 I want to say it's fantastic to see someone moving so quickly and putting so many things that are so productive like what we heard this morning on the table and there's a list of things that are very helpful. I think the question of spectrum and NGN and access will be very big. I think the question of public R&D will be important. But let me identify a couple of things that raised an argument or concern that I think people in this forum would be worthwhile thinking about. The first one is that in the first key action, opening up access to content, this is subject to a commitment to preserve the contractual freedom of rights holders. I think this is a problem. I think one of the problems of cross-border cultural markets in Europe has everything to do with collective rights association and the segmentation of markets. And I think it's important to put as part of the agenda exploration of alternative non-exclusion-based models, be they of the model that you get ISP-based charges and distribution systems, be they on standardized terms, be they on modified terms that require liability as opposed to proprietary exclusion, that needs to be experimented with. We heard this morning about standards, but I think it's important to anchor what the remedy is for failure to disclose. And I suspect that short of either forfeiture or more likely a stop-all for use for interoperability and standards. If you didn't disclose, you can't sue as long as somebody's using for interoperability. Strikes me as a really important, discreet thing that changes the dynamic and raising the question of what levels of commercial use trigger a requirement to pay so that you at least get non-commercial or commercial but highly uncertain use until it actually can generate revenue being done without having to pay. There are concerns with cybersecurity. I just want to emphasize that trusted systems and concerns with cybersecurity also raise barriers and are pushing in the direction of closed systems. And it's important to maintain an anchor of open systems and open system solutions for cybersecurity threats. And finally, there's an emphasis on open access publication, which is good, but it's still not entirely clear to me why Europe maintains a database protection regime for which there is now 20 years of evidence that the U.S. is doing better without any such regime. It's five years since the EU's own study said there was no evidence that proprietary rights and databases are any good and it's nowhere to be seen. And access to data is one of the core resources necessary. And so I would have loved to see that here as well. Thank you.