 And technology, which is a public interest group and NGO that's focused on digital rights and civil liberties in the internet environment. Our core mission is to try to promote policies that keep the internet open, innovative, and free. From our inception back in the mid-90s when CDT was created, the issue of intermediary liability was really at the core of CDT's mission. We have always defended the principle that the reason that – one of the main reasons that the internet has developed into this massively useful and enjoyable tool for free expression and education and commerce, entrepreneurship, et cetera, is this principle of limitation of liability for internet intermediaries. It's laid down as was just explained so comprehensively. In the Commerce Directorate in the U.S., there is provisions in the Communications Act and the DMCA that have very similar effect and impact. So as we have commented and participated in these debates over the years, we have basically sought to defend this status quo against the many types of onslaughts that have been occurring. I think going back from the last few years, there has been consultations by the Commission on Copyright Policy, on Substantive Copyright, and on the Enforcement Directive back in 2013. The Commission was consulting on notice and action procedures. We have a new consultation on enforcement, and our colleague just mentioned the DSM strategy, the copyright documents that hint at undermining or limiting the current regime that we have. I would also just mention what we have talked about and what we are talking about today is mainly illegal content in the category of copyright infringement, but I think in the past few years what we have seen is a huge amount of public debate on radicalization, content, extremist content, terrorism, enabling content, various words and categories are used to describe this. Hate speech has been a big concern for policymakers, and this has also contributed to pushing, let's say, the boundaries of the legal regime that we just have described to us. I think the reasons are all very understandable, but we come back to the fundamental point that without this liability limitation principle well protected in law, the internet would not continue to function as this permissive and open space for free expression and political debate and cultural diversity, and so this is absolutely something that we want to safeguard as we move forward and that this debate goes forward. I think there probably isn't a whole lot more to say about the various legal aspects of the issue. I think as we have thought about the way forward for European policy in this area, we have thought about along the lines of making notice and action procedures perhaps more fit for purpose, perhaps more consistent across member states. That would seem to be a sensible way forward to accommodate concerns from right holders that some processes don't work well enough in terms of addressing IP infringement, but it would also perhaps help ensure that the liability limitation concept is not undermined gradually. If we could have some kind of guidance that would ensure that there are very high standards for making notices, that there should be proper processes in place, there should be transparency in terms of how notices are handled, and that there should be redress and appeals possibilities. Those types of principles could be extremely useful to lay down in policy and would presumably help to eliminate some of these grey areas that we have talked about.