 Hello, and welcome to the panel on interoperability, interoperability, here, there, and everywhere, in several pieces of regulation and several technical applications. So I am Vittorio Bertola, I'm the head of policy for Open Exchange, which is a German open source software and service company, mostly in the email and DNS space. And before introducing all the other panelists, I will be giving you an explanation basically of why interoperability has become so important. Because if you were here in Brussels, I mean, you will have noticed that all of a sudden in the last year or two, interoperability has become sort of a buzzword, a magic word, which is coming up in several different pieces of regulation as the potential solution for everything. And I mean, for someone like me, I mean, I have a great suit, because now I am a policy person, but 25 years ago I was the kind of young person writing code up to the 3 AM in the room. And so as a developer, for me, interoperability was something that was completely natural. So the first thing that we should say is that interoperability is not a new concept. Actually, it is an attempt to get back to the origins of the internet. So the intent was originally meant to be interoperable, and its architecture was designed in interoperable forms. And all the services, let's say the early services that were conceived in the 80s and 90s, like email, DNS, or the web, were built since the beginning as interoperable services, in which you could just get the implementation of the protocols into open protocols from any supplier. And you could have clients and servers by many different providers and software makers. You could write your own. And you can get an email address from anyone, any provider, or run your own, and still be able to communicate with everybody else. It's the new services that have been coming up in the last 20 years that are not interoperable. But they are the exception, not the norm. So what we should do as a technical community is try to push back the original principle. And I think this is really a fundamental moment in which we have to do. Because what happened in the last 20 years is that we allowed, through possibly the lack of sufficient regulation, we allowed the internet to be closed down. And the services to be closed down. And we allowed the internet to turn into a set of world gardens owned by very few, very big companies. And we are at a point in time. And this is at risk of getting worse. Because as we have seen, now we are entering the AI age. And now there are, again, very few companies, mostly the same, that are building these machines that are learning from. Some actually say it's stealing from. There's an interesting debate on compensation of learning services for AI's. But they are learning from the knowledge, the code, the art of the entire humanity. And then they are becoming actually better at doing this. And possibly creating new forms which surpass the ones that were created by the humans and are even better and are making them redundant in a way. And they are closing them down. I mean, at least depending on the rules that we will have, there is the risk that the knowledge, the code, the art of will be progressively closed down. So this is why we have to restate that interoperability openness are fundamental principles. Not just nice to have for competition and in general for the technology. But they are fundamental to preserve the openness and democracy in our society. So with this very low stake that I wanted to set, well, I will let the panelists introduce themselves so they can, as soon as they speak. We structured this panel into sub-panels on specific implementation cases of interoperability. And we are going to start from messaging, especially instant messaging. You know that the digital market sec, which was approved last year, introduces mandatory interoperability close for actually any number independent interpersonal communication service, which means instant messaging mostly, but also email. So we have Andine, and I will let her introduce herself. That will introduce the topic, explain what we are talking about, and then I will let the other panelists also comment. So please go ahead. Thank you, Victoria. Hello, everyone. My name is Amandine Loupap. I'm CEO of Elements and co-founder of Element and Matrix, which is an open source project, which has been mentioned a few times on this stage already today. The idea of Matrix is to provide an interoperable secure communication layer. So basically break all these silos, world gardens, of chat, voice of RIP video that exists today so that, as a user, I can choose where I want to host my data, and I can choose which application I use to communicate without having to just trust blindly one provider. So as Victoria said, the Digital Markets Act, which has been coming out, was voted at the end of last year, is very interesting in terms of actually trying to break these big silos and making sure that the European markets are more open to help both the users and the companies. So the Digital Markets Act is actually covering several angles and their items about self-preferencing, bundling, all sorts of things. The one where we have been interested in mostly with our Matrix hat on has been the interoperability around messaging. The idea is to designate these big companies, which go beyond the threshold of revenue or market capitalization and play a role of gatekeeper as on the European market, which means that anyone wanting to communicate would have to go through these. So they haven't been designated yet, but it's very possible that people like WhatsApp, for example, are designated as a gatekeeper or meta, or iMessage, for example, and these sort of people. So the idea here is to the regulation is forcing these gatekeepers to open up their communication APIs to other third-party players who may want to interoperate with them, and they have to do so whilst preserving the end to an encryption if they are end to an encrypted, because there are a whole bunch of people out there who are not end to an encrypted. So that makes it a bit easier. It's from a user perspective, it's basically going back to what I was talking about earlier. You know, as Victor, you say, for email, you choose where you register your email account. Do I want it on Gmail? Do I have to use my work one? Can I use Proton? I can choose where it is, but for chat, I have no choice. And once I created my email address, I can access my email from the email client I want. It may be Outlook, it may be the email up on my iPhone, it may be straight from my web browser. I still access my emails, it's the same content. Why, for chat, do I have to change the user interface to change the content? It's so weird that it doesn't exist. So the DMA is actually trying to fix that so that smaller companies can also create a new market to open up the opportunities for smaller companies. Someone was talking earlier on stage about how the markets in Europe is full of contenders. And I'm sorry I cannot remember who it was, but it's true. Basically, the big gatekeepers are usually American companies. And in Europe, we're trying to actually provide innovative, different propositions that may be competitive with them. But we cannot, because they have the big networks and we cannot break into it. So from a business perspective, what the DMA is bringing is small companies in Europe may be able to interpret with existing networks and access the users of the existing networks to provide a different value add. Think about a small company wanting to provide a specialized messaging app for elderlies, for example. Then today they cannot, because it means that the rest of the family would have to install the same app. Why they could have interoperability between the app from my grandmother and WhatsApp, and this sort of things. It's basically lowering the barrier to entry for the smaller contenders in Europe. So the gatekeepers have obviously been pushing hard against this, saying firstly that it was technically impossible. Oh my god, you want us to change and open up? This is impossible. Technically, I cannot see how it can work. So the thing is, we had been with Matrix doing it for almost nine years now. And we were able to say, guys, this exists. There is an 80 million user network out there which is doing interoperable and 20 encrypted communication. So now basically there is a lot of work to be done to prove this and help people implement this in the right way. There is another pushback around data privacy. We're saying that if people are using WhatsApp, then they are sure that the data is staying in WhatsApp. Yes, the thing is they have no choice but give them the data with WhatsApp. At least with the interoperability, the key thing is being clear that the data is actually going out of WhatsApp. If I want to talk to my grandmother using this specialized application, it may be more important for me to be able to have this interoperability. And if the data is going somewhere else and I'm aware of it, it's a conscious choice. It's all about choice. And that's why it's so important to be able to implement this properly. And it's a great step forward. Yeah, OK. Thank you. And Jurgita, do you have anything to add? I'd like to see the perspective of an email company. I think I will give a perspective definitely also from just me being a user. I'm really excited by this opportunity, presented by the Digital Markets Act. And I'm really excited to see one day also as a user a possibility to be able to message from my one messaging app that I prefer to other messaging apps. I think it would be really great. Because as I mentioned, it's quite burdensome for a user to have five, six, seven different messaging apps to be able to reach your friends and family. And sometimes you want to quit one messaging app because, for example, the privacy standards are not the standards that you would like to have. But you won't because all your family is there, all your friends are there. And I really see no reason why it should not be possible to be able to access those people in other messaging platforms. They did this for telecoms many decades ago. Everybody was saying the same. It's not possible. We should all be staying with different telecom providers. And I don't know. Ideally, I have different phones for different telecom providers and things like this. The same happened in the energy sector. Now, a consumer can choose different energy providers. So can you imagine? It's possible in the energy sector to choose your electricity provider, your gas provider. And how come we were not able to connect the messaging apps and things like this? So I think this is really exciting times. And it will greatly benefit users. And yeah, we also heard a lot of different arguments regarding end-to-end encryption. Obviously, we're an email service, so we are interoperable. And things can be possible in the end-to-end encrypted environment. And this cannot be an argument not to provide consumers with the right to choose the use services that they want to. Thank you. Gabriele, introduce yourself. Sure. Hi, I'm Gabriele Colombro. First of all, thank you for having me here. I'm the general manager of Linux Foundation Europe. We recently launched in September last year. But I'm here with my second hat. I'm the executive director of FINOS, the Fintech Open Source Foundation, talking about an industry that's been pretty locked in for the last decades or pretty much ever. And so I actually approach regulation from a very pragmatic standpoint. We've wanted a few vertical foundations and definitely wanted a few in regulated industries. Yes, banks do open source. Seems pretty strange to hear. But when I think about DMA, I have to think about what happened with PSD2. And of course, as a very corporate, in some ways, of course, we have a lot of individual contributors. But the large contributors and members of our foundation are banks. And so for me, I always have to lead with why you want to do open source, why there is business value in what you're doing. And that is for each of the constituents, where is the banks, asset managers, regulators themselves, and of course individuals, individual users. And when PSD2 was introduced in 2018, of course, the initial reaction of regulated industries is always one of irritation of, oh, this is impossible. Or this is going to massively add costs to our bottom lines. And true, they are regulated industries. They have to have the burden of regulation. But if I look back, and I kind of want to get the numbers right, that was a regulation that has indeed had sort of three major, I think, positive effects. One, it opened up really the fintech sector. There would not have been the sort of massive explosion of fintech that we've seen in the last few years, especially in Europe, which brings me to the second point. Actually, from 2018 to 2019, when the regulation was introduced, European fintech has grown faster than American fintech, almost like 24% versus 18%. Again, bringing forward the role of Europe in sort of the global stage. And then number three, a couple of years later, banks themselves started realizing that there is an actual market to be had here in providing access to APIs. And again, for those who are not familiar with PSD2, it's really about providing access to customer and account, sorry, payments and account information to sort of the rest of the ecosystem. And it really created an open ecosystem. Now, when I think about the DMA kind of going to the question, one problem with PSD2 is that it really applied only to banks, primarily, to financial institutions. DMA has the potential to fix that, because as you were saying, it applies to gatekeepers. Of course, having been gatekeepers of the financial system forever, but it does apply to big tech. It does apply to effectively companies that under PSD2 had the potential to benefit even more than the small and medium businesses that were created in the fintech wave, because ultimately they could get access to the data, but they were under no obligation to give the data back. And so that's what I'm really looking forward to the DMA. I'm really looking forward, especially to the vertical interoperability and the data portability requirements that it comes with. If I may. It's completely bringing up the level of service and value that one can bring to the user, because if you're a gatekeeper and you have a complete monopoly on something, then, of course, you don't need to innovate. Who cares? What's here? Anyone can come, and that's also linking to the open-door discussion earlier, anyone can come and innovate. At least you're not starting from scratch. Otherwise, if you created a new messaging app, you would have to first reinvent the wheel, and no messaging is not easy. That's why we have so many silos. You start thinking it's easy, but it's really hard, especially if you want to add into an encryption to it. Then you have to differentiate, but you have so little users that it's tough to actually bring up. So for the gatekeepers, it is an opportunity to actually show the value they are actually bringing beyond just being a network. And I will add that the interoperability is also good for sustainability, which is a hot topic now, because in the end, just imagine how many resources bandwidth battery you are consuming by having 10 messaging apps running at the same time on your device. This could all be saved, and maybe you could do a little also for the planet. So I think that there's a lot to be gained. And the DMA, the instant messaging part of the DMA was maybe the most visible one, but there are other clauses which are related to, for example, opening up operating systems on mobiles and preventing self-preferencing and defaults and allowing users to actually have a choice. And there's an internal probability clause for payment systems and for identity. So maybe we should now switch to that, because identity is actually one key theme, especially logging. We have this big EI dusting, which is good for public services in Europe, and it's growing. Now there's a revision going on. But it's traditionally a very complex thing, and they're making it even more complex. So in some countries, they don't even have the mobile authentication we have in Italy, like speed. They use EID cards with chips and smart card readers, which are very secure, but nobody wants to use them because it's just too complex. And so people use Google and Facebook and Apple logins all over the web. And this means that, again, the gatekeeper control all the credentials, the identification of people, and potentially get to know, I mean, every place I go on the web and every place, every service I log into. So we should be opening up this as well. And this is technically possible, again. So I want to get back to Yurgita and discuss this. If you have any considerations or ideas on how we can open up identity and identification systems through interoperability. Yeah, definitely. Thank you, Victoria. So I'll quickly present myself. My name is Yurgita Mesovicita. I'm the head of public policy and government affairs at Proton. Proton is a privacy communications company. We provide now an entire product suite of different private tools. And our goal is to enable people to have an ecosystem of privacy-focused tools that would allow them to protect their data and basically open up possibilities to a more private and fair internet in the future. So identity and identity systems is a very important question. And DMA will, I think, introduce quite a big improvement in this area, opening up this particular systems of the gatekeepers. Perhaps the best way to start is to provide an example of how gatekeepers use identity systems to essentially keep the whole ecosystems closed off for a competition. And a good example of that is the Android case. So currently, if one buys an Android device, the only way to actually access a device and to set it up is to get a Google account. To get a Google account, you actually need a Gmail address. Well, technically, it is possible to get a Google account without a Gmail address. It is so complicated that no average user is able to do that. So in fact, I tried it myself and spent a good hour on that. And I didn't manage. I really didn't find a way. So it's really open to only very savvy people, these type of things. Then, so that means you buy your phone, you pay quite some money for your phone, you are obliged to get a Google account, you're obliged to get a Gmail account in order to start using your phone. And then here you go. Then you want to start downloading your apps. But the only way pretty much to download your apps is to access the Play Store. If you want to access the Play Store, you have to have a Gmail account. Otherwise, you will not be able to access it. Of course, some people would say, well, you can have some other Play Store or the App Store on the Android. Yes, I also tried that. But then you can't get most of the apps that you need. So essentially, when you buy your Android phone, you really are forced in a situation where Google bundles together its operating system, its email, and its App Store. And so everything is bundled in such a complicated way that an average consumer really has no choice than just to use the Gmail account, the Google account, and to basically be tracked across the device, not just across the device, but also on the web. I can give you quite an interesting example that for a user to be able to use Proton Mail on the Android, the user has to become, first, a Gmail user. And then going through all those additional steps, be able to download Proton Mail from the Play Store, which is quite crazy when you think about it. And it should not be like this. Another thing that is worth mentioning is that once you get the Google account, they have all those things like sign in with Google and things like this. And then it's often tied with the browsers. And so essentially what happens is that you, as a user, you're being tracked not just on your device, but across all over internet. So people who don't want that or who want to use more privacy alternatives, currently they don't have this opportunity. The good thing with the DMA is that there is a provision that will allow service users actually to have a choice, which means that gatekeepers will not be allowed to force on end users or business users their identification systems. And I think that will bring tremendous benefits to consumers, first of all, for consumers that really want to have a choice. Of course, consumers who want to continue using the available gatekeepers identification systems, they can continue to do so. It's a free world. But the ones who want to have a choice and who want to have more privacy-preserving alternatives will be able to have a choice not to use, for example, the Gmail to access their Play Store or access, in general, the Android device if we come back to the Android example. So I think this will really open up the whole world and the whole world of opportunities also for different industries, including European industries that are quite strong in privacy-preserving tools. That means a lot of companies will be able to finally get access to the whole massive closed off markets like Android Market, the iPhone, the iOS operating system market. So there's really a lot of opportunities for already existing companies, but also for future companies to even emerge. And I think that's going to be quite a big deal finally opening up those systems. Of course, I'm sure there will be efforts to somehow circumvent that and make the possibility of this interoperability of identification systems look good on paper. But I think the most important thing is that when regulators will be assessing whether this works or not, is to really look through the eyes of an average consumer, whether it works or not. That means can the consumer really have an easy choice to use an alternative? Can consumer enter the phone and, for example, start using the apps, the Play Store, the App Store, and whatever all those things in the same short and efficient amount of time and things like that? And I think this will be really a start of exciting time together with other GME obligations to really open up, first of all, the mobile devices market, which has been really closed off to competition. Yeah. Yes, I agree. It's going to be an exciting time. I hope you're looking into opportunities. So maybe Amandine, do you have anything to add? Do you want to say, or Gabriele? Well, I think I could not agree more. I think one item that I've learned, one lesson that I've learned in my fintech experience as a vertical foundation is that I think, as an Italian living in the United States, I have major grievances with the American banking system and how disconnected it is. It's been other mentions here today, other shortcomings when public services are left to the market to figure out some. I'm actually a big fan of, again, turning monopolies and gatekeepers into more open ecosystems. But I do think that it's really important to, and that's what I think, hopefully this can be a call to action for the folks here in government, I think starting from consumer rights, it's always the right sort of starting point. But I do think it's super important, and again, that's what I've learned by being able to then make banks sort of build into open source, like into this idea of open source that was really scary a few years ago. I think it's important to make sure that people realize that open sources can be a positive sum game and this type of regulations can be positive for consumers. And the gatekeepers themselves, besides, of course, there's more medium businesses that actually can sort of make a business whereby it wasn't possible before. I think it's important to pass the message that this regulation is not against the gatekeepers. It's really in favor of consumers and actually going to be benefits if we're able to sort of pass the natural friction that regulation introduces, because that makes sense. No, I agree. I think we're gonna hopefully get them to agree on this, but we'll see. Amandine? I think the only thing we haven't mentioned yet is the fact that interoperability can be achieved by different ways. It can be just like gatekeepers saying, here is how I work and figure it out and then you'll be able to talk to me or you can actually get some people to define an open standard where everyone gets a line with so that if you just interpret with the standard then you can talk to everyone else out there. And it's really bringing the openness, bringing the collaboration towards working together towards something which is useful for everyone basically. So it's a really interesting approach. I'd like us to highlight that it's the same way Germany is doing a lot of good things in open source, but even if there is still a lot to do, we can still acknowledge that Europe is doing a lot of good things in terms of data security and privacy. And personally very proud that we're a precursor here and yes, there's a lot of more things to do and yes, there's a lot of things that could be improved in terms of implementation and it's not just because the DMA is here and ready to be enforced and ready to be deployed. Still a lot of work so that it doesn't become a mess to implement and a mess for the users, but yet when we look across the Atlantic, for example, we're still quite far from there. So and they're looking at us and they're trying to get there as well. So I think it's very promising. Yeah, no, I agree. You know, if we look to the west, we see the internet heavily controlled by a few companies. If you look to the east, we see the internet heavily controlled by governments. And what Europe is trying to do is to find the right middle way in which you have rules and we have all the stakeholders co-writing together in a value framework, which is really important for Europe. So we still have about 10 minutes. So I've got quickly back to the banking sector asking Gabriele if you still have, I mean, things to add to what you already said and tell us a little about that. And then if we have some time, as I hope we might also take questions if there's anything you want to raise or we might also look at other aspects. Gabriele. I just wanted to sort of double down on this idea of working together. And I think open standards are important, but I work on both open standards and open source and I come primarily from the open source side of the house. And I would say the banking sector is one that is more familiar with open standards. I've been working for, well, with standards. Can debate how open they are. But, you know, I think open source and honestly, we're still at the beginning of this journey, but open source has had the potential to invite regulators to participate in the open collaborative process. Again, it's still a little bit at arm's length. You know, whenever a regulator is in the room, bankers tend to get a little stiff or shut up, which is sort of not really compatible with the open collaborative process, but that is opening up. And so when I've, you know, I'm hearing a lot of talk about, you know, government auspose, European Commission auspose. I think it's really good that that starts focusing around consumption, but I think to me the next frontier is when we will have governments and regulators actively participating in the, you know, open collaborative processing, potentially the implementation of a regulation. You know, not so long future, hopefully before my kids grow old or my grandkids, you know, they could even just come up with open source reference implementation or machine readable regression together with the regulated entities. I realize that this seems, you know, far fetched or far away, but you know, I think going back to sort of finding value and a value proposition for each one of these constituents, you know, open source is a positive in some game. I think there is value for each. And again, it's something that's been mentioned earlier, but the fact that regulators need to talk to the right people as well, to actually come up with the implementation. And so far we've seen some good signs in terms of regulator coming and talking to us, for example, but I think it's key. You cannot have people providing, suggesting an implementation of a regulation like this without talking to the people who actually have been doing that before other one actually implementing the smaller companies who are trying to build against the gatekeepers. The gatekeepers who are, they still have to listen to them and what their problem are, but also make sure you talk to the users as well or representative of the users who can actually come back with, well, by the way, don't forget, they're not technical and this sort of thing. So it's a complicated process because you need to be in touch with everyone in the ecosystem, but it's worth it. And Yurgita, do you want to say anything? I just want to say that I think it's really exciting times coming forward. We're really still to see the benefits of the whole legislation, but I think the potential is really huge. I mean, internet was meant to be interoperable and I think we're really taking a lot of steps to make those major platforms, major technologies that have become so big and so irreplaceable and so massive of massive importance to all the users and consumers. Now we really have to make sure that things that are of so much importance, they really work well together. And I think it's also a big expectation from users as well to just have things working easier, things working together so that you don't have to download 10 different apps or that you don't have to have 20 different accounts to create the things and accounts that you don't need but otherwise you're not able to use your device or some other applications. World should be really much more simple and I think the more there is opportunity for interoperability, the more there is opportunity for different innovators, more companies, more businesses to grow, but also for solutions to satisfy users and it's really those solutions provided by gatekeepers, they will stay there and users who want to use them, they will keep on using them, but it's all about choice and people should have the choice to be able to have control of their devices, of their IT tools the way they want. And as long as this does not compromise certain security systems and things like this, we should be really moving towards the world where things really work, where they become more and more connected, not disconnected and just one major ecosystem, another major ecosystem and then you have to choose because otherwise you cannot have the benefits of several of them. I really think the future of internet is where there's more entobility, more connection and yeah, more happy users and more innovative companies. Yeah, I agree, I think we are all in agreement so this is why I am also asking anyone from the floor has any other questions or ideas. I mean we still have about four minutes so if I don't know Paula will try to be quick so that we, sorry, I'll give you mine. So very quickly so that maybe at the end we still have like 30 seconds for people here to give a final remark. Hi, well my question is about a baby elephant in a room so office interoperability or productivity is still capturing ministries. I was at a ministry last week and people said we can't move. We would like to leave the Windows platform but we're locked inside Microsoft Office documents and we still can't escape after decades of trying to get out. So I was wondering is there anything where the panel sees any movement in that well, painful old dossier? Yeah, thank you. I think we had a second question maybe we can take it, I mean, I think we'll, no? Okay, no then we, okay anyone wants to take this question? Well we have seen some like typically governments, yeah they've started to move but it definitely requires strong champions and advocates internally or a huge drive or like a huge realization like Daniel Malin earlier was saying from Sweden. It's like we just had this huge realization that we cannot legally use these American platforms to host our governmental data. And that's the kind of things that needs to be clear basically. And once people understand that then making the step towards data sovereignty typically is a no-brainer. But yes, it's probably an effort in some places and needs some champions and a good reason. Legal regulations are usually a good reason. Yeah, if I may add I think that everything is connected. So once you start breaking up the world gardens into I mean maybe starting from messaging then maybe you get also into documents because nowadays all of this is integrated and so you need to be able to make everything work together. Which is why I mean it's very important to get all the smaller unfortunately open source companies that do a lie and provide services together like in Germany where we are doing. And so I'm positive but of course it will take time and it will take political win. So I mean before giving like that promised 30 seconds to my panelists that I still want to mention that there is one very important interoperability regulation that we didn't get to which is that attacked. And especially the possibility to finally switch cloud providers and port your services and move your services from one infrastructure or platform provider to another. And this is still another very important battle that is happening these weeks. And so I mean it's complex. Maybe it would deserve an entire panel but this is another thing that we have to keep an eye upon and possibly fight for. So let's start. Who wants to start with the final? Yeah, sure. I think data act is also a very important step towards better internet era. From our perspective obviously we are very happy about the provisions on interoperability for cloud switching. Hopefully as a result of this provision users will be able to more easy change their cloud providers. I think that's quite an important thing because just how this market works you will not have again five different drive providers. Maybe some people do, that's okay but normally if you want it to be convenient you want to use one place. And then it's the same with email. If you have all your emails in one email provider you basically want to make sure that you manage to import all your data so the new maybe email service that you want to use. So the same with cloud. So hopefully as a result of this data act there is this real and most important easy possibility for users to switch. Not a theoretical possibility not a possibility where theoretically let's say competing companies could somehow engineer some solutions because we know from our experience that trying to engineer some solutions that are theoretically possible could make you take out from core products entire teams of resources and then have to add lots of money into something that is meant not to work actually. So I really hope that this interoperability for cloud switching will be a real opportunity for actual switching. It just feels like actually implementing what the internet, the web is meant to be. It's such a no brainer. It's crazy again that it's not, doesn't exist yet. I'm just gonna close by saying that I'm super excited of the role that Europe can play on the global scale you mentioned, regulations that have been then sort of looked up as the de facto standard. I think PSD2 was one. I think GDPR was another one. I live in California and we're probably the only sort of closer thing to GDPR. I think Europe, between all these regulations another one is ADAS2. I think we're launching the Open Wallet Foundation in Europe in recognition of this leadership. I think this is a way that Europe can really bring local excellence to the global scale and really sort of bring a little bit more of an even level playing field with the other regions of the world. Thank you. Yeah, I agree. So I think that if there is something that Europe is a leader on, it's really regulation and horizontal cooperation among very diverse environments, countries with different languages and markets and we should not underestimate how important this is for Europe and for the entire world which needs that kind of cooperation very badly. So thank you all for listening. I think we'll wait for Paula to come up and thank you for listening to us.