 products that comply with open standards, then openness needs to be defined and defined well. And one can agree with Commissioner Kudus that one needs to look at the actual content and not necessarily the labels that are associated with it, but then let's have a real concrete debate about the content. And I'd suggest a few things which should be included in any definition of openness, any definition of the requirements, whether one deems them to be open standards or whatever, but concretely, would should be included in those rules. First of all, there must be a transparent and open process of the standard setting organization. I'll come back to that again in a moment. Secondly, anyone must be able to implement the standard, the specification must be fully published, it must fully enable all implementations on all platforms, so it must be platform independent, and it has to be implementable on a variety of platforms. I'd suggest the Japanese have an excellent ideal in that they require not only that the standard must be able to be implemented on a variety of platforms, but that it must actually have been implemented on multiple platforms. Under the Japanese rules, a standard is not deemed open unless it actually has been implemented on multiple platforms. I'd suggest that that conforms to the old maxim that the proof is in the pudding. If it's actually been done, that shows that it can be done. And finally, to get into another controversial topic, the royalty situation is very important, and it's very important to establishing a level playing field that enables open source to play and for a standard to comply and to be eligible for public procurement. The products must be available and the intellectual property that's relevant to the standard must be available on either a royalty free or friend licensing terms that don't discriminate against open source. Next suggestion, and this is mainly for standard setting organizations themselves, but governments and the commission, including the commission, I should perhaps say, have a role to play here in encouraging things to move in the right direction at the very least. And that is that standard setting organizations sometimes have some serious problems with the way they're run, with the way the processes occur. I think the ISO Uxmo example is one of those situations and the standard setting organizations should reform their policies so that things like that do not happen again. The next suggestion is one which is under...