The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Paris, France, from 12 to 14 November 2018. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> MODERATOR: I would like to invite our speakers to come and sit, please. So we have two missing speakers. We know they're here. We can start without them because we are literally counting the minutes. So good afternoon again. I work for apec international and we're combating sexual exploitation of children. Our headquarters are based in Bangkok. We have more than 100 members all over the world. Thank you for coming.
So today we're going to discuss on this panel digital platforms online games and impacts. Two speakers are missing. We hope they will be joining.
I briefly introduce you to each of the speakers. Then I will ask we sort of ask questions that we agreed on. And then to raise specific aspects around the topic I just mentioned and then we will open the floor about 10 minutes so that we can take questions and then we will wrap up. It goes very fast because it is basically 60 minutes as I said. So it's a short session.
So first we have Jutta. Jutta Croll, but also she's the chair person of the board of this foundation, if I'm not mistaken. And Jutta is also board ‑‑ sorry. A member that is very familiar with IGF. We also have John Carr. John is an advisor and consultant with international and many regional mechanisms and act as an expert with companies and wears many hats. He's a well known expert.
Finally we have Patrick mead representing chief technical CTO of ‑‑
>> (low voice).
>> MODERATOR: And is a company based in the UK, which designs online platform apps for children and all incorporates with many ‑‑ hello, Martin. Cooperates with many companies, but I'm sure he will share more information about that.
And on my right‑hand side, we have Maarten Botterman who is a member of the board of ICANN. So he knows a let about DNS, which is not really the topic today, but Maarten also ‑‑ are you the chair of the Dynamic Coalition of Internet or things? So again, he knows a lot about Internet of things and we've been discussing the linkages that children use. Missing speaker joins us, then maybe she can introduce yourself.
Thank you very much. So I will ask a question and the first question will be in the first place. Why do we think it's important to even discuss screen time exposure or Internet time used, you know, by children as users and ‑‑ why is this important? I would like to hear the views of the panelists. I don't know, Jutta, if you want to start.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes, of course. Thank you for giving me the floor first. I think the discussion of screen time started when children began watching television. So it's not a new discussion about what screen time exposures is right for children or wrong. I do think the internet discussion has completely changed. It's not only being exposed to the screen, which is in the term screen time exposure, but it is interaction with the screen and that means also interaction with the other users behind somehow, behind that screen. So ‑‑ and talking about interaction with what is on the screen and what children are doing there. We know that certain threats come along with this type of interaction. And one of these threats that is related directly interacting with a screen being somehow drawn into what is happening on the screen and performing, for example, games, tasks and so on. I would leave it at that point to give my other panelists room to answer your question as well.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Jutta. Anything else you want to add?
>> SPEAKER: I think it's important because of the evolution and the screen time as well. We started developing that quite a while ago, which were predominantly online. Just your PC and the gate way to a PC was slightly higher back then as well. Now we're seeing tablets in children's homes, younger. Smart watches and VR and AR experiences. I think it's important to have this discussion because the speed at which VR being virtually reality and AR bug augmented reality where VR will be putting on a headset and augmented would be possiblymon go where you get your phone out where you see the street, but also small digital creatures. It is really important to have these discussions on the impact of this on children because of the speed of evolution and every time we have this discussion, there will be something new and there will be complacency in the industry if we don't keep doing so. We think it's important especially from the private sector to make sure we keep looking behind the curtain into that black box of technology that people don't quite understand, make people aware of it and what actually we are doing that might be impacting children.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, John.
>> JOHN CARR: Parents worry. I can remember when our children were very young, they started having a tan Trump because I we wanted give them a banana and I would worry maybe if I give in and give them the banana. This is the moment. This is the fork in the road that means they will grow up to be a mass murderer or vote for Donald Trump or something horrible like that.
So of course when something new comes along, something like augmented reality, virtual reality, screens that can do things that you never experienced when you were a child, then naturally parent worry and it's right they should worry. It's right they should be concerned and interested about what's happening to their children and their children's lives. The problem is, of course, some of these worries become completely exaggerated and disproportionate. The simple truth is: Games and most of the online platforms our children engage with for most of the time, for most of the children will be a positive thing and a fun thing. There's lots of research emerging about how certain kinds of games problem children with problem solving, with analysis, with planning for the future and things of this kind. So there are lots and lot of benefits associated with platforms and stuff that they've been working O. if you torn ask a typical school typier in England, for example, one of the things they would say they're most concerned about is sleeplessness. Kids coming in to school in the morning not having had a good night's sleep. Why? Because they're on their phones or game consoles doing stuff when they aught to be sleeping and getting a good night sleep. But you can't learn properly at school if you haven't had a good night sleep. That's genuine and real and we have to find a way of addressing it.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Maarten. Do you want to add something on that?
>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Yes. John provided a little insight there. One thing is the pure screen time. The other one is what you do with the Internet. Raise the point that what we do with the Internet may be less and less fire of that screen also for children to open a mind for that. The second thing for me is that next to screen time is searched most importantly what we do with that screen. And in that and particular to children that they transfer and responsible offering for that screen is also crucial. We need to protect the issues more than other users.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. So my next question would be: Is there such a thing as the right amount of exposure to an Internet used in terms of ours with green exposure. Can we sort of make the statements?
>> SPEAKER: Yes. I would say the first question is to answer how we measure and need the screen time. There is a research company called common sense with published news to screens and their method is to measure each screen separately. That means if a child, which we often see sits in front of a computer has their Smartphone probably beside them and also the TV is running in the room. Then it would be not one hour exposure, but three hours of exposure. You can question that methodology, but in the end, we see that children are doing this. They are interacting with several devices and it depends on the services they use on the device. It depends how much they are drawn into what they are doing there on that device, how much they engage with a game or with a communication with other people or with what is provided to them. I would not say that it's possible to define the right amount of screen time. It depends on which services you use.
>> SPEAKER: Not so much about the quantity, but the quality.
>> SPEAKER: The quality of the content, but also the quality of the interaction. We'll come to the point where we discuss if it's voluntary decision of the child to interact, this amount of time with the service they are using or whether they are drawn into continuous interaction with a game or with a service or also with their communication partners.
>> MODERATOR: D trend is to have multiple screens or platforms or devices and is that correct?
>> SPEAKER: It's hard to define exactly what the right amount of time is. We can quite easily observe the extremes so we know when there's absolutely too much or when ‑‑ with the tracting volume of not seeing any screens or being exposed to any technology because they need to build up resilience through life and learn about these things. But defining where that line is in between is very hard. The main thing to do is recognize what has happened over time is that we just decided to use screen time. We have replaced functions with screen time. So communications, which have been done over telephone can be replaced with the screen, reading about things, learning, homework replaced with a screen. These are things that add value. But there are other things that get exposed which are not exactly positive value. It is that balance between those two, which is really important here. What we find is the two and what you're trying to achieve. Children specialists we're trying to build a good user experience. Building in front of education and an obvious transaction and value between the parent and the provider. And then the opposite sort of extreme side of that is when everything is slightly more opaque and you have parents that don't know the value of it is. We're talking about the revenue side of things which is hard to see what that provokes and why the content is of any quality. The incentives to make the content quality don't align with the model, the business model being used.
Just to clear it up, it is that generally if you start out with a good business model, one that tries to aim to add value, you end up in a place where you are giving children benefits through screen time. I think that's main thing we're trying to do with our clients.
>> You talk to some parents sometimes and you get the impression that they think every minute the child spents looking at the screen is a wasted minute. If they weren't looking at the screen, they'd playing football, climbing a mountain, saving somebody's life, out clementing money or fighting diseases in some exotic part of the world. So it's a completely false idea and false understanding of how children are reacting with screens. If you are on your screen fund raising to fight diseases in different parts of the world or, you know, campaigning against a particularly horrible mayor in your city or something like that, what we need to is get parents and teachers to understand better the rich variety of different thingsna children can do ‑‑ that children can do. Simply seeing the child in front of the screen shouldn't lead you to think oh, my God. Why aren't they playing soccer or at swimming pool. It is impeople to see a child do their homework without going online or looking at the screen. The complexity could mean you have to be on the screen for an hour just to do one essay or one assignment. So how again would you judge? It is about improving people's wanting. But the basic point is we still don't know enough about the long‑term consequences of this type of engagement. It is understandable. We shouldn't be harsh. We shouldn't be critical or Snotty. We need to find ways to do that. I understand why people think, you know, a certain age I'm not exactly sure what the state of the research is in the American association of pediatric said something about zero screen time below the age of two. And some difference of level up to the age of 6. I lost track of it. I'm not sure there is any fixed no certainties about any of this. With that, you can understand why people would want to be cautious and be more conservative rather than more radical.
>> SPEAKER: Just to jump back there on the point of children in the UK using tablets, et cetera, for homework. A quick disclaimer. We run something called the trends tracker, which includes 18,000 parents and children a year. It tracks trends on digital and include a digital and traditional media for children and we push that out to different vendors in the world. We found one of the sharpest increases for use of tablets in children was learning homework. Overall other increases. So children are already on tablets. You might imagine playing games and certainly over the last year, I lost set of trends. We won every six months. We've finding the biggest increase in uptake of tablets for children is in doing homework which is quite nice to see. And then we take something like that and use that data with our clients to suggest as kids experts how they should be providing content to children. So where we have released, they learn and it comes from the mony the sore foundation. That's all about counting numbers on the screen. Very simple learning for pre‑schoolers and can be guided. Doesn't have to be. It is using technology because it uses AR. It uses a camera to recognize the numbers that the user is pushing in front of the screen. Again, it is using technology to instill of something that's of value.
>> MODERATOR: I remember one or two years ago on the French media. There was a call from if rhyme not mistaken, the association of pediatrician or at least some doctors saying they were very concerned and they were starting to have very young children patients who were showing signals of autism. Maybe someone in the agents know better about that, but I remember clearly, you know, trying to raise awareness of that as far as being exposed to spend too many hours in front of the screen. Of course as you said, John, this is sort of an unexplored territory and more research needs to be done. Even though we acknowledge that there's a benefit in using, you know, having multiple functions as an internet user and there are benefits, I will say they use common sense and that's the human body and the human brain not designed to be seated in front of a device for hours and hours. Basically we already know that from, you know, some research around watching too much television. I am wondering and throwing that out saying maybe to the floor changing plans because it is controversial topic. Maybe do you want somebody from the floor that wants to say something or has a strong opinion about that. Yes, please.
>> AUDIENCE: Good morning, everyone. There has been a lot of research on that. I think one of the big problems now is that watching real fast moving images and sounds and they use in the lateral lobes of their brains which is detracting from the prehear frontal brain. The kids take a step back and think about what they're doing is one side of it. The other side is the addictiveness because as we use our lateral lobes, we have spent more and more as if we're really analyzing text and trying to understand or referring if we're involved in the discussion and then we're using very different part of our brain. I think when we're talking about screen time, we do have to take this into account and also the fact that there is a lot more attention deficit problems now for the very reason that kids are jumping from one thing to another. They're not going really into denth. If you want to read more about this little ‑‑ not John. Nicholas Carr has written a very interesting look called the Shallows. But he talks about various research, but there is a lot more research in this area. I think we should be thinking about this because not only are we changing customs and the ways families interact, we're also changing the same and develop of a child brain.
>> AUDIENCE: Is that a good or a bad thing?
>> SPEAKER: If a child is born deaf or in old society, there's a great difficulty in developing abstract operational reasoning which usually comes around about age 12 or 13. So in my opinion, it's not a good thing, but maybe there are other people who can see advantages of this sort of shallow reflection.
>> JOHN CARR: There has been research done in the Uconnection. I can't remember the authors name, but if anybody wants to follow up, let me know and I will get the references. I spoke about multi‑tanking. People say oh, it's great. Kids can do two, three, four different things at once. What this research started to show was that doing two or three things, they're not doing any of them particularly well. Certainly not doing some of them to the highest page of efficiency they would have done if they were concentrating on that task. In the room is one of themost great count an of knowledge. Larry was shaking his head or nodding and I'm not quite sure what he was doing.
>> SPEAKER: It's always a real pleasure to report did dict you, John ‑‑ to contradict you. It is simultaneously doing things, but I would like to put in a word for next generation of young people. We see others about the generationf today's youth falling into the abyss, et cetera, else. When I sawd rules of the students in Parkland, Florida and how many of them rose to a position of national leadership literally overnight, I am watching a young man who had never been in broadcast television before and he was best than I am and I've been on television hundreds of times. But then I realized he probably has with YouTube or broadcast or whatever. You are experiencing some losses. I think Janet articulated that correctly, but also we have some games. It is the kind of intellectual concentration focus that other generations may have had during their schooling, et cetera. There's also something to be said about the 80 to acquire information, move back and forth and if we lookantively autoed's young people, I have yet to be convinced that it is a generation falling into the abyss.
>> SPEAKER: Yes. You want time to react?
>> SPEAKER: Yes. Children are not all the same. This is especially important in regard of this discussion. It is now with regard to age. So we all know that children are different at the age of 16 and the benefits they can have from using digital devices. They grow as children are growing and they need guidance from other care takers and they can grow into somehow selflife control when they get older. We don't know how much guidance we need to give them at which age and we don't know. Most parent don't know how to do that because we don't know enough about the impact that using these devices have on children race brains, on their behavior and whole development. I really do think we need different approach to this situation. What we face is the applications. Most of them don't do this age difference. It is part of the educational process that parents know which type of replication or devicing service is appropriate for that child at a certain age, but also it is part of the responsibility of those who produce the content and applications to take care of children's development process.
>> MODERATOR: Those are very good points about the parents and we will part this for the next question because we will touch upon that. But before that, you wanted to say something and then there was a third person. I will ask you to be very brief.
>> SPEAKER: Yes. Jack from EBU. You have a lot of literature on that. What seems interesting and I am sure he's about what's happening and the 3D screens and the experience has been large. We have seen the syndrome that was mentioned before about the fast moving images made bigger impact than expected. There is more need for investigation on the impact of the device s and con sumping, the multi‑tasking, et cetera, et cetera. What we can dough see is there's a lot of lose the potential and lose the memory and lose over a contest. The bottom is the addition problem in the situation where you don't have already according to the age parameters to measure the reliant of what you are watching and resources. So probably we need to we think and have educational process. There are a number of things that need to be incorporated in the educational area since the first age. When we go online, the main thing is educational verification that still remain a very huge issue.
>> SPEAKER: Thank you. I suffer from most of those symptoms.
>> Hello. My name is Maria Estelle A. I'm a current student. I did a thesis on the basic impact of criminologist. I wanted to follow up on the idea of advocate team because I found that when children watch violence television or movies because they become more violent as well. And this was proven by many research and also books and academics spoke about it. I think this is a big concern and a concern about the future and also we talked about parents and children. I think parents and school thes are the ones who are ‑‑ parents and children lack communication and children are available people and it's not always easy to talk with parents and with parents, it is not always easy to connect with there are children. This is something we have to seek a consideration because it's an officer in perspective. But in order to serve difficult situations at the basic of it and the basic is a relationship ‑‑ it is having responsibility to guide children. So I think perhaps it will combat in that relationship.
>> MODERATOR: Please I and then the last question.
>> AUDIENCE: I am from Paris. In 1988, there was a French SOSesiologist that will explain that our body is the first one to life in general. Food is the device, the body. We feel alive and we can en.
>> ourselves and discover things. This is the first thing we possess. It's a treasure. I am very concerned about seeing you very, very skinny and masking me. Young people and the obsessed in south Korea, in Taiwan and Japan have no social interaction at all. So, of course, I'm not going to say I am against Internet extra. I play games and a learned a lot ever things. What I'm saying is, um, that ‑‑ for instance, there's a problem when someone have a relationship with parents because parents are not as lost, but it is a technological toy. Parents should be considered as kids, I think. So I'm wondering about the future generation. If there is no communication twine the parents and children, probably they will built themselves ‑‑ of course, the thing is we needed to own our body and we needed to feel things. It's the way to create new loads in studies. And unless you want society and the truth to become siboring, that's good. Unless you want to lead an argumentd life where bodies are Americanize sized. That's why I am limit about the education.
>> MODERATOR: Yes, please.
>> SPEAKER: I wanted to chime in because I run a Facebook Group with parents. So one of the things I wanted to say in response to your question about the autism. It was called virtual autism and the original statistics we found it in the United States. In 1975, one in five children were diagnosed with autism. And then in 2014, it was 168. What they did, the French doctors, theyen in did a study and they looked at it. That's a a tube video called screens 0 to 4. When they removed the screen from the children, the virtual autism disappeared. That is what is so very, very interesting to always let parent understand, which is why I dray with I. We're talking about children that are. Issue much younger and this can be the problem. Small children race brains cannot develop without a sense of touch and interaction. That's it. That was brief.
>> MODERATOR: This is very useful information. Last question before we move on to the next block.
>> My name is Sandra Cortez. I work with the berkman client center. Very brief. I do think that we should be careful with the term addition. So far it has not been registered as an actual disease or disorder. To me, it is one entity for which I look in looking for answering into space. I dong addition is a problematic term to use. If we continue to use it on one side particularly for families, parents, they also use it ‑‑ if they use it too lightly, if they have a problem, will they get treatment or support quick enough. If actually young people are suffering from problematic screen use, and in that sense are addicted, will we call them addicts because usually we associate it with the word addict, drug Adistrict and so fort. In the case of children, I find quite problematic and last point, if we are considering limiting screen time‑for‑young people and children. Will we limit screen time for those who actually think serves as a lifeline. I am thinking particularly of young people with disabilities or people that are under represented in the communities around them. And so let's think tail of ‑‑
>> MODERATOR: On the points released, we can move on to discuss this a little bit the role of speaker solutions. Anticipate trains and then who ‑‑ who basically who do you think has a shared responsibility when it comes to, you know, tackling these problems? Is it parents only? Care takers? Care givers, et cetera? You can elaborate on that?
>> SPEAKER: It is this magic awareness. Keep skeptism, but there's a carry of an idea there where parents and teachers have a part. I don't know how many of you have seen the term that has noble in real life she interviews in processor of psychology at Yale, I think it was. One of the Ivee league states. Some of the most likely paid brightest psychology that I have ever known and worked with are now working in Silicon Valley. Principally because the amount of money they're getting is enormous. Why are they paying these guys Eenge inous amounts? Because they want them to design systems, platforms and in a way to maximize user engagement which was code for in a very disciplined. The whole purpose is these are really smart, clever guys. It was to attract them and then to keep you. Why? Because one of the things that generate money for the platforms is the data that is generated by the engagement that happens. So obviously I think the companies do have responsibility in this point. Every time is children. You shouldn't have go hard and fasted calls about these things. I do think companies have a aren't. I don't normally point to China as a good example a lot of things. But the Chinese and I'm not sure about the Koreans. They have introduced the law which says you have to build in the law of defin diminishing and you are engaged in that activity should become harder for you to score points or win a game or progress to another level. They're requiring the games companies, the platform builders to build these things on and I kind of like the judged, but the games provider is trying to reduce ‑‑ we have all read about cases where young people have died. There was one guy who built a toilet. His chair, you know, next to his computer was also a toilet because he didn't want to drag himself away from the game to releave himself. That's not common obviously, but we need to be mindfulf these things.
My last point. The companies spend millions and millions and millions of dollars marketing their products unless you are part of our game and part of the environment. It is all down for the parents to make sure it doesn't go too far.
>> SPEAKER: You can also make an argument about a restaurant. The same argument can be made by anyone who has a service request to attract customers. A chef wants people coming back as soon as possible. John gore will engage you and then get you to invite him to come back. While, that is true, of course people who design games want them to be compelling. I read that nobody calls that addition even though it can be harmful in the analog world, it has the same components.
>> MODERATOR: Let's see what Patrick has to say about that.
>> The people that make the games, the first thing to tackle there is there's a bit of inflation between people who build products for children and then products that exist for a wider audience. And quite often, they're a lot less fun for children. So you have to build entirely different incentives to bring them back. And you're doing things like Snapchat, Strikes, et cetera, which is trying to get them to come back to the restaurant. There's a nice pointf transaction between them and us shows what they're getting, how nice okay it's going to be whereas the of the side I was talking about is almost like telling people you don't need three meals away. You need sick. At that point, it is (atic I think we need to be very conscious about who we're talking about when we think about these people going off and designing class measures to keep children in games. We don't get asked to make things attractive. A lot of people provide content for children and I'm looking for that. It's another thing we're trying to do. We want to make sure parents can come back and they can see the volume we're adding. I think quite clearly it's notgist parents. They have the next players. We should not share cover responsibility. In tact, talking ‑‑ in fact, talking about how virtually reality affects children. As part of our responsibilities, we created a research paper called CVC. We create tablets and so each time we do, this each time we go into a new part of the industry, we ourselves feel a pulling responsibility to go and make sure that we're doing the right things for these children and building the right things because at the end of the day, nobody is going to come back and a parent is not going to pay if you are delivering something low quality and bad for their children. Eventually, they'll noble and we can see that coming with things like adheritizements and it's not obvious. Parents realize that actually we're free yet and there is a payment somewhere down the road.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Maarten. You wanted to add?
Also, the stakeholders, we may have some responsibility in protecting them. In general, it is there you of what they expect users to do in terms of protecting their computers online. The presence there is their data. If you look to this problem right here a let about addiction and that's in itself. And yes indeed, it is responsibility that may not be with the producer of ‑‑ wean there is legislation and particularly to our children. We shouldn't advertise under the skin during screen time. This could apply for games to simple measures that may work. I want ‑‑ screen time and how it is used is as important as screen time in itself. If you say you limit it to four hours, then I don't want to make my homework on the screen. It also counts for the same time. The good news is you can help and make your only more aware. This tells me every week how much I well per week.
[Laughter]
I pay attention to that and I'm sure realizing noble on the screen. The other thing is also in terms of using this in the car, you can install an app that helps you not to use it while you are driving. Offers tools is something you should do.
>> Yes. Hello, everyone. I work with UNICEF and I've been working with children and digital ooze a researcher on the policy division in New York for many years. And we have never been so solarized especially when it comes to child's rights and machines. We here the pros and cons and it's not really easy to make any kind of an informed judgment about what is good for children and what is not. And I often see panel studies that interview 2,000 children at one point in time and make a generalization about a lack of interaction or negative interact. We all agree here that ‑‑ there is brain development and sleep patterns and how much time they spend on recreation and activities and doing homework and socializing in real life. We still really don't know enough. I just want to make a call for all of you particularly private sector to inch up their data. When we do this research with children, they will tell you things that ‑‑ we don't know what they do online unless we have realtime data or if the companies opened up their data and shared with researchers with policymakers and everyone else. We can get a problem insight to what is happening. Now I will talk more more data that is longitude. It is an impact of technologies and we'll have new technologies and we'll have to study them as well. And obviously including as John was mentioning other stakeholders but other like the neuro science that produced results about how the brain developed and can we bring nevero science. So just a queue minutes to say that this is great to see there was such a debate about this, but we hope we can really all try to clarify more about what is good and what is bad.
>> there nkow is also limiting screen time and it seems like there is some kind of collection between and I think that it is more important limiting the screen time because (?) developing self‑independent or south discipline. So maybe I think that other methods is not only focusing on controlling, but limiting their time is better than ‑‑ limiting screen time because there are still developing. So I wanted to ask how does that sound like? Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: I don't know.
>> I think that's where a lot of parent are doing that. You're agreeing with me. Even for the games manufacturers, it's not good business if you design games that have a bad effect on children. My worry is not all companies ice debit. There are a lot of flower boys, as we used to call them. But there are ‑‑ am.
>> really quickly. So the way we do that and people don't do it, but we have to find when they don't because I am not kids especially. I will feel an experience if I find my day is has been late. You might feel the same if your child is using an app of hours and you find there's been late or used in the wrong way. We feel we need to do this, but it was precious where we should be doing this from parents. I think the importance thing is ‑‑ I think there needs to be more pushes towards them. There need to be more demand others of industry. And the direction we go in. Like I said, falling with their feet and making sure they're using the right kind of apps ‑‑ we will respond much quicker to those discussions.
>> MODERATOR: I take that as the final remark and it was a very good one because we have to wrap up. You tell Maarten.
>> Yes. I do want to add something. I am really grateful for you to remind us of children's rights. Children have a right to be protected, but also they have the right to freedom of. There is peace. Assembly and so on and so on. All of this takes place by digital media. It is important to have that in mind. When we discuss about who should take responsibility, I do think, of course, we have multi‑stakeholder approach. We need all the actuals in the room. Than is not only due to the fact that not all parents are up to it even so they are up to somest tasks they have to perform and educating their children. The resource will call that just cannot be done by the parents and that is in the responsibility of industry. It is not fair to draw the parallel to writing a bike or climbing a mountain. Papers can be sightful. It might not be appropriate ‑‑ when we Reddicate our children and many of the media education people in the room, they know okay. We have educated over years and years that children do not provide that private data. They do not talk about which school they attend, where they live, where their house is. The children have learned these lessons, but now with all the devices, it's a different kind of data. It's not what the children provide, but what the provider of the game and service knows about his usage behavior. And this is the important data, but no parents can take responsibility for. The company needs to take responsibility. We can learn from this data. If companies would open up what they know about user behavior, how long should we use the games? I do think we need more cooperation. We need access to the data ‑‑ not me, but researchers working in that field to learn more about the impact users have on the children and also we can develop education or strategy.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. I will give it one minute. Two members of the Dynamic Coalition wanted to make a very short announcement on an initiative they launch. Please, we have one minute and also thinking the participants have been very useful I hope for you and for us. Thank the speakers. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. I would like to say we have spoken about how important it is that young people use these new tools to speak everyone ‑‑ we did a consultation with almost 5,000 young people on the GDPR when they really expressed themselves. One thing they said is that the second tired ever answering that we as results choose. So over to you, Larry, to explain our new initiative to get kids on board.
>> Larry: We had launched a website smarterinternet.org. There is an explanation and you create a consulting fee where children actually design the questionnaire. So what we're passing out now, the poster ismostly blank. The idea is for children to create their own questions. We start with focus groups or meetings and we're had one in the rues. Janice had a few around children to get children to say what are the issues or concerning. From that, we will develop a questionnaire. The first ‑‑ it gets thousands ever children to indicate what they believe are the priorities. If we can to, we will start up with a survey to evaluate it. Getting young people to define what are the issues and getting peers to validate what the issues are. We have some initial data and then later in the spring, have a more thorough report available within the country countries and globally.
>> Thank you very: Thank you very much. We have to wrap up.
>> Thank you.