 I'm Vince Cerf and I'm not just the father of the internet, there are a bunch of others as has been pointed out, Bob Conn is the other half of the original design, but believe me there are millions of people that deserve credit for making the internet what it is today. I feel this is very hybriac in a way. You know how the Hebrew law starts out with 10 laws. One guy said there were 15, but he dropped one of the tablets, but anyway, 10 laws. And then what happens is you try to apply them and you get the Talmud, which is, I'm not Jewish so I may not get this quite right, but that's commentary on the law. And then there's another thing, I forget the name of it, like Michugina or something which is the, I know that's not right either, but anyway, it's the commentary on the Talmud. So the problem here is the applying of laws and I'm drifting from my assigned text but I feel compelled to do so. There's a theorem that I depend on regularly, it's called theorem number 206 and it reads everything is more complicated. And as time goes on it really does seem that that's exactly what happens. It's part of the laws of physics that say that things get more and more disorganized over time. And to give you an example and to come back to the analogies that you were using, when the internet design was being done, we knew that there were certain things that we didn't know. We didn't know what new communications capabilities would be invented after we had designed the basic internet architecture and the protocols. So Bob Kahn and I decided that we would make the internet protocol the thing that is basically just moving packets around, no packets of bits around, make it completely ignorant of how the packets were moved. There was nothing in the internet protocol specification that said anything about routing. It just said there's an address in a packet and the rest of the system has to figure out how to get the packet to where it's supposed to go but the protocol that specified the format and so on didn't say anything about how that routing would be done. And it didn't care whether the packet went over a satellite link or an optical fiber or a radio connection, if Wi-Fi didn't exist, yet all of those transmission systems and underlying switching systems have been able to carry internet packets so internet has subsumed all of those technologies into itself because it was unspecific about that particular matter. The other thing which is interesting is that the packets don't know what they're carrying. They know they're carrying a payload of bits but they don't know what the bits mean. So for the most part the internet has no idea what applications are running on it so when you want to put up a new application you don't have to tell every ISP in the world. You need to interpret this packet this way because for the most part all they need to do is to get the packets from where they were injected into the net to the destination. We can have arguments over quality of service and some other things. Let's not but the basic fact is that the network is ignorant of the applications and that has allowed for a vast quantity of innovation. I was up at the Webby Awards last night in New York and the range of things that people have decided to do on the net that have turned out to have social and business value is frankly stunning especially from my point of view which starts out with a very tiny little network. So now I want to underscore your point. Factor design is a term that I use to separate things from each other so that they don't depend on each other very much. That means the reduced complexity. There's less interaction and so working in that direction is very important. One thing I would like to strongly agree with is that if you don't have access to the basic information of the legal system that you are hindered from benefiting from it, there is a retired state Supreme Court justice whose name is Don Horowitz in the state of Washington who has started a project he calls access to digital access to justice and what he's worried about is that as we move in the directions that you're suggesting where law becomes more and more accessible through the network, if you don't have access to the network, you may not have access to the law in a way that's beneficial. So one of the things that goes hand in hand with making the law more accessible is to make sure that the means of access is also widely available. This drives my great personal interest in seeing everyone up on the internet having access to all of its content. One thing I would like to ask though, and maybe this is an item for panel discussion, the analogy with programs is imperfect and I'm not criticizing that, but I will say that it's a little hard to figure out how to debug a law. What happens is that laws are exercised, they're used in various court cases. We accumulate court decisions. If I'm remembering the term correctly, there is something called stare decisis which if I remember right makes reference to previous decisions regarding specific laws and cases. We accumulate this barnacle encrusted pile of decisions. And somehow out of all that and out of the precedents that we grant to legal decisions, we have to try to figure out how to debug. And I don't understand exactly the methods by which you get to revise laws because when I have a bug in a program, I have to rewrite the code. When I have bugs that are exhibited in various conflicting court decisions, I don't understand exactly how you fix that problem. I don't know what the mechanics are, this is out of ignorance. So I'd like to at least put on the table how to take advantage of your analogy of debugging the law and ask what are the methods by which we do that. Does it mean that in order to do it, we have to go through the process of creating new law? Is that really the only choice we have? Or is there something else? And I don't know what that is.