to tackle the security conundrum in open source. I think generally the open source community is at the forefront of developing best practices. But they're still, well, they're spotted. They're not always the same. So we need more common processes. We need to have a transition to security by default that will be also required in legislation. And interestingly, I think the last bullet, whatever practices we develop, they must match the regulatory requirements because we do play in a real-life environment where we release software into life ecosystems. That means if regulation in the US or in Europe requires that we do certain things. For example, disclose security vulnerabilities, then we need to be able to comply with that. If we can't, that's a problem. And you may see later that in some of the drafts it is a problem. Another spotlight I would like to put on is technology policy. There is a clear understanding or expectation that the open source ecosystem will be regulated. I think somebody said, we can't expect to be the only key part of technical innovation that sees no regulation. I think that's probably true. The key areas where this will happen is intellectual property management, product liability, antitrust and cyber resilience. And one thing that was really identified is that we have a capability gap. It's difficult for us to interact with rule makers. We're all technologists, engineers. I'm a nerd. It's sometimes difficult. It's a different world. And we need to build this expertise to be able to interact efficiently here. And one key problem there is fragmentation, as the report already identified. We don't necessarily speak with one voice. Even in critical policy issues, we are raising our concerns one by one and slightly diverging. Last spotlight, diversity, equity and inclusion. This is an ongoing highlight topic for the open source ecosystem, I think. We are quite aware that this lofty goal is not fully achieved. But there are aspects highlighted that go beyond, for example, the representation of gender in our communities. There are regional disconnects that are caused by language, by culture, but also by a legacy of Western-centric institutions or programming languages that are all in English. And this is something that we need to be aware of and manage in the long term to improve it. And there is a trend, unfortunate trend, I would say personally, to technonationalism. Why is this unfortunate? Because it threatens to really entrench the existing fragmentation that we see. If you, for example, impose export regulations that make sure that technology doesn't cross regional borders, then technology in these two different regions will develop separately. Which later means we will have to deal with the differences. And then there is the concept of digital sovereignty, which is quite interesting because it can be implemented in two ways. We can achieve digital sovereignty by developing open source technologies and making them available everywhere so that everybody can operate their infrastructure in a sovereign way. Or we can sacrifice open source and develop our own technologies that only we can control. And both are currently being attempted, which is really weird. Especially if you're convinced, like I am, that the best way to achieve sovereignty is to have technologies that are freely available. Yeah, so what's next? As I said, this is a preliminary report. This is not fully finalized yet. The first step for this collaboration across open source foundations and with a very broad reach within our ecosystem has been made. So this first event happened. We've created a mailing list that invited the participants. We are thinking of repeating the event and ideally making it into a regular event. But there's a possibility the next one is that you also summit North America next year. And we would like to continue to work on a common charter or understanding of the whole ecosystem. But there's, as I said, work to do because there's not necessarily yet a joint understanding. That's all encompassing. Thank you.