 Good afternoon. A warm welcome to you all and I hope you are keeping well and staying safe at this time. My name is Joyce O'Connor. I chair the digital group here at the IIEA. We were really delighted to welcome you to today's webinar towards European Digital sovereignty. This is the first event in a series of events of a new IIEA project, Europe's Digital Futures. This project will be a year long series of events and research to explore European digital sovereignty. But today I'm really delighted to welcome back Dr. Roberta Viola to the IIEA. A very distinguished keynote speaker today and we're very pleased that you have joined us out of your busy schedule. As you know, Dr. Viola is director general of DG Connect and has a really very broad brief because his brief covers communication, networks, content and technology. So you're very welcome again, Roberta. In his presentation, Dr. Viola will give us an overview of the concept of European digital sovereignty from the perspective of the European Commission. Roberta will outline the Commission's planned regulatory measures and the EU funding mechanisms that will help promote Europe's digital sovereignty. Roberta will speak for 15 to 20 minutes and then we will take questions from you, our audience. You can join the discussion as you know by using the Q&A function at the end of the bottom of your screen. Please feel free to send in your questions during the presentations and I'll come to them once Roberta has finished his presentation. I'd very much appreciate if you give your name and designation when you're asking a question. A reminder that today's presentation and question and answers are on the record. And please feel free to join our discussion on Twitter with the handle at IIEA. It goes without saying that digital and emerging technologies like blockchain, AI, IOT are impacting our lives on a daily basis. Technology can help redefine problems but also help us reimagine the future. And we know that areas like digital sovereignty is emerging as an increasingly prominent concept in the European Union and has triggered a lively debate. For all member states, but particularly for small open economies like Ireland, where the global digital industry is particularly important, the implementation of digital sovereignty will be significant. As I said, our distinguished speaker Dr Viola has also a very distinguished career to date prior to being Director General of DG Connect. He was the formerly chair of the European Radio Spectrum Policy Group, a member of the Board of the European Regulatory Group. He also served as Director of the Regulation Department and Technical Director of ACOM. He served in various positions including head of telecommunications and broadening, broadcasting, satellite services at the European Space Agency. Roberto, we're really looking forward to your presentation and thank you very much again for being with us. Yeah Joyce, I hope you can see and listen to me well. I can very much. Thank you. So thank you very much for the invitation. It's really a pleasure to join again in one of the events. And unfortunately, this time it's a virtual event. Well, this is real because we are all connected, but we are digitally connected. And to a little bit go in this journey of understanding together what digital sovereignty or whatever word we want to use for being digital savvy means, I would like to start from a dystopian perspective, actually a dystopian present. So we, I asked you to do an exercise with me and to think of you one year ago. And to see the world today, people wearing masks, everybody at home, working from home, connected like this. And then you would say, oh, this is a very nice movie, things like this do not happen in reality. So I think we really, we really could not have anticipated what happened. There were weak signs here and there that our society did not have all the ingredients for resilience inside. And it's always with weak signs and always with the crisis. Those signs are not easily recognized until they come and then it's too late to have a systemic response and then you have an emergency response. I mean, we are coping now with an emergency that unfortunately still with us and we all hope it will be over. We don't know when it will be over. And we have found our society to have weak spots. We have found ourselves less savvy than what we thought we should have been. And we also have found that having really relied upon global value chains and global manufacturing chains when it comes to emergency. Sometimes you have basic needs that needs to be fulfilled and you don't know how to fulfill that from basic protective equipments from basic pharmaceutical products. So I think Europe as a large continent. And when you look at Europe, the digital market, the market is the wealthiest of the world. I mean, has been a little bit. I mean, always looking at the perspective that the divisional labor division responsibility collective effort in the world would have solved every problem, which is of course, a way that even in this dystopian present that we should not abandon at all. Openness is the key for a wealthy and well functioning society and we will be defending openness or markets and technologies, services. Even if we speak about gaining a little bit more of empowerment for our citizens and our society in terms of having more resilience when it comes to, I mean, supplying services and goods to our citizens. So this is the type of reflection where you need to keep the balance right between openness and the need to have a society which is empowered. And the other element I would say is the responsibility that is on Europe to be one of the major contributors of the wealth and the well being our society in the world of just in Europe. And that means many things. First of all, it means that when it comes to the basic research and the basic development, we need to continue a contribute to breakthrough innovation. And breakthrough innovation does not come from private companies, although private companies are the ultimate one that would exploit it or sometime there will be a sparkle somewhere from an innovator that works in the private sector but it's an ecosystem of innovation that you need. And that's one of the big failures of this crisis. We have discovered that I mean private research without an underpinning and strong underpinning from the public side is not enough. We thought that we had all sorts of AI solutions. We discovered that AI is useful. It, it actually we deployed it in hospitals, but as far from being the game changer that we thought we would be, we will be offering. Now, I'm sure if you are from now it will be the game changer, but I'm equally sure that AI medicine AI public services AI in terms of safety of our transport system. This is something which is a responsibility of our society to invest on. We cannot just rely on power on private companies to do that because that's not the job. The job of the private sector is for sure to exploit this and to go on and propose more and better innovative products. The other element where we have a responsibility. It's the rulemaking. Some outside Europe speak about the Brussels effect, which in other words is what we managed to do in terms of the digital rules of the government our society and economy. When it comes for instance from seems like privacy with a GDPR. The fair use of the internet with the net neutrality law which exists in Europe and doesn't exist in many other parts of the world. The respect and protection of fundamental rights in general. So this element, which is again, letting market forces to offer services but having a public governance oversight on the fundamental rights of citizens. This you can call it the Brussels model, and it remains the model of reference in the world. We have created the spirit in which we have presented them the two twin regulation we have presented at the end of this year, which are the digital service act and the digital market. Our services are being offered to citizens. And the second is what is the relationship between those service providers platforms and the rest of the business, which are using those platforms to actually do business. So these are complementary goals of the two days if you like to well actually then I said 30 which I will mention in a second. So this digital service that digital market act go in the direction to say digital economy is transformative digital economy society is going to be our new normal. In the meantime, there's something which is not right and something which is not right is the private enforcement of fundamental rights that cannot be. So in order for things in society to be in equilibrium things where I mean this ultimately constitutional guarantee on the freedom of speech on the freedom I mean to express ideas within the check and balances that the constitutional modern liberal constitutional office. That's for the state level that's for Europe that for the member states that's for governments I mean to offer services to respect certain rules to offer within the rules. That's for companies. And I think in the digital economy, this equilibrium has been a bit lost because everything came so quickly and so transformative. The things got a bit confused at a certain point, we should decide that the citizen access to social media and can speak, we should not. I mean, in the real world, clearly, we have answers, which are constitutional are called constitutional guarantees. So what is guaranteed and the real world what is illegal in the real world should be also like this in the digital. And that's the essence of these two acts. So that means constitutional guarantees that should be enforceable also in the digital world and what is illegal in the real world is illegal in the digital world. It's what I call normal, and that was like find the part of the new normal society, which after this pandemic will rely heavily on digital systems in order to live better to be more resilient and also to work and live in a way that is more near to what are our goals, maybe is to live in a nice countryside but still be part of the corporation. This, again, this is not a dystopian dream. This is a utopian dream that is more and more coming, becoming a reality. The third in regulation is the data governance act that also we presented at the end of the last year, which is about data sharing and data sharing has been a bit the quick spot on this pandemic from the very beginning, in terms of first of all having the right data or what was going on. Imagine we would have known much more in advance than the end of last year, what was going really on in China. Imagine we would have been sharing much more information in the various areas of the world, much quicker. We're trying to share as quickly as we can information, for instance, on the variation of the various on the mutation, but I mean data repositories, genetic databases where all this it's available are in the making, but they are halfway. This is just pandemic. This is about our society. Imagine I mean the sharing data, much more data about how we move and how we use transport to make our transport system safer, more green, much more data about consumption of electricity at our homes to save money. And also to have a better plan. All of this means that the data allows the society to be better to be more. So the data governance act. It's about this. It's about governments sharing more data with companies. It's about the company sharing data among ourselves without having one company conflict of interest with others. It's about citizens, if they want to donate data to research to improve our society. So with these three days we hope to contribute not only to a better society and economy in Europe, but a better economy society in the world. And to come back is to the other element of resilience and the new normal is through digital technologies we hope that our society will be better as I said, and for me better means that what we have learned during this crisis and what we have gained of the crisis so more digital savings, more freedom to organize our work will become the normal. But in order to do that, we need investments. I mean, just not talks like this are enough. And that's why the recovery of Europe has been not just a talk shop, but it's been a very serious decision taken by it's a state of government. Last July that I mean lined up 2.4 trillions euros for the recovery part of this is the so called recovery plan, which is sent up by the company commission but I mean organized by the member states. And as you know legally 20% of the recovery plan should go in the direction of improving our digital society and economy. So, I'm, I'm not sure that I can give a precise meaning to the world sovereignty and I would discard the older, the bad feelings that people in the in this event that would have about sovereignty somebody imposing something on somebody else. If the meaning is digital empowerment that starts with the research and development starts with investment in infrastructure and looks at the things like you mentioned, for instance, using blockchain digital identity using new technologies such as quantum or AI, and the ability to improve our society. Well, I can live with this, and I may be to say this is it. I mean, if it is about closing borders to cooperation, creating I mean a kind of iron ivory castle. Well, that's not what we have in mind. The rules. Once again, if sovereignty again means empowerment. That's what we have in mind empowerment of the citizens of companies of having a real society or equals as much as possible for the society is difficult to equalize everything. But I mean, you can make sure through public intervention that distances are less. And if this is the meaning, then this is all about the 3D is the digital service are the digital market act and the digital governance act. So that's the effort. The effort is to have a society which is more resilient the society which is open and to take up our responsibility as public powers to do what public powers should do in terms of research and development and our responsibility in the world. If this is the meaning of digital sovereignty, then I'm happy to use even this term. So this in terms of my introductory remarks. This is what I wanted to say, and I'm very much happy to share the rest of the event and in a dialogue with you Joyce and with the rest of the audience. Thank you very much, Roberto. I think it's very interesting how you focused on the power and empowerment and the power of citizens to become more involved in their society through digital. I think that's that's really and emphasizing the resilience and the opportunities and very positive view and not looking at an enclosed protective society, rather, in fact, enabling things to open up. Your mention of the 3D is these, you know, the Digital Service Act, the Market Act and the Data Governance Act puts a framework on that as well. So that's really interesting. So thank you very much for that tour de force because you've brought an awful lot together with both the technology, the responsibility and the empowerment of the citizen but also the responsibility of the state and the private sector. So I'll turn it over now to the audience. I see questions coming in. Just. Yeah, here's one from Seamus Allen, who's our digital policy researcher here at the IAEA. When he asked the question, how does Europe plan to balance the promotion of greater data sharing with the data protection and privacy standards? Yeah, this is a very good question. I don't think, frankly, that one is the enemy of the other. So that the more you protect the less you share or vice versa. I think, again, we have to start from who was the center of data generation. I mean, if me as an individual through my sensors and my movement I generate data, I think I have the right to decide whether I want to give this data for a better society, or I want to have services offered to me with this data or not. So this empowerment is the fundamental element of the GDPR. And if exercise correctly in a way that citizens understand what they are doing, not as a kind of bureaucratic reflex, can be the center of a data saving society. And this is one of the pillars of the data governance act. The data donation, it's a concept that is absolutely allowed by the GDPR probably not very clear how to exercise it. It's a bit like when you want to donate your money. I mean, that's perfectly okay. I mean, there are public schemes to guarantee that the people that are offering you to donate data for a course, they are not actually offering a scam. It's a real donation scheme for a real purpose. And here in the data governance act is a bit the same and give confidence to the citizens that those data organization, the donation organization are serious. So by exercising their rights of privacy and the rights of ownership of the data generated by themselves in and then moving into organizations that can actually allow citizens to donate the data. We think we go one step further in the debate. The same applies to things which are not personal data, but maybe belong to an entity, being a private entity, a citizen, like an object in the house, a connected object, or they belong to a company. What could be the reflex to generate a virtual circle by which data is put in common and everybody put in the data in common and gets a benefit out of it. For us, the key of this is about avoiding conflict of interest that one of the participants to this clip, so to say, as a need an agenda by which I mean hijacks the data of the others for its own purpose. That's why we are pushing the data act for neutral program. Of course, it's not an obligation. If you like conflict of interest in and you are happy with this. You can find fine for Europe. So the key to resolve this tension or this equilibrium between privacy protection intellectual property sharing for us. The answer we give in the data governance act is empowering companies and citizens to make their choice and to find organization that could actually make sure that they can exercise those choices. But it's a very good question. Thank you, Roberto. And we've got a question, I think from Garrett Blaney, chair of comrade Garland's communications regulator to understand that he'd like to ask the question live, is that right? No. Is that okay? No. Yes, got it. Yeah. Garret, are you there? Hello. No, I might have misinterpret that. I'll come back later. And we've got a comment and a question from Turlock Denahan from my back. Turlock says you're very modest Roberto about your role in innovation that you've contributed an awful lot to it. We've got a message. A question from Peter McClune who's a member of the board of the IAEA. And he asked the question have EU member states fully agreed a common position and approach to digital sovereignty, or in effect will each country have to develop their own strategic approach to protect citizens. I think there's a desire that the digital future of Europe, it's a common future. And the indicator of this is the common will of a state of government to place digital at the center of the recovery efforts for Europe. The second is that there's been a call last October to the European Commission to say, you come up in March with what is the vision in the next 10 years. So how digital will develop. And so we are given this task, then for the state government to reflect on what our suggestions as an indication of the understanding that digital no snowboarders digital requires massive investment to be transformative. Some of the investments are local for instance when it comes to digital infrastructure force I mean you have to deploy those infrastructure locally. But the gigantic are in the effort that is necessary for transformative technologies, the one I mentioned you mentioned I mean blockchain AI quantum. Those kind of effort, not even the largest countries in terms of GDP can afford it in Europe. It's only by working together that we can really make the difference. So, I think, again, if the meaning of so what is shared responsibility a shared empowerment in the in the common construction of a European future. I would say that that's a common understanding of where we have to go but it's also clear that this doesn't mean that the member states can forgive the homework to do. When, for instance, you look at the digital administration in our recovery plan we insist that digital administration. It's linked with reforms. It makes little sense to digitize bureaucracy. It makes a lot of sense to simplify processes to have as you were saying Joyce kitchen table democracy so that is available to everyone. Services, the government as a service, and then, of course, use the best of digital technology to do that. But if you take a bureaucratic process and your your intention is to keep it to preserve it forever and to digitize it. Then of course, we will really miss the mark of having a more resilient and more future proof society. Thank you, Roberto. I've got the question from Garrett Blaney. He asked, can we work more closely with the new administration in the US to facilitate better regulation of digital platforms? Definitely, definitely. This is the intention of the European Commission. We have published a policy document as we call it a communication where we said exactly this in our policy communication that our wish and our president repeated this last week in parliament. Our wish is to be digitally engaged with the new administration. We actually made a quite a concrete proposal to create a high level trade technology panel to discuss the interlinkage within traditional regulation digital technologies and to have a fully fledged agenda for cooperation and when it comes to the digital rules, we are more than happy to actually contribute together with the new administration of the United States. As I said that we're world order, we're rule of law, respect of citizens, it's the north. Okay, thank you very much. A question here from Andrew Gilmore from the IIA. EU Member States recently agreed a joint statement on a European Cloud Federation. Can you give a sense of the role and importance that a European crowd federation guy may are expected to play in the use of data in Europe. Thank you for this question Gilmore. The goal, as I was saying in my introductory remarks is to have a data savvy society and of course to be data savvy data have to be somewhere. We think it should be, I mean, the way that are organized they said of course there should be some regulation we discussed this, but also there should be some technology. And when looking at the future of data processing and storage. We see that the world becomes much more distributed is today. So from large data centers and data processing facility we will move to a more distributed collective brain if you like. This vision technology vision, which I mean translates in things like I mean blending high performance computing and what they're called edge computing distributed and centralized cloud systems. We want to give our technical technological contribution and also a greener way of processing and storing data. So new technologies that are efficient, allow to process and store the data closer to the users and are open. That's the other important thing. No single vendor should have the monopoly of data storage or data processing. Banks, corporations, citizens, small enterprises should have the freedom of choice should have the possibility to port their data and their service to another cloud provider if they wish so. And that's the sense of the cloud alliance with the member states. I mean to do to realize distributed cloud federated cloud system open and possible also, and that that's also very important technological objective green. Thank you again, Roberto, the question from Paul Colleen from the NS AI, and he asked you very I think quite a complex question. Roberto, could Roberto give a brief high level summary of the core and differences between the three days data Governance Act digital services and Digital Markets Act in the context of what he describes of your nice digital empowerment framework. Hi, that's right. So let's start with the first day. I am not necessarily the importance or the alphabetical DSA. Why does the word that says it all. It's about services and in particular intermediation services that are, let's say, being offered to companies and citizens. So there they did the problem to be sold this to maintain the pillars on which digital services are offered. And that's something where Ireland has been fighting for and we are all in favor with with with Ireland on this and I would say there's a larger concept, very large consensus in Europe. You should not ask for a government permission to offer some digital services, you should place your company wherever you like in Europe. That's called the country of origin. And the third element, you should not be legally responsible for things you don't know, and that's the key of hosting services because I mean otherwise it's the end of the cloud business is the end of any data intermediation business. At the same time, the world is going on. So there are now companies that are not simply hosting providers, these companies are also offering themselves the services. The more you are vertically integrated, the more you take responsibility and liability for what you offer, the more you are larger, the more you should have responsibility in knowing your customers in so know your business customers being introduced, the more you should have systemic control on your platform. So the DSA provides an increasingly high level of intensity in terms of check and balances that digital service provider have to do. And of course it starts with a very minimum for a very small platform and it's quite a more articulated set of obligation when it comes to that platform with the idea to make sure that those services are safe and they can be shared everywhere in Europe. The DMA, the key word of course is M stands for market, looks at the complementary, as I said, objective, which is to make sure that companies doing business on the platforms, they can actually reasonably stay alive and do transactions without being cornered, if I can use non-technical words to describe. So basically, we try to identify a platform that we call digital gatekeepers, which are essential trading partners for all the other businesses. So if a platform is without this platform, you cannot be in the digital ecosystem, you can imagine a two or three platform very easily. If you are not present on this platform, you do not exist digitally. Then we call them gatekeepers, which is not necessarily a best thing to say, simply it's a statement of fact. Then for those kind of platforms, we want some behavioral rules in terms of data sharing, transparency of data, transparency of dealing with the other businesses, which you would say it's almost common sense that this happens. But I mean, beside common sense and the reflex of every business to internalize as much as value, there's of course attention, and that's where the DMA comes in with the public rules, and we are clear obligations for those gatekeeping platforms to keep the other businesses as part of an open ecosystem. And for the Digital Governance Act, the key word is G, for data, sorry, Governance Act. Well, actually there are two key words, data and governance, and as I said, it's about data sharing. Governments sharing more data with companies and citizens, sharing more data with companies and research organizations, and companies sharing more data among themselves. And there are three different mechanisms according to three scenarios that facilitate data sharing. No losers, no winners. I mean, that's not for legislation to say that, but really we hope much more data sharing. Thank you, Roberta, you covered that extremely well. I tried. Extremely well. I have a question here from Hugh Lowke, who's the IIEA member and a former EU official. And he asked the question, shouldn't we be concerned that so much of the digital infrastructure, particularly the wealth generation, dimensions of it is more and more privately owned and virtually self-regulating worldwide? Well, it's what I tried to cover in my introductory remarks. I said, we are concerned if this results in private enforcement of constitutional principles. I think we should not be concerned if a company is successful. We should upload. That's not the point. And if a company abuses of the success, there's competition law and there's regulation. What has been increasingly difficult in this world that accelerated in terms of digitization is the relationship between citizens, freedoms, and those actors. Those actors probably have been faced with responsibilities which are higher than what they should take as private companies. And this is also because of the absence of rules. Let's face it. So we cannot blame, I mean, large platforms if the rules are not clear. And that's exactly what we are trying to do with the Digital Service Act and Digital Market Act. It's a democratic process. Of course, these are legislative proposals. There will be a democratic process, European Parliament and Council as it is like this in Europe and producing legislation. We'll have to vote and find an agreement and then we'll be at European law. And this then will be respected and that will be the norm. My best wishes of success to everybody in the web also allow me to say the small ones, not only the big ones, but then my my opies within a framework or clear rules and the rules again should not be privately set. Of course, co-regulations nice, but I mean the basic fundamental rules should be public rules. I have a question here from Barry Larry, the government CIO. And he asked the question, the implementation of pan European contact tracing apps was not possible because countries has clearly different positions on the national need versus individual privacy debate, leading to the centralized versus decentralized How can we get shared technology solutions without shared positions on the meaning of data sovereignty at both state and individual level. Thank you Barry. First of all, many congratulations for the work you do and all the contribution you did to this debate. Let me say, well, actually, all the tracing apps that use the same technology, the so called decentralized technology are today connected. So the Irish shop works already in 14 member states, very soon will work in every member states with the exception of a couple that they've used a different technological solution. And that's a bit of a pity that we although we went very far. And now we can say that those technologies are there to help, of course, then depends very much on our technology you. And I think Ireland, by the way, it's a country that did particularly well in tracing apps, because managed to link it with also prevention. And in a way that has been accepted by citizens and tracing apps in Ireland, I have the highest diffusion in Europe. So an Irish citizens when it will be possible to travel a bit more, they can use this up everywhere in Europe thanks to the collective work. Not everything went well in this journey, as you are saying. And I think we should learn from this. In particular, I'm thinking about the one upcoming proposal where we should be very united and find a common solution, which is the European digital identity. I don't think to be a digital citizen, you need to use your personal identity. And again, I don't think the private supply of digital identity is the solution. Of course, and I don't, but I mean, as in the real life, when you are born, somebody takes care to give you an identity and you use the identity. And the same should be on the web. You should be using your own identity to do many things. And of course you are the owner of the data that you generate by doing transaction with your identity. When we arrive this, it's the intention. Well, it's been a request of the head of state, the European Commission will present a proposal in June. And of course, we need a real good technical understanding with all the CIOs in Europe with all the people that can contribute to arrive to a sound technical solution which is not divisive on the contrary, which unites the intent. Thank you for that. Another question from Anne Flanagan. As has been mentioned, digital sovereignty can be a divisive term and can unfair data localization restrictions or other artificial barriers to international business. How can Europe convey to the rest of the world that it is still open for business while stepping up in its global leadership of digital. That's why, frankly, the world sovereignty, I don't use it. Because it could be misleading. I think there's no continent more open than Europe. I mean, frankly, when you look around, it's clearly like this. And so that's why I mean, sometimes rhetoric confuses the reality. We have been the one in WTO offering openness when it comes to data exchanges. We have been the one championing trade agreements with the free flow data. We have a very solid regulation inside the union for free flow of data. Of course, there's a little but to all of these being open doesn't mean to be naive. And it takes in a trade agreement or in an agreement to tango. So, if the other party. It's interested to get your data but doesn't offer the same level of exchange or doesn't offer as it in some jurisdiction, any kind of guarantees in terms of protecting the intellectual property right or companies in terms of cybersecurity. Of course, you have to be a bit careful. I mean, you will not. I mean, I'm sure we are all very open in our thinking with respect to our friends and families and people we know, but I don't give the keys of my house to everybody in a lighthearted matter. Here is a bit the same. I think the keys of the house we can share with with many and we are doing that and we probably championed it. But it's time we say to certain jurisdictions you behave. That's the point you behave because I mean there are red lines that cannot be trespassed. The red line about respecting the fundamental rights, the red line about not attacking with cyber attacks Europe, the red line of enforcing I mean inside the given jurisdiction the protection of fundamental data. At the same time, I mean, when when when you discuss international there are principles but there are also the willingness to move ahead and even in problematic jurisdiction, we are willing to see how we can move ahead and how we can, I mean, make sure that there's more openness on both sides. So the intention is absolutely to maintain an open dialogue and sharing data as much as we can. But of course, in doing so, we have to be also a little bit savvy that we don't give the keys of our house to everybody. Maybe some of this everybody is not to be trusted. Yes, good point. I think Roberto. Thank you. A question from Hannah DC from the the AI and moving to artificial intelligence, following the use white paper on AI last year, new EU AI regulations are anticipated this year. Are you able to give any sense on what teams are emerging as the most important in regulation in AI from these consultations. Thank you and thank you and for this question because it gives me the opportunity to speak a little bit about AI that for time constraints I didn't do in my introductory remarks. Indeed, we made quite some effort in the last years, first of all, to have experts and the stakeholders at large to speak about whether we need rules and what kind of rules we need for AI and whether we should then present regulation. As I said, my introductory remarks, maybe the the eyes we see AI are a little bit different before the pandemic that if you remember the debate before the pandemic was AI is here everywhere, and now we need to regulate it. I would say after the pandemic. We should probably say AI is not here. If AI would have been here would have been a welcome supplementary help to find the pandemic. It's anecdotically here and there, but the effort in terms already still gigantic to bring us to a society that can actually benefit from it and we should not deflect from this effort. In the meantime, there are emerging application the more and more rely on AI. And that I come to the also the feedback we got from the white book consultation, we should not when it comes to regulation shoot in every direction, just the fact that you use AI should not be make something eligible for regulation. However, I think we start start maturing things that we collectively think it cannot be. It cannot be. And I'm also referring to some tragic events happened in the last few days that adolescence through AI are exploded on social media. I mean, you present fake information, thanks to AI and you don't want people that this is the case. It cannot be that I mean you use face recognition in an indiscriminate way without any link to for instance security need. So there are certain cannot be. There are certain you should be cautious. I mean, for instance, we have been deploying AI in hospitals, as I said, but in some cases the performance was not what was announced because doctors sported the training data set that was not the right one. So, I think in AI, we can say out of the consultation we have seen three things happening. Really the dawns the thing that should not happen. The things where you have to give a bit of a warning. I mean, what we call a bit the iris applications and also the heads of state of government asking the commission be a bit more clear what are the iris nothing wrong. I mean, car, it's an iris machine that's why you have standards and you have test and whatever I mean. So that the fact that something is iris that doesn't mean that they should not be marketed I mean, simply means attention. And then the third element is the things that are not iris cannot I mean forbidden and they should simply be allowed. In this case of why there should be regulation. So, I think, what is very clear from what the ESO states told us, and what is emerging from the debate. There's a clear distinction between things that are okay I think is where we should be attentive and that's a bit the philosophy according to what the European Council has asked us, which we are looking to a limited set of rules. And that would be really useful in framing the future of AI in the direction, as I said, to have much more AI in our society, and much more people that trust. Thank you, Roberto, a question now from Michael Collins, who's DG of the IAEA, and he asked the question, what is the future between the EU and the UK in terms of cooperation in the digital space. Before this question, I think the future is is written in agreement, and in part, it's, it's to be still defined better. I think the first answer is that there's a difference to be part of the digital single market to be out, and that should be clear. And that that we did not determine this future, it was determined by the choice of the UK citizens. And we have to respect this, but at the same time we have to say very clearly. One thing is the future digital future of a member state of the union, one thing is the future relationship with someone that is a standard to the unit. So there will be a difference. At the same time, being different and being, I mean, partners, one, the union, the other, a standard member state. This does not mean that certain degree of cooperation is possible and that's what the agreement is picturing in terms of changing data in terms of selecting some areas in which common research can be, can be undertaken. In terms of general general regulatory cooperation, and also some forms of a, let's say, security cooperation, which are also very welcome in the area of cyber security. All of this needs to be better detailed in the coming weeks and months, but the intention of course is to maintain good relationship but it will be a very, very different relationship. Thank you for that, Roberto. A question here from Ricardo Rodriguez asking, what exactly does European identity mean? What benefits would it bring for citizens? I mean, let me give you one example, which is, I mean, I hope it will come back soon, Ricardo, that you want to rent a car somewhere. Because if we laugh at it, you can say, rent a car, we really barely managed to get out of our house, but frankly, let's hope that this will be the case in not so distant future. And then you go there and then there was the long litany that we know give me your passport, give me your driving license away, you leave and the credit card. Imagine instead you have a certified provider that has all these attributes, the driving license, who you are, your credit card, in a way that you can manage this and change this in a secure format. Then, I mean, renting the car will be a click away. Of course, you will clearly select, as you do in front of an employee of a rented car organization, which information you want to give or which information are necessary. So this is a very simple example. The other example could be opening a bank account or could be, I mean, signing a contract for something. So the digital identity, it's a collection of who you are in multiple dimension, including your social interests and other things, and what you want to communicate to others in a way that I mean you allow the interaction. If you want to communicate that you are member to the local golf club, you can do that through the, I mean, managed identities. If you want just to communicate, for instance, using social media your age, you can do that. If you need to communicate your driving license you communicate your driving license and when it comes to healthcare you have your nice and secure wallet. I mean, if you need to communicate certain things to a doctor which you authorize to know the information you can do that. So it's a very, very different world from the collection of passwords pieces of digital real information papers and things that we have today. So that's our dream. Well, what a great answer to that question of digital identity because it shows the power, doesn't it, of what can happen and what we hope will happen in the future and particularly, I suppose, with the power of blockchain and other emerging technologies. Indeed, indeed, indeed, indeed, absolutely. And blockchain is a big part of this exercise, of course. Yes, thank you. No, it's coming back to the question that was before about standards and what type of tracing apps. That's why I said we got to get it right. We got to get it right. Well, there's lots of questions and this is the last question unfortunately but we've lots of them left behind Roberto, and this is from John Dooley from the DETE. I think it's very positive that enabling investing and driving Europe and digital society will be balanced with preserving an open economy. It would be good to hear more and how this balance can be struck. So we can strengthen our competitiveness of an economic power without compromising fundamental principles of openness, transparency, inclusiveness and a level playing field. To stay ahead, we need to balance the need for proportionate levels of regulation at EU and member states level, which do not impose unnecessary burdens with the need to promote and enable innovation that ultimately drives economic growth. I don't know if that's more a statement than a question Roberto, but I don't know if you'd like to respond. Yes indeed, it's a bold statement, but maybe since it's the last question allows me to repeat certain things I've been saying throughout this very, very nice discussion we had. The first is, I think the world needs Europe and we need the world, there's no doubt. And in digital, Europe has a role responsibility that we have to exercise in driving the new normal with a better dimension for citizens. And this respect, I mean, we don't need to, because I mean if someone closes a market, it's a defensive reflex and it's a sign of weakness, no, in a certain sense. And we have no weakness here because we are by GDP, the largest market or digital market of the world. We are by tradition by facts, the market where the most advanced rules are being crafted. We have indeed a weakness when it comes to having neglected too much in the past, the power on innovation when it comes to digital and this weakness that we need to catch up. That's why these investments in the recovery plan in advanced digital technologies are extremely welcome. But I mean, if you catch up in a race, there's no reason why you should shoot the tires of the opponent. I mean, that's not the way to win the race. And so this is a race, eventually the real price is to have a real new normal where something will happen, will never happen again. Unfortunately, it will happen again. But I mean, at least we will have the tools to combat it better. This is the cap for winning this race. And this is a cap we can share, this war cap with others. I mean, but we have to do our job in Europe. We are too big, too important not to do our own work. And what went wrong is that we didn't do our own work. And we cannot simply blame others if they have done the work. And now they're offering services and process in Europe. We have to do our work. And we can maintain all our efforts to be open and assertive by doing our work. Roberto, thank you so much. Unfortunately, time has cut off with us, but I have to thank you for your amazingly capacity to answer all these diverse questions. It's such a really good way and clear way. And I think for giving us a really powerful message of the power of this digital empowerment framework with our 3Ds, the Digital Service Act, the Market Act and the Governance Act, but also more importantly, the role that citizens, business and the states as well as Europe can play together, that it is about openness, it is about working together. So I think it is a really powerful presentation and particularly your answers, as I said, in such a wide range. So thank you so much for that. I'd like on our behalf to thank the IAE production team, Locan Mullally and Sarah Burke and the Digital Policy Researcher, Shea Miss Allen for their work in this webinar. But I'd like to thank you, our audience, for such active engagement with Roberto and for that range of questions that you so ably answered, Roberto. Thank you very much. I really appreciate that. So we look forward to seeing you all again at our next event. And you Roberto, I hope in the new normal that you talked about that you can come to Dublin to see us and tell us more about what's happening in such a wide range and really positive digital agenda with so much happening. And also I think importantly with that fund behind us that will ensure it will happen. So thank you very much again. And I hope you keep safe and keep well and thank you. Thank you Joyce likewise and thank you for all the contributions we received to this very rich debate and thank you for the invitation. I surely will and I hope soon.