 Why don't we go ahead and get started. Let me welcome everybody I'm Cliff Lynch and I welcome you to the first of two plenary sets of sessions which will conclude our full 2020 virtual member meeting. Okay, it's just going to be me and I'm going to talk for a while, and then I will take some questions. So let me start by just extending a really warm welcome to everybody to our members to our guests. For our international participants and others coming from a long way away. So your trip was easier than it's been some years at the same time. If you're in an inconvenient time zone I'm sorry it's kind of impossible to find time zones that work for everyone. I'd like to extend a special welcome to the clear fellows who've joined us and I want to note that we will be having a panel tomorrow morning. I'm sorry tomorrow afternoon East Coast time. We'll give you a chance to get to know some of them, since you can't meet them in person, and we will do another similar panel to introduce another group of them to you in the spring. I'd also like to welcome our ARL leadership and career development participants who are joining us. I'm sorry we can't be together in person. I know many of us would really, really have liked to and I can hope for better days. So today I'm going to talk about where we are, and where I think we're headed and try and describe some of what CNI has been doing over the past year and some of our priorities and strategies that have informed our work since March and going into 2021. I'll try to be reasonably brief and hope and we'll have plenty of time for questions and conversations. When we get to that point, please feel free to either use the chat, use the Q&A, or if you want to say something by voice, just raise your virtual hand and I can turn your audio on. Finally, when we used to do this in person, this is the time I'd be introducing our annual program plan. As a sign of the times, we're not doing a 2020-2021 program year program plan. This would certainly be pure hubris and probably futile anyway if the rest of 2020 and early 2021 hold true to form. We may go back to program plans in a year or so when we see some more stability but right now it just doesn't seem appropriate. The events from this Annis Horribilis of 2020 have really, I think, left most of us exhausted. There are a lot of people, at least in the United States who are also feeling angry, disenfranchised, threatened. They're feeling desperate, frightened, perhaps all of these in some mix. It's a very hard time for a lot of people. And we've seen some really bad failures, I think, of leadership and governance. I think for many of us and for many of our organizations in this kind of exhausted state, the all-consuming question seems to be how do we make it through the first half of 2021? There doesn't seem to be much bandwidth for anything else, which is, I think, another really serious problem in the making, as I'll explain shortly. My sense is that there's a general feeling by the second half of 2021 things will be getting better due to the large-scale deployment of vaccines for the pandemic. And by late 2021, people talk of things getting back to some kind of normal. I think that as far as the pandemic itself goes, this is hopefully true, although I fear that the complexity of rolling out the vaccination program nationally, never mind worldwide, which is going to be even more challenging, is being somewhat underestimated. And there's a lot that can still go wrong. I don't even want to enumerate all the things that can still go wrong, but I think there's reason for some optimism there. But I do want to stress, and I think this is key, that I don't think there's going to be a new normal anytime soon. I don't think we're going back to the way things were before the pandemic, but I also don't think we know where we're going to end up. I think we're moving as we start coming out of the immediate pandemic into a very dynamic and uncharted time with a lot of things in play, a lot of things in question, a lot of people asking, Why are we doing this? Do we still need to do this? Do we still need those institutions? Drifting into this kind of post-pandemic future without the best possible understanding we can get of the forces at work, of the threats, the opportunities, the questions, without giving at least some thought to what are the desirable outcomes and developments is, I think, very, very dangerous. And that's why I think that this lack of bandwidth to deal with anything beyond the coming semester is something we've really got to struggle to move beyond. It's my hope and my objective that CNI be able to help our members, our community to do this. In this post-pandemic world that I'm not going to call the new normal, I want to stress that we are not done with crises and emergencies, unfortunately. I've heard the pandemic described as a dress rehearsal for the climate change crisis or crises that are coming. That's an analogy I don't like for a bunch of reasons, but the effects of climate change are already here for many of our institutions. As we look at weather events, wildfires, they're going to very likely become more challenging as time goes on. The economic fallout from the aftermath of the pandemic is going to be really traumatic for our society, although we really don't think we have much clarity on exactly how that's going to play out in the various sectors that comprise higher education in the US. There's a big, big human toll that we're going to be struggling with for years after the pandemic. It's all in terms of careers, relationships, families, children, child development, education, it's really long. It's going to be extremely hard to understand its scope, but it is very, very real. And we are certainly going to see it within our community. We're already seeing it within our community. There's major social change taking place, although I certainly wouldn't want to predict the trajectory of those changes at this point, and I wouldn't want to. I wouldn't want to speculate about how much unrest, how much, how smoothly or disruptively some of those changes will take place. And we certainly are moving into a world as we explored this morning in an executive roundtable that I hope to have a report out on in sometime in January. We're moving into a world that's characterized by a lot of very complicated escalating international tensions of various kinds, the rise of what one might call science nationalism. But at the same time is also characterized by some kinds of emerging national and international scholarly collaborations that are really without precedence in some ways. This world that's going to be characterized by a continuing series of crises to my mind means that we need to continue to focus on resilience and making our institutions and our practices resilient. I'll say a little bit more about that later. The poster to home as we speak about crises. I want to flag something that I put on the spectrum between a crisis and a thing that's simply uncertain and very much in play in the post pandemic world is what the future of large scale undergraduate education and other kinds of post K through 12 educational paths are going to be in the United States. My sense is that there is a major debate shaping up about what purpose this serves what the appropriate size scope and costs of undergraduate education or what alternatives should be put in place for it. How much how it's financed. How much of it happens face to face how much of it happens remotely. The answers that we come to and we're going to come to these as a society, not just as a higher education sector is going to have a huge effect on the future of the institutions that are the core of the coalitions membership and far far beyond that. I'm not sure that the what I what I would suspect are the prevailing orthodoxies within higher education about the answers to these are consistent with emerging public opinion and I think we need to be quite sensitive to that. I think that there's a lot to be learned and studied as we try and understand enrollment trends and particularly as we try and factor out or factor past the effects of the pandemic on that. And there are a lot of other questions that show up and that I think are going to be asked as we deal with the the issues that have been framed by so much instruction going remotely, including the alignment between students and institutions, and the alignment between classes and institutions and whether institutions as opposed to some kind of collaborating peer network of institutions or peer networks having students. I want to be clear here and I don't want to get too far into speculating. But I do want to emphasize that this is part I believe of the terrain of uncertainties as we come out of the pandemic. I think that the most elite, the best funded private institutions in particular are likely to only get disrupted to the extent that they choose or agree to be disrupted or to change. What I'm focused on when I talk about this big trend is really what happens to everybody else, which is the, you know, vast, vast, vast majority of students receiving undergraduate education of the generate the potential college generation every year. It's much less clear to me exactly what happens to public institutions, even the best of the state flagship institutions. I think that's going to be a lot more complicated. A few other comments on a broad level. The economic as we've learned has served as this sort of horrible diagnostic x-ray for so many things that are messed up problematic in our society in our world. We've aside the economic and social issues that have been well discussed well documented and are far beyond the scope of of the issues that CNI does or can focus on. But I want to note to that are really critical to higher education. The first group are digital divide issues, issues around broadband to the home. Inequality of broadband network access, rural telecommunications and network policy, that whole collection of issues. We've failed drastically there. We've just, we've done a horrible job. This is critical to everything from instruction to access to employment to employment options. I want to note that getting computers to students be they K through 12 students or college students who don't necessarily have access to the technology is fairly quick. It just costs money. Tech support is harder to pull off, but we've made a good deal of progress on that. What's really hard though, despite a lot of the hype about 5G and fast broadband is what's really hard is connectivity. It's a long time to solve connectivity problems. You can't do it overnight by and large, at least not with today's technologies. So it's not just a matter of funding in an emergency. It's a matter of sustained preparation to get to a position to be able to be resilient in emergencies. Second and perhaps less obvious, although well known to many of us here. We have through the diagnostics of the pandemic, learn that we have a raging disaster around copyright and intellectual property. What I suspect is backwards looking and is encapsulated for me in the widespread adoption of practices like control digital lending, hotties emergency access and the like. These are the responses to what happens when we can't get to our physical print collections or when we can't move printed stuff around safely. But there's also a forward looking version of this. This is what happens to all of the things that are born digital and only available digital, maybe not even with a physical carrier. These are things that today are handled under a license agreement. Without something like first sale. Basically are licensed to parties only at the whim of the rights holder. This has turned out to be a disaster. We've got to rethink this and it's not really clear what a new regime needs to look like here. But we see craziness happening right now we see content marketed to consumers that can't be brought into the classroom. That can't be in our libraries, where libraries can't obtain copies of textbooks, digital textbooks. We're going to have to solve this problem and this just needs to be squarely identified I think as one of the things we've learned from the pandemic. As I think though about the post pandemic world. I think first about what was put in place hastily and out of necessity or seeming necessity. In response to the pandemic, which of these things stay and which are we going to heave a great sigh of relief and happily eliminate and forget about the minute we can. Talked about control digital lending. I think that's going to stay. Here's some others to think about online proctoring systems. Something that I personally feel like our instruments of the devil. Zoom as essential infrastructure. This is a remarkable thing. I mean this went from nowhere to unregulated essential infrastructure in a couple of weeks. And we've kind of zoomed over, if you'll allow me a bad pun. Kind of important things here about the ability of zoom or other providers of these kinds of services to have a say in issues that would normally be considered to be squarely in the terrain of academic freedom. We've seen a huge move to reservation systems to doing things by appointment rather than queuing rather than hunting for spaces. I think some of that will stay. We've made a huge number of compromises around privacy. Think about the contract tracing think about the rather invasive medical questionnaires were administering to people every day to make sure we feel okay letting them on campus. Think about all of these license agreements we entered into because we had to and we were in a hurry, even though we knew they were terrible. And those do we keep how much of that are we going to clean up after. Or how about the use of printed materials printed materials have really gotten marginalized in many circumstances in the pandemic, both in higher education and to a great extent by the general public as, for example, libraries closed public libraries. How much of that comes back. I don't know. Really interesting question. What else should be on that list what else should we be thinking about. If I had to identify one central theme, because so many others flow from or our implications of this theme. I think one of the things that we have to remember how we shape the post pandemic world is how we balance online and in person activities. We've had vastly accelerated adoption of online and network. Activities in every sphere. Think about telehealth after decades of, you know, problems about why that couldn't happen. Think about how legal documents get signed now without being in person. Think about teaching how much. How much online activity do we keep. And how much do we abandon to return to in person activities. And note that online activities have really different equity inclusion parameters, particularly internationally. Compared to in person events. They have different climate change footprints. They have different costs. All of these are going to influence the choices we make. Here are some areas. I'll just sort of name without going into in any depth where this real virtual balance plays out. So, scholarly communications conferences, how knowledge is shared instruction and the implications for instruction are really complicated. Talk to major universities now, and they'll say, Oh yeah, we have students in, you know, 80 or 90 countries. They can't get to our resources. They can't get visas to come here. They couldn't travel even if they could get the visas. What does what does that look like for the future coherence of student bodies. Seminars and research oriented seminars are suddenly taking on these strange extra institutional qualities as people interested in a subject, you know, come together for a weekly colloquia from all over the world at least to the extent that they can cope with the time zones. Time zones, by the way, and how to accommodate time zones are all of a sudden a much more serious thing for a lot more people, and particularly in higher education and research are a bigger issue than they used to be. Think about offices, remote work. Think about the workforce issues that are entailed with all remote workers. Think about the conversations that we're going to have as a consequence of those workforce issues about space utilization and space planning on our campuses. The most fascinating sets of conversations that I've been involved with this fall, and I greatly thank the folks at the University of Connecticut Northeast University for convening these have been some conversations around a system that they're working on called sorcery sorcery. By extension, the bigger issues around remote access to archives and special collections. There is a pre recorded video that was part of our breakout sessions for this fall CNI on sorcery which I'd invite you to have a look at and we will be looking at some of these issues and more depth in the spring meeting. That's the whole question of how we do this and how this contributes to the resilience of the research enterprise are very important. One comment that has really stuck with me, and I've seen as kind of a consistent critique from many people is that hybrid situations where you've got some people face to face, and you're also trying to accommodate some remote seems to be the worst of all possible worlds, whether it's the classroom, or whether it's a work group. Somebody said to me, you know, if one person's remote, you should think about treating everybody as remote, particularly when you're trying to do collaborations it will actually work much better. The institutions have felt they've needed to walk the line, not to make decisions about is this class going to be in person designed to be in person or designed to be online. I wonder how long we keep classes in that sort of indeterminate state and when we when or if we begin to admit that hybrid situations are going to be deeply problematic, or maybe we learn to do hybrid situations. That's, again, a very consequential issue as we try and figure out this online remote balance. A couple other points about the post pandemic environment. I think a number of institutions were already well invested in instructional resilience. Well before the pandemic, they felt they were subject to other vulnerabilities, wildfires, hurricanes, earthquakes, you name it, and they wanted to ensure continuity of instruction. Investments were always made purely in the name of instructional resilience. Many institutions were already moving some instruction online because they felt that there was a significant future and a significant audience for online education. But whether they were for the purposes of resilience, or for other purposes, these investments from a resilience perspective now appear to be prescient. I think that we have learned from the pandemic that disruptions can maybe last a lot longer than we planned for when we made some of our contingency plans. And as a consequence, we probably need to do some hard thinking about long disruptions and what they mean for laboratory courses or studio courses or other things that we don't necessarily have a very good grasp of how to do other than in person. But there's a pretty good consensus that there's going to be continued investment in this kind of instructional resilience and continuity, with the exception maybe of some hardcore liberal arts colleges, who went through a particularly terrifying period in March when they went from never even dreaming or having nightmares about online instruction to actually doing it in a matter of a couple of weeks, and probably can't wait to consign online instruction back into the world of nightmares as soon as they can. But beyond there, I think that it's pretty obvious what to be investing in with the exception of the question that I framed a little earlier about the sort of hybrid and flexible environments. What's not clear to me is what happens with research. We actually learned in the pandemic that over the last 20 years or so we've made a lot of investments, particularly in the scholarly communications system, and moving that largely to the digital environment. Have positioned us for enormously greater research resilience than we would have had, say, 20 years ago, 25 years ago. We didn't do this necessarily as in the case with instruction just because we felt it would improve research resilience, but it sure served us well. And I have spent quite a bit of time, and we'll spend more time looking at research resilience and continuity at how research activities were shut down and then restarted during the pandemic. We've done a series of executive roundtables on this, we'll do another one mid 2021 current plans. But we don't really know. And some of this ties back to what I talked about a couple of minutes ago about remote access to archives and special collections is what are the right portfolio of investments. Now, and going forward to continue to improve research resilience and continuity of research. These are appropriate for institutional choices, which of these are more appropriate at a community level of some kind. What are the appropriate levels of investment here. And how do we prioritize. Do we want to prioritize specific disciplines for investment. There's a big international dimension on this too. Do we want to try and automate labs to a greater extent set them up for remote access. There's some very interesting experiments going on here and things like, you know, computer driven chemical synthesis. In industry there's been quite a bit of investment in automating this but not so much in academia. There's a really nasty underlying question that there's no avoiding. We have to ask it as part of dealing with this issue which is what research really needs to be resilient. I think there's a broad feeling that instructional resilience is important continuity of instruction is important. Continuity of research important, and if so in what fields, or is it viewed as a luxury in some fields. I think there was a pretty clear consensus during the pandemic that research related to the pandemic was real important for continuity, really high priority for continuity and resilience. So let's think about that problem going forward. We need to do a lot of research and a lot of thinking here. And one of the things that I'm very pleased and very proud that CNI has been able to do is at least frame some of the issues here. I don't think a lot of other people have framed them or thought about them. And I think we need to think about them, not just today but really on an ongoing basis. In the post pandemic future, we're going to see a lot of institutional failures and a lot of institutional closings or mergers. There's a very, very disturbing report that you can find on the Association of American museums website about museum closings. They're estimating we can easily lose a third of the museums. For those of you who follow this sort of thing, an enormous debate about the acquisition in museums and when is the acquisition of parts of a collection in order to keep the institutional life appropriate under what terms. And what a responsible the acquisitions look like. Should those be the acquisitions only to another institution, another public institution, or is it okay to acquire into the hands of private collectors. To think about such questions as the as responsible the acquisitions. For example, if you're going to do acquire something, would it make sense, assuming it's not under copyright to take a really high quality digital replica of it. And make that available as sort of a public good. There is a video that I'd urge everybody to watch for a session we held a few days ago at CNI about the closure of Mary Grove College. And in particular, how the Internet archive adopted that collection and digitized it and is making it available. We really need to think creatively about those sorts of things. And beyond the economic, you know, fall out from the immediate aftermath of the pandemic. We're also looking at a lot of loss of place through climate change through conflict through other things, and the need to document places that are under or that have already been lost. We're seeing a lot of work in that area. We saw some very interesting work about around Palmyra and the reconstruction of the Temple of Bell, for example, a presentation from the University of California San Diego as part of the fall meeting. And we said other work showcased of that sort. I'd note that there are some really long standing, you know, sort of lines of development that have gotten a little bit overshadowed but are going to definitely be back front and center as we move past into the post pandemic world. One is around the continued move to open science and open scholarship. Another is the failure to come up with good institutional strategies other than OERs about the move to digital instructional materials, and how commercial instructional materials are accommodated and how we think about platforms and related issues in the future. The age of complicated interactive textbooks is here. And we are not at many of, at a few of our institutions, I think we're really engaging with this at many of them. And I think, particularly in light of some of my comments about the uncertainties surrounding large scale undergraduate education. That's something we need to be looking at. Final point about the post pandemic environment. We really need to do a lot of open minded evaluation and assessment about what technologies, what processes, what practices made a difference in what didn't under the stresses of the pandemic emergency. For example, what roles did preprints and peer reviewing play in the dissemination of knowledge about how to deal with COVID-19. What role did data aggregation of various kinds of data relevant to the pandemic play. Should there have been more, should there have been less. And a lot of duplicative work. How was it used. How did issues around patient privacy and the use of electronic medical records, the sharing of those records and the use of machine learning play out in these settings. One thing we do know. The very early availability of sequence information for COVID-19 has made a significant difference it appears. How do we generalize these conclusions and take them back to the forward shaping of the research enterprise. It's also worth asking what turned out not to be relevant. Did public data make any difference to anything. Did repositories make a difference. How did open access practices interact with research on the pandemic. How did they interact with research resilience more broadly. We need to systematically look at these kinds of questions. I would say perhaps there's no area that calls for some open minded examination more urgently than what worked and what didn't in online instruction and hybrid instruction. There is a sort of a widespread public belief that online instruction is an unmitigated disaster in all its forms. And I think we know that the truth is more complex than that. I suspect that the truth is even more complex than we know. And there are some things to be learned. If we ask the right questions. Has anybody asked for example. The nurses actually worked better online. Then they did face to face when they were suddenly moved online. What students actually succeeded more rather than less than that when they were online. I haven't seen much looking at this. Let me conclude because I've gone on longer than I planned there's so much to say. But with a few comments about what CNI is doing and what it plans to do, and I'll be fairly brief here. You know, as with so many other things lockdowns and a forced move to an all virtual environment has been both liberating and horrible. It's a microcosm for us of the challenges that I have already talked about writ large. Wonderful things we can do more. Events and activities outside of the straight jacket of our meetings, we can do executive roundtables whenever we want them. We've been able to engage people where the ask of getting a plane and come to our meeting to spend a few hours in an executive roundtable. When it's a meeting you don't normally go to is overwhelming in person. Virtually, we've been able to really engage people like chief research officers into conversations that are part of our executive roundtable series and this has been really important. These things were calling hallway conversations as a way of trying to bring back a little bit of serendipity and informality among people who normally participate in CNI, and we do those often. We were able this fall to do a wonderful webinar series that associate director emerita Joan Lippincott put together on digital scholarship center planning, which I think have been tremendously well received by our community. We're going to continue to double down on this. In fact, if I had anything to do over about the fall meeting, and we're still learning here. I would say, maybe do a little less that formally attached to the fall meeting, and more that are just freestanding activities in their own right. We're still learning how to do virtual meetings. You know the first one was a sort of a beast of necessity we had about 10 days to take an already planned in person meeting and rethink it. In the fall meeting we actually were able to rethink it from more or less from the ground up, and we're still feeling our way around things like synchronous asynchronous balance spring is also going to be virtual. I can tell you surprising absolutely no one. We're still learning about the exact shape of this and we'll be making some announcements about that in early January, please continue to hold the schedule dates though, because we will do at least some things on those dates. And please send us your, your thoughts about this either as part of the meeting evaluation for the fall meeting or just send them to us. We're thinking perhaps more, more pre recorded events, more pre recorded materials, maybe more compact synchronous events, but please let us know what you think. I can also tell you that just CNI will be virtual. It's going to be July 7 through nine. And it's going to be a half day that will be at least sort of workable for both the UK and the US in terms of scheduling. It's focused on the future research environment. Now this is an interesting example of the virtual person dichotomy participation from the CNI community was always very low in this event. It was important for CNI's program and we learned a lot from it and brought some of that back to our larger community but it's a big obstacle for many of our community to find the time and the funds to go to the UK for a meeting. Since this will be virtual, the barriers to participation will be much lower for our community. It will be very interesting to me to see whether more of our community will take advantage of that opportunity come July. This is also a case where the personal relationships for some of the people who went to those meetings in person. We're very important and carried on for a long time to everybody's mutual benefit. So, it's a very, it's a very good case study of the trade offs we face. I mean, like, pretty much everything is going to be virtual through June or thereabouts. That's what we seem to be seeing from almost all organizations. It's pretty much what we're assuming we're staying flexible about what happens after that. We have a December 2021 in person event plan. I hope we'll be able to do it and I really hope I'll be able to see all of you there. How we mix in the in person and the virtual assuming we can have the in person part remains to be seen, and we'll be thinking hard about that in the coming months. Meanwhile, I can tell you were focused broadly on these questions about instructional content about research continuity. And real and real balances. We're focused on trying to think about the shape of the post pandemic world and the issues we're going to have to navigate about how research practices and scholarly communication are evolving. And we always have our eye on broader social and technological developments and how they interact with our world. And a lot of strange and unpredictable things that are happening. I just invite you to think about some of the issues that are showing up around international data localization and the policy issues around that. Or jurisdictional issues. There's another one to think about we're getting ready to maybe have a bunch of court cases about breaking up some of the big tech platforms. Some of these big tech platforms have been notorious collectors of personal data. What happens to the personal data when the companies break up or spin out pieces of themselves. I didn't talk a whole lot about technology developments. There are lots of amazing things going on there. And I hope at a future point that I can spend some time with you, going into those depth. And I'm really happy for one of the whole big conversations and let's talk about some of these issues. And I'm always happy to share a few of the things I have my eye on. But in the interest of time, particularly. I think we should explore those today. I really thought today, it was important to focus on the really broad message about the need to engage the post pandemic future that's coming at us. At least my best thoughts on how to frame the challenges of thinking about that and what some of the key issues will be. Thank you for bearing with me on this very long survey and summary of what CNI is doing and where we are. So much for your support of CNI in these times. I'd like to believe that we are as important as ever. I hope we can be even more important than ever. All of the institutions that have contributed to our roundtables and to this fall meeting. I hope you will join us tomorrow. Where we have a series of three plenary events to conclude the meeting other than a second round of the executive roundtable for those who've registered for that. Please be in touch with us in the coming months. And I really hope that we can be of help to all of your institutions as we try and engage with this coming post pandemic future. Thank you. I am absolutely delighted to field a few questions, put them in the comments, raise your hand and I'll turn your mic on, put them in the Q&A, whatever you like. But if you have the energy after bearing with me for this very long talk, please do share a few questions or comments. That one. A question from Nasib Nasser. In the face of so much uncertainty. Are there things that libraries appear to be converging on in terms of planning and thoughts that I might have on that. Or how libraries are balancing crisis mode with trying to plan for the future. Um, that's a fascinating question. I think that the convergence I'm seeing is shaky, and perhaps convergence, rather than anything approaching consensus. I think there's convergence on the notion that we really can and should do a lot of things in the network environment that we used to insist on doing face to face. I think there's a consensus that some of our workforce is permanently transformed and how we think about remote work. There's a consensus that we ought to be increasingly investing in electronic, rather than print, that more digitization, both of print collections and special collections is a good investment. I think that one of the things that we've learned and this ties back to this crisis about intellectual property. But we were using various kinds of physical proximity reciprocal borrowing arrangements in our library loan, things like that to get around fundamental problems of around intellectual property and how that does or doesn't enable what libraries need to do. And that those fallbacks to physical things didn't work in the pandemic by and large, or didn't work very well. And I think that that's a taste of what's to come as more and more things are produced digital only. So those are at least a few areas. There's a lot of soul searching about questions around library space and what becomes of the way we think about library spaces as we come out of the pandemic. Libraries have been thinking very differently about space and before the pandemic happened and how how some of that reinstates itself or doesn't will be very interesting to watch. So those are a few thoughts there. I wish I had more answers to that. I guess I'd say one other thing. And again, this is convergence much more than consensus. I think that in the move to remote instruction libraries embraced willingly or otherwise but of necessity, getting much more involved budgetarily and operationally in the acquisition and provision of instructional materials, which is a place where they historically had gone only in the most gingerly fashion and most reluctant fashion in many cases. I think having opened that door. And particularly when you juxtapose it with the move to more and more digital instructional materials, both commercial and non commercial. That's going to grow other questions or comments. Anybody want to raise their hand and get their mic turned on. All right, last call. I'll just conclude then by saying thanks again and I welcome your thoughts on an ongoing basis. Please stay in touch. Thank you all.