 All right, welcome back, the door is closing. Right, so I'm aware that we've talked up this session quite a bit now, because I mentioned it in my opening comment, and Graham also mentioned it before going to lunch. And although that's supposed to be a risky thing to do, I'm not worried at all. I think you'll be thoroughly entertained by this next panel. Glyn Moody, who is back with us this year, and I think everybody knows. He's a technology writer and a blogger, and well, that's what I was told to say. And he will lead a panel of highly entertaining, as you say, speakers who know how to speak their minds. Some of these people were participants in yesterday's... I'm sorry, Simon. We know that, because some of these people were actually involved in the debate yesterday that we had, and I have some hope that some of the dynamics of that debate that we had yesterday will be repeated here today for all of you to enjoy. All right, thank you very much. Glyn. Yes, that's my friend. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome back. I hope you all enjoyed lunch. I hope you're not too sleepy, because this is an interactive session. As Graham said this morning, this is an interactive conference about openness, so openness implies participation, collaboration, and nobody leaves this room until we've had questions from everyone. If you can either put some questions at the back, if you've got them now, or if not, there'll be a microphone going around. I won't wait until the end to ask questions, but I'll try and ask some questions in the middle after we've had a kind of introduction. So the topic of this is 2012, the year of openness question mark. I've been lucky enough to have been following this world for about 17 years now, starting back in 1995, and I'm just amazed at how much progress has been made starting from this humble kind of free software stuff, building through open source, open content, open data, open access, open science, open hardware. I mean, it's just extraordinary how openness has taken off, and this conference has really tested many to that, the fact that we've had these long, interesting conversations about openness and the nature of openness, open innovation. So I think that shows how much progress has been made. And what I'd like to do in this session with this stellar group of open experts is explore some of those aspects, what's going well, what's not going so well, what the problems are for the future. And again, I would invite you to dig deep and find your deepest questions about the inherent nature of openness, because this is your opportunity. Okay, so let me introduce the panel. We've got, in strictly alphabetical order, we've got Keith Burgos, who I'm sure most of you saw this morning if you were here, who has a very interesting approach to dealing with software patents, a crucial issue. I'm pleased that we've got Chiara Giornini here, who, if I can find her information, she is senior manager of policy innovation, Annek. Now, Annek is a mysterious body, it's so secret, it doesn't say on its website what Annek means. So, obviously we're not supposed to know, but apparently you represent consumers' interests. I'll say it in a peculiar way afterwards. Several standardization and European Commission committees. What's interesting is that Chiara is involved in standards but not boring computer ones. He's a real world standard. So I think they have a very interesting perspective there. Then number three is Simon. I'm sure everyone knows Simon Fitch. There's a very, very long history in the free software world and he's now the president of the Open Software Initiative and has lots of opinions on everything, which is excellent. Then we have Carl Lopiana, who is not just a hacker, but a double hacker, because he hacks on legal code as well as software code. So he has a unique perspective in that he actually can talk about the law as well as the codes. I'm really pleased he's here. And then last but not least, we have Chris Taggart, who I think I can say without contradiction is the world leader in open data, particularly in terms of the commercialization of open data. He's doing a very, very interesting project called Open Corporates. If you don't know about it, I really recommend you do because I guarantee it's going to be incredibly important in the years to come, so I'm very interested to hear what he has to say about things. So as I said, what I'd like to do, hear from everybody about their feelings for the last year or 18 months, how things are going in the world of openness, what's going well, what's not going to well. Simon, why don't you start? Okay, I'll do that. So the last year has been a fascinating year. It's as if someone has turned on a tap somewhere and an infinite quantity of bad law surrounding copyrights, patents, and civil rights has flowed out of a tank that had previously been concealed somewhere. I don't know where it's all come from, but one of the things I note is that activities like TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership that's happening, like ACTA in Europe, things like the clean IT discussion that's going on here at the European Commission about terrorist use of the internet, and so many other legal discussions and legal instruments, all seem to lack the voice of the individual developer and the individual citizen. I used to think it was the role of government to speak for the citizen, that the role of government was to be the elected representatives who kept peace and who made law that favored the citizen. But as I've been sitting in the UK, watching inquiries about telecommunications tapping, there's a discussion happening about a bill to gather communications data in the UK. I see legislation being brought forward which seems to represent the worst excesses of privacy and IP extremism, without any voice having, at any point, having modified or ameliorated them. And I wonder what's going on when I see this. I wonder why there is no instrument in government that is speaking back and saying, no, the world has changed. The world is the world of the citizen creator. It is no longer the world of the Industrial Revolution where creation and consumption are separated and therefore the link between them can be monetized. We're now moving into a world where it's not safe to assume that creation and consumption are going to be separated. They may well both come from the citizenry. And so therefore new law should be taken out into account, should be protecting the rights of citizens to, for example, consume copyright. For example, to not be terrorized by patent holders. For example, not to have their liberty surveyed unnecessarily. And yet no one seems to be taking steps within government to protect the rights of the citizens. So as I look back at the last year, that seems to be the trend that I've seen over and over again, the first time I see a new bill that is about digital rights, I have come to assume that it is going to need active lobbying by digital rights organizations to bring reasonableness back into it. And I really want to understand why that's happening. Who's going to speak for the citizens? Let's explore the minute. Perhaps we could go to Chiara, the real world, of real world standards. Patrick, just a little bit. What's been happening there? Yes. Yes, thank you very much. First of all, I need to clarify that ANEK is indeed the association representing consumers in standardization. I won't give you the exact acronym because it is a secret recipe. And like Coca-Cola, so I'm not allowed to unveil it, it is a French acronym. And the idea was to start with ANEK so that when you submit a comment in a commission consultation, you are listing in the first rows. That's the idea. But all associations could do it actually if you start with ANEK. So anyhow, I would like to reply to the previous speaker because of course, we are a lobby organization representing consumer interest, both in the standardization process but also in the legislative framework around standards. And what we see very much is that the regulation is really, there is a process of regulatory capture and that there is really the aggraving of the bills and the laws and whatever by the biggest interest representatives. And those are not the consumers. That was the case in the past and it is still now the case. However, you mentioned yourself, Akta, this is not so bad actually what happened but of course, there was a lot of fighting for it. The outcome was like that at the starting point was disgusting. Yes, I know, but at the end of the day what is important are the results. And indeed for me, of course 12 months or one year of activity is a lot. What we can see is that openness is really picking up a bit more also in the regulatory process on standardization. You might be aware that here in Europe we just had a couple of weeks ago a new regulation on standardization approved and they are the system which is not really considered as a very open system, has been opened up a little bit more under certain conditions, especially in public procurement. This is something that as consumers we do support. However, I would like to maybe already throw an item of discussion that I know has already been touched upon this morning but it is something linked to hardware openness or interoperability. If you follow our news, you might have noticed that last week we issued a press release quite successful on the last iPhone and the problem of the compatibility or lack of interoperability of the charger and this is something that was quite surprising because you might also know that there is a common understanding or a memorandum of understanding that all manufacturers of mobile phones, smart phones should follow compatibility standard and this doesn't seem to be the case for one of the most important manufacturers and it is very good to have software interoperability but you need to also have the possibility to have hardware interoperability and everything is connected. So from a consumer point of view I would like to broaden the perspective of the discussion about openness. Great. Chris, could you perhaps tell us about the wonderful world of open data? Yeah, wonderful world of open data. I mean, when you look in from a certain perspective at the open data and how much it is grown and how much it is spread as a meme things start to become, you know, these things look very rosy. The last two years in particular have been very strong and more and more governments are starting to do things as far as publish open data goes. But I would say that this looks good from a governmental point of view. This looks good from a bureaucrats point of view. This looks good from a European commission point of view. When you're in the real world, it looks pretty darn slow and it looks pretty darn slow just from the outside. It looks even slower when you realize that the world is hurtling along and changing so quickly. And the amount of, if open data is going like that, close data, close big data, the data that we're producing every day from these sorts of things, from our bank accounts, from our travel, from our social media.