 And now I'm pleased to open the floor to questions. Yes, here. Good on. Really interesting stuff. And I guess one of the themes of the conference so far has been that the technological changes of the last decades have tended to concentrate income rather than expand opportunities. And I guess I have a question along those lines for pretty much all of the panelists. Starting with you gave a very optimistic view of the gig economy. But a less optimistic view would be that it has allowed employers to break cartels, including labor unions, and capture most of the technological rents associated with these new technologies. The idea being that you've replaced organized labor on one hand with monopsynistic employers and employees who can't organize themselves. Clearly that could be redressed by public policy, but it hasn't been. And I'm a cynic. And in my view, whenever you have concentrated corporate interests on one side and consumers in labor on the other, it's always the corporate interests that win. I guess it reminds the point that Natasha was making about IoT and recycling raised similar questions. Because yes, it could be used to encourage or make recycling easier. It could also be used simply to improve inventory control by firms, which is not a bad thing, but also to evade regulation, to engage in firms now engage in transfer pricing. They could use this to engage in actual transfer to evade regulation, taxation, things like that. So I guess my question, which I suppose is also relevant to the regulator, is how can we think of either inherent characteristics of the technologies or public policies that could make sure that these technological innovations benefit society more broadly rather than simply providing more profits, more rents to the corporations that are the principal users of the technologies? Matilda? Thank you very much for your question. And actually, I'm very glad you asked it. And I will still be optimistic because, well, I didn't give a specific example. But so for sure, it's complicated for self-employed contractors to actually be together to have a union and then talk to the platform. But then I came up to know about, so let's say, we have digital problem, but we also have digital solutions. And so Amazon Mechanical Turk workers, they actually developed a forum, an online forum, where they will gather their thoughts about how to improve their working conditions or how to, well, how they see their jobs and gathering all these thoughts, voting which ideas are worth spreading. And I think at some point, they are going to send something to Jeff Bezos. So I mean, it's one solution. But still, for me, there's already some potentials which are also digital in that case. So I still remain optimistic. OK. Yeah, please. Bonjour, Tatsumasa from Japan. I have a question to probably Mathilde again. Hearing all these wonderful presentations, this is very awaking. Thank you for this. One thing coming to my mind is technology divide. We used to call it the digital divide, but coming all these digital things deep rooted into technology, there could be a technology divide. For example, if you see sub-Saharan Africa, quite a few people still don't have accuracy at home. So they have no access whatsoever to anything digital or data. So those people could be easily left behind all these advancements in the 20th century. And another thing is people who cannot understand all these things about technology, they are also left behind. So there could be risk of widening gap between on the side of technology who are left behind or even no access. So how do you reconstitute all these risk of divide coming from all these development? Thank you. Natasha, you want to take this one? This goes back to the previous question I think was interesting. And I think we often ask, how is the current construct going to survive with technology? That's sort of the premise of how is policy going to regulate technology? And I think the question almost has to be changed is how is policy and how is the system framework going to change in light of technology? Because I actually think big data will reinvent capitalism. And we have new technologies that are like blockchain that are destabilizing the current construct of bank and finance and the peer-to-peer market. So I think there's more shift actually that technology will impact policy and how to kind of create that change in tandem rather than just the policy framework surviving with technology. And then I think your other question around where does this leave people behind? I think that's absolutely true. And I think that's a scary thing. And I think that's where a lot of policy work does need to collaborate to figure out how we can make technology more open and accessible. When you were in the 40s, everybody sort of had this one vision of what the youth would be in the future. And they knew where their job would be. And today I think a lot of the terms, people just either of this generation or younger generations in different parts of the world don't necessarily feel that they have access to positions in blockchain or positions in IoT. And I think that's definitely an education reframing and a skill set that maybe can go along with some of the work in the gig economy that will need to happen. But I think that's somewhere where policy work does need to step in to support making this an open ecosystem and how to bring more people into this conversation. Thank you. Yeah, please. Good morning, James. Can we follow up on that question for the panel? So if we are actually talking about changing the way that we approach policy, what is the suggestion that you might have for governments around the world to take the first step in doing that? Because as we know, governments are risk averse. We must move slowly and carefully and protect our data, as was mentioned, and have valid regulations. But how is it then that to keep up with technology in industries like yourselves, how would governments take that first step to actually rethink or interact with you to be able to reframe a policy framework going forward? It's for governments, it's the same thing like it has been for the bigger corporations who try to get connection with young entrepreneurs, tech enthusiasts, startups by creating accelerator programs or initiatives where they work can work together. Just to get the communication right and to get the conversation starting. I think this is the most crucial part, to start talking together and finding the mutual benefits that you can get. I mean, you have something to add. Yeah, thank you, James, for your question. I think we, as I mentioned, of course, governments need to invest in this digital transformation and make sure they have all the right resources, like human resources, financial resources, training. I think training is very important because if you just go digital and no one knows how to use the tools, it's not going to be more efficient in the end. So I think training will be a very important part of what we are trying to do at the Nuclear Safety Authority. And my other thought about what you said is maybe the government should also listen a little bit more to what the public is expecting. And maybe the way we open the data should correlate with what people need, what their questions are. So we're trying to do some public meetings or debates around the nuclear question. But in the end, it's always easier when you are actually answering to the public's questions rather than just giving a big speech about how cool you are and what your projects are. So I think, yeah, focusing on what the public is expecting is an important part of the question. I think to add one thing to that, too, it's often just technology versus government. And actually, I think the government needs technology more than anybody. The best man for the job is the one with the best resources, the most efficiency to get it done. And if the government doesn't adapt to have resources to do those things, then they won't be the best institution for the job. And that is part of what's going to reshape. So I think government needs to think of technology as an asset instead of this other. Thank you. Another question? Yes, in the back. I find this discussion we're having very interesting around almost the opposition between government and technology. What I do find a bit odd in that, and what I'd love to hear your thoughts on, is governance in a global point of view from that. Because effectively, governments are not globally governing how technology spreads, how it's regulated, how it protects citizens. A lot of the actors are global. So there's a huge asymmetry there. I'm thinking data leaks. I'm thinking abuse of information, et cetera. How do we actually address that from a point of view that governments can still protect their citizens as well? Because they have a responsibility beyond the technological to protect their citizens. And currently, they don't manage. Thank you. You're welcome. Yes, thank you for the question. I'm not sure if there's one right answer to it, but I think that both sides should have a sense of urgency. Because if you look at it from a tech perspective, we see business models popping up and scaling up global within years and impacting our lives super fast. But now, they're also really running into trouble because we didn't talk to the government. They kept it close by them and didn't give a lot of insights. And now, regulators step in and make hard rules. For example, if we look at the shared economy, we had Airbnb spreading across the globe quite fast. And now, regulators are stepping in and saying, hey, Airbnb is going to be regulated in the city. And it has a really negative and bad impact on the technology company. Because suddenly, they're not allowed to do what they wanted to do. So I think for the technology companies, there should be a sense of urgency to, early in the development of the technology, start the conversation. And I think sometimes the technology companies, like us, we feel that we are experts on the technology and that we, because we are experts, kind of think, OK, all others can't follow, so let's leave it. But I think it's important that the technology companies try to explain what they are doing. And really, in an early phase, we already talked to the governments about how this could work out. Because in the end, I think that will also benefit the technology companies. So just to add, because this question came already a few times, I will give you one example on this where we really have to work together. It's not to be in the space of cybersecurity. It is a real issue because for the corporate world, we are caught in a kind of asymmetric warfare. Because one of the most advanced processes threats come from government. And corporations are used either as target or channels to get to the target. And probably some of you might be aware. Brad Smith, the general counsel of Microsoft, has launched an initiative called the Tech Accord with the objective to create a kind of Geneva Convention around cybersecurity. Because we need to, this is the Wild West currently. This cost a fortune to the economy. This place is mistrust in technology, rightly so, because things happen that should not happen. And we have joined this initiative called Tech Accord. And we will support that. That's really a place where the industry, the technology industry, with other corporations that are highly digital, and the government have to come together and set up a certain number of rules. So we heard about the climate. And I think in cybersecurity in particular, this is an area where we have to work together and develop policy at global level. Because we will not be able to manage it otherwise. And it is completely undermining the development that you have seen. Now, there are other domains where it's less obvious to develop consensus. I give one example. I think behind on a debate in ethics, notably when it comes to artificial intelligence, I will give one example is when you develop an algorithm, an engine, that will crunch a lot of data, you do it with bias. You cannot avoid, we all have personal bias. We all have cultural bias. So the way you will address a problem with technology in different parts of the world will not be the same. How do you take this into account, and notably from a government perspective, while you develop your technology? It's very difficult to engage this conversation right now, probably because it is somewhat abstract. While on cybersecurity, we are very active because people feel it on a day-to-day basis. So I think, yes, it's something that a forum like the World Policy Conference also should help develop and say what would be the agenda, what would be the topics. So I said that the obvious is cybersecurity. There are other ones where we don't have yet the understanding about how critical it is while these developments are taking place. So just to complement from the panel of our young leaders. Another question, if not, I thank you very much. I hope we could show you the different perspective. And I can tell you we have a large organization. Vast majority are young people in our organization. They are quite determined. They move extremely fast. They are extremely focused. And they are focused on problem solving. So what you just heard will just happen, like it or not, because they know they have to face it. So thank you very much.