 Welcome, everybody. And thank you for joining us today. I'm Cliff Lynch. I'm the director of the Coalition for Networked Information. You've reached one of the, one of the project briefings that's taking place during the final week of the CNI spring 2020 virtual meeting. Today, we have three presenters all from UCLA, Sharon Farb, Todd Grappone, and Rachel Devlinger. And I want to note that Todd definitely has a very serious candidate for the best backdrop. And that is actually not a low bar at all. We've seen some fantastic ones during the presentations at this meeting. Our speakers will be presenting and after we've heard from all of them, we will take questions. Diane Goldenberg Hart from CNI will moderate the Q&A. It's a Q&A tool at the bottom of your screen and please feel free to pose questions at any point during the presentation as they occur to you. But we will deal with them all after all three of our speakers have presented. Also note that there is a chat box and we will be using that to push out a few URLs during the presentation that may be helpful for you. So let me just say a couple of things by way of introduction to this topic. We have heard before at CNI about the Arcadia funded modern endangered archives program. UCLA has been working at this effort for some years now, and I have always been a huge fan of this program. It's groundbreaking in many, many ways and it deals with some of the genuinely hard problems of modern archives, which are very different from the genuinely hard problems of endangered archives that go back 10 or so centuries. Today, as I understand it at least we're going to have a focus on some of the issues involved in sorting out and establishing the appropriate rights to allow a program like the modern endangered archives program to operate and this is indeed one of the sort of unique and problematic aspects of modern archives. There are there are these issues for older archives as well but they have a very different feel to them. So I'm really looking forward to hearing from our speakers and with that, I'm going to take a minute to say thank you again to Sharon Todd and Rachel for joining us today and sharing your insights on this and thank all of you out there for joining us and with that over to you Todd. Thank you Cliff and thanks CNI for having us. I'm going to talk about the modern endangered archives program. I'm going to do a little bit about what's led us to this point that I'm going to turn it over to Sharon who's going to talk about communal rights and some of the newer issues that we're dealing with and then Rachel's going to close it by talking about the program and giving you a couple of case studies. Next slide please. Talk about the modern endangered archives program and we call it MEAP or MEAP, how we develop the program and how it is part of an ongoing effort to collect global content, new and old but always digital and always in collaboration. MEAP is a program in the family of the Arcadia fund focused on the preservation of at-risk cultural heritage from across the globe, more specifically across the global south. We are looking to fund areas of the world that are less industrialized. The program depends on the harmonization of policy and technology to develop our collections. Unlike our sister program at the British Library, the endangered archives program, MEAP NEAP focuses on modern history, which provides additional challenges. Modern content can be multifaceted with multiple formats and many rights issues and critically at risk. Again, with many different formats and many rights issues, it can be very challenging. What example of those challenges is the fact that some of our subjects are still alive and some of the political problems that cause our content to be at risk are still volatile. UCLA has been working with the Arcadia fund for over a decade on preservation programs from medieval manuscripts at St. Catherine's Monastery in Egypt to born digital content from our predecessor program to MEAP called the International Digital Ephemera Project. Slide six, Rachel. MEAP is a granting program that provides support to local institutions to preserve their content where it is currently. We provide support for two kinds of grants. A smaller planning grant usually used to prepare or organize a collection for a larger project grant or a project grant application. A project grant is usually longer and has more funding and results in the publication of content at UCLA. Slide seven, one requirement of our funding is that the content created by our partners needs to be published openly online. UCLA provides a platform for publication and partners are encouraged to publish their own content as well. UCLA is also in the role of providing digital preservation for our partner institutions. The technical issues arising from the multiplicity of data types and the fact that a good deal of our content is on at risk formats is born digital or in places under conflict. There are other issues surrounding rights holders and privacy and ethical concerns that the program is facing on many fronts. The good news about our program is that is a continuation of previous work that we have been conducting on similar content and similar places around the globe. Now I'm going to talk to you for a few minutes about that previous work. As Cliff mentioned, we've been doing this for a while. The International Digital Ephemera Project was a program we ran for about five years before MBAP. It's a partner program. It's a model by which we at UCLA provided training digital preservation support for publishing rights, preservation. And new permissioning models. And as you can see, we are building on that experience in developing our new collection models for our work with protest movement, political prisoners and displaced ethnic minorities. Our work has always been driven collaboratively and in discussion and we recognize that not all of our partners on the same mission as we, as we are, and we focus on where the mission alignment is. As with IDEP, MBAP is about building community partner capacity and that's what defines the work at UCLA library. Slide nine please. For nearly a decade we've been coming to CNI to present facets of the program at UCLA and trying to ask some provocative questions along the way. We've been working through and building our program as we've presented using CNI and other library forms as laboratories for asking questions and building our thought structure. Much the same way we've been depending on our partners and institutions to inform the program. We've relied on the community for perspective and creative problem solving. Next slide. I'm going to try to give back. I'm showing you here a picture of the IDEP website. It's, we'll give the URL later on, and the upcoming MBAP website soon to be launched. I wanted to draw your attention to the website because we've been, as we go through these programs building a lot of support for others to do the same kind of work. So in that aspect of the work we're doing, we provide guides and tool kits from equipment selection to metadata to inventory tools into a rights toolkit. Next slide please. Collecting in real time can be challenging. I talked a little bit about some of the technical issues. I'm going to turn it over to Sharon who's going to talk to you about rights. Over to you Sharon. Thanks Todd. Thanks everyone. Excited to be with you all today. I'm going to just say a little bit highlight some of these issues of modern archives and collecting in real time and in particular about the period of time that the modern endangered archive program deals with which is really contemporary history. So our grantees and the first cohort Rachel will go into detail are dealing with content from the 60s forward. So what do we mean by communal rights we're really talking here about this tension in some ways between the communities, the funders and UCLA as host to make materials publicly available while abiding by copyright privacy and ethical considerations. I want to start where we have started at UCLA for quite some time in terms of doing international work with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it is an international framework it was adopted by the United Nations and many many countries around the world it is translated into 500 languages it consists of 30 articles which referred to as articles and the one on the screen is article 19, which is really important for our work. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights informs international treaties national constitutions and many international laws around the world in our project in our work internationally is very much informed and inspired by this. Next slide. When we first began the modern endangered archive program and because of the time period. We were really concerned about what we thought might be really significant obstacles related to copyright in terms of making modern material broadly available on the public Internet. It's been really interesting in the first cohort and again Rachel will go into more detail as she presents about the cohort so far. But it has been really fascinating and we're very grateful for the fact that our community partners are so engaged in their communities. The rights holders that to our surprise they have been able to obtain permissions for almost everything that they have wanted to include one of the things that has facilitated this work, which I think is really important is that we took a English only English language only permission form and at the request of our grantees and the folks that we were working with translated that into several different languages you see them on the screen Spanish French Arabic Hindi and Portuguese and we are open and have invited folks to contact us if they need additional translations. Another, but the point in some ways is that to our pleasant surprise copyright has not been the primary obstacle for openness and the work that we're doing. Instead, and maybe most people who are dealing with modern archives have already encountered this many archivists have privacy and ethical considerations are much more of an ongoing concern and there isn't the statutory frameworks that we have in terms of copyright in order to enable clear ways to address them. One of the things I think, oh sorry, Rach, one just go back for one sec. Just really briefly one of the things I think that distinguishes our approach to the work is that we are very committed to ongoing consent, consent typically when involves permissioning is transactional it's binary it's one time because we're dealing with an ever changing world, including with COVID we have, we are committed to seeking ongoing consent from all of our partners. Fair use we're very fortunate of UCLA is in Los Angeles where public institution we rely on fair use all the time and fair use is part of our arsenal we plan to use to be able to make things available. We have an invitation to dialogue, sometimes referred to as takedown notice, because we recognize that in spite of all the different things we're doing and our close relationship with our international partners that we may not always foresee every aspect of an issue, particularly related to ethical and privacy issues and we encourage folks to contact us. Okay, next slide. I just want to close with some issues and just kind of highlight a couple of things that while they haven't come up significantly for us so far. We do recognize that they will at some point in the future. We've talked before at CNI about the right to be forgotten. There are countries around the world. Europe, Canada though we don't work primarily in those countries but others that have adopted a legislative right to be forgotten which allows an individual to remove things from both the internet and the historic and cultural record. We are much more committed and interested in the right to be remembered that is inherent in voices of folks around the world who have not been part of dominant culture or where state apparatuses have sought to eliminate or diminish those voices that is much more important to us and is part of our approach to dealing with the applicants and our partners. I just want to say a quick word and just kind of highlight article three of the Universal Declaration. Safety is a concern of ours and really important. We will work closely with all of our partners to ensure that the folks depicted the folks involved are going to be able to say safe. This is an ongoing concern of ours as we work in areas of the world that are rapidly changing and where it isn't always clear how we will be able to address that challenge. I just want to hand it over to Rach where there is a link at the bottom of this slide with a living toolkit where we are trying to gather and collect all of these kinds of things that are helpful both to us and as Todd said to our partners and to those that are doing this work around the world. So with that I hand off to Rachel. Okay, so you know Todd and Sharon have set up some of the kind of big challenges and also the kind of exciting opportunities that we have in doing this work to preserve modern and dangerous archives. But what we also have to do is do the work at the same time that we grapple with these big questions and these big challenges. So I'm going to offer hopefully a quick rundown of really how we approach the work given these questions and these challenges and the first one to highlight is that while we work to fund projects that have endangered archives materials around the world. We do have a couple of funding priorities so we look for projects that are in part to the world without other resources to archival preservation. We look for projects that highlight how they're building local capacity so is the project going to train local archivists or are they going to fly in US or UK based researchers. And we're also looking to expand the culture of open access so will they be publishing the content locally as well as the UCLA website. And that's in some ways distinct from what we look for in the collections that are that are included in these application projects so we really try to find a balance between what is the urgent need for preservation how endangered is this material. And then also what is the thematic kind of work that is documented in these collections and we work with a board and I'm going to jump ahead to that slide and we work with the International Board of Scholars this year we met via zoom just like we're all meeting here right now. And one of the tensions that we come up with is what is the main priority how do we balance and evaluate between VHS tapes that are materially degrading versus a collection of documents from a human rights organization that are politically threatened in their home country. And how do we think about these different kinds of endangerments alongside one another and that's one of the things that we discussed regularly and throughout the year and not just at our annual board meeting. And they end up handing out through a set of evaluation questions that we asked each of the project so we consider the endangerment. But then we also consider the uniqueness and the scholarly significance of each project really trying to assess out what will the value not only of the preservation but also making this material accessible be for the community and for a community of scholars that would access that material. And then of course we have kind of more mundane questions like is the project actually feasible and in a few seconds I'm going to jump to that because this year poses its own kind of set of feasibility challenges. But what do these projects actually look like I presented in December with some details on cohort one so I'm going to skip over them largely but I do want to highlight that we received 107 applications in our first round which was really exciting and showed the major need and the gap and funding for projects like this. And we ended up funding projects all around the world and as Todd mentioned earlier really focusing on the global south. And you'll see the points around the map are both where the applicant is from and then also where the archive is held so sometimes there's a, you know, a strong relationship between the archivists who are in the home country and then the project leads who might be in other countries might be doing more of the administrative work of the project. And I want to highlight two projects in particular given our theme of the talk today the first one is what ended up being a planning project in Palestine. And what's interesting about this project and the next case study that I will highlight is that they both applied as project grand so they both the project teams were ready to digitize it identified their collection they were ready to jump in. And what our board found particularly for the Palestine collection and this group wanted to digitize a set of journals and materials from Palestinian prisoners that had been held in Israeli jails from the 1960s to the 1990s. And they applied and they didn't have any details in their application about who the permissions were from the permission forms that they had sent in were signed by the heads of the archives where the materials are currently held, not by any individuals whose names may or may not be mentioned, not by any community members or community leaders. And we were really concerned and our board was particularly concerned about the individual safety of people who might be mentioned in these materials. And they were also concerned about organizations that might be listed in these materials, and that the change in those organizations over the past 30 years wouldn't be reflected when these archives were made available online. And so, instead of funding the project to do digitization we offer the project team funding to do a planning grant, and we're working with them now. And they are planning a series of community workshops, and their goal is to get signed permission forms from everyone who was the creator of the material in the collection. So in addition to a detailed inventory, we anticipate that they will send us a stack of permission forms when they then apply again to digitize this collection. What was really interesting working with the team and Palestine with that Palestine only has about a year long law around rights and copyright in general. So they were really interested in our, our perspective on how not only to think about copyright, but how to think about communal ownership they were really invested in this idea of ongoing permission. And they're going to be working with their community throughout the rest of the year. And to develop some, some guidelines and permissions around the set of material. So similarly a project team and believe applied to digitize a set of VHS tapes from the head from a TV show that had documented the community and dengue, dengue got down and believe. And again, we were concerned that there might be rituals or communal rights that were preserved on that were recorded on these tapes, and the only permissions were again from the head of the archive. And so similarly the team and believes has set up a series of community workshops and they've individually met with a number of community leaders to make sure that the whole community was on board and interested in doing this kind of work. So we're running out of time. I'm going to jump a little bit but I do want to highlight that we learned quite a bit from the first cohort in the first round. And our second cohort. Here are some statistics but we just met with our board last week, and they recommended 23 new projects for funding from 18 different countries and you can kind of see here, the spam but what was really interesting was that these projects were much better at articulating what their approach would be to thinking about privacy and ethical rights, many of them built into their budget community workshops and outreach events. And part of that was because we have learned in the first round that we needed to give project teams more encouragement to think about this kinds of questions at the application phase. And so we rewrote the application inviting more responses to questions about ethics about privacy. And we saw a lot more success in the application for people to really think about who owns this content and who has the right to give us their permission. So, I'm going to keep jumping ahead a little bit just to say that one of the individual challenges for this year is feasibility, and we have built into the model for funding that all of the projects that are recommended for funding, have to submit a feasibility report from the opportunity to resubmit a budget and resubmit a work plan that takes into account the current coronavirus recommendations or lockdowns in their local situations. Okay, finally, what's next this summer as Todd said will be publishing a website with some of our first content will also be adding additional guidelines and documentation with resources, not only for our funded projects, but also for applicants or other projects that might be outside our eligibility. And what we're most excited about is really opening up the call for cohort three. So if any of you know of projects or archives that are holding endangered materials outside the US outside Europe, we encourage, we encourage you to tell them about the program will be holding webinars for potential applicants in October. And in particular we're really looking for a geographic diversity in our application so we welcome all suggestions for how to do some outreach in these areas. Hey, thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much, Rachel Sharon and Todd for that really wonderful overview of this amazing project. Really great work. And thank you so much for coming to see and I to share it with us. At this time I'd like to open up the floor for questions and just to remind everyone there's a Q&A box where you can type your questions in. So a chat box where we've shared some links with you. Feel free to type in your questions there as well. And while we're waiting to see folks questions as they come in. I had a quick question if I might Rachel, I was curious to know the case studies that you shared with us. How unusual is that sort of thing. I mean, are all of these projects, pretty much in need of customized attention or are there any strategies that you found that can, you know, address typical challenges with what is that like. I would say yes, and yes. So the first kind of particularity. And I think one of the things we've learned from working with Arcadia for many years is that they are open to a lot of particularity so last year even before we were in a pandemic and had to ask each project team to reassess their feasibility. We had to revise work plans and budgets with each program that was recommended for funding and we went back to each project team, talked through their equipment list with them, revised what their project plan might look like, made sure they had the appropriate hardware and software on the list. And so there is part of this work. And I think it really comes from our goal of expanding capacity around the world that really demands that we have an individual relationship with each project. In fact, I was on the phone just before our presentation today with one of our project teams, whose archive has just reopened, and they need to entirely revise their work plan because not only one person can be in a room at a time. So we are open and kind of part of the model of the program is to be open to those ongoing conversations. That's not to say that there aren't some consistent challenges. I think one of them is really around some of the things that Todd raised at the beginning around just what is the best way to do this, what does a good work plan look like. And if you're working with, you know, print materials, we have a toolkit for that. But project teams might have worked with a scanner before or they might have equipment already on hand. And so there are some consistent challenges, but I would say that we are open to the kind of particularities of each project. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. Very interesting. All right, we have some questions. The first one comes in from Carmelita Pickett. Hi, Carmelita. She asks, well, first she wants to thank you for this overview of such an important program. And then she asks, can you talk a bit more about your review board? How is the review board selected? So our review board was selected in conversation with our funders. So Arcadia has many programs that work with this kind of review board. So we work with them to really identify scholars around the world. And one of the challenges of our program is that it does kind of have a historical or archive sensibility. But we have a lot of different kinds of materials. So in a historian who works with 20th century print materials, but wouldn't understand how to evaluate a project that is dealing with born digital content or with audio content necessarily. So we selected and identified board members from a range of fields from media studies to archive studies, a number of historians and try to make sure we had content specialists in areas that we were most interested in funding. So we have content specialists from Latin America and Central America, India, Southeast Asia, Africa, and really all the areas where we are focused on funding. And then within that we tried to get a real range of kind of thematic expertise as well so people could bring all of their expertise to bear on our applications. Great, thank you. And thank you for that question, Carmelita. Next, from an anonymous attendee. Thank you for the excellent presentation. How does your concern for communal and related rights affect how open the materials can be. Does openness vary with the rights obtained or do you insist on the rights to enable a certain definition of open. Sure, but then maybe I'll turn things over to Sharon and talk a bit, but part of the founding and the funding of the Modern and Danger Archives program is that all content that is digitized with MEAP funding be made open. So this particular program, one of the reasons we call it kind of a limitation of openness is that we don't have the ability to embargo material. One of the criteria we use to evaluate the applications is do we think this material can be made open. And that's why we have such an expansive rights section on our application to ensure that the applicants have thought that through, and they understand what that what what what that means for the content they're applying to work with. Sharon, I don't know if you want to add to that. I think that's right. I mean I think there is a continuum of open but Rachel's right and for this program it's not about any long term embargoes and and we are looking to put as much as we can on the internet as soon as possible. So keep in mind though people do these projects take a year plus to come to fruition. So there's a lot of intervening things as we've discussed that happened but we are committed in our funder Arcadia is particularly committed to having as much go open as soon as possible and that means putting it on the internet. Okay, thank you. Thanks very much and thank you for that question. Rachel, did you have anything else to add to that. Okay. All right, now we have a question from Howard Besser. Hi Howard. Thank you all for your great visual backgrounds here here and for your continued work on these types of projects. My questions are about dangers in terms of privacy and security with your examples Palestine believes you intervene at the application stage to call attention to some dangerous privacy and security. Do you expect further privacy and security issues to come up throughout the life cycle, and how will you identify when these emerge, for example, with China's new security laws endangering activities that have previously been documented in archive. It's easy to flag these during a review at the application stage. How will you handle the possible need for takedowns after they've entered the archive, maybe years later. So I, I, I just want to say these are the questions that really take up the majority of our board meeting time. Our board members in particular feel a lot of responsibility for the kind of safety of the community that the material that art is coming from. So we are open and part of our ongoing conversation with project teams is that we hope to identify any challenges that come up during the life cycle. I want to maybe invite Todd to respond to your question about the takedowns because the IDEP project had similar projects and the takedown notices have been available on the website so maybe Todd can talk a little bit more about that. Thank you all and hi Howard. Next time, maybe we can see each other in person. We actually, we've had these takedown notices for a while we've had, as you know, content that we sort of viewed as being pretty volatile content. We collected green movement content, for example, people on the street protesting their government. We, we haven't had, to be honest with you, a lot of activity around those, those notices. So we, as Sharon mentioned, the are one of our sort of principles is this right to be remembered this, this idea that the people in the video there. The videos to date have really wanted their points of view to be expressed and explored and so we've, we've, we've had these notices we've had an ongoing communication with activists who have helped us collect and they really want us to share this content. So it hasn't been an issue for us programmatically yet. I would have to say that we do take a few extra steps on our end for information security. You know, we also haven't had any cases of any, let's say, bad actors. Well, trying to take the content down without using the notifications. But we do. We are very concerned and we are very aware that these issues might come into play for us at some time in the future so for those information security issues we've taken a few extra precautions as well. A few extra backups of different formats that sort of thing. I hope that answers your question. I don't know Sharon if you have anything to add. No, not really. I mean, I think you did it well and I, you know, it'd be great Howard. I mean, I think there's so much work to be done in this area and when I think about things we didn't mention it in this presentation we have in prior ones about the Boston College Oral History case. So there, there are, you know, state actors that can cross international boundaries and seek to remove content from places and we are very concerned about that. Okay, thank you all. Thanks for that question Howard. Now a clarification from our anonymous asker from earlier, who thanks you for the response to their earlier question, and says just to clarify, since this is a preservation program. Is it the case you have refused to preserve certain unique and endangered materials, if they cannot be made open. Does this trade off pose any problems for your review panels. Thank you. So, you know, I think I would kind of challenge the idea that this is a preservation program and it is, but it's also an access program and so our priorities are really bound up in in the continuum of those two different kinds of actions. And it's not that we've refused to preserve content but we're a funding program so we make choices for funding based on these kind of priorities and limitations so one of the funding criteria is that the material must be made openly accessible so there certainly have been archivists and project teams that I've talked with before the application phase, and I recommended that they not apply to our program because they have content that won't be able to be made openly accessible so it is a limitation for our program. But it's not that we've reached the funding phase and then refused to work with someone. And it's part of our evaluation process. Okay, thank you. Thanks for that clarification. Now onto Lisa Hinchliffe. Hi Lisa. I'm interested in readers who access the archives. What kinds of approaches are you taking to balance the need for analytics, for example to show impact and the presumed need to protect reader privacy. So I'm going to turn it over to Todd because any AP we're only, you know, in the middle, we're really at the beginning we don't have any archive yet. We don't have any content on our website yet. But we have been hosting this kind of content for many years from IDEP. And we do collect analytics so Todd probably has some more details about that. I mean, I don't think Lisa to answer your question truthfully we do anything super special. You know, it is everything we do we publish online in an open way. And we, we don't do anything with regard to reader tracking. And we don't do any sort of reporting about readers specifically any any different than you would for any digital archives that you would publish. I feel like I'm missing the point of your question maybe but I don't think there's anything unique or special about access to the archives that that we do to protect reader privacy. So, let's see Lisa, if you, if you want to, if you'd like me to turn on your microphone, I'm happy to do that, or just let us know if you'd like to clarify, or if Todd answered your question. So thank you for that Todd and while I'm waiting here for a sec I just, I want to let everyone know that we have definitely gone past our a lot of time for the webinar so this has been just a fabulous conversation and we really appreciate all these great questions. And, and I see now that Lisa is asking me to turn on her microphone so I'm going to go ahead and do that and I just want to invite any other attendees who would like to make a, ask a question or make a comment live go ahead and raise your hand I'd be happy to do that. Go ahead Lisa. So Todd, thank you I probably wasn't as detailed as I was because I was trying to type it. So I think part of the question is, well, what do you track and what do you do on your other archives because if you don't track any readers on the other ones then it's kind of a point but what I've observed on a lot of digital projects that are hosted by libraries is that we collect analytics. Sometimes we question the commercial publishers collecting but we collect them ourselves so, but it does strike me that with some of this content there could be greater concern over reader privacy just due to the same issues that you've been raising around the content itself. And the people who are represented in the content their identities and so, you know, with library collections we've sort of had these cases right of who's looking at these books because we want to know if they're communists or what have you. So it seems to me like the kinds of collections you have here could be more sensitive to those kinds of inquiries about who is accessing them. Yeah, yeah, thank you. I, I, I get it. You know, we, we have collections, you know, we collect information from the Iranian greed movement or Iraqi Kurdistan and your question really is if someone from a bad actor in the state is going to get our content do we track that and do we notify our users I think that's kind of what your question is. And the answer is, is simply no we're not really quite that sophisticated. We do grab analytics, mostly for internal reporting purposes like you would for for anything else. Anything else on your website, any, you know, we like to tell our audience here about who's using our website. But we haven't gotten into that sort of fine grained content yet. Though, you know, you do have me thinking about some of the newer content that we're looking at for me AP is definitely a lot fresher. There's some active political movements that we're collecting now that we, we may want to think about that a little bit deeper. But so far, the, as Rachel mentioned, it, the funding has really been predicated upon an openness and a willingness to be open for our partners in order to publish the content and to get the funding. So, I hope that answers your question a little bit. Rachel, if you want to dive in. I think the only thing I would add is that our funder has some definite particularities around openness and around the making sure everything that we find gets open but they don't have the kinds of, you know, I picked up off your question to kind of sense that when you get funding you have to report certain things that you might not otherwise want to do and we haven't had that particular challenge that they are are really focused on what projects we're funding, where the funding is going and how those projects are succeeding without a kind of commitment to tracing who's using them. So, I think in that way we don't have that challenge around the reporting and the analytics. Okay, thank you. By your silence Lisa I'm assuming that that has addressed your question and thank you so much for that question. I'm going to go ahead and thank our panelists one last time for coming to see and I were so delighted that you were able to take this presentation virtual and it's a really fascinating project. I want to thank our attendees for joining us. Thanks everyone. Be well and we hope to see you back at CNI soon. Take care.