 Hello. This is Audrey. Good local time, everyone. Back in 2014, we occupied a parliament in Taiwan for three weeks in order to advance the cause of radical transparency. And it's interesting because the Mandarin term that we kind of look at the term transparency or total name has always meant in Taiwan, at least as far as I remember in the 80s, to make the state transparent to the citizens, the inner workings of how the state works. Because we're in very new democracy. Our first presidential election coincides with the WRI Web spoilerization and so on. So it always means that the state need to be accountable to the citizens. And when we talk about co-creation, sandboxes, things like that, it means that the private sector, the business sector also need to have a gender setting power. But we occupied the parliament because a perceived, and it turns out to be true, threat from the PRC regime through the Cross-Strait Service and Trade Agreement or the CSSTA, which was the subject for the Occupy because the parliament was trying to ram through that particular trade agreement without any substantial deliberation, as they would for other violators. Because of that, then the 20 NGOs who occupied talk about a different norm, what they call the rule by law norm, instead of the rule of law norm. Because you see in the PRC, the term transparency means something else, it means making the citizens and business sectors transparent to the party or to the state, really no difference. And then through so-called social credit systems, they track public behaviors comprehensively, first preferential treatments in education, employment, house of registration and so on. And also, shapes with disclosure of violators' names and business names and denial of travel rights and things like that. And through these changes, this is like a norm that is totalitarian and mining surveillance of providing materials. And that is why during the Occupy, one of the 20 NGOs' deliberated aspects was whether we want to call the PRC components in the then new 4G network, private sector. And the end result of the deliberation of half a million people on the street in Maymore online is that there is no so-called private sector player in the PRC telecommunication industry. If the party wants, the party can always plug and play leaders as they did later through non-market forces. And thereby, each and every component that we incorporate from the PRC, so-called private sector vendors, will have to do another system risk assessment to make sure that it's not used for industrial espionage or if it's not used for mass surveillance and things like that. And the total immortalized, the cost will be very, very high. So we might as well go with Nokia and Ericsson and also develop our own. And that's, I think it's now branded as clean pass, right? Part is the clean network program making sure that people who incorporate 5G technology is making sure that this kind of espionage manoeuvres cannot be attempted from the PRC. But we're happy to report that we've been on the clean path since 2013, actually. And the procurement laws have been explicitly designed to include in cybersecurity but also other sensitive concerns or the tender documents must reject PRC suppliers, exactly because they use of non-market forces for this kind of rural bylaw, but not rural law setting. So that's my opening remark, definitely. So, yeah, when I delivered my opening remark, I referred actually at a time for the 4G infrastructure, now the 5G, 4G wasn't even deployed. We were occupying the parliament on YMAX technology. And so since then, we have established what we call the IoT cybersecurity standards. And I think that's a very constructive first step. Not only do we certify the local IP camps from 10 vendors and get a national standard certificate and so on, but by working with international liberal democracies, we can make sure that the charitable donations to international multilateral buildings, as well as other development aids and things like that, can be built on a trusted stack of technology that would not enable by default eavesdropping in its initial configuration. I think that's a quite constructive thing that we can do and actually have been doing so for quite a few years. And also, I guess more caution in the daily use, the daily practice, just like wearing a mask, washing your hands, prevents against the coronavirus. That can also be applied to our communication as well. I would much rather that we're having this conversation into an encrypted mode, which the software that we're using do actually, it does offer that mode. But little habits like this also helps. Well, I'm working with the Taiwan government. I'm not working for Taiwan governments. I'm speaking on a individual perspective. So a couple of things, like rebuilding trust, I think it's easier to think in terms of trustworthiness instead of trust, which the term trust has been so overloaded, it doesn't mean anything now. But we know something about trustworthiness. We know with accountability, with the ability to owe up to any errors, as we did during our counter pandemic and crowdsourced the innovations, amplifying them and working with partners in good faith. And these things are essentially what the original open government partnership, the OGP, was built to do is to develop a methodology to work on administratively, not all countries, but at least the democratic countries in a systemic way to foster trustworthiness through this collaboration, data collaborative, data norms and open response now and also open recovery. I've talked at length about this, so I'll be very brief, but basically just engage the basic OGP principles. I read about this, what annual or at least the inaugural democracy submit thing from the new administration's webpage. And if one can re-engage the OGP community, I think there's a lot to be learned and re-learned about to rebuild trustworthiness in people to people ties. And that is actually the main thing because we need to phrase this thing as a people to people tie rebuilding. And then anyone who threatens that norm is not just stealing, which is a fundamentally a property argument, but also violating against the solidarity and human right, which is a right-based argument. Well, I can chime in a little bit. In Taiwan, our typo, the intellectual property office, I just took a look at their homepage. Actually, we talk about these separate categories in very different terms and in very different ways. In Taiwan, there's even an act called the Integrated Circuit Layout Protection Act, which says what it says on the 10th. And the trade secret, which is part of the typo's purview, is also exclusively designed so that the kind of measure that you propose can be put into action. But these measures will be considered probably too much and violating the norm if we're talking about a, for example, trademark violation. So kind of decoupling these things. I think helps a lot if we're talking about a coordinated effort across different jurisdictions, because every jurisdiction naturally cares about different kinds of things. Like, I don't imagine all the countries will have Integrated Circuit Layout Protection Act, but trade secrets and patents, these are the beginnings, I guess, of the coordinated action. First of all, I would like to say that the social engineering, the entire cyber habit, norm shaping, things like that. We've been working on this for many, many years. The industries themselves, especially around the semiconductor supply chain, have really rallied around this idea of essentially this whole of supply chain thinking of protection. But as I mentioned, this is about integrated circuit layouts. This is about trade secrets. This is about patents. And this extends, I think, to the whole supply chain configuration around 5G that we're seeing now. And we've been quite vocal about it, actually. Back in the 4G days, we've been telling the world about our assessment since 2014. So in a sense, we're clad because we used to be one of the very future restrictions making the case that there need to be a international understanding of this issue. And I'm also doubly, I guess, that the IRI, the NDI, also the German, the Friedrich-Nahlmann Foundation, so on, are all now setting up offices in the front line and then observing and witnessing what kind of collisions, especially around the business sector, and what kind of the enabling regulations that a government can do, thanks to this, I would say, better hardened awareness. I'm breaking from the norm here because everything that I just said during this panel is attributable to me. I'm not going to attribute anyone, and I was very careful to not quote anyone in anything that I said. But that said, whatever I said, I would just cut those clips, merge them together, upload to YouTube under creative commons, and feel free to attribute anything that I said to me. And I think if more people do so, it will actually make a more internationally well understood norm of the perspective that we're bringing to the table. Bye. Live long and prosper. Bye.