 The first is that we are now in the third generation of the IT revolution. Each decade has been marked by a particular technology, whether it was the arrival of the desktop computer in the 1980s, the internet in the 1990s, the cloud and mobility at this point. We know that that process is a process of going when it first arrives, it looks cute, it goes from convenient, compelling, compelling to compulsory. We in the campus community have been talking about the impact of technology for a very long time, and unfortunately what we have is a lot of epiphany and not much evidence. The second issue would essentially be assessment and accountability in and of itself, and particularly in the wake of the Spelling's Commission report two years ago. I think IT is at the center of this new conversation in a way it never has been before. We collect an incredible amount of data just in terms of the transactions that our students have with our environment. We know a lot about faculty, and this isn't a matter of prying in privacy, this is just the routine activity. That data has never been harnessed and has never been marshaled effectively in a way that it could be, and there are now new kinds of tools that are widely used in the corporate environment and the consumer economy that are slowly migrating their way to campus, that we can begin to look at how much time does a student spend on an LMS, interaction with the library, and again this isn't prying, but this is using these data in real time in a way that the corporate environment does to feed that back in terms of campus operations and even student interventions. And that has to do with operational issues for curriculum, it has to do with student services, and in this environment, absolutely, with the meltdown, it has to do a lot with financial management and effective use of all kinds of resources, whether they're human resources or financial resources. In summer 2008, as the higher education legislation was going through the final stages through Congress and then onto the president's desk, it was very clear there were going to be some very explicit mandates for colleges and universities about dealing with mandates for PDP file sharing. The mandates were about developing a compliance plan, technology deterrence, offering alternatives to students. And it missed all the conversation about were campuses addressing this issue, were they not addressing this issue, the claims on the part of the industry, the MPAA, the Motion Picture Association, and also the Recording Association about whether or not college students were the primary source of digital piracy or not. What was missing from that conversation was any information about the cost of compliance. Campus computing and been collecting data for several years about do campuses have policy, are they doing user education, but the cost issue hadn't been addressed. August and September, we launched a survey, a very short survey, to really look at what are the costs of compliance. We asked campuses to tell us about the money that they were spending, whether it was to provide alternatives, licensing a music service for example, the push for technology deterrence, is there some magic software that will kill PDP or in some way stem it, the cost of those licenses, were there other direct costs that might involve hardware put on the network, development of user education programs. And we were also very concerned as well about the personnel cost from the office of the president, from legal counsel, the time that CIOs and others within the IT unit on colleges and universities were spending a deal with peer-to-peer. And the costs were actually quite striking. We found that we had 321 campuses that participated in the survey. In some instances, Jerry, we found that there were campuses that were spending upwards of a half a million dollars in peer-to-peer compliance between actual hard dollars and personnel costs. It was when ProIP was working through Congress, also signed by the president in October, the Justice Department attorney said, why are we being asked to be a pro bono law firm for the entertainment industry? These are civil actions more than they are criminal actions. And I think that that's a fair question as well. Why are colleges and universities, which actually, by the data from the MPAA and the RA, are very a small part of the larger issue of digital piracy, why are we being asked to do this kind of pro bono enforcement at great cost to institutions? If past is prologue, what we saw with the downturn in the early part of the decade, we're going to see college presidents again saying do more with less and do it better, which is the mantra during the downturn. The problem for that as IT is that the expectations don't go away. I think it's fair to say that a lot of the expectations that people in the campus community have, whether it's students or faculty or our constituents beyond, are very much driven by the experience of technology in the consumer economy. I can do this with my bank. There are services that do this and I come to campus. Why aren't these analog things available? At one point it used to be, why can't I use a credit card to pay for tuition? Why can't I attach my internet-enabled phone to the campus network? I mean, all of a sudden with the arrival of the iPhone and other smartphones, this is a sense of entitlement and it's going to create tremendous demand. But the question we've been asking is, will open source loom large in your future? Pardon me. In uniform we see 60, 70% of CIOs say yes. We know it's going to be a big part of what we do and understand that open source is not free. And the joke that many tell us, as many have heard, of course, is open source is not free beer, it's free puppy. There are costs, infrastructure, user support. I mean, they're all the same whether you've got one from a proprietary provider or using open source, you have to deal with them in different ways. It's really about open source applications and at the same time we're also seeing the emergence of open source apps at the screen level for users, not for folks on the technical side of campuses. Whether that's learning management systems, e-portfolio systems and content management, the first of these, of course, become learning management. But in the pipeline of the Koali applications, finance, student, HR, grants management, our new data for the 2008 Campus Computing Survey suggests that open source is up to about 12% of the LMS deployment and much higher in private four-year colleges. Higher education is a very risk-aversive environment and there's great advantages to the incumbency. At the same time, I'm on record with a piece I wrote four years ago talking about the learning management market as a mature market with immature products, meaning at that time it was a mature market because almost every campus had a single product standard. But it's an immature market in the sense these are still young products. We did ask a question on the 2008 survey about what's the likelihood you might migrate to other ERP apps over the next five years. Those numbers were generally low, whether it was student information system, finance, HR, grants management. But I suspect that that reflects uncertainty about these systems just as they essentially come from beta release to first implementations. And the early experience of many institutions will be definitive. And it's not so much the early experience of the technologically well-resourced, an MIT or a Stanford. It's going to be what happens particularly in public four-year colleges, the state colleges. The reference points of the well-resourced are interesting, but if I'm a CIO, I want to know what campuses like me have done. Because I don't necessarily have the same resources in the same environment.