 So first, and then I'll come forward to the second question. Thank you. Christopher Wilkinson, I'm a member of the Internet Society in chapter in Bologna, and in a previous incarnation was one of Mark Bohen and so transatlantic sparring partners. I just want to refer briefly to a potential obstacle to open innovation, particularly if you link it, as Mark has just done now, to big data. We are currently dealing with a proposal from European telecommunications operators that sending parties should pay. Their current target is explicitly Google, and they are resisting the present arrangement where basically the sending party, irrespective of the volume, does not pay. Now, your statements this morning have been fascinating, but none of you have referred to the size of the pipes, particularly an address, Dr. Kaiser-Werther, because the telecommunications regulations apply over a decade, and your scenarios were about a decade. How would sending party pays affect the practical use of big data? Who would pay? Thank you. Ah, so, Mattias, over to you. I'm afraid I'm not a policy person, but I think you really mentioned an important point that, in fact, a lot of, if you take into account that innovation that will take place, I have no doubt in the next 10 years, we can, through public policy and regulation, I think we can, in Europe, get back to your statement, we could, in Europe, advantage things possibly. I mean, when you think back of GSM, that was one prime example in some way. Technically, it was possible. We standardized it in Europe, or leading. Really, the Americans sort of said, let the market fight it out. In Europe, we sort of said, it's going to be GSM, and that really, we had the industry then around it. And I think that's something that needs to be done in lockstep, to some extent, and people need to become cognizant of the fact that we have these developments going on and capabilities. And then, from a policy point of view, you can probably make suitable changes. Okay, now there was another question. The gentleman, I'm afraid the gentleman in the check shirt must... Very in cahoots, just to say, if that's what you think. You'd better say so real loud soon, because it's going ahead in the ITU, and you'll be screwed. That's actually a good point. You have a question? The gentleman had a brief question. Thank you. So, my name is Nicolas Petit. I have three comments and questions. I'm afraid we're quite short in time, so if you could have one really good comment instead. So, one comment as far as how to lead as a teacher, I'm a teacher, I think that we have to go back down to change the model of education that we do. From the start, from the age of three students and pupils are taught not to share. They are taught that sharing, copying is bad. If we want that as soon as they are grown up, they change their mind, we would better change their mind right from the age of three and not wait for when they are 18. I think that the education is really hard to change. So, the roots of education. And that is difficult. And what I also see, and that's a very big trouble for me, is that I heard companies that try to tap in the collective ideas and try to privatize them, at least some of them, as much as the bank try to privatize the benefits and share the loss and the costs, as we've seen. So, this is not fair. I think the thing that is fair, and it's going and playing in a fair field where everything is shared, the benefits as well as the costs. In the pharmaceutical industry, for example, everything, most companies ask for public sector to invest. But what it is shown, it has true reduction of taxes and so on. In general, the investment in R&D is roughly 80% public money. And the benefits is not 80% back to the public money. So, my question would be, what would you propose for the ICT world to go in such a direction, and would it be possible? Does anyone want to take that, or do we need? Yes, it's quite a long comment. I'm not sure exactly where the question is. I understand that you're concerned about public-private partnership investment and the long-term return to society. But I think the numbers in places like the US tend to show that the utilization by the private sector of IP released by the government comes back in economic terms as well. It depends on your window of investment here. So, in a few years, yes, the private enterprise gets a lot. But in the long-term, private enterprise, their innovations and their building on innovations comes back, patents expire, copyright expires. So I guess it depends on the window. I don't know, does anyone have a specific comment on that? Very briefly, though. Very brief comment. And I'm actually thinking about Andy Updegrode's comments on the first panel about the way the US government has thought about its R&D and IP. I think Andy touched on a very important point. And what Andy was describing was, in fact, a 40-year history of doing tech transfer across a variety of sectors. The old model of tech transfer is that a national laboratory would build a technology, invite people in, try to license it. The old model of, I'm going to own it, keep it private, I'm going to manage it. About 20 years ago, they were finding that there was not much success. You could find a few examples that could do it. But it really wasn't engaging and being strategic in how I was thinking. And so around the time I came into US government, I'm not responsible. But there was, I think, a building consensus that we had to rethink that. And I think it's an old term, but the term public-private partnership developed, which was innovation is a body contact sport. One does not just sit in a corner and think big thoughts. That model dissipated many, many years ago. It's about engaging. And so the move was to get the national labs to do more things directly with people in different sectors, different disciplines, to come together to figure out how to solve problems. What evolved out of that were different legal arrangements. For example, you did not depend on a contract or a financial assistance arrangement. You had what was called a cooperative research and development agreement, which by its very terms describes the kind of work. There was no money involved. Actually, the private sector could pay for the services. But the government wasn't giving money out. What it was doing was being a convener, allowing its own expertise to be distributed in an effective way, but doing so in the context of people who were also doing work outside. And I think that's a model to think about with open source. I mean, as we work with US agencies who are doing software development and trying to open source, bringing that mentality of the collaboration, which is not the way we've always thought about in the open source community, but you've got to work with government minds and the legal frameworks that they exist in. How do we do that? And I think it's a ripe discussion to have across any economy and any governmental system. How do we encourage, consistent with good values, good ethics, and everything else, that kind of collaboration which is going to benefit everyone? Thank you, Mark. And Keith has a very brief note, and then we're going to wrap up. One final comment. I think what we're also looking at here is humility, which is a critical component that we socialize into our cultures. The open source community's hallmark is humility. You think about the first comment, the first post that Linus Torvold's made 21 years ago, inviting others to come in and not having high expectations about what he was putting out there to share and for people to add to. And his post was very much characterized by the notion that who knows where this will go. I'm sure lots of smart people are going to come in and contribute things and make it better, and that's all I can hope for. And he kind of lit a fuse. And that fuse is burning brightly now, and it's changing the way we create value in the economy, but largely because even to this day, there's humility in the community. People know that they have that childlike sense of learning from someone else. And if you don't learn from someone else, you're not going to be able to participate. And humility is the key characteristic that we maintain throughout our lives as a community. We manifest it to be able to actually learn from one another. We don't see that in large corporations. Sometimes we stop seeing that because we shut down after 25 years of age to really new learning and new novelty. And I think that's what has to change. And that's fundamental to any successful organization is to have that, and that yearning to grow and learn. Excellent, thank you, Keith. So in essence then, when we ask what does open innovation mean for the European ICT market, it means change, a lot of change. And if we embrace that change, we can have a great result. Now, we're going to move to a coffee break, I believe, in the next panel, How Can Europe Compete? I just want to end on a thought from Thomas, actually, that it's interesting to note that funding for open innovation in Europe came from the US in the case of MySQL. Maybe that's something we need to think more deeply about when we talk about what does this mean for us. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you. It's about networking and informal discussions. So we don't want to cut too much into the coffee break. So are we going to allow 25 minutes for the coffee break? And we'll be back here at 11.