 This is actually a good way to go to your presentation, Mr. Nicolas, because we're going to talk about politics, geopolitics and data. All of this, as I'm sure you've noticed, is a little intrusive, because if according to François, I haven't started to have sensors in my body, and if you're mapping my emotions, that doesn't leave me much room left. So Mr. Nicolas, if you want to, I don't know if you want to be on the stage or stay here. You're fine. So it's up to you. Thank you. Thank you, Virginie. So, yeah, what I want to focus on is the geopolitical importance of data. So first, a few numbers on data. There is an explosion of data production. It has been, the production of data has been multiplied by 20, is forecasted to be multiplied by 20 between 2015 and 2025. The big part of this will be data generated by machines, not only human interaction for sure. The volume of cross-border exchange of data has been multiplied by 45 between 2005 and 2014, and it shows the importance of it. And then the infrastructure that support this, called cloud computing, was covering less than 30% of global data in 2010, and will cover more than 50% by 2025, considering that there is, from a geopolitical standpoint, an imbalance already because the big part of this infrastructure is controlled by US companies and now, more recently, with big investment from Chinese companies. So what does it mean for us? And I will try to give some of the pattern we see about the strategies or the priorities given by key geographies and countries. In the US, very clearly, there was no government direction, but US firms went after wealth. They were the first to identify that data was a source of wealth, and they focus on generating money. That's what you read about the GAFAM, the Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, and they are. You look at their market capitalization these days. You look at the volume of CAPEX. The big cloud providers can spend up to one billion of capital expenditure per month. It's not only on cloud, it's on software, hardware, on all the services they develop. This is a formidable force. And so they are going after this and creating these wealths, which give them an extraordinary means to take different action. In China, if I would look today, it's more about the power. It's not so much about the wealth. They will go after it. And one good example is China's social credit system, which is a use of data to rank citizens based on data that you can collect on them, and then you define where you add some information that you get from the community, and then define which kind of public services you can access, even if you can have a passport, if you can go out of your region, and if you have a passport, if you can leave the country. So there is a use of data around power. If you look at Russia, I would make a shortcut to say it's more an intelligence-based use of data, including deception. You see it in the intervention, and again, I have to be careful because formal attribution has not been done everywhere. So I have to be careful, but there are evidence of interference in election in the Western society. There is a way also about how you use data, not only around fake news, but to create real disinformation campaign. And Europe has given what we would expect, the classical social democratic answer, which the symbol of it is a new regulation called GDPR, which is the protection of privacy related to data, considering that what I often say is that we try to manage schizophrenia here in Europe, because the consumers have given already all their data without many considerations on their privacy to the big American players first and foremost. But as a citizen, they are asking protection, they are asking now the right to be forgotten, et cetera. And Europe, and I don't see it's unnecessary, Europe has responded this way. And that creates, we see this clear imbalance in my view about what we do and related to the importance of data and how this will shape eventually. And this will, in my view, fundamentally influence the relationship and the geopolitical relationship. And I would propose to be practical three areas where we might want to focus on. And the number one is the redefinition of trust through technology. Trust is fundamental to all human interaction, be it business, be it between state and everything. Technology is fundamentally changing the way trust will be handled. Part of trust will be in technology. The relationship of the citizen to trust, if you think of a platform like RBNB, how is it that you would let foreigners sleep in your bed? Just because the platform is telling you that it's OK to do it. So we see these changes in the way people approach, including the relationship to their government, to their authority. And there is an element of mistrust, because through fake news, we discussed it last year, by the way, the World Policy Conference, this is creating a difficult path forward, because you don't have the trust within your own nations, and then you have to build trust with other nations in the context that I just described. The second thing, in my view, the second topic, and it's one that is hard to start upon. And I know it looks like a buzzword. It's around ethics. I think we underestimate the importance of this discussion when it comes to artificial intelligence. And I don't speak of transhumanism, because it's an extreme, and people can say, yes, we know, we know. But how is it that we had an extensive debate when a biotechnology came? And here, probably because the level of abstraction is too high, we don't have it. But this creates fundamental questions about how you are going to design the technology and the technology solution going further. And the last point, obviously, is how you are going to govern. And I know this will be addressed, probably by you, how you govern these elements. But I take one example, and I know Toby will develop on it, and I will finish on this, take cybersecurity. I mentioned it briefly this morning during the young leader panel. But it's a real issue. This is the Wild West. Cyber warfare is going as we speak. All our companies, corporations are attacked as we speak right now during the entire day. And then we eat something new. There is no regulation, nothing. We just have to protect ourselves. It's a cost of doing business. It's a cost of operating your administration. So it's a tax that comes on top of it. The reason is that wealth is moving online, obviously. But we need something to govern. And I want to mention one practical initiative to which we'll adhere to. It's the general counsel of Microsoft, Brad Smith, has identified this problem a while ago in his launch, an initiative called Tech Accord, which is an industry-wide initiative where people can join and promise that they will behave appropriately to be defined. And then also to create a kind of Geneva Convention for the United Nations that will set the rules of engagement, as we had to do it in war. Because this is cyber warfare, what is happening on top of cybercriminality. And just to finish on this also to be concrete and to mention because you are the WPC, we have launched with Thomas, who is here, a study with the IFRI that you can find here on Europe's object in the geopolitics of data. So you will find here more information. We will continue with the workshop. And we will continue to work on this. Because I think this is a theme, a topic that didn't get the level of attention it should have. And I tried to explain that there are already broad implications. We don't see it. We don't pay enough attention. In particular in Europe, I think our partners are much more aware of the power of data than we are. And we should take conscious of it. I'm happy to take questions afterwards on some of my statements. Thank you. It's a very sharp contrast with the ideal world of smart cities, where everything is for ecosystem stability and growth. And the world you're describing that it's much, much more worrisome.