 So, welcome to our fourth and last formal session of the day. The title of this session has changed a bit. When it started, the first title I had for this session originally was called Design for Tolerance, and Nicholas couldn't tolerate that one. He said that tolerance is kind of a weak word, it's a negative word, it's about putting up with something, you know, that you wanted something stronger. So, when I was trying to redesign the title, I came up with what we are now using as a title, which is Cooperation Without Coercion. But interestingly, somewhere along the way, as we were making our different versions of the website and the booklet you have here, the title somehow got changed to Designs for Coercion, which I think is a really interesting and provocative title. Because one of the questions that has come up on the Twitter stream a couple of times today has been people saying, well, can someone just define what you mean by hyper-public? And so Betsy has been sort of the closest to that. And she said, well, hyper-public is living like Paris Hilton. I wasn't really thinking of sort of Paris Hilton particularly, with the word hyper-public. But I think this is one of the big questions that's been underlying everything here is we've talked a lot about how do we sort of retain some kind of privacy, how do we retain the things that we have, while technologically there really is this feeling that there is this sort of this inevitable barreling forward into a world that really is a lot more public. And technology really is changing things and that, well, we can talk about norms, we can talk about laws and everything, but we really are living at a time of vast societal cultural change because of these technologies and I think that that's part of what we want to really address in this fourth session is, well, what are some of the things that we want as a society? Maybe they're the things that we're afraid are going away with this. And the issue of cooperation is one that I think is very much at the heart of the issues around privacy because one argument is that it's only through having a level of privacy that we can really cooperate with each other that by hiding what we really think of others allows us to have a cooperative society. And the other is that it is the coercion implicit in being in public all the time that makes a society perhaps not very free but certainly coherent and cooperative. And so that's some of the tension we will look at here. Our three speakers here are Charlie Nesson who's here at the Berkman Law School and one of the co-founders of the Berkman Center. Martin Noak, who is a theoretical biologist looking at, among other things, the mathematics and models behind cooperation. And Nicholas Negroponte, who's the founder of the Media Lab and most recently has been working on the one laptop per child project about bringing technologies to, such as we've been talking about today, to children throughout the world. So I will start with Charlie and thank you. Well, before I founded the Berkman Center with John Zetrin, I asked Nicholas Negroponte for advice about whether he thought it was a good idea. And he said that he thought the future of cyberspace would be built of law and engineering and I regarded that as just tremendously perceptive. You see the reflection of it in a different form in Larry's perception of the relationship of law and code. I've totally enjoyed being here at this conference and the question that has permeated through to me as I've listened to Judith, among others, speak about our space is who are we? We talk about the public. What is our public space and in asking that question, who are we? I was completely taken by Jeff Huang's presentation in which, from an architect's point of view, it appeared that he had been given the perfect hypothetical, a desert in which to build both the public space and the private space. And this thought when you ask who are we comes back to a question that Jonathan and I posed when we started the Berkman Center, which is, are we capable of governing ourselves? Well, let's ask, what is our domain? Ours is the public domain, ours is the common knowledge that one can access and reach through the net. We are, we the people, we're we the people of Massachusetts, the United States of America. But in cyber terms, most fundamentally, we are the people of the net. Well, what then is our domain? Our domain is the public domain. And if one is to build the public domain in a way that is articulate, that meets the question, what is the public domain? Then I believe that the wisdom to follow from a lawyer's point of view is the same wisdom that's more or less informed the world of real property. If you want an orderly world of real property, you build a registry. If you want an orderly world of digital bits, you build a registry. And so I want to describe to you a project that we're currently embarking upon, which is to build a registry of the public domain. We're not planning to do it all at once. The plan is to start with the Petrucci collection. I urge you, those of you on the net, to Google it, to go to it. The IMSLP collection, IMSLP.org, the International Music Musical Score Library Project. What you'll find is a beautiful site, which collects 93,000 musical scores that are in the public domain. It's a public domain collection, exquisitely put together by a young man named Edward Gow, presently at 2L at Harvard Law School. Remarkable. The thought is, build a registry for the public domain. If you think of cyberspace, one way to think, as the bits you can reach through the net, they divide into two domains, the domain that you can reach for free and the domain that's not free, not free by copyright, not free by market, not free. And when we ask who are we as people of the public domain and what can we do, I believe that we can build our domain and build it on a foundation that is solid in law. So the thought is to build a registry in which, imagine the structure, you have an underlying registry which is a declaration of the public domain status of the works that are registered. And you have links to the collections held by registrars, librarians, people who build structures of metadata that are increasingly interoperable. And if you imagine that registry being populated, not just by IMSLP but by other librarians with public domain collections, then you have a registry of considerable dimension. But the problem with registries has to do with litigation risk. This is a legal world that is impacted by the threat of lawsuit. And so the essence of this idea of a registry is to couple the registrar with a pro bono commitment of legal service from a law firm of repute to defend litigation based on infringement against the registrar, the registry, and the users of the registry. That is to say the structuring of a legal foundation which positively defines the public domain and defends it. Now you may say how does this connect with privacy? I believe it connects to privacy right through the piece that David Weinberger suggested. If you ask institutionally, what are the great institutions of the world that appreciate individual privacy? You look to government, you don't find it, they're interested in surveillance. You look to corporations, you don't find it, they're interested in data acquisition. You look to librarians, ah, you start to find allies. And the librarians themselves are part of greater institutions. So the possibility of actually building strength at an institutional level amongst a federation of nonprofit institutions, each in their way a conservator of their public domain, the heritage of their nation. This has the potential of an institutional force in support of the public domain which is powerful and which shares the values of privacy as vague as they may be. But at least someone on your side to be working them out. Thank you. A combination of the library as a center for both the respect for privacy and also for public space. It's a combination that in many ways we're not seeing. It's interestingly it's interestingly marked with the architecture we saw earlier at the Seattle Museum of Seattle Library as this beautiful open glass space. And I just was going to ask you if you could say something about this combination from perhaps from a legal perspective or in general of a commitment to public space and privacy. Is it something you see primarily in libraries or do you think there's a inherent link between them? I'm tough on privacy Judith. I've never liked it. I've always felt as a concept it was kind of grounded in fear. The law of it has always seemed like a kind of a rear guard action you know to appease the people in the face of advancing technology. It's always seemed like what's coming out of the back end of the judicial system rather than the forward thinking architecture of the public space which within it allows private space. That suddenly starts to make sense to me. Okay we're missing Adam here who is the strong proponent of not saying that privacy is about fear. And I promise that we'd have a big debate about that. I don't see him but we will come back to that thought when he returns to the room. So thank you.