 All right. Good afternoon, everyone. If you're watching us around the world, because this is live streamed, hello to you, wherever you are. My name is Fadi Shehadeh. I am the president and CEO of ICANN. I am joined today by a fantastic group of people on stage. I think I don't need to make too many introductions, so we will keep this focused on titles and names because I'd like, as I'm sure you would, to get into a discussion very quickly. But let me first explain what we're going to do in the next hour. Next year, the internet digital economy will pass four trillion US dollars in the G20 economies. So here are the good news and the bad news. It's a huge digital economy, but it's mostly in the G20 countries. We are here to learn and to think together how do we take this digital economy and make it for everyone, for all the people in the world, for every small business as we are learning here in China through the great success of Alibaba, but also small businesses in Namibia, small businesses in Vietnam, everywhere in the world need to benefit from this great new digital economy. The second thing I want to tell you as we start is that the digital economy, or cyberspace, is no longer a vertical sector. Most of us think of vertical sectors, automotive, health, digital economy. Yes, it is a four trillion dollar vertical, but the reality is that the internet changed all economy. In fact, some people say cyberspace is dead because all space is now cyber. Everything, the automotive sector, the health sector, the education sector, every sector is now changed because of the internet. The internet is truly like a powerful river that has changed the land that we all know. But like any powerful river, it needs bridges and it needs dams and it needs tunnels and it needs governance, otherwise the river is used only by a few, or benefiting only a few. So how do we govern the internet? What are the dams and the bridges and the tunnels and the rules and the policies and the agreements that will manage this powerful river called the internet? This is the question of the day and I guarantee you this is the question of the century because the internet is changing our century. And we, the people, users, governments, businesses, civil society, technical people, all of us, this is what we call the multi-stakeholder community. We must discuss and agree how will we govern the internet. And now the question of this panel, how to govern this powerful internet, this powerful river, without restricting innovation. Is there a balance between resiliency of the internet and good governance of the internet and its openness and its availability as a place of permissionless innovation? How do you balance the two? The same question applies on privacy and security and so on and so forth. That balance is the question of the day. So I'm going to pose this question, I will make a few comments and then I want to engage our panelists and you in a real dialogue in the next hour about that. So I start with Professor Andrew Moore. Professor Moore is the head of the computer science department at Carnegie Mellon University. Next to him is Commissioner Moedas, who is the European Commissioner for Research and Technology. Next to him is the executive chairwoman of the Mozilla Foundation. Mitchell Baker is one of the great thinkers of Silicon Valley, who leads a foundation that brings together the great technologies and values of the internet. And we thank her for being with us here today. And of course to my left, are you going to challenge me now? Do you know who's to my left? To my left is someone that many of you know as the executive chairman of the Alibaba Group. But for those of you like me who had the privilege of a few private conversations with this man, you would know he is much, much more than that. He's a man who really believes in the internet as an empowering tool for the youth and the people around the world who need most help. And that's what makes Jack Ma a very special citizen of the world. And we thank him and the Alibaba Group and China for the great contributions he's made. And I think the great ones to come as someone who cares about the internet as a true power of changing the world to a better place for all of us to live, which is the motto of the World Economic Forum. So let me put up a slide to start this dialogue. Let's see. If you could go to the previous page of that slide, please. There should be a bigger picture of the three layers of governance, but let me at a high level tell you what I'm going to introduce here. To govern the internet, there are three layers. The bottom layer, the green layer that you see, and just focus on the three layers. You don't need the detail, but just to explain to you. The bottom layer is the network layer, the infrastructure layer of the internet. Who governs that? You know the internet has 70,000 networks today. Who governs these? Well, the standards of these networks are made by the IEEE, by the ITU, by the IETF, and the rules on governing this layer come from national regulators and telecommunications ministries. The question is, is the governance of this green infrastructure layer working? I would submit to you, yes. Largely, this is fine. Then we go to the next layer. This big yellow layer is the logical infrastructure of the internet, because the internet is 70,000 networks. The way it looks like one internet for the world is because of this yellow layer. That layer is coordinated by my organization. We are responsible to make sure that the whole internet looks like one internet. Every one of you here I see has at least 17 phones and two computers and five iPads and all these things, and of course soon your shoes and your plants and your clothes, everything will talk to the internet. One of these things needs an IP number, right? That's what's managed in the yellow layer. One unique IP number for every one of the billions of devices that talk to the net. Who governs that layer? I can. The ITF governed that layer. Is that layer well-governed? Of course I'm biased. I run ICANN, so I will tell you. Generally, yes. That an important event happened in that layer you should know about is that ICANN and this layer have been controlled by a U.S. government contract. And one of the important things happening in the world of internet governance today is that the U.S. government has now formally agreed to end that unique role over the yellow layer. Hence making the yellow layer an independently governed layer for the world. And China, Minister Louie came to the ICANN meeting last June and affirmed China's commitment to stay within that layer. So did India, so did President Rousseff of Brazil. These are important events. Now you have global leaders accepting a single internet logical layer as opposed to a fragmented internet where we will have a Chinese internet or a Bricks internet and a European internet and an American internet and not a good thing, I'm sure Jack would tell you. This would not be good for business. It also would not be good for society. And now we come to this little blue layer which is where our discussion should be. And that's the economic and societal layer. This is where we now have the big question. Who decides what are the rules to manage the economies and societies that are moving to the digital platforms? Look at the fights that are going on now in the world about privacy versus cloud security versus child protection, security, warfare, human rights, trade rules, taxation. Where will these rules be made? Should they be made at the United Nations? Should they be made by governments? Should they be made by all of us? And if so, where? These are the questions of the day. The economic and societal layer of the internet today does not have a governance framework. And that's where the real questions are. So with this, I'm going to ask each of our panelists and I'll start with Professor Moore from the end there to give me their thoughts or to share with you their views as to how are we going to govern this important layer and what are going to be the platforms that ensure the continued openness of the internet. Professor Moore, I start with you. Thank you very much. These are really important questions and the importance of the questions are rising up your awesome but overly complicated PowerPoint chart. That is very important. So one thing that we all fear right now in the internet, I think, is the concept of walled gardens, the idea that there turns out to be one place and one place only where you're allowed to go to get your information or to buy your services. And some people are frightened of that walled garden being some government agency, the department of the internet. And I think many of us would not be excited if that was the direction that the internet is going to go. Some of us would be frightened about the idea that there's one super mega company, one large conglomeration which comes together and is the place which controls where we can access. What we all really want is an open internet where the most useful and helpful services and products and information sources can thrive. Before I was at Carnegie Mellon, I was one of the team responsible for the search engine of one of the world's large search engine companies and this question kept on coming up, making sure that we could open up to the rest of the world the possible places to get their information from to help the world understand which small company or which medium company or which large company can give them the best service. Here's where I see government being able to help at this blue level in a very significant fashion. It is really important for someone who's using the internet to be able to know whether they can trust a link that they're clicking on or they can trust an app that they download. The real question is who is going to help make sure that we users of the internet are safe when we move to somewhere, run some service. One perfect example, if you at the moment ask a search engine a question about cancer or a serious disease, what does it mean if one of the answers is a suggestion that you should go to use magic crystals to help cure your cancer? Who should decide if that's okay or not? I don't think it's the search engine. I don't think the government can really come down in every single case. I would like to really understand what we're going to do about that. So Commissioner Moedas, he just made a great point about trust and who should the consumers trust? So now we need frameworks for governing trust. Who will decide? Who will tell the consumer that this person trying to sell you X, Y or Z to heal your cancer is telling you the truth or is lying to you? Do you think governments should be doing this as a commissioner in one of the largest markets in the world, most sophisticated markets in the world? Do you think your consumers expect the European Commission to regulate, for example, healthcare providers in the digital space? And how would you do that? Because that healthcare provider could be in Dalian selling a solution to a citizen in Europe in Portugal. How are you going to regulate a Dalian-based healthcare business? Thank you very much. Thank you very much for inviting me here, because it's rare that I have this opportunity to be here with business people and I'm a politician, but I'm a very humble politician because when you look at the difference in between what you do and what I do, I think that what you do is much more important. And that makes me go to the point that one of the major difficulties we have today in terms of government in different countries is that the speed is totally different. So sometimes we're trying to regulate things that one will not exist, will be very different from what we thought and will take us five years. And you're doing things every day. So how do we as governments or institutions can actually create regulation that is adaptable to the future and that is actually bottom-up and not top-down? I don't know if you know one of the most, probably one of the most interesting stories in Europe of how top-down doesn't work. At some point, the two major leaders of Europe at the time, President Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder, decided that Europe should have a competitor to Google. And a project went actually forward. It was called Quiero. You still go and check the website. And you know, absolutely amazing two leaders to be countries deciding actually to compete with two young guys from California. And so I'm a believer that it's not up to the government to go on that kind of top-down approach. The government can help on setting the standards. We can actually listen from you and then we can decide. But we cannot actually do it. We cannot build it. We can actually listen and then do it. So what we're doing now, it's a project called Beta Regulation, which is actually about how to create that new type of regulation, how regulation can be adaptable to the future. And I think that's part of the answer of what we're talking here. The other part, I mean, we'll see. Thank you, Commissioner. Mitchell, you come from a part of the world, the Silicon Valley, where we believe all technology is good. Technology is perfect. It must be good. And we believe that. People in the Valley build technology with a real sense that technology must be good. Well, so why was Uber banned from many cities in the world if technology is good? I think we are seeing now the beginning of an understanding that yes, technology may be intrinsically good, but technology has to fit into an ecosystem. And that ecosystem includes people. It includes regimes. It includes frameworks of governance. What is your view about this issue of governing the Internet? Is this a paradox or an oxymoron? You cannot govern the Internet. Is that the view of Silicon Valley? And how could you help us understand that community? Let's start with the idea that technologists love technology and that it's always good. Actually, I think technology is often neutral. Human nature can be good and human nature can be really frightening. So just like we love innovation, we want innovation, but not all innovation is good. It's just the case that if we don't have innovation, we have no hope of solving the problems facing us today. And so like innovation, we need technology, we need development, we need those changes. Stopping, I'm not sure if it's possible, but certainly the state of the world will not improve if we stop innovation or we stop technology. So that's one piece. And the question is not just setting in context, but setting in human nature. And so there is a social component of what are we incented for? What side of human nature does our society bring out? And the other piece is very often new technology, innovation sounds great, but another word for innovation is disruption. And when a technology is really disruptive, there's somebody on the receiving end of that disruption who's uncomfortable. And so yes, the complaint or the comment that technologists love technology is true. I think you have to have it in your blood. It's glamorous, but it's not easy to build a company and bring it to a global scale. And it's not that easy to solve a technological problem. It has to really be in your blood and driving you. And so you see that more than the social context sometimes. But we also see that when that technology comes to market, there are some issues about is it good for society, which we need to address. And there are other issues which are is it good for the existing business models? And I think technologists are not very moved by that latter statement. But the former statement, yes, and I think the former statement, many technologists, certainly at Mozilla, every technology is interested in what is the nature of society and how are we improving it? But we need to separate it out from resistance because it affects a business model. Yeah, this is a point that I'm sure Jack would agree with you on that if we continually focus on what we sometimes call paving the cow path. Because when the Roman Empire wanted to control large swaths of land, they figured out where the cow paths were and they paved them for exactly the width of Roman carts. Now, in technology changes that paradigm. We cannot be paving the cow path. We cannot be just simply thinking, how do we adapt government or how do we bend technology so it fits into a governmental model? Let's be frank. The internet was built by people who were intent on making sure the internet does not follow the Westphalian nation-state lines. An IP number does not know if it's in Dalian or in Cairo. That's by design. So the internet is by design, transnational. Now, which brings me to the key question. Most of the regimes that we use today to manage the world are international, not transnational. International means between nations. So a nation meets with another nation. They have a bilateral agreement. Or multiple nations meet and have a treaty. Well, the internet is not built around the nation-state model. It does not understand law jurisdictions. Because as we discussed, you could have a healthcare provider in Dalian providing healthcare to someone in the European Union. And all your rules and regulations have zero effect on that. And how do you manage that? So this brings me to trade. Most of the global trade has been regulated through bilateral agreements and large treaties. May I remind you of Doha, or of the efforts that have been going on to create treaties on how people do trade with each other? Well, that international system, if I can be direct right now, is challenged by the internet. How does the WTO deal with the speed of the internet? What Alibaba has done with commerce in China and what I'm certain they will do with e-commerce around the planet changes the game. And what are the rules? How are we going to create these? And who will create them? Okay, thank you. Well, first I would like to make some comments about internet governance. This world has close to 1.5 billion people who were born in 1980s. In the next 30 years, we'll probably have more than 3 billion people born of the internet. These people born of the internet are so different from my grandmother, my age. They want to get involved. So internet is going to change the whole world in a tremendous way. It's going to influence and change next 85 years. So we've got to be very careful about that. So I remember, I'm not the guy that's good at governing, because I remember in 1996 I was invited to an internet meeting in Beijing about a group of experts gathering in a building from China, a lot of people, like 20 people from different organizations. They called themselves internet experts. And I said, what? In 1996 we have a lot of internet experts in China. And the topic is how to control and manage government internet. Well, the discussion goes nowhere. Today, 20 years past, all the things they worry about never happen. The things they do not worry about all come out. So today, after 20 years, we all pretend we know a lot about internet. But compared to the future, we know so little about our future. We know so little about the internet. So I think governing the internet is important. We have to take good care of about security, privacy, intellectual properties. But we should govern it in a new way, not in a traditional way. We should govern the internet like a zoo. That means all kinds of animals. We should not govern the internet like a farm. Same kind of animal, chicken and ducks all the same. So this is what I think. And we should not leave this job only to the government. We should have multi-stakeholders. The government, business and all kinds of organizations that should join together. It's tough at the beginning, but it takes time. So as the guy that like working like me, as the business guy, we don't want the rules. But the government won't have the rules. But we know we need to have the rules. If there's no rule on the internet, it's not going to help the internet. So by answering that, my point is that how can we respect the internet, develop the internet, improve the internet and try to govern the internet in a new way? And how can we lead the internet to help more people? For example, Farid just said, what I am doing is I know the internet has a lot of problems. How we can use the internet to create new opportunities for young people, for the small business. We know that WTO was great in the past 20 years, but WTO was the organization governed by government. And I think all the government not always agree with each other. If the government do not agree with each other, the business people got puzzled. What are we going to do? Frozen. It's frozen. We don't know what to do. Well, the Doha meeting for being discussed more than 10 years ago, nowhere. Because WTO was a treaty agreed by the government. So we should have, at the internet time, should have an EWTO, that it's a treaty agreed by business people, supported by government. And that will probably do better. And I think the past 20 years, because the WTO, the globalization was for big companies, for big countries. Next 20 years, the internet, with the help of the internet, we should use the internet to help the small business, help the developing nations. This is what I called EWTO. So where this is EWTO, what we should do, who should govern this, what's the framework, this is what you think about. And by doing that, improving the trade, creating jobs, helping young people, then internet might be on the good way. This is my point. So, Commissioner Moedas, if you could comment on that, I think there was here a very practical suggestion. Jack called it EWTO. But I think what he was describing more than the name. And by the way, I hope somebody already reserved EWTO.org or .com. And if someone from my team is here, please reserve EZU.com. I like that too. But really, the question here that is being asked, what will be these mechanisms? And who will come up with them to actually create trade rules that move at the speed of the internet? And by the way, it's not just about trade. The question applies to crime, right? I met the president of a pretty important country in the area of terrorism who, when he met me, he gave me a list of 1,300 internet sites. He says all these sites are inciting our children to join terrorist organizations. And he said, aren't you the one responsible for all the websites in the world? Close them. That would be in the public benefit. And I looked at the president and I told him, it's not that simple. Yes, of course we can close them, but under what rule? What will be the rule for me to decide this is a site that's bad for those children versus these children? And after I discussed it with him a little bit, he became even more angry because, not at me, but at the realization that as the president of a country who knows these sites are inciting children in his country to become terrorists, he has no power. And my fear is that if we continue without mechanisms to address these issues, then you'll have decisions like the one made by Turkey not too long ago to shut down YouTube because a couple of videos were against their laws. I don't think this is healthy and it will make governments react in ways that are disproportionate to the issue. So what do you think about that? As someone sitting, frankly, even though you termed yourself a humble politician, and we thank you for that, by the way, we need more of you, but truly how do politicians actually have a positive role in solving this important conundrum that Jack described? I think Jack said it all, that it really is a multi-stakeholder approach. And, you know, one of the things that is really, if you look at the history of economics in Europe, and you see how Europe was open before the First World War, where you would trade all over with no boundaries and barriers, and then what the First World War actually brought a fear and intolerance since the Second World War came. And so I think that really what makes me and concerns me is that we are all here, and some of Davos and the ones that are here are a privileged few, but a lot of the others that are outside need actually to have your message in a much more vocal way. Because what we are seeing in the world outside of here is that people are getting more protectionist, more closed, because they think that will protect them and that will not protect them. That will be worse. But for that, politicians need people like you to be more vocal on the importance of actually creating those solutions with multi-stakeholders that are open. And in my strategy for the future in research, science and innovation, I called it the three O's, like the O's that we have here in the World Economic Forum. Open innovation, open science, and open to the world. And people told me, oh, but I mean, we know that. And I said, no, I have to repeat that because a lot of people don't believe it. So politicians also need the help of people like you actually to be able and have the courage to change things and then to sit down and do the real change. But we need you to be more vocal. That's for sure. We need more politicians asking business people to be engaged. And it's true because it's actually the common interest of governments and businesses and civil society and educators and technical people for us to find mechanisms that serve the public. All of us win when that happens. But I want to ask you, Professor Moore, since you did work in Silicon Valley, many people worry that if governments do not bridle Silicon Valley and the big, large companies in Silicon Valley, that Silicon Valley itself will become kind of a shadow government of what happens on the internet. Is that a good thing? Is that a possible thing? Could we see big companies in the digital space control the digital space? And should governments do something about that? Or should we let the space itself find how to reduce the power of certain companies? Great question. First, I was not in Silicon Valley. I was in Pittsburgh. In the heart of the industrial American... And now the heart of artificial intelligence is taking hold. Anyway, the interesting thing is it is absolutely not useful for any hypothetical, evil Silicon Valley schema to have an untamed, crazy internet. If it was a zoo where all the cages were open, no one would go in. The last thing that Amazon or Google or Microsoft want is for people to be too frightened to go to the internet for services. So everyone wants it to be a safe place. The question is, how can we do it? I don't have a full answer to this, but there's one thing which I think is really in our favor and actually helps us right now to make things better and safer, and that is data. I'm a technologist. I'm a statistician. I believe in data. Data is the one thing which actually can give us some objective information about what's safe and what's good and what's unsafe and what's not good. I'll give you an example here. For many people going on to the internet, they want to do something. They want to help with the disease management. They want to buy a really cool new toy for their kid. They want to solve a problem, but they also need help that they need to know who to go to to help solve that problem. We all want them to be able to go to small startups. We want them to be able to go to local businesses in developing countries, not just to McDonald's. How can we help them choose? I don't believe that we're going to get governments or even well-meaning large Silicon Valley companies to decide for them who's safe and who's not safe. Data can help us. Here's one example. If you look at reviews of internet businesses, Alibaba being one awesome internet businesses, but there are hundreds of thousands of others, and how good a customer service they do if you buy something for them and you want it delivered to your house. Those reviews are one attempt to help people understand I should buy from this store because it will get me my camera when it tells it will. I should not buy from this store because the reviewers say it's terrible. Here's the interesting thing about this kind of example where people are trying to choose between which business to go for. The reviews they find online are almost completely uncorrelated with how good a service that they're going to get. It turns out that some of the most highly reviewed companies give a lousy service and vice versa. The place that they cannot hide from scrutiny is the actual data. When third parties, these could be governments and they can be other companies, they can actually measure how accurately and quickly the goods arrive at the users. You get objective information. You don't need anyone to come up with some subjective guess or to litigate the guess as to who should win on the internet. You can base it on data. Throughout healthcare, commerce and other areas of the economy given that this is such a hard problem, one of the places that I would place a bet for helping us is data. Gather data, make it transparent who's doing a good job, who's doing a lousy job and who's intentionally doing a bad job. And of course once you make data the crux of this you need to help people know which data to trust. Which becomes a different issue and who would do that? Who would be the trust factor around data? I'm going to ask one last question of Mitchell Baker and then I'm going to ask you to join us in the dialogue. So prepare your questions and as soon as we see hands up the forum staff is ready so we can direct questions and you may address your questions to all of us or to one of us and we look forward to that. So prepare your questions. Mitchell, I want to just switch slightly but stay focused on governance and ask you an important question about governance. One of the big issues we're seeing around the world is the issue of local versus global. So in Silicon Valley you have local values, local culture that may be even different from Los Angeles, certainly different from Alabama. How about compared to Dalian or to Beirut or to Sydney? We have different values and different cultures. The internet is an infrastructure that does not see the local. It does not understand. It is transnational, as we said. So should there be rules that would allow societies, countries, regions, ethnic groups to protect their values on the internet or should the internet actually be or end up being what erases all these differences between us? So the fight between uniting and separating, and I know you have a set of values that are very rooted in what the internet is, openness, transparency, which may not be every people's values. So how do we do that? Well there's a lot in there. Let's see if I can get started. I would start at the core layer which is the nature of the infrastructure itself. So your bottom layers, before we get to the blue layer and say fundamentally that that system, well every place where you decide my local, some local circumstances such that I don't want to see information from a global setting, I don't want to participate in it, that is a limiting of opportunity. It will be a limiting of economic opportunity, it will be a limiting of opportunity for understanding and it will be a limit of opportunity on participating. Now many governments at least are making that choice today in order to protect culture or sometimes themselves that they're going to limit that opportunity. So at heart governments protect their people and so I think separate from whether I or somebody else thinks that's how much they should do that, that will happen. This question of how much opportunity do you limit and why? I think we will see the consequences of it. Very few economies can afford to limit opportunity now. There are a few in the world that are big enough to be able to limit opportunity some, but not very much. And so each time a society makes the decision that local is important, it's important enough to exclude others. You will limit opportunity in some way, sometimes economic, sometimes social. And the other question that comes up is, is it a protection of cultural social values or is it a protection of some part of the power structure? Because that will be an ongoing fight. If it is a sort of ground up, bottoms up sense, this is my culture, I don't want these things here and that we as a society want or are willing to limit the opportunities because this part of our culture is so important, then that mechanism has a sustaining ability of its own. If that is a part of that culture that happens to have the ability to limit opportunity to protect itself, then you're protecting part of the culture and limiting opportunity for everyone and that is a much less stable system over time. I think, you see, this is bringing the whole question of identity to the fore. What is our identity? You know, I happen to have been born from Egyptian parents, grew up in Lebanon and Switzerland and the US. And I struggle myself personally, what is my identity? Who am I really? And now our kids on the internet, they go on the internet. Sometimes they build groups, they join groups that have people that cross national lines, ethnic lines, all kinds of lines and they have an identity with them that has nothing to do with the passport they hold or with the color they have or with the church or mosque or temple they go to on the weekend. And so identity is also reshaped by the internet and many governments or societies are worried about the erasing of their identity through the internet. And therefore the question also becomes what rules will start coming down to limit that and what do they take away from our kids and the next generation? Big questions. Right, and how stable is identity? So limiting opportunity perhaps for the websites that are recruiting children into terrorism. A lot of societies might do that. How carefully do you do that? How broad a stroke? How broad, you know, how broad a law do you have to stop that problem? These are such critical questions that that's why the multi-stakeholder system is so important here. Like we've seen this in the United States with the surveillance of the US government, which was made by law enforcement without the kind of public discussion that would be necessary because law enforcement's job is law enforcement. So they're doing their best there, but it's only now that we know about it that we can, as Mozilla's been very active in, demand discussion with and of our government about that is not the system that we, the citizens, want. And so getting not just citizens who are outraged at their government, but also businesses and other communities into these difficult decisions earlier is part of the new government system that we have to have. Because what do all those young people look for? Often it's a social network, often it's their friends, often it's an algorithmic response, and so what people trust and how you figure out what your society is going to do has to have a broad participation. Yeah, I think this is an interesting question. What I feel is that when the government and the people worry about our kids losing their value, their culture, but on the other side, internet is building a global value for our next generation. Without internet, people read by the newspaper, listen to the radio, by the TVs that their government arranged, or their people arranged, their food sometimes. But on the internet, the next generation, they understand what is the global value. This is not the China value, the American value, it's the global value of our human. How you put to your value inside, melting together, building up the global value for our young generation of the future. Value is not, the culture value is not actually created by the government or by it. It's created by your family, it's by your temple, your church, your everyday's life behavior. So if you really think that is good, you'll be there. Value and culture is your DNA. It's difficult to eliminate. But internet is going to be something that we can create a new thing. For example, any disaster comes, anything that bad happens, the world, our next generation on the internet, they're working together. Governing internet to, I agree with Mitchell said, governing internet is trying to governing the human nature today. It is not easy. We've been trying to govern for 2,000 years, want to work. But internet might help create something interesting new for the future in the next 50, 100 years. We might have our kids share the same global value, global culture. Meanwhile, because of their family, their temple, their church, they keep their DNA. This is what I think. This is very hopeful in a way what Jack just said. I'm positive all the time. No, I noticed that. I noticed that. But what you said is very hopeful because you said we can actually have global values that do not have to erase local values. That these two can coexist. But that those global values are to be discovered. In other words, we still don't know what these will be. The internet is just starting. Billions of people are coming on it. We haven't heard from them yet. What will be that set of values? First hand up, this gentleman there, if you could, we could get him a, he was very fast. He deserves the first microphone. Please tell us your name and address your question either to the panel. So the way from Taixing, a question for both Commissioner Moedes and Jack Ma. Commissioner Moedes mentioned if there were a European Google, I'm just wondering how would the European government or Commission be independent on regulating this market if there were such a company or say for Airbus. And for Jack Ma, Alibaba has become the national champion of China in a way. How do you kind of utilize this position while not hurting competition either from domestic or foreign? How do you handle this relationship with the government? Thank you. Sorry, how do we, what, excuse me? How do you handle this relationship with the government in a way not hurting the interest of the entire society or other companies? Okay. Do you want to go first, Jack? Okay, please. Thank you very much for the question. First, my point is exactly that is not up to governments to do that. And I think what politicians really do well and should do well is to lower the barriers for people to create companies and have ideas and do things that otherwise they wouldn't. You know, our biggest program for research and science is called the European Research Council. And the only thing we do is that we give grants of two and a half million to three million euros and we ask scientists, look, tell us what you want to do. We don't give them any guidance. And you know, it's the most successful ever program that we had. I mean, the inventor of graphene, Professor Andre Geim, was part of it. The last year's Nobel Prize for medicine was part of it. And so I think that's the role of government is to lower the barriers and let people do and put the money on a bottom-up approach. And if you do that, you have amazing stories and it's not just the government, it's the internet. When Jack and Mitchell were talking or thinking about a kid in the Netherlands that just came up to me, the story, a guy called Boyan Slat, that with 15 years old, he went to Greece and he found that there was a lot of plastic bags in the ocean. And so he came back and with 16 years old, he set up basically a crowdfunding in the internet. He solved and created a technological solution that is working today and he raised two million dollars. I mean, and that's the values that I think Jack, you were certainly saying. I mean, you create these networks of values, of positive values. Of course, there's all the other counter examples and that's the difficult balance, but there's really, I have hope that the good examples will be much, much more than the bad ones. Thank you, Commissioner. Yeah, I think, you know, you say Alibaba is already a champion in China market. Well, no internet company can be a champion for continue for five years. It's tough business. It's tough area because we have so many smart people, right? Good things, we have so many smart people. Bad things, we have so many smart people competing with you. But we are still a baby. Compared, you know, with just 15 years, very few companies in China can survive for 30 years. We want to be a company 102 years, so we have a long way to go. But working with the government is an art and it's also in a science. We have to respect because government want to protect the people. You have to respect that they'll be governing in that way for so many years and you want them to change. It's not easy. So respect them, talk to them, listen to them and also let them listen to our problem, our fear, our worry. So it's all about multi-stakeholder means let's sit down, respect each other and we both have the future. So what Alibaba tries to do is that we want to making sure internet is the positive power, positive energy and resources of innovation for the future. It's difficult for today we know the business is not easy. We know the world is not good today. But it's difficult to go back to yesterday. And if you want to go back to yesterday you will not like it. So let's see what's going on in the future. What's the future look like? I think the government and us, if we talk about the future we can sit down to get a talk. If we talk about yesterday it will be tough. So as always working with different people and sometimes if you're unlucky we have unlucky things happening every day. It's difficult to hear Jack Ma speaking about unlucky things. He brings luck to many of us and he's got himself quite a bit of it. But we're going to take two more questions. The gentleman here in the front and I'll take the lady in the back. So if we could give her a microphone as well. You go first, sir. Hello, my name is Eric. We are the innovation pioneer this year and our technology is using a transgenic fish. I met him on the electric cart between buildings and even on the electric cart he was telling me what he does. I was very impressed by your... The fish will become fluorescent when it detects toxin. And the breakthrough is that compared to the traditional testing method which can test only 5 to 10 we can screen thousands at one time. So my question is to Mr. Jack Ma and we learned that Ali Baba's vision is to help the SMEs and make sure there's no difficult business. In the decade you helped millions of traditional SMEs. And now we are the new generation with the new innovation here. But we have the difficulty to promote this technology through the enterprises, to the government because they want to face to realize that their product are not as safe as they think because we test more. So how the internet or internet company like Ali Baba can help this innovative start-up technology and to benefit the society? Thank you very much. Well, first year good sales people. You got a good chance to talk about your idea and I think if you continue to do that you will be successful. And the second is that we had the same problem in the past 15 years and at least 12 years nobody listened to my story. Even to today I came here talking to investors. They still do not believe what I'm talking about. They sell my stocks. You know, life is that. Get used to it. But we are not going to help you. Nobody is going to help you if you don't help yourself. This word don't trust that anybody is going to help you by heart. Only your wife, your parents, and maybe not. Only you have to help yourself and make sure that you help your team. You team and you together help your customers. The luck is from your customer not from company like Ali Baba. Because Ali Baba tried to help but Ali Baba cannot solve any problems and Ali Baba itself may have a lot of problems. We need a lot of help. That's the life. We need a consultation for your business. That would have cost you dearly in any other setting. Jack Ma straight to you with good ideas on how to and he is good. He didn't know me. He saw me on a cart and he started telling me about what they built. So keep doing what you did. Young lady there. Hi, I'm Sharon from WTO. How to evaluate what's the relationship between the government business and maybe the EWTO you mentioned before. And especially any difference between the traditional and now especially in China. Thank you. I've been thinking that for two years how we can build a network for the small business. Take advantage of globalization. I think past 20 years I don't mean bad, it's called Americanization. Big company, multinational go anywhere. Which the world benefitted a lot in the past 20 years. But think about the next 80% of the business maybe more than 90% of the business in this world are small business. They did not benefit a lot from globalization. They helped. We got more than 400 million consumers. And tens of millions of small business in China. If we can help them, why we cannot have the global, why we cannot have Egypt, why we cannot help the Philippine, Norway, Argentina. But it's not easy. I've been talking to a lot of government, local governments in different countries. I have the same problem. I have the same problem with e-commerce. They say, forget it. And we talked about government. It's interesting. Give me a proposal where you give the proposal, go nowhere. It's okay. It takes time. I have a patient like this young man. And I think my proposal is simple. If we can make any small business free for importing. In this, we can create millions of jobs for small business. But my idea has a lot. It's not a good time to talk about here because of the time limit. But I will keep on fighting for that. I was trained to be a teacher. I call myself chief education officer. And I want to fight for another 10 years for those small business. And I will be that person. Thank you. Thank you, Jack. Let's bring this home so we can close this discussion today. Where we started was in saying that we need a new regime of global governance for the economic and societal layers of the internet. That the layers of the internet that are technical are pretty much well managed today. And the challenge for the world is how do we put rules around governing the economic and societal layer. I think what we heard today, few key ideas. Everyone almost here said multi-stakeholder. Principal number one, that we cannot have governments alone or businesses alone or civil society alone make the rules for how the internet will work. We need to come together in new platforms that are necessary for all the stakeholders to participate in their own respective roles so that we can set the rules of the future. The second idea I heard today that I really liked is that we need innovation in governance, not just in technology. Most of us think of innovation around technology, but we need innovation. Because as the commissioner was saying, if we simply use the old methods, they cannot keep up with the internet. If we say, let me give you an example. If we tell companies who feel their copyrights are being violated on the internet. Yeah, why don't we go and have a treaty about that? Typical treaties take seven to 12 years. Do you think we can tell that we need 12 years to solve an issue that is a problem today on the internet? Impossible. So we have an issue that governance need to be itself a space for innovation. Governments, businesses, all the stakeholders need to find new ways to govern. And when Jack says EWTO or the idea of a trade organization that can move at the speed of light, that's powerful. And that is antithetical to the current governance models. So how do we get into innovation in governance? That's the second thing I took, and I'll ask you to add to these. The third thing I took, and I really like that point, that globalization to date has worked for multinationals. It worked for big companies who know how to function with governments, who know how to build big solutions across the world. Globalization today has not yet worked or benefited directly small businesses. And I think this is a new powerful concept that Jack is putting on the table, that we need to innovate to help those people a small business anywhere in the world to become a business and allow them to do that. The trade rules around that for that small business around the world are today the same for a multinational. It doesn't work. We need to fix that. I think that's a key takeaway from you. So before I close this and remind people what great things the forum is doing in Davos and I hope we see many of you there let me just go quickly back to my panelists and ask if they can in 30 seconds to a minute give some final thoughts or if they learned something new today. Professor Moore. I thought this was very good and I agree with your summary. I think that it's very important to understand that the only way to help small businesses is for some organizations to protect consumers on the internet. If the internet is too dangerous for you to be able to trust small businesses, then only the nationals with their strong branding will be the ones that people pay attention to. Policing the internet to make sure that businesses are evaluated whether doing their services or not is necessary for the success of the small businesses. This is a powerful idea actually that you said a couple of times. I should have put it in my summary that one way to enable small business is to actually increase the trust on the net. Because I usually will go to a big company simply because I know they have a brand and I can trust them. So if we can find a way to increase the trust on the net, then more small businesses can participate in that. Thank you. This is a good point. Please, Commissioner Moore. Thank you very much. I thought I would just finish with a story. In March 1989 in the CERN in Switzerland there was this boss and when he wrote the memo to actually create a new way, a new distributed information system he got back an answer from his boss and his boss wrote on the cover something that was quite for me a message for the future. He wrote vague but exciting and with these words the world changed. I think that the future is vague, is uncertain but it's very exciting. So thank you very much for that. Well said, vague and exciting. That's the World Wide Web. Please, Mitchell. When we think about internet governance we should remember the percentage of the population that's under 15 or 20 and that the governance models that we have today are not trusted many are not trustworthy and involving the new kinds of participation and information flow in the new governance mechanisms we develop will be key to making them accepted. Involving the youth. Thank you. Yeah. Whether you like it or not the world has moving from IT technology to data technology time. Many things we worry today may not happen 10 years later. Many things we don't worry about may come. So I think the next 30 years will be the great time for women, for young people and for small business and this is what I believe. Thank you, Jack. Thank you all of you for your contributions. I believe the 21st century needs a new regime for digital governance. It is incumbent upon us to actually define this regime and ensure the internet continues to be the engine of growth it has been. And in this regard the World Economic Forum has launched the initiative on the future of the internet. This is a very important initiative and we thank frankly the forum for their leadership for their vision on this initiative this initiative will start addressing many of these questions and in Davos there will be a series of meetings to address how this internet can continue to be resilient and grow but with enough rules so that this river can continue serving all of us. We do need some rules it cannot be without dams and bridges and tunnels as we said so that this river can benefit everyone. So thank you again. Have a wonderful stay in Dalian.