 So, Toby, maybe we can address that little confusion and imbalances. Is there a way to put some governance into this? Thank you, Rajini. I want to first thank Thierry Songnim and the organizers of the World Policy Conference for inviting me to be a panelist in this session. I would like to briefly share the objectives, state both the paradox and the challenge. Having four key issues that I believe will have a bearing on the way we live in a hyper-connected or connected world. With the permission of the chair, I would also like to touch upon the need for effective global governance as a means to optimize the benefits of a connected world or otherwise be prepared to face the collateral damage. Let me state the objective first. Basically, it's to identify the gap between yesterday's structures and today's complex problem in a connected world. And here lies the paradox. Globalization, while it is the most progressive force in history, can also be the cause of the most severe crisis of the 21st century. Consequently, citizens will see integration as risky and could become xenophobic, protectionist and nationalist. So what is the challenge? It's quite evident. The challenge is the future is unlike the past. Our capacity to manage current global events has not kept pace with the growth in the complexity and danger of those events. At the national level, the biggest challenge for politicians worldwide and policymakers is the need to balance the enormous benefits of global openness and connectivity with national priorities and policies. For example, the need to protect local jobs and local industry. Let me also state the four issues that I wanted to speak about. One is the need to repurpose global governance with respect to global commons. This is spoken in many forums where I just like to shortly describe this. The repurposing of global governance to meet the new challenges is vital. Nations are divided and cannot agree on common approaches. And within nations, there is no consensus or leadership on critical global issues. The number of countries now involved in negotiation exceeds more than 200. And the complexity of these issues have become multifold. They're interconnected as grown and as much as the effect of media and pressures on politicians. So what is the tragedy of the global commons? It's something that we had in the past. It is the over-exploitation of common resources. Like we had herders in the past, no single person has the motivation, single person or government has the motivation and the responsibility to limit the number or extent of gracing of livestock. And so these resources eventually collapse. For example, the internet. It's a shared global resource and cybercriminality is a common threat that requires intervention both at the global and national level. One cannot fight cybercriminals who transcend national borders with justice systems that are constrained by national jurisdictions. Number two, cyberattacks could trigger massive outages in a hyperconnected world. I'll give the example of WannaCry, which all of you know. WannaCry ransomware was a cyberattack that targeted machines running the Microsoft Windows operating system. We all know that it defected companies and individuals in more than 150 countries, including governments and large industry organizations. Now let us closely look at the vector. First the attack was on the British national healthcare system, the NHS. Then on Spain's largest telecommunication company, Telefonica, went on to the French car manufacturer Renault, Russian cell phone operator Megaphone, US-based FedEx, an attack on the Ukrainian state power company, the airport, the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, the Ukrainian central bank, the aircraft manufacturer Antoinette, and on to MERSC, one of the largest shipping companies in the world, TNT, one of the largest packet forwarders in the world. The attack also extended to Russia's biggest oil producer Rossnit and Sangoban, one of the largest industrial companies in France. So is there a narrative behind this? For us, it's a signaling. And the signaling and the messaging is quite clear. In a hyper-connected world, the adversary has the potential and ability to attack or disrupt an industry, a government or a critical infrastructure, anywhere in the world. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the red flag. And what you saw was only a signaling that it could be done, which means we can expect something a little more harder in the coming months. Second, digital wildfires in a connected world. In 1938, when the radio became widespread, thousands of Americans were confused by the adaptation of a HG Wells book, The War of the Worlds, with a news broadcast that jammed political stations and the telephone lines in the panic belief that the US was being invaded by Martians. Okay, it is difficult to imagine that the radio broadcast can call a comparable misunderstanding today. In part because broadcasters have learned to be more cautious and responsible. The media is more regulated and listeners have learned to be more savvy and skeptical. But the internet remains an unchartered territory, fast evolving. Social media allows information to be transmitted around the world and breakneck speed. While the benefits of all this is obvious and documented, our hyper-connected or interconnected world could also witness rapid spread of fake news and fake narratives, either intentionally or unintentionally, which can lead to misleading or provocative positions with serious consequences. The chances of this happening exponentially in this world today is far more than when the radio was introduced as a disruptive technology. Radio is a communication of one to many, while the internet is that of many to many. And finally, digital democracy. Elections are the cornerstone of democracy, we have touched upon this. They are made vulnerable by both information technology and cyber attacks as we saw in Russia, in India, in Europe, in many parts of the world. Advances in information technology are also transforming the democratic systems. Power over information has become decentralized, fostering new types of communities and different roles for government. The increased involvement of people in political debates is evident on a greater scale on social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook. The internet allows for greater freedom, allowing citizens to challenge and criticize a fundamental tenet of democracy. Let me conclude, global leadership governance in a hyper-connected world has become distributed and collaborative. We are all part of much a broader problem solving network with many hyper-forming individuals and organizations, public and private, working on different parts of different problems or on the same part of the same problem. By retreat, global governance is not about leaders charting their own course anymore. They are about helping networks solve problems with the best and the most current thinking that is available. I conclude again, collaboration is the new competition and the more valuable our contributions are, the greater our influence will be in a hyper-connected world. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you. I'm glad you had a little positive note in your conclusion because I was completely freaking out that this round table is really going downhill. Every president is seeing something worse than the other.