 that the new generation could give on policymaking because we have mechanisms that you're all very familiar with but the digital world is disrupting, including the way we look at policies. And we've been working on this session with Song Nim, and gathering very talented individuals and very promising individuals that will showcase not only what they do but their perspective on some of the things that they've experienced during the two days of the World Policy Conference. But just give me, we'll give you a quick introduction on how we prepared this session collectively. We believe digital is a disruption and you can see it notably through the phenomena of platforms. And we will address the question of platforms. It has an influence on how people think, on how people mobilize, on how people make decisions. And here I would like to refer, for instance, to artificial intelligence. We will not develop it, but clearly this is an impact of this technology. Technology will entail policy by design. One example is, for instance, the blockchain. The blockchain will organize the way people transact without the intervention of third party and will entail elements of policies that we will see also at government level. And then the last point that we would like to address is the critical element of the regulator. Today the regulator works with the current order, with the tools of the current order. And the regulator, in fact, is delaying the adoption of technologies by the economy, is delaying the adoption of technologies by government authorities and thus harming by themselves, but just by the sheer fact of the way they operate today, the competitiveness of the countries. And this is a very serious question, how fast can we equip and how much can we trust the regulator that they can exercise their compliance duty with the new tools and in the new technology environment. And this is what we will try to cover with the young leaders today very shortly. What I've asked them to do is introduce themselves. They are not experts, as most of the panelists we've seen during these last days, but they have achieved quite a few things so far in their young career and then give one of the perspectives that they had over the last days. And we will start with Mathilde Apak, an economist at the OECD, who will give us an overview, set the umbrella, and then we'll continue with our colleagues. Please, Mathilde, go ahead. Do I have a PowerPoint normally? Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. First, I would like to thank the WPC for inviting me to such a high level event. And second, I would like to thank you all for being here despite the time issue. My name is Mathilde Apak and I'm an economist at OECD. I am working in the labour market work stream in the economics department. And today, I am very happy to share with you some insights about how digital transformation is reshaping jobs. Based on a paper I wrote with co-authors on the gig economy platforms. I unfortunately couldn't be here on Friday and attend a session about preparing children and youth for jobs in the 21st century. But I hope I will complement this session by bringing some optimism to the young generation and the more experienced ones about the future of work. Ladies and gentlemen, have you ever dreamed of a world where you would be matched with a perfect employer to do a job that fit perfectly your constraints and would highlight your skills? Well, ever since I started working on the gig economy platforms, I couldn't help thinking that this dream could one day be true. Are gig economy platforms the new superior business models, a boon? Or will they be a bane for workers that will be just left with scraps? To address this question, I will present to you the macroeconomic effects of gig economy platforms based on key features of their business models. And then I will present also their flaws that needs to be addressed. But first, I would like to give you a quick picture about what gig economy platform exactly cover. So gig economy platforms, they use digital technologies to match workers to customers on a per-task basis, the gigs. And there is really a wide range of services and tasks. They can be physical and local, like Uber and Handy, or online and worldwide. They can be routine tasks or that doesn't require any specific qualification, like adding keywords on images for Amazon Mechanical Turk, or they can be high-skilled tasks which require specific professional diploma, like for consulting or web designing in the case of Upwork. And so all these wide range of services and tasks for workers to do, for businesses to outsource, for consumers to enjoy. And also note, gig economy platforms, they intermediate labor. So this excludes any kind of digital platforms that intermediate other kinds of services, like accommodations or trade goods. Now I will move to present you some selection of economic impacts of gig economy platforms on macroeconomic variables. I won't bore you with the technical details. It's early and it's in Sunday morning. But you have to know that we developed a stylized theoretical model and that we tested some of these, the conclusions empirically. So there are two key features to the business models that need to be accounted for when we want to assess the potential effects of economic, sorry, economic effects of gig economy platforms. First, they develop trust-building mechanisms, like curator of entry or exit to platform, reputation rating systems, customer support and insurance, payment intermediation. And this lower barriers to work because there are some alternatives to formal qualifications that should normally stand for quality check for the customers. These in turn give more job opportunities to unemployed and people that are weakly attached to the labor market, which in the end would raise total employment. Second, they rapidly match supply of labor to fluctuations of demand by using digital matching algorithm, self-employed contractors and search pricing in the case of Handy and Uber, for instance. This would increase matching efficiency at employment level, at given employment level, which in turns would raise productivity. But be careful because gig economy platforms, they tend to raise total employment, so this really erodes the productivity gain. So in total, the effect on productivity is a bit ambiguous. So far, gig economy platforms, they seem to be some excitingly innovative thing. Well, I hope that's how you feel. But like every innovation, they are not perfect right away and they have flaws that need to be addressed. And this is a challenge for policymakers, so that in order to really get all the potential gains in productivity or employment, that the public policies need to be adapted. So for instance, the gig economy platforms, they reveal the weaknesses in the market failures and services, which means that the traditional rules may have become obsolete, like for instance, the occupation licensing. And then we have to really promote level playing field because we don't want to realize that gig economy platforms were successful because basically they just exploit some regulatory or legal loophole and not because of their technological innovation. And so the regulation needs to be applied to all providers on equal footing and social contribution and value added taxes, they need to be harmonized across platforms. And then there's regulatory sandboxes, which can be provided to test whether really the innovation part of the platforms explained as success. Then strong product market competition, this would limit the emergence of dominant players. And this could be helped by promoting mobility of workers across platforms, like for instance, by limiting abusive clauses to prevent switching from one platform to another or allow the transfer of reputation ratings across platforms since these reputation ratings will stand for qualifications. And also, the scope and the scale of data collected by the incumbent platforms, they will feed their matching algorithms. And so this could also be like an entry barrier to new entrants because they don't have access to these data and would have maybe less performing matching algorithms. Strong competition product markets would also help preventing the emergence of dominant players in labor market. But to really improve working conditions of workers, there needs to be some adaptation of labor market regulations, rules on collective bargaining, access to social protection and training. And so now the second challenge for policymakers is to address these flaws rapidly, to keep up with the rapid development of the economy platforms. So what will the future look like? I don't know. Perhaps we won't be talking about dream jobs or jobs in the 21st century, but rather about dream tasks, dream gigs, that we would pick through really this big pool of possibilities and through very performing matching algorithms. Or perhaps by outsourcing the tasks we don't want to do or that are routine, by outsourcing them to machines or other platform workers. Perhaps we can free our mind and come up with some creative ideas to create some other kind of tasks which don't exist for now and which we can't imagine now, but which will require human intelligence. Thank you for your attention. So thank you Matilda for setting the scene and giving the perspective. What I propose to you now, we will go through three examples, through three different type of technologies, be it augmented and virtual reality to start with. And we will look at the impact of Internet of Things in two different contexts and then Ermin will give us the view of the regulator. So I call now Marco Jan Mat that will present his views on what he is doing, by the way, as an entrepreneur in augmented and virtual reality and what he thinks the impact will be. Marco, floor is yours. Hi all, I'm Marco Jan Mat, I'm founder of a company called VR Al and the company basically does two things. One, we build VR and AR applications for companies and we help to implement them into the organization. And two, we have built an urban planning tool which allows us to generate 3D maps from geographical data and translate them into virtual reality. So we can show people their future environment, we can show what happens if a windmill is placed into their environment, we can show what happens to the traffic. And from what I experience in my personal life I see that technology has a lot of impact on your personal life, especially if you see business models like Airbnb, you see business models like Uber, we see the usage of smartphones that have grown the last past ten years and now we can't even live without a smartphone anymore. But if I see the experience from my professional life I notice that working with governments in urban planning and working with municipalities, we are always busy with the current status of technology. So we are always looking at how should we regulate or handle the current fields of technology or how should we regulate or handle the current playing fields. And the moment we try to talk to them or open up and connect with them on a level to see, hey, where are we in five or ten years? There's always quite a big gap between the technology world on the one hand and the governance world on the other hand. And to give you, I just want to give you a small example of that. Who of you expects to have a smartphone in 15 years? So who of you expects to have a smartphone in 15 years? Please raise your hand. See half of the room? So the other half. Have you ever thought about what is going to replace your smartphone? So from what we know it is that this discussion, okay, how is this replacement of smartphone going to look like and how is this going to impact me? I want to give you a small example. So I work in the augmented reality industry and augmented reality has the possibility to replace all the digital screens we have now. So currently we have built up a digital system with screens everywhere. You have an iPad at home. You have a computer at home. We have two televisions. We have a projection board. But in the future with augmented reality, we have the possibility to place this digital information and show it just via a glass. So we don't need all this physical hardware. Because the awkward thing is that all this physical hardware is just when it's not displaying any digital information, it's just standing there. It's just using resources. It's actually a fatal flaw in our digital system. And I have a short video that I would like to show you. Can we get it up the screen? Okay, no video. I'll try to explain you. So basically what augmented allows us to do is that we put on the glass and instead of seeing our phone or taking our phone or just looking at a screen, we could literally just say, okay, we open our hands and we could display the digital information in our hands. We could literally say, okay, tonight I want to have my television this big and place it on the wall. But if you're starting to think in these constructs, it also brings a lot of elements to that. So okay, who owns this digital space? What if you would walk through a street and all this advertising would come into your face? So these questions that on the one hand live inside the technology world are, okay, how are we going to shape this world? How is the augmented reality world going to look like on the one hand? And governments, how are we going to regulate this? I think there's a huge still quite a gap between that. And I hope like in the future and with these type of conferences, we can bring that together. Marco, thank you. So Marco is a Dutch entrepreneur as you will have noticed. Sorry, can we get the video or not? So the idea was to explain what Marco was saying is that, and I think it's a very important element that we will have to address. The fact that this virtualization will abstract a complete layer of interaction. So not only now we say the problem is we abstract the layer of conversation between human to human to go to human to machine. And then the layer of machine will be abstracted to augmented and virtual reality and we will deal with representation. That's what you were saying of a set of data. We're not knowing exactly by the way where they come from, probably another topic. And then this level of abstraction will create in itself questions about how you govern these elements, because how deep and who will understand what's behind. All the users, all the citizens will want to engage with technology in this way because it's extremely intuitive. You immersed into the data and it's very easy to understand what's happening in your environment. But then you have these different layers below that actually produce what will need to be checked from a compliance perspective and what will need to be given. And that's the point about augmented and virtual reality. So thank you and sorry for the logistics because I know, and maybe we can catch up later. Moving on another example, I'm calling in now Natasha Franck. She's an American entrepreneur. She's dealing with IoT on recycling, but I'm sure she will not present it this way. So I let her introduce herself, her activity and her perspective. Natasha, I'm, can this is okay? I'm founder and CEO of a company called Eon. And we work on IoT, which is Internet of Things for the purposes of circular economy and sustainability. And there's a tremendous opportunity here as well as a huge imperative because our generation is the first generation to learn of climate change and also have the ability to do anything about it. And the ability to harness the power of technology to enable this sustainable future is absolutely essential. So our company works specifically with the focus in the fashion, apparel and retail industry. And that may seem, you know, why that focus. Fashion is actually one of the most, number two most polluting industry in the world. Second only to oil. So there is a massive, massive pollution here in this industry. And it also introduces the first model for introducing IoT or the Internet of Things. And can I get a show of hands of just who in here knows what IoT is? Okay, we're doing pretty good. So the Internet of Things is basically the permeation of the digital world into the physical world, right? So we think of the Internet as something that we search on our computers. This asset, this product, this shirt will be searchable. This will have a digital identity. This will have a profile. And that leads to, you know, the biggest introduction of data into the physical world, which also introduces the biggest opportunity to use data to power a regenerative future. So if we get a little bit tangible with this, what are we actually attaching to a physical product to bring it online? Here's an example. This is what we've developed as well as software and this is one of the industry's first RFID tags in the form of a thread that can be embedded into the product, right? So that's actually what you attach to products to bring them into the digital world, right? 80% of retailers are moving toward item-level RFID tagging. So now you have a huge opportunity to marry this kind of technology with a sustainable future, right? So if this product has a digital identity, now you can access all the transparency, all the information about the utilization of that asset throughout the product lifecycle and you also have the first global system for recycling because you can scan the asset, recognize the material content, sort, separate accordingly. It also is a huge alignment or potential conflict with policy, right? Because now we have products that are identified and we have data merging into the physical world and how do we even begin to start to regulate that, start to measure that, start to create solutions around that. And most, you know, IOT is very new and emerging technology. While new and emerging, IOT is actually about, by 2025, going to be 11% of the world economy, right? So this is not something that is a sort of side technology. This will reinvent about every single industry as the digital world moves into the physical. So if we actually, you know, compare this, I think an example that helps look at how data, you know, looking at the physical world here is right now when you send mail through the post office, right? The post office doesn't read your mail, right? But if they decided that the post office wanted to make more money by reading your mail, you would say, oh, no, no, right? That wouldn't be okay. Yet that's what Google does every day when you're using these services because you're signing up for them for free, right? And so basically you now have kind of this kind of concept that you wouldn't accept in the physical world moving into the digital world, right? But then on the other hand, if you look at, you know, an example like that with a different approach, when we look at technology in the physical world, you know, like the use of municipal energy systems and the public-private partnerships that go into designing urban energy utilization, there's great alignment there in terms of how the cities and the energy companies are working together to create urban infrastructure. So here I think we kind of have two different examples of the way that data ownership and collaboration can kind of reshape the future landscape of technology. And how can we now with IoT harness the power of that technology for sustainability for, you know, policy improvements? And I think it's one of the most important things that policymakers, entrepreneurs, big technology companies get right because this technology is the most powerful enabling technology for a sustainable future. So if we don't look at those intersections of where we can use big data and this sort of cross-section with consumer privacy and government opportunity, then we won't be able to extract the value here. So I think this conference presents an incredible opportunity to start to look at those new public-private partnerships, how technology plays in that sphere and how to kind of create solutions that actually support this more meaningful future. So thank you so very much and I look forward to speaking with you all later. Thank you. Thank you. Natasha, I would like to stress two points so what Natasha has shown you as an RFID tag in Form of the Threat is quite a technological achievement. And you will see more. That will accelerate the deployment of notably the 5G telecommunications standard that will allow and we master the problem of the energy on the IoT side so that will develop. But also for this conference, I think Natasha highlighted a very important point is the traceability and the transparency. There will be no place too high. You will have it. You will know from the beginning where it is developed and then produced, manufactured, used, reused and then recycled and that will provide an enormous amount of data that will not be able to be processed by the normal compliance mechanism that we have today and we will have to integrate these elements. A lot of the IoT data, by the way, will be useless and to be very clear because they are just here but you can't do anything about it but a very important fraction of it will be extremely useless and will help perform not only the compliance part but also understanding how efficiency and effectiveness, notably in the consumption can be improved because we will identify patterns that we cannot identify today by just observing what we see as human beings. So that was the point. So thank you very much for your point, Natasha. Now we stay in IoT but more in the manufacturing space and I will give the word to Marco with a German entrepreneur and we'll present to you what his company is developing and what he believes will have an impact on our life going forward. Thank you very much. We are a little bit now about IoT and maybe for consumer perspective and I want to share some insights for our work life. I'm Tarek from ProGlof and we are a young company from Munich in the manufacturing and logistics industry and we believe that despite all automation the worker, the human worker will still be crucial for the future of the industry. We just have to equip him with the right tools with the right technological tools just like industrial IoT. So what we do, we basically had a look at the industry and how the industry is shaped and what drives innovation in the industrial sector and we saw that there are two different stakeholders in the end. We have on the one hand decision makers, process owners, plant owners, warehouse owners who are very interested in how to optimize their processes. They have to deliver a certain parcel at a certain time to a certain customer. And on the other hand we have people who operate, who create the value by assembling a car, by packing the packages and deliver it and both ends have one big problem, one big issue in this transforming world. It's efficiency. It's on the one hand trying to make things faster in order to save money or on the other hand to create better process quality while not losing time. And we had a closer look especially at manufacturing in the automotive sector and we saw that all operators have one thing in common. They all wear gloves. And this is where pro gloves come in because we made those gloves smart. We made those gloves into an industrial IoT feature. I'd like to present those gloves also to you. You can just slip in. It's a module on top, a small computer, a camera, tracking device, motion sensors, optic acoustic and haptic feedback options. And you have even a trigger, a textile trigger at the side of your index finger. When you push this trigger, you actually can see that the engine is released. So people use it nowadays at IKEA, at BMW, at all types of grocery stores to identify objects and to make sure that they assemble the right part at the right time. So by pressing the button, you can actually see a feedback on the back of your hand and you can sense it as well. So it's good for three things. It's increasing speed because I don't have to use a separate tool anymore. At second, it improves quality because the worker knows exactly at the time he identifies the object, whether it was right or wrong. And at third, it gives us more insights, more traceability on how the processes are designed and how, at the real world environment, actually the workforce behaves inside a warehouse or inside the manufacturing side. I'd like to even invite you to have an example, not here on stage, but actually at a manufacturing line in Munich of BMW if the video works. Yes, it would be great. So just to give you the perspective about the speed and about what drives those people, they actually have to assemble a car every 53 seconds and they have to make sure that they use the right parts and assemble them in the right order in exactly that time. That means every second that they can save is crucial to them. And if you can do it in an even more ergonomic way, it's good for the worker. We heard those needs actually also here in the conference on Friday by Airbus who mentioned that if in a multinational supply chain, value chain, if truck drivers get controlled at the border and lose two minutes, it's actually real money that Airbus is losing there. So we cannot save these two minutes, but we can provide actually a few seconds to improve the processes over there. With regards to regulation, there also come issues in this new technology. We have a technology attached to the worker and all unions of course at first say, okay, what are you doing with this data? What about privacy issues? What about the privacy of my worker? And I actually want to give you an example from an inquiry at the earlier stage of our company where a big US manufacturer asked us, what can you track with your glove? I imagine my workforce just like a football team with the players on the field and when they don't perform, I want to exchange them. And this is a boundary for us that we don't want to address. We think that we can address problems in the industry while giving data, we don't want to anonymize data to the process owner. But it's up to regulation to define how much traceability we can use or how much traceability the company owners can use to optimize the processes. And I think what I saw during the last days, it's important to understand for us that the pace of technological change is high and we need to keep up in terms of regulation with this pace. And with this, I'd like to basically hand over to the regulation part and see how technology can also improve regulation itself. Thank you. Thank you, Tarek, making the link to one of the elements that Matilda introduced at the beginning. You showed the type of policies that would be affected here and it's clearly labor policy. You should know on top now that not only people will wear gloves, but they wear helmets, earphones, where they are given instructions by machines to tell us what is the next action to be done. So at the end of the day, the relationship between the human and the machine, considering that in the warehouse space, for instance, it's human less. So today, the way the warehouses are managed is without humans. You cannot do it on the manufacturing chain. So this is the evolution and that's back to the augmentation that technology can bring, but in which conditions. So thank you, Tarek. That was very clear. Now I'm pleased to conclude the presentation before we move to Q&A to Hermine. Hermine is from the French Nuclear Safety Authority in charge of nuclear safety and radiation protection in southwest of France, and she will give us the view of the regulator in a highly sensitive environment because we've seen more the manufacturing space. Thank you, Patrick. Hi, everyone. My name is Hermine Durand. I'm the head of the regional office of the Nuclear Safety Authority in France for southwest France. So the French Nuclear Safety Authority is an organization which is in charge on behalf of the state of regulating nuclear safety and radiation protection in order to protect workers, the environment, patients, and also the public in general from the risks coming from the nuclear use. So I come from southwest France. I'm the head of the team of inspectors because in southwest France, apart from great vineyards, we have three nuclear power plants, four big medical centers, and also two industrial areas using X-rays. So we are the regulator there. And my point today is, yes, the regulator needs to go digital to improve the efficiency of the inspection process. And yes, we are late compared to other companies or other organizations, but in the nuclear sector, you can't really afford to move fast and break things. So that's why we decided to gather, like all the Nuclear Safety Authority, at Station F, which is a startup campus developed by Xavier Niel a few months ago, and we started to think about how we could go digital. So first, let me give you an insight into the life of a nuclear inspector. So basically, a nuclear safety inspector will have to prepare for his inspection. So he will review all the documentation that the operator will send to him. He will review all the incident reports or previous inspection reports, and he will do that almost manually each time. And then you arrive on site, and we can call that an unwelcoming environment, because there is heat, noise, radiation. So we need to act very efficiently while we are inspecting nuclear power plants. And then he comes back to the office and he has to write a report, and each time he almost starts from scratch, you know, because you have to quote all regulatory texts and say what you've seen and what should the operator do. So it's like, you know, we could and we should be more efficient in this inspection process. And I think IT and going digital will strongly help us. And it's all the more important that we go digital as we're going to face huge challenges. I'm sure you are aware that in France we have 40-year-old reactors, and if we want them to operate beyond 40 years, they need to do huge maintenance works and also huge improvements for safety. So it was mentioned in one of the sessions that the nuclear cost is rising, but it's especially true for new reactors. In France we have these old reactors. We're trying to operate a little bit more than 40 years, and for that we need stronger regulation and a more efficient regulation process. So having said that, how could we use IT to improve our inspection process? Well, I can see three things. First, we have to optimize information flows. In some countries, like in Canada, for instance, nuclear safety inspectors have full access to the operator's data. It is not the case in France, maybe because we are a very transparent agency and we have to publish everything we do and we see. But it should really help us if we could have direct access to the operator's data. Second is that we should better exploit all the data we have. As inspectors, we have like 20,000 inspection reports. And well, when we need one, we just look at it in the database and try to see what trends we could use for our inspection. But we are launching at the moment a big data mining project on these inspection reports to see how we could find some trends and maybe be more efficient and more relevant in our control of French nuclear power plants. And then third, I think we should develop new tools to save time. It might seem very simple and basic, but automatic generation of documents could really help us be more efficient or also having a dynamic phrasebook for our inspections. So these are a few things that IT could help us with. So what do we need to do that? Well, of course we need human resources, we need money, but my point is we especially need the security of information systems because we can't afford to do that if then there are unintended consequences. So to conclude, I want to say that I don't think digital transformation is going to delete the job of nuclear safety inspectors, but it's going to help us be more efficient and given the big challenges we have to face, it is very important. But I would also like to say that this is going to be for the benefits of the citizens because basically if you have better nuclear safety regulation, you have better protection of the public and the environment. And beyond that, I also think that IT will help us improve the acceptance, the social acceptance of the nuclear sector. That's the challenge of open data. So the data can come from the operator, of course. It can also come from the state, so from the nuclear safety authority. And then it can also come from the citizens themselves. There is an experiment in Japan of a little device that you can connect to your phone and then you can measure the radioactivity of the environment yourself and then contribute to a big platform. And this is a better access to the information for citizens. And I think that could significantly help improve nuclear social acceptance. And it was mentioned many times during the World Policy Conference that this is a necessary condition to pursue this nuclear energy use. So the only condition is the security of information systems because we can't avoid to move fast and break things again. Thank you very much. Thank you, Amin. I think she added a very important point that was not addressed by the predecessors because they have to develop their business and grow as fast as possible, but I couldn't stress more what Amin said about security. It goes with it because with our world moving digital, the value of the economy is moving in that space and then with all possible activities that go with it, notably in terms of cybercriminality. And the security is extremely important. It's important to protect itself, but it's also important to protect the citizen. And that was a very important point. And so it's not only how fast the regulator can adapt, but also how fast you can do it in a safe way. And I think she gave a very strong example. So that is what we wanted to present to you. So the message, I think, should be clear. We have multiple parallel technology developments. There is no activity that is untouched, but it comes from different angles. So it entails a high level of complexity. But all in all, we are moving from what was a process-centric world, in my view, to a data-centric world. And where data is the thing we should care about. And then we will be able to do a lot of different things with these data in very different shape and forms versus what we had before, where we were all focused on the process and then we processed including the data in the system. It's quite a radical change in the way we operate. And now I'm pleased to open the floor to questions. Yes? 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 and 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 I am going to send something to Jeff Bezos. So I mean it's one solution, but still for me there's already some potentials that are also digital in that case. So I still remain optimistic. Okay, 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 about 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're also left behind. So there could be risk of widening gap between on the side of technology and 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. 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. 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? Yeah. 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 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. And Min, you have something to add? Yeah, thank you, James, for your question. I think we, as I mentioned, of course government 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're 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 more, it's 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 is 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 sort of 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. This effect of the 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, etc. 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. 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, 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, okay, 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, already talk to the government 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 notably in the space of cybersecurity. It is a real issue for, 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 cooperation are used either as target 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 cooperation 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. When you develop an algorithm and 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, 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 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. 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.