 We were discussing about the role of standards in supporting the digital transformation of cities. And cities are huge structures, managing huge amounts of data. Data that in many occasions is not connected and it leads to the management of city services in, let's say, a way that could be improved, a way that could be more efficient. This is what standards come in place. Standards facilitate a common language. Standards facilitate the understanding of people, the understanding of platforms, the understanding of systems. And this is what we were talking about. We were talking about how the standards work and the development currently, for example in the ITU, are delivering key performance indicators for cities to be sure that they are speaking the same language, not with the purpose of comparing each other, but with the purpose of evolving in the management of their digital transformation. And from that side we had the different perspectives in the panel of different types of stakeholders. We had a regulator, the European Commission, so to what extent policies are being supported or can be supported by standards in order to ensure that they are adequately deployed and more easily implemented by cities. We had the perspective of a city here in Switzerland that is now being awarded, by the way, and so how for them it was useful really to have that set of standardized indicators to measure what they were doing. We had the perspective of a technological park in Korea, also from their side as to how those kinds of innovative services in cities also contribute to the digital transformation of cities. This was more or less what we covered in our panel. There was a word very much, or maybe two concepts very clear in the session. One was metrics, the other was participation of all stakeholders, or people-centric approaches. So for the metrics I already made a reference before, for the metrics it was clearly one of those issues identified in standardization roadmaps several years ago already. So we need common terminology, we need common indicators that cities understand and can progress on the basis of them. On the other side, approaches that put the citizens, that put us, those living in the cities, in the center. So what are our needs? What do we, when we go out in the street and we take our phone, what kind of information we want to take a bus and we have that information there. I want to see which time of the day is best for putting on the washing machine. This kind of, so putting the individual's people at the center of their approaches and for that the involvement of all stakeholders in the development of these standards is key. We need to have around these tables or virtual tables lately developing the standards, all participants, all perspectives, those of the regulator, as I said before, those of those managing the cities, those of those managing the services provided by the cities, but of course those representing the users at the end of the day. Those of us that say, hey, I need this, I need that, which are, and then a point was made by several of the participants in the table about how important it is to consult the citizens, to ask in an open way which are the needs that we have and see how they can connect their data to analyze and to offer better services. Well, I think implicitly mentioned before that, let's say up until quite recently, cities managed the services they provide to the citizens, say in a vertical, silo, not connected way. So what are standards doing mostly? They're playing into concepts that are key. It's interoperability and connectivity. Ensure that the different platforms in the city that manage the data of the different services can speak to one another and that the output of that connection, of that interoperability, provides data to the city managers that can be analyzed, interpreted and consequently propose improvements on the basis of that. This is to me the key contribution of standardization in this ongoing process. I think in particular when we're talking about the standards for smart cities, which is what this session was about, it is by default all standards that want to have success and want to be useful in the marketplace need to be really representative of the needs of those that are going to use them or that are going to benefit from their applicability, from their implementation. This can seem very basic and logical, but it's not the default way of developing standards. This is how, yes, ITU, but also ISO and IEC, the International Electrotechnical Commission, develop their standards on the basis of national delegations, national working spaces where all parties, regulators, but also service providers, technology centers, academia, the representatives of the citizens have a saying in what is going to be the output of those standards. This is why it is so important also that these three organizations coordinate very well their standards works in order to ensure that there is no overlapping, no competition of requirements that in the end confuse those that need really to improve the way they're delivering their services. And last but not least, they need to ensure that they look forward with as much as possible, as I said, a coherence in their work programs. So the challenges are similar, but we have limited experts in our countries, limited number of people working on this, so we cannot put them to work simultaneously in the same things in different organizations. We need coherence and coordination between the three organizations, ITU, ISO and IEC.