 Okay, kicking off, we'll start with Joven. What are the trends that you see in internet governance and governance relating to internet issues that are gonna frame the conversation going forward and how is that different to what we've dealt with in the past? Thank you, thank you, Jan, for organizing this panel and it's great to be here in Washington with so many friends in audience and the fellow panelists. And well, it's always great to speak about the future. Future is tolerant, whatever we say will be somehow viewed with the sort of necessary time distance and as famous saying goes, it's difficult to make a prediction especially about future, but we'll try to make a few indication what's going on and what is ahead of us for what we can call it digital autumn. The weather is not going to be as nice as it is today in Washington DC. There will be cloudy, we won't have the hurricanes but we'll have definitely some strong winds and some new dynamics into the weather system of digital policy and internet governance. Now when you ask me to outline the main trends, I basically combine intuition what all of us are doing, reading, consulting and more evidence-based sources which we collect every month on the trends in digital policy at Geneva Internet Platform. We have 60 curators all over the world who are following and you will see why I'm highlighting it, local developments in digital policy. We are sometimes too focused on the developments that you can consult in New York Times, economists and the main newspapers or in academia which is circulating this field. But there are quite a few substantive developments happening outside the, we can call it a circle of usual suspects including myself. I will try to outline, I started with 10 trends but I said, okay, that will be too many. Then I moved to three, famous Aristotelian French, everything has to be in three. Then I had to add one trend, therefore there will be four trends that I will try to outline. And the first one is what we can call it, shift towards digital realism, a real politic, what is happening, I think big time in international relations. Second trend is the moving towards the local digital policy. The third trend is on the digitalization of non-core internet areas like health, migration, humanitarian trade. And fourth trend is basically the trend that courts are starting to run global digital policy. Courts are becoming, in a way, norms shapers. And I will just elaborate on these four trends quickly and then I hope it can introduce discussion. What is the digital real politic? What is basically happening? For those of you, and I can see quite a few of you who have been in internet governance for quite some time, you can recall that the digital policy in internet governance had always this interplay between values and interests, core values, in particular promoted by civil society, technical community, on openness, inclusiveness, transparency, and interest, in particular promoted by governments and business sector. Now, obviously, there are interplays, sometimes interests are camouflaged as values, but this was part of the show which has been going for the last 15 years. What we have been noticing over the last, in particular over the last six months is a huge shift from value centered approach to the clear interest centered approach. In particular, governments and businesses are going towards the bottom line and seeing what is in it for me, whether it is the cybersecurity policy, e-commerce, and that trend is clear and it has been gaining momentum and it is quite certain that it will be one of the dominant trends in global digital policy. Practically speaking, what does it mean? It means that the negotiation on UNGG unfortunately failed because of the too strong push towards the real politic and direct interest of the main players with lower focus on sort of commonality and common interests. Governments are a particularly interesting player because they're looking for control of their information space, we can call it, cyber sovereignty, digital sovereignty, and I'm sure that sovereignty will be one of the topic that we'll be referring to, which is coming with the different motivations. Some governments are doing it for censoring the policy space but there are increasing number of governments who are witnessing the situation in which they cannot rule anymore. Max Weber, German sociologist, did an excellent analysis of bureaucracy and the way how governments function and the key commodity for governments in order to perform their function is information. Suddenly governments are out of the control of the information and they started being nervous that they cannot govern and rule anymore. In cyber security field, in e-commerce, taxation, you name it and you have it. Therefore there are this second group of governments, I would say mainly European governments who are trying to regain that space of the core government's function around the question on information. What is going to happen with this trend? Most likely we'll have the strong shift towards that traditional policy and the gradual withdrawal of what we called multi-stakeholder and inclusive policy ahead of us definitely over the next six months to one year. There are good and bad news. For all of us who invested a lot of time in inclusive digital policy, that would be definitely set back. On the more positive side, there will be more realistic basis of global digital policy. We will know what are the interests of the key players and I'm optimistic that some sort of compromise will be found. What we found recently with Uber case, city authority in London, as you know, try to ban the use of Uber, but then users signed the petition, half million users signed the petition requiring some sort of solution. Therefore all players around the table, governments, business, civil society will have interest to preserve the internet dynamism from various angles. Economic development, security, business model, access to the internet. Therefore I'm more optimistic that something will come out of this shift towards digital real politics that we will have over the next one or two years more reality based, sort of not in negative sense, but the reality based digital policy. This is the first major trend. The second trend which is emerging is that internet governance is getting local. And here I will introduce one very dangerous bias that internet governance and digital policy. I'm using interchangeable digital policy internet governance community has developed. The saying goes like this, internet is global, therefore internet governance has to be global. And it sounds logical, it sounds obvious, but when you really dig into the digital policy you realize that yes internet is global, now the colleagues are following this session from all over the world, will be able to exchange information. But what is happening is that impact of the internet is very local, given the social, economic, policy, cultural context. Therefore the internet policy will be increasingly local. The best analogy of this development is with climate change. In 2009 in Copenhagen, climate change community wanted to make, I call it naive global compact. It failed as you know. It took the climate change community six years to have a proper deal in Paris. And one of the underlying point is that they went through the local and the regional arrangements in order to recreate a new global deal. I fear that we will have some sort of development, similar development in internet governance. And if I can put the provocative question, we may not need digital united nations, we may need digital united regions. A lot of digital policies happening in regions. And there is, there are interest in cybersecurity in different digital commerce, there are different developments on the regional level. Third major development, which is quite shaped by my experience in Geneva, is digitalization of traditional policy areas. It already started six or seven years ago with security. We have now major stream of cybersecurity. It's happening in trade, in health, migration, and other fields. Therefore you have communities which are addressing more or less the core issues of internet governance from completely different angle. One example is data. Data is discussed in WTO as free flow of data in the prerequisite for digital economy. In human rights council as a question of privacy. In international standardization or organization question of standards. In the WHO World Health Organization or question of protection of data, health data. And more or less in all of this organization, they're discussing similar topic from different perspectives. Famous word, policy silos, is policy silos are emerging and we are getting quite a lot of confusion among these policy silos. Therefore that will be one of the major trend. How to follow the shift of digital policy from the usual suspect circle or triple I, icon ITU IGF towards the wider space. And the last trend is basically that internet governance is increasingly run by courts. All of us are familiar with the decisions, the court decision of European Court of Justice on right to be forgotten. Now we are waiting for the court decision on Uber is Uber transportation on information company which will have enormous impact on the future of the sharing economy. And this trend is interesting and the main player is European Court of Justice but we are seeing it in Canada, we are seeing it in the United States, we are seeing it in Indonesia, Brazil, various places where courts are getting the more important role. And one can ask, what is the reason for this trend? The reason is very simple. Individuals, citizens, internet users, companies have to address their legal concerns and they have right to justice. They go to the courts and they ask courts to rule on their concrete problems. Unlike us in internet governance and other policy spaces, we cannot. Judges cannot establish another working group, you know how it is going in the UN. When you have a problem, you establish the next working group or government group of experts. They have to rule. They have to make judgments. And those judgments as a sub are, they do quite substantive consultation. They bring experts into the process but still those judgments are suboptimal in comparison to the inclusive multidisciplinary or multistakeholder policy. Those are four trends which based on our research and Geneva Internet Platform we identified as probably trends that will mark the next six months to one year.