 Mitchell, can I invite you back up? And it's great to have you back here again. Well, it's great to be back. And it's nice to be at least on the continent. I must say that it's already a really great change and a different perspective. So this is a really nice start. It's my first venture out since trying to get settled to give a talk, but I didn't want to miss the forum here. Because Mozilla is, of course, about collaboration. We have a mission. And our mission is to build the internet as a global public resource accessible to all. And by accessible, we don't mean you can get to it, but that you can participate, build it, create it, make this a tool that benefits all of us. So we're trying to build public value and civic and social life as a counterpoint, as an addition to the economic value generation that the commercial market aims at. So we do this through collaboration. We started, of course, as an open source and free software project, which is about collaboration always. We collaborate for a particular purpose, though. And we're trying to build a certain kind of internet. We call it the open internet. But it is the internet, as we might have known it in its early days, 10 or 15 years ago. It is a disruptive technology. It continues to be disruptive. And we see today that there's a rebalancing of some of the qualities of the internet. And so as collaboration is important to open innovation, some of the open traits of the internet are also critical to having a foundation of open innovation. And for Mozilla, Europe is not a question of competing or keeping up. Europe has always been in the leadership of Mozilla. Our communities in Europe are among the oldest and the strongest, the most self-organized, and the most dedicated sets of people who've been working for over a decade to build an open internet. And the number of people who use our products in Europe is very high, and the number of people who actually appreciate what we're doing is very high. You know, it's actually hard to be a nonprofit and to have a mission in Silicon Valley. And very often we hear things like, oh, stop talking about the mission and talk about the product. Or, gee, you want to build an internet that's open, that's just a cover because you don't want to talk about competitive pressures. And so Europe has been the long-term vanguard of understanding actually what Mozilla is all about and what we're trying to do, which is to build open innovation and collaboration and opportunity through the market by putting products in the market that people care about and by building communities of people. So when we think about collaboration and open innovation, we think in two great categories. We're known for our products, and I'll talk a little bit about that since you've asked, but we also focus a lot on building communities, communities of collaboration. And these are people who often find their way to Mozilla because of the mission or the value of the product or they love the web. And what we work to do is to take that spark in people and to support it. So for us, collaboration is not some leadership group somewhere in the world giving direction. For us, collaboration is a framework of innovation and action and empowering people to take action. So our way of working is to say these are the values of Mozilla, this is what we're trying to do. Go out and do things. Go innovate. Don't ask us first. We don't have all the right ideas. Don't look for leadership. Make sure you're in the space we consider Mozilla. Make sure you're in our value set, and once you are, go try something new. You know, build a new part of the internet, whether it's build an app, build an add-on, build Firefox, build a new product, build a community, you know, get a phone, build an operating system, whatever it is you think is important in your world, go do it. But then come talk to us about it, and if it's working, we'll try and make it bigger. So that's our view of innovation, is to build a framework and a space in which it feels like Mozilla, and then we spend a lot of our energy encouraging people to go out and try things. Like, don't feel like you need to come ask for permission. Go do things. Because once you get into a cycle of asking for permission, it turns out there's a very high opportunity cost. There's the fear of risk as well, but there's also the sense of, oh, should I ask, is it okay? And on the one hand, when you're in a stable society, that feels fine, people ask. It keeps things, you know what's happening, it's not too surprising, but the hidden opportunity cost is extremely high. It's very hard to innovate if I have to ask two or three or five or 10 people beforehand, because I have to explain my idea in that case. And if I'm innovating, you won't understand my idea. Like, the essence of innovation is that I am not in the mainstream. I have some idea, it's innovative, that means it's new, it's different. And so if the first thing I need to do is go ask for permission, that's a very long period and it's a lot of explaining. And particularly if you have to ask for permission of other business organizations, you're pretty much dead when you start. Because then the organization has to figure out, is this good for me, is it bad for me, does your business model fit with mine, does your innovation threaten me? So for example, take Skype. I'm extremely disruptive, very difficult for the network operators. Imagine what would have happened if the creators of Skype had to go ask the various telecommunications company if they could build it. We would never have it. Now, life would be easier for the telecommunications companies because their business model would not have been disrupted, but every single one of us who is using Skype to talk to people, both our families and other countries and our businesses would not have it. And so that's what innovation is extremely disruptive and just allowing people to try things has a kind of return on investment that is hard to imagine and the converse of you've got a great idea, yes, you're willing to take risk but you need to clear it through me beforehand, really slows the system down if not actually sort of stopping it. And so with our communities and our products, we work very hard to get people to go try things. And so if you're a Firefox or a Chrome user now too, the extensions model or the add-ons model, those are all go try something. You know, we built a framework, Firefox, go do something that's important to you. You don't like something about the internet, go change it. You know, here's a system that you can plug into that makes it easy to make change. And so at Mozilla, we're not policy makers and I don't claim that Mozilla has deep understanding of policy, but in terms of encouraging innovation and making a setting that allows innovation to happen, this technique of building a framework and letting people go do things, like encouraging them to go do things has been very effective for us. Many of the innovations that have come out of Mozilla are things that central leadership or our equivalent of policy makers would not have thought up. And so they come out of the planting seeds in many places and being happy when you wake up and find somebody has done something you didn't expect. Now that's a change of attitude because it's a little disconcerting when you wake up and there's something new in the world and it's right in my space and I had no idea it was coming. But learning to appreciate that and to sit back and say, wow, that's an innovative idea, like, great. So it takes a little bit of work at first, but afterwards it's liberating. So we did this with Firefox where we did struggle with the anti-competitive environment in the early days and we did, through a process of collaboration, actually managed to achieve what was impossible. When we started, everybody knew that in a monopoly setting it was not possible to an offer and an alternative to the Microsoft operating system. Now that's old history now, maybe, but the reason that we succeeded was the collaborative nature of Mozilla and the open innovation nature. Like, we built a browser, we built the plumbing of the rendering engine that makes it work, but the reason it succeeded is because we had the community and the product of people and we had a collaborative technique that allowed everyone who cared about an open internet to go out and make it theirs. And so with Firefox we achieved what was impossible and we could not have done it in a standard model. We could not have done it without being innovative. And when we started, open source and open standards were unusual. Like, open source was not a business model. Everybody knew that no one could use open source to make a consumer product. Yes, maybe you could make a Linux desktop because, like, normal people never saw it. But we managed to innovate and innovation is a little bit hard. And maybe everything worthwhile in life is a little bit hard. And so sometimes when we talk about innovation, it's exciting, it's necessary, but all of us, including those of us at Mozilla, have had to sit down and say, wow, this is really hard, but maybe that's because it's really good. And sometimes the things that are the hardest, if you can, at least for me, step past my irritation that I didn't think it up or my discomfort that it changes something that I understood. Sometimes those very hardest moments turn out to be the best. So if you are in the middle of the innovation cycle and you find yourself really uncomfortable or disconcerted, try and get through it because the other side can be just wonderful. We've seen that the way of innovating an ICT today is changing and that the computing environment is changing into a mobile environment. And this is an environment which is really quite different in the innovation styles and in the techniques and the types of collaboration that are possible. Some aspects of it are very good. People like app stores, people like apps. The ability to access the internet for a single, simple task is really useful. On the other hand, the ways of collaborating and innovating are very centrally controlled, right down to the actual technology or what you can access. So for example, on a mobile phone, if you're a developer, it's actually hard sometimes to get access to the phone number because that's something that Apple finds valuable and controls for itself. So if you wanna develop an app, it's very hard to actually integrate using the phone. So these are the kinds of things where you need to ask permission. And so we're seeing a whole range of change from what used to be, I've got a great idea, I'm gonna build it, I'm gonna see if people like it, to a setting of, I've got this idea, I've gotta see if Apple and Google will accept it into their store and see how it goes and build it using their technologies. So we look at the mobile environment and think that many of the ways of collaborating and innovating that have been successful in the past are being constrained today. And that's a pretty serious problem. We also find that, for example, when you have a phone, you can't actually figure out what it does or get into it. It used to be in the laptop or PC or desktop world that your technically savvy friends or kids or family or classmates could open it up and figure out what was going on. But that's a very different setting in the phone setting. And so for us, their key initiative today is to take the freedoms of the web and the ability to collaborate and innovate and bring them back to the mobile platform. And so that is our major initiative today to answer your question. It's got two parts. You see the little fox is a Japanese sort of cartoon of Firefox with the Android droid because we have brought Firefox to the Android platform to bring the sort of innovation and collaboration and user sort of freedoms to that layer of the web. We had to do that product twice, by the way, the first time it didn't work. And the reason it didn't work is that we held onto the past and we weren't willing to innovate. And in our case, that meant we held onto a technology that we had developed 10 or 15 years ago that we like because it fits our values. It's very developer friendly and we thought it would be good. But we had to give it up and go back and redo the product because we let our own past get in the way of real innovation and a real good product. So that probably cost us a year. So we think we're an innovative organization but we struggle with this too. Innovation and change is not easy. And in our case, we're driven by the market. So I think we have it easier maybe than policymakers because the market is pretty brutal. And if your product isn't good enough, it's really clear it's not good enough. And so we had to go back and sort of recommit to innovation and product excellence and changing with the market and being where the, in our case, the users are and in your case, the constituency is. Really serving our constituency. And so we had to really look at our values and we had to push our values around a lot and rebalance to really focus on the one that sits on top, which is providing tools to consumers so you can live in an open internet. So anyway, we went through that long process. Firefox on Android is now a great product. We're really at the Firefox name and if you have an Android phone, you might try it. But a browser on a phone is not enough since we don't use the browser exclusively as we used to. So we have an operating system underway called Firefox OS. And the idea of that is to reduce the technology on the phone to the technologies of openness that we're used to from the web and make the phone accessible in the way the web was. Then combine it with the app model and discovery piece. This latter product is intensely dependent upon collaboration and community because phones are very tied to your environment and the way you set up an account and who you have an account with and how you pay and how you use the phone are radically different. And so the market pressure to produce a product on a mobile device is once again, pushing us back to a recommitment to community and collaboration and to doing something new. So we at Mozilla feel like we need to reinvent ourselves as well. The world is new, the community activities. And by community, we mean a combination of employees and volunteers. Those are a non-profit. Many of the people who work on our products are volunteers from around the world. Mostly they are interested in having the internet as a resource available to them and to having an open and free internet. And so a fair amount of the work that goes into our products comes out of these volunteers. And the European communities are intensely strong in this regard. And so once again, we find the need to collaborate and the need to innovate critical to our success, critical to our products and critical to our mission. And that reinforces for us the centrality of the open internet. And I'll come to the internet in a moment, but we have just one other thing that's on our minds and that is identity, like who controls our identity. As we move into the cloud at mobile phones alone, but also cloud computing as our data is living somewhere, like who controls it, who accesses it, who says I'm me, right? Do I want one identity for work and one identity for home and one identity for entertainment and one identity when I vote? Like how do I identify myself? For us, that should be a distributed process where if I'm a, my government and I would have a system by which I identify myself for government services. And that might be much more secure than the way I identify myself for my social network or my photo sharing. And right now the internet doesn't have a good distributed system for doing that. So we have designed one. And we're in the process of building it and rolling it out. Not as a Mozilla piece, we'll do it as an example and we would be one provider, but so that we can start to build a way to identify ourselves online that goes through Facebook when we wanted to, that goes through our government when we wanted to and maybe, you know, could go through Mozilla or Google or Yahoo or some small startup that's really focused on what you care about. And we think this is gonna be a really critical feature and do we have an open internet? Because if you can't control your own identity, there's not much else you can control in life. So the community piece here is not only teaching people to build product and giving them opportunities to build product, but also literacy. We are digital citizens now. And so the need for digital literacy is extremely high. By that we mean technology literacy. We are understanding not just that you're in a public space, but what does the technology actually do? Like the web, it's a little like a car engine. If you don't know anything about it, it's really frightening to open the hood on your car. But in fact, every element in there is understandable. And that's true of the web. And kids at six or seven or eight can learn to manage and have fun mixing the web up and changing it. And so if we really wanna be citizens in control of the technology, this understanding, how it works, it's mine, I can change it is really key. And so we have some initiatives on this, they're very small. But I think this is another area where innovation is really important. And we're trying to do some examples, but I've been looking towards the work that you've been doing here about citizen involvement in digital literacy. Because I think the best policy in the world will fail over time if as citizens we don't understand it's ours. And that we should be able to understand it and work with it. So I said we build communities. This was the Moz camp in Warsaw two weeks ago. And so I hope that in the coming months and years you will hear from these people. These are the probably 300 most active leaders on the ground in Europe and North Africa of people who are building an open internet. Many of them are students, many of them are young, some of them have been with Mozilla for 10 or 15 years. And so what we're trying to do at Mozilla is to take these natural leaders and train them. So speaking training. We've always had a rule at Mozilla, you should talk about your own experience, say whatever you want, it's your life. But this is more training about what they're doing, what is Mozilla about, what is an open internet, what's happening in their community, why did they support the protests against ACTA, what's going on, then some training in leadership and how to build, how to promote web literacy and some policy activities. So our hope is that increasingly we build a citizen base that understands the internet as an active in a productive way. Something like the ACTA SOPA PIPA protests are a last resort. That's not the ideal. What we wanna see is a more engaged citizenry, more interaction with policy makers on a sort of rational discussion basis before we get to crisis. And so this training of communities, it goes both through product and also policy. And these are likely to be the innovators, at least coming out of the Mozilla world. Other open source projects are starting to do the same thing. So these are the people that we think are gonna drive innovation because they're local to their environment and they understand what's going on and they are learning to act. So the piece about collaboration that we find most important is positive action, doing. And that's incredibly important because the internet is facing many threats. And some of these are quite rational threats, but there's two sides to many of these things. Anti-competitive practices, right? Prioritized traffic, that's another way of saying net neutrality, which has, you can understand why the operators are concerned about the investment they need to make. Prioritizing traffic has some very, very deep impacts on the structure and the nature of the net and the ability to collaborate and the ability to innovate. So it sounds melodramatic, but if you over prioritize traffic, your actual ability to have innovation, especially innovation without permission diminishes really significantly. And so that's why you see so much emotion in some of these protests. Obviously, commercial interests, if you can own a piece of the internet, it's very lucrative. So that's a commercial threat, that's why we build product. State surveillance, the power of the technology of the internet, one of the things I worry about the most is that the power of the technology overwhelms our democratic traditions. Well, the United States, 200 years, nothing, but here in Europe you have much longer. A longer history of democratic traditions and development. And so when in the physical world, the issues of security, privacy, national interest, we have a long history of them. We have a long history of balancing state surveillance with individual freedom and privacy. Now they're not perfect and each society does it slightly differently, but we have an understanding of what it is. And one of the things that I see happening is that the power of the internet is so great that sometimes it just overwhelms these. And we begin to look at policy and we look at decisions divorced from the long history. And so we see many laws, proposed laws in which the balance between surveillance and privacy are the rights of the state versus your rights as an individual are pretty fundamentally shifted because somehow it's online. And I think that's an immense risk. To me it's very clear that China and India and Pakistan and Europe or Spain or Germany in the US will all have slightly different balances in what we want because we have different balances in our physical life. But this aspect of being concerned about what's happening online sort of overwhelming the long history of balancing different values. I think we're in a dangerous spot with that right now. And so there is a huge need for some innovative way to have these discussions. Like is the role of the state in surveillance? And some of these bills out there are absolute surveillance. Like where you go, whatever you do, whatever you click on, everything you do online, track and monitor and say. Sometimes okay with the government, sometimes at the requirement of the government. How do we have the discussion about does that make sense? And how do we compare that with what's true in our physical life? And we need some innovative thinking and policy making in that area as well. That's not traditionally a Mozilla strength. I'm particularly interested in it, but I think you're much more the experts. And there's a set of very serious conversations that we need some innovative frameworks and convening in order to have. And so that might be a really different role. How to convene those conversations long before we get to the crisis of people in the streets. Another sort of large issue is regulation to preserve existing successes. Disruption is disruption. For example, Skype disrupted the telecommunications companies. So you could imagine if you're a telecommunications executive and you could have seen Skype coming, a very rational response would have been to try to regulate it. So that's also happening. And we need some innovation in the discussion between innovation, disruption, versus stability. We can, and this is going on with the music industry and with the content industry and with Hollywood. Do we wanna regulate so that the existing industries are stable? There are jobs there. But this is another part of net neutrality. And content, do we wanna regulate so that the existing very successful businesses which have many jobs, so lots of people working, some number of people getting extremely wealthy, but lots of people actually working in jobs which are important. Do we regulate to help those industries maintain equilibrium? Or do we regulate or not in order to promote innovation and disruption? That's another conversation where some innovative convening and frameworks would be very useful. Because if as a society, one decides stability is more important, then sure. Like you're gonna regulate to protect the existing businesses. And we don't have to talk about whether lobbying is good or bad. I mean, then you're making a social choice. But you can't have that and innovation and leadership. The two don't go together. So this is one where some innovative and collaborative work in having some discussion so we have a rational conversation, not lobbyists and protests would be really useful. And so at Mozilla, what we hope is through some of our experiences that we can help build bridges to an open internet. One that's got real collaboration, real innovation, maybe one where some of these key issues that threaten the open internet, we can find some innovative ways to talk about them. And so when we resolve them, we know what we've done. Because I think different cultures will choose stability versus innovation differently. And I think because in my view, because we don't very often set those out clearly, it's hard to get to a consistent answer. And so we get these fights back and forth. And you see the emotions on both sides of them. So we hope that at Mozilla, both our products and our communities in particular of educated, empowered, active, rational people can help to bridge both the policy aspect and the product aspect and the mobile aspect and the market aspect back into the freedoms and innovation that we've seen for the last 10 or 15 years. Because open innovation, you can't really have it without an open internet. You can have certain kinds of innovation, but I don't think you can compete. I don't think you can lead for sure. And if we don't have an open internet, we will end up with a much more limited set of innovation and disruption. We might end up with more status quo and more equilibrium. I personally think that it's dangerous right now. I mean, the world is changing so quickly. We have so many problems to solve. So we hope to be helpful. We hope to build some bridges. We hope to continue to lead in product. It's definitely challenging. The product space is very competitive, brutally competitive, and of course we're tiny, compared to Apple or Google or Microsoft or Facebook. So we hope to continue to lead in product. We hope to build ever stronger communities. We hope you see them soon in a positive fashion. And if there's any way to be of assistance or helpful in innovative conversations about what's the right internet? How do we get there? If that makes sense from a policy setting, please do let us know. We'd be delighted. Thank you.