 De tekst is veel keerder. De structuur is keerder. In de tweede versie was er nog veel meer over van alle verschillende baten die we hebben op verschillende baten, binnen de commissie en met verschillende baten. De meeste van die hebben gegaan en de documenten zijn veel makkelijker om te leren. Maar natuurlijk heb ik een aantal gemakken om te maken, want ik ga niet meer spelen, dus laten we het maken. Het eerste wat ik al op het geval heb gegeven is de straatste status van de EIF. Het is een communicatie. Het bevindt niemand, niet zelfs de commissie-surfaces. En als niet, dingen hebben enorm veel gegeven, sinds ik de commissie heb gegeven, de commissie-surfaces ontvangen met het gebouw. Maar kan je het dan zeggen, het is geïnteresseerd in het Nationaal interoperatieve werk. Nou, als je een EIF of twee dingen hebt, één, het is een commissie-surfaces. En ik kan het heel goed accepten dat het geïnteresseerd is en dat al deze neefen spelen in dezelfde vocabulaire. Maar de tweede, het is een verhaal van de verhaal van de vocabulaire. En ik bedoel heel veel dat, op het gevoel, wat de verhaal van de vocabulaire in dezelfde vocabulaire is, met een ander verhaal van de verhaal van de vocabulaire op het Nationaal niveau, wat betekent dat? Wat is de periode? Waarom hebben we niet meer ambitie? Waarom hebben we de commissie gehaald voor iets zoals een ministerie of declaratie? Like we have one in Malmö, on a government. We should have been some kind of a joint commitment from member states and the institutions to do something. Why not do something like next week in Amsterdam, the signing of the joint initiative on standardisation? We are all stakeholders in standardisation. The career sovereignty that I will work together to introduce it. This remains for the moment a document on the website. That is my first comment. Is it the most efficient method? Should the commission not, I always, I continue to speak we, if I mean the commission. They still beg my pension. So should the commission not be more ambitious. Second, and something that annoys me a lot of course, is that in this vision of the IF, openness is reduced to transparency. When we speak about open standards. When we speak about open internet. When we speak about open access to research. Is that what we speak about? Is it only transparency? Where is freedom of choice? Where is the competition? Where is the idea that openness leads to flexibility? Where is the idea that openness leads to sustainability? It's all gone. Openness just has become transparency. Where is the idea that openness leads to community building? To collaboration, not only between administrations. But between administrations solution providers, citizens and civil society. I just admit that in the e-government plan, at least the other government to think about openness is transparency. So they have done a little bit better there. But this is very disappointing. Second, there is the subtle balance between sharing, reuse, co-operate. If we all use the same tools, then of course we interoperate. But that was not the purpose of the game. Dus, while, yes, developing building blocks, certainly is a good thing. And while, yes, developing building blocks, implementing standards, mate, I would say, replaces paper standards, barcode, which is also certainly a good thing. I miss the collaboration. I miss big projects of the nature like Linux itself. Where the biggest companies of the earth, together with many individuals, all work together to build the ultimate operating system. Of I miss something, a project like legal office. That, when it was open office, has a limited life and a limited community because it was enshrined in a single company that decided all to do with it. And when it can open and became legal office, now has many more collaboration. I miss something like OpenStack. And when building blocks are developed, are made available as open source, they are not open source projects, they are what I call fake open source. It's something like our fiscal. Yes, it's licensed under an open source license, but it's not a community project. It's something to someone who develops, and if you can use it, you're allowed to use it. But that's it, don't bother anymore. There is no real collaboration. And that, I must admit, was already in my time one of the failures of the program. We couldn't really launch real collaboration between administrations. A next talk that probably will be developed further by Nikki is about the relevance of the European Interoperability framework in a cloud-dominated future. Is the underlying model still valid? How do we ensure application portability and information portability in a cloud-dominated world? Interoperability gets a new meaning there. And finally, one of my orders, DABAS, the definition of open standards. Why does the Commission continues to struggle with that? We have seen in the revision of the EIF text, we see the definition that was there in the first revision, the one which says that front is enough. Auto, it also said it must be incrementable in open source. We have seen in the recent documents about standardisation. Single order. Auto, we have heard Oettinger speak in favour of real open standards in various other speeches. En finally, recently, the Commission has said that while TV is also a form of fraud and that while TV is compatible with open source, something that is discussed by many as not being the case. So there are a few talks on some topics where I think that the EIF should have more ambition and should be used more actively to change things.