 R thinkers recent launched a new strategy and the Library of Transforming in a key cross cutting theme of our strategy with infrastructure and theme is the new open and so, when you think about the intersection between the new strategy and the theme of conference you get over on infrastructure and if you get to open infrastructure then it becomes obvious that there's only one person that you have to invite to talk to you at this conference. ac mae'n Caelin Thani, gallwn y dyma, y dyma yw'r iawn, y dyma yw'r ddiweddol, y dyma hwnnw i'r cyflwyno. Caelin hwnnw'n gweithio'r bywyd ym wych meddwl, ac mae'n gweithio'r ffordd o'r llwyddiadau ac ym ddechrau, ac mae'r bywyd yn gwneud yr hynny'n gweithio'r cyfeirio'r cyflwyno, ac mae'n gweithio'r cyflwyno, ac mae'n gweithio'r cyfeirio'r cyflwno. Mozilla, i'r weithio'r weithio ac oherwydd. But it's been over the last couple of years that Cailin has really become involved in invest in open infrastructure. And we want to take this opportunity to get it to the conference to talk to us about some of those issues. So I'm going to hand it straight over to Cailin. So for today, I really wanted to not only build on the comments that David has said in terms of the strategy and the intersection around infrastructure, the roles of libraries, and also the work that we can bring forward together as we look at moving forward initiatives that are not only looking at transforming that relationship, which I know is a strong theme in the ROUK strategy, but also in terms of our own role in that ecosystem. So this is going to be not only a little bit of a look at the broader landscape and how things have evolved as we've talked about infrastructure, but also some of the issues that we see from our perspective at IOI or invest in open infrastructure and where we see some opportunities for change with a provocation for you all at the end. So infrastructure is having a bit of a moment is starting off in this organization, it is a very long, long title for the organization's name which is why we abbreviate IOI, but also never before in the past two years have I seen more conversations using and looking to infrastructure as a force for good and also an enabler for change, as we've seen. This has covered quite an array of different activities from philanthropies, including the Siegel Endowment, pivoting their entire funding portfolio to fueling infrastructure in the physical and the digital and in sort of the capacity building spaces, national governments not only here in the US where I'm based, but also in terms of open science plans like the French National Open Science Plan which they just recently issued their second French plan for open science, different funding calls for infrastructures on national and international sort of ways, but also in terms of infrastructure institutes cropping up within certain institutions, and also nonprofit programs. Other sorts of funding programs including efforts in Germany such as the sovereign tech fund looking at digital infrastructure in a slightly different sphere, as well as industry plays right when we launched invest in open infrastructure there were also conversations coming out of more of the open source technology space outside of higher education about open infrastructure foundation and what those services look like for bringing industry players that have been involved with groups like open stack and others to the four. Also, we saw, as of this past November at the 41st session of UNESCO the General Conference, the UNESCO recommendation on open science come out quite loudly about infrastructure and open infrastructure being a mechanism for change and also a, you know, a mechanism that needed to be included as we started to think about broader holistic change and furthering research and equity in the broader space. This was ratified by 193 Member States as part of that UNESCO General Conference and complements not only recommendations on science and scientific research dating back to 2017. It builds on strategies around open access. It builds on open educational resourcing recommendations of the past as well. And, you know, looking here at, you know, this being also not just talking about infrastructure as a need for investment but being quite specific about infrastructure needing to be community led, not for profit, other sorts of mechanisms, other sorts of attributes that we think are really important and I'll get into a little bit of why. But as we talk about infrastructure in these multiple dimensions, you know, one of the questions that we pause and think about at IOIs, are we actually talking about the same thing? When we talk about digital infrastructure, does that align with what we mean in the connotations around open? Does public mean for all or is that public with a slightly different definition and to what extent are we thinking of extending that to different communities? Does infrastructure include software and tools? Where are those lines? Are we talking about the underlying systems that help, you know, operate behind the scenes? What about the social dimension and capacity building training but also labor in terms of the infrastructure there and the dependencies? And also who gets to decide for these different initiatives, funding programs and infrastructure development? Who gets to, you know, set those boundaries for where we are looking at alignment? As we look at defining infrastructure and for the sake of this talk, we think of it as a systems protocols and software that research and scholarship rely on. And that rely on we've, we really want to sort of underscore here, you know, thinking of infrastructure if you think of the roads and bridges sort of analogy for infrastructure that you notice when they are not operating or when they are removed. Thinking of, again, that dependency and that reliance in this space to help differentiate when we start talking about tools and software versus other sorts of open infrastructure services of noticing and having a disruption when those are removed. But also thinking of some additional connotations and attributes as we think of open infrastructure, building on a number of examples that exist in the space and work done by many of our sort of supporting organizations and others in the field, including Spark, CORE and others. So thinking of openness ingrained at the operational and design level, the solution should be open source, the content and data should be openly licensed, having things like transparent pricing where possible, clear governance and guidance how decisions are made. But also thinking of that as as infrastructures and enabler for delivering collective benefits. So, being making sure it's maximally accessible for equitable participation, adoption and usage with minimal if not no restrictions, and and governed by community needs that it's not just efficient to have it be open source and available for someone else to use. But we need to also think about what it looks like for that to be a bidirectional relationship with the communities that are served to help be involved in that process. And then finally facilitating the creation and dissemination of open knowledge. This is very specific for IOIs remit in terms of open infrastructure to fuel research and scholarship. Others have broader remits and looking at digital equity broadband connectivity but for the sake of our conversations, thinking of this work around open knowledge and thinking about how infrastructure can be contributing and also supporting our aims of, again, moving forward research and scholarship with, you know, access at the forefront of that work. And then we think about the broader ecosystem that we exist in and, you know, I like to kind of frame this as the ecosystem being sick. And really when we talk about some of the broader issues that are plaguing the ecosystem currently that we're working to help move forward change in really taking a moment to recognize that, you know, that current system for scholarly research and knowledge production is really geared towards commoditization. It's cost prohibitive. It's expensive for others to participate in. We're seeing in many cases many of the big for-profit well-resourced players capitalizing on open access and open data in various ways that are crowding out other entities in the space. It privileges the well-resourced and it also caters more to seeing higher education as a business than higher education as a place for idea generation, knowledge production, and also learning. This, in my view, is devaluing and underserving our global research and scholarly communities and perpetuating a system that rewards exclusion, prestige, and also walled gardens. At the beginning of the pandemic we often referred back to this quote from Naomi Klein, who's known for popularizing the concept of disaster capitalism. Of, you know, this crisis like earlier ones could well be the catalyst to shower aid on the wealthiest interests in society, including those most responsible for our current vulnerabilities. And thinking of how that has come to play in the ecosystem that we currently operate in. Again, where there are not only pushes for more open access to materials, open publication agreements, big deals, transformative agreements, et cetera, but also where that is still exacerbating underlying problems. Some of those include when we talk about the broader mergers and acquisitions in the space. When we think of clare of it buying pro quest, you know, thinking of in one case, where that might be bringing sort of efficiencies or, you know, helping to, you know, consolidate certain entities. Where that starts to veer into some concerns are where that is really limiting the amount of choice that, you know, those that are looking to embed certain services in the library and information space, where that either locks into certain pricing where that takes away opportunities for other competition, where that creates an end to end platform for data from kindergarten and primary school all the way to postgraduate, where that starts to take out the choice and create these sort of data pipelines. We also are very sort of well-versed in some of the other pieces of ownership when we look at groups such as, you know, not just clare of it, but also Elsevier and thinking of the various entities that are owned and part of the broader portfolio for Elsevier and Relics, its parent company, and where that starts to veer into areas where data is being potentially shared across these various platforms, and also where there might be a crowding out of other players and transparency and concerns. We're talking about data from usage in specific research tools, and also from scholarly publication, then also feeding into the metrics that then are brought back to determine promotion and tenure and livelihood, and also progression in the broader scientific arena. That becomes problematic in our opinion and thinking of where we need to start differentiating so that there is choice in the market as well. Additionally, especially as we've seen this huge shift to virtual, especially over the past two years, not saying these issues didn't exist prior, we've seen in terms of our relationship with technology additional privacy and security issues. Bill Fitzgerald, who's a privacy expert at consumer reports, has said, you know, privacy has been getting short change in the education space for years before COVID. What's happening now with everyone having first hand experience with software at a level they never have is that areas that have been ignored are getting attention quickly. And also from Chase Waker, who is on our community oversight group for IOI, talking about some of the issues that have been involved with some of the proctoring software and software that monitors students and how that affects and exacerbates issues around equality and also violates student privacy. I'm going to talk about the role that institutions and also libraries have of serving and stewarding relationships with researchers and students and how technology can affect directly that by, you know, bringing some of these issues to the forefront. Taking it one step further, also thinking about again examining our relationship with some of the tools and services and why we're advocating for open infrastructure for a number of reasons is also examining who the services that we're relying on and we are purchasing in terms of providing services to our institutions, who they also do business with. And so this is work also by a member of our community oversight group, Sarah Lambden, who's a professor of law and former librarian herself at CUNY Law School here in New York City, about who's done extensive work looking at relics and also the relationship with groups such as Lexus Nexus, Westlaw, etc. About these corporations are no longer the publishers that librarians are used to dealing with, but referring to these groups as data barons, who in many cases have relationships with groups that are actually jeopardizing the safety of student populations by getting into long standing contracts with, you know, border patrol with policing with other sorts of surveillance. And where we need to start drawing a line and being an exerting a critical eye about how much we want to continue to exacerbate the profit margins of these organizations. And so with that, you know, I firmly believe that we need open infrastructure, not only as an alternative to these mechanisms, but also as an equalizer and as an enabler. The examples that I just gave about some of the broader issues illustrates that infrastructure is not neutral. Our relationships to technology are not neutral and participation in open knowledge, be it on Wikipedia or be it in your library is not a passive or an apolitical act. And it's something that I view that we share sort of collective responsibility to help bring that sort of critical eye about how this impacts not only our own lives and those that we work with but also the groups that we aim to serve in our communities. And so I would say we need to reexamine our fundamental baseline assumptions that all tech platforms are inherently good or that service is, you know, at a level of just ensuring that resources are provided. And really look at the underlying components and a deeper holistic view about what that means in terms of freedoms and opportunity. So for IOI at our approach, we came into being about two years ago and I joined full time IOI existed as a coalition. Prior to that was a number of individuals who had been long champion, not only open infrastructure investment from libraries, including the 2.5% proposal. Other organizations on the advocacy side funding organizations to come together to look at what we could do to not only increase the adoption of open infrastructure and the viability of open infrastructure and open source solutions. But also think about the sustainability and the funding that goes into that and resourcing. And so for IOI we, we conduct research to increase our understanding of the current landscape. We also craft resources and investment guidance to help others assess, build and make investment decisions about open infrastructure. In addition to that, in addition to the research and resource creation, we also pilot solutions and help coordinate stakeholders to put that into practice and to think about where we can actually help move that forward into action and coordinating a shared agenda for investing in open infrastructure across the sector. Back in 2020 through 2021, as part of our sort of founding, especially as we saw not only the pandemic, but also the economic crisis and collapse as well as racial and social justice crises coming to the fore. We commissioned and worked on a piece of research called the Future Open Scholarship where we had over 125 participants across the globe, over 18 countries represented participating to look at where they viewed areas that needed additional sort of insight into looking at collective and shared solutions around shared infrastructure and the broader implications that they faced in terms of loss of funding, budgeting challenges, but also in terms of technology issues as well. Some of the key points of friction that were surfaced in many of those cases by library leaders was thinking about, you know, the time invested in making some of these decisions versus time that's available and balancing the immediacy of needing to have a solution that could be rolled out to help meet specific needs. Either articulated by the broader department, by the, you know, shift in terms of how folks are working, whether it's virtual or in person, and thinking also the longer lead times often associated with building out custom solutions around open infrastructure. Also, what came up as the prioritization concerns about the near term gain versus long term investments, thinking of, you know, what we need to potentially move forward now and we've heard from many institutions that things like learning management solutions, as well as, you know, some of the proctoring software really serving a near term issue for many of these institutions versus looking at longer term concerns that might have surfaced through that work. Whose values get applied. This came up in a piece of work of looking at some of the values and principles based documentation that exist in many cases, led by members of the library community and scholarly communication communities about how we can best align our values in terms of purchasing decisions in terms of technology decisions in terms of programmatic decisions, but also recognizing where that applies and where that might get outweighed depending on the values of your institution, the immediate priorities, budget constraints, budget, budget owners, developers, whether you're operating across a consortia or a society. This notion of local first development of really needing to prioritize those needs for the institution versus potentially for a broader collaborative if you're looking at a solution that might be shared across a number of different institutions, staffing and labor concerns, technology that often in choices at favor usual suspects and bigger players in terms of who tends to get the resourcing and whether or not those solutions are best fit for the ecosystem. Resourcing trade offs and also this perceived resource scarcity of, you know, the effects of viewing either kind of membership and consortial support, which, you know, usually has its own constraints for many of the underlying open infrastructure services that we've examined and studied, or looking at grant support and what are the kind of different models that might exist to get us out of that element of thinking of those two as the core means of supporting technology maintenance and adoption to think through means that might help us scale or create different sort of opportunities to engage with that technology and adopt it in a more reliable fashion. And so one of the things we've been working on starting this last fall was really thinking about where we could start to alleviate some of the information asymmetries, but also some of the pain points we heard from individuals that were looking for support in terms of making these decisions. And the amount of time that normally went into examining on all the different levels, you know, whether or not one solution versus another would better suit the needs for an institution. You know, with the idea of can we start to provide information that could help provide a baseline for those conversations that would allow for transparency for us to have a deeper, a deeper sort of dialogue about this. And so our aims with looking at the costs and characteristics of open infrastructure were really to also help foster a greater understanding of these services and cultivated deeper awareness of how services were provided. We had an initial prototype, which I'll share a little bit more about as a means of standardizing the key pieces of information that we're looking to scale out over the next few months. And also in consultation with not only library and consortia leaders but also funders to think about what are their needs and how did decisions get made in those environments. Where can we help support and alleviate and reduce not only duplication of the effort but time spent. And so our catalog of open infrastructure services, we released this in the beginning of this year in January. You can find it and I'll make the slides available but if you go to invest in open on our research page and go to catalog and investigate it yourself. It began with 10 projects that we involved in not only extensive sort of interviews with project leads, but also extensive public audits of information to start to provide, you know, additional information, not only in terms of how these groups kind of aligned with some of the common values that we saw across principles shared with various library associations, and also with institutions, but also examining other elements that might help in terms of providing additional insight for making decisions about their finances, about their assets and liabilities, things that you would find in terms of doing a deeper sort of financial analysis to go backwards. On the public data side, we also did an extensive audit of not only the provider and the funder websites, annual reports, if they're established in the United States, publicly available information that they file with the Internal Revenue Service, surveys and interviews with these service providers and also evidence from documented practices. If you look on the catalog site, you can also get a better understanding as to what we sort of cited as evidence which we've taken a screenshot here so looking at whether or not a technology is reliable, thinking through you know is their technical user documentation. Do they have an open code repository do they have an open data statement in terms of trustworthy organizations, how is their governance described equitable and inclusive services what does it look like to have transparent pricing cost for those organizations, detailed there and so looking at those specific examples for our first version of this release. And some of the key questions that we asked through this process and are continuing to learn from, which we would also invite your feedback on our you know what key information do decision makers like yourself, look forward to guide investment, you know what's missing and what surfaced in this work that may not be obvious to the broader community that feels important to share. And some of the questions and observations do we start to notice have these been reported before, why or why not, and really starting to pair not only the values and principles based frame, but also with some of the financial analysis and eventually looking at areas where we can maybe surface additional recommendations surface additional sort of elements where we could flag risk, or other sorts of funding and sustainability recommendations as well. As we think about this and the work that we're doing moving forward, that's sort of one example of the sort of services we're looking to build out, as we also build out broader strategies to move this work forward. We talk at IOI about how we think about prioritizing open infrastructure needs and for whom. We're talking about favoring, you know, equitable access and supporting equitable access and participation for whom becomes a very important question and aspect of that conversation. And we think about shared infrastructure, many of the conversations, including some of the early conversations around IOI favor well resource Western institutions and scholars and established players in the space. I love these inequities when we talk about not only operating and with the inequities and some of the challenges that exist within higher education that might exist when we talk about open source, which has its own sort of bias in elements at play there. And also when we talk about financing and investing in thinking about what that looks like in terms of countering our shared community values and being really explicit about what voices are missing from that situation that we need to seek and involve in the dialogue when we talk about service. And so I mentioned at the beginning of the ecosystem is sick. One thing that we also are working to help move forward at IOI is also shifting our mindset from the sort of deficit thinking to one that's more what we refer to as asset framing, and there's been a number of things written about asset framing about thinking more about what we're looking to enable than what we don't have. And so when we think about what we're looking to enable, you know, we talk about what that future could look like versus what sort of services we currently have that we feel like we need to sustain, or that we need to move forward. And having the freedom to be able to say, okay, we talk about frictionless exchange of information. And I know that there's been extensive work, you know, through the pandemic and otherwise to have interlibrary loan systems, especially as research libraries UK and just we're negotiating the recent Elsevier deal, thinking about affordable access to tools, services and resources and what does affordability look like, not just in terms of is it free but also what sort of labor and resourcing is needed when you think about, you know, the group that you have at IT or in your department needing to spin up a certain service and what that development time looks like and what all what some of those broader sort of maintenance and startup costs look like that may not necessarily be advertised in terms of bringing the service on. A commitment to freely and openly sharing research output with minimal restriction and I know that much of this is also articulated in the RLU case strategy moving forward. And investment in open community led and community owned infrastructures wherever possible services that are aligned with the priorities of those that it is serving, not profit. I'm thinking about sustainable funding and resource models that we can use to help support this broader vision, even if it starts to challenge the way in which we've thought about these issues in the past. I'm a firm believer that we can't solve problems with the same thinking that we use to create them. This is something that we often use to help challenge our baseline assumptions of who should be part of these conversations, where we need to start sharing from areas outside of our usual comfort zones and where we can start to apply these elements to think of not only open knowledge production as a utility, but also as a core element that should be resource, not only by institutions but by others as well. And so in terms in summary of, you know, what we're working to build towards, you know, more aspirational side again thinking about what we would like to enable you thinking about collective power through trusted peer networks, like Research Libraries UK, where you have, you know, access to the shared experiences, you know, from one another to help increase efficiency, accountability, negotiation power, empowering institutional leaders like yourself to take a more active role in directing pricing and setting the terms for vendors and for service providers and I think there's some great examples of work that's been done so far in terms of thinking about where you can shift those power dynamics, and allowing the power influence on budgets to again apply a critical lens to the groups that you choose to support, both at your institutional level or in your department as well as across the Research Libraries in the UK and beyond, in ways that help shift from the chronic underfunding of these solutions to line with your values in a really visceral way. In many cases, you have power over is where your budget and where your money goes, and also increasing the amount of funding and diversity of those investing in open infrastructure. I don't believe this should just be carried by institutions or by library budgets, but it should be called for in a much bigger way to help build a healthy, resilient, sustainable future for research and scholarship. I think open research and access to knowledge requires open infrastructure. We talk about equitable and accessible participation and knowledge production and dissemination. That requires that our infrastructure is similarly designed, and that we really anchor that in community values and governance. That also means a deliberate shift from the reliance from players that are misaligned with core values of the community, transparency and also collective responsibility. There are more resources here, so I'm going to go back one here, which I'll make this available for others. We've worked to document as much of this as we can, and we are very much looking forward to this being the start of our broader conversation. So thank you very much, and I'll turn it back over to David. Thank you, Cairyn, so much for what it was a very rich and very thoughtful presentation. I've been busy making notes and trying to sort of areas that I wanted to pick up on, one that I would just pick up on as a little throwaway. Way back in 2014, we had keynotes from YSG, who was Elseviers chairman, and he showed a very similar workflow across the publication flow of the research cycle slide that you did, but he had a slightly different view as to whether it was a welcome or an unwelcome one. One of the things that struck me on the points of friction slide was around issues of time and capacity, and it sort of raised issues around thinking and our thinking space. The big players take a lot of resources, but they also take a lot of time, and so you mentioned the Elsevier negotiation, the Elsevier negotiation was a big resource intensive activity for the sector. I saw a feeling that we sometimes don't make enough time for some of these other alternatives, and I'm wondering if you have any good advice on that, things that we might be able to carve out some time and attention to some of these other activities. It's a great question, and there are so many different inspiring examples where we've heard from different librarians where they've taken values and principles-based frames, and I think the University of California has a really interesting example that's sort of buried in their documentation. I think it's called the Star Framework, where they look at a rubric for making decisions on the library side, which is phenomenal, and I've seen that others have worked to apply that to their budgets and their decision making processes. But it does take a significant amount of effort, which is not always afforded, right, in terms of examining these opportunities, and we've heard from heads of societies that have wanted to transfer away from enterprise software to open solutions that may not necessarily exist yet. So you think of big societies and the meeting software and the abstracts that get shared as part of that as a main form of scholarship, but needing something robust enough to deal with tens of thousands of individuals and really not having sort of a one-to-one solution. And that is where, you know, some of the work that we are doing, and we're going to be ramping up the catalogue to help provide a baseline to, you know, at least address some of those baseline information needs. And also to bring in additional sources of feedback to say, okay, what else would be useful so that it can alleviate some of that time pressure so that there can be more focus on, you know, moving the case making through at various levels. I think also the other question there, there's two elements that come to mind in terms of the time needed to in many cases build or implement some of these solutions. And that's something that I think we do need to figure out, and I don't know necessarily how much of this is on IOI or versus co-work meeting with other partners. But how would some of these solutions we can really shorten that time or incentivize institutions to recognize that by investing in this across a number of different institutions where there is collective gain, that there might be ways of helping to, you know, again, resource that development so that it can shorten the time scale. Because the number of times that we heard it through the work, especially with we're doing this in the pandemic, I mean, this was like may in June of 2020, when we're having these interviews, conducting these interviews of, you know, I would love to have an open solution. I don't have six to 12 months to, you know, build this out. Right. And we hear that time and time again. And so that's where our team is starting to think through like where can we be creative and collectively start to think about other means of synthesizing movement in the system that takes that burden off of the library directors and in their supporting staff. That's really helpful. Thank you. Stuart Dempsey has asked a geopolitical question. The for whom, and the idea that, you know, we're living in a world that particularly over the past two weeks, but perhaps you could argue more over the past five years or so is becoming nations are becoming slightly more insular. There's a more nationalistic view, and perhaps some aspects of international collaboration have become less in favor. At the moment, hey, is there a, is there a tension there between nations who are becoming more insular and inward looking and some of this global open infrastructure that we're trying to trying to create. Yeah, it's a great question. I think that there's a lot of learning that can be done. I know big step forward in terms of the UNESCO open science recommendation being so declarative around open infrastructure at the core and also seeing that already are trying to start to be echoed in other national plans, but also in terms of the mechanisms for implementing those recommendations that is, I think, still something that's being worked out. My, like my hope is that that nationalistic view, if there's an ability to even align similar elements and I do think that a lot of it does come down to the economics, to be honest with you, in terms of what will help unfortunately, you know, competitive advantage and you know incentives that move beyond some of the broader altruism or funding mandates in various sorts of ways that that will help serve as a means of moving things forward. In terms of the broader geopolitical component I do think that there is usually a very human characteristic of not wanting to feel that the scholars of your country are being underrepresented. And where that can help, you know, move some of the work forward but I do think that, you know, Stuart has brought up some very, some very prescient issues that do need to be delicately addressed. If we can move on to questions from, from Yvonne, and it ties in with something I thought that I was having about values and the perhaps potential tension that might be in the values between the library and other parts of the institution and and Yvonne's question is around, you know, what do you do if you have a conservative IT department who believe in buy don't build. That's another great question. And I mean we saw this also across even within different library departments of like smaller teams, moving up levels of hierarchy, also working across with other groups, especially if you're looking at some of the shared infrastructure that is often supported not just in sort of the libraries or with the chancellers in that space but also across research and IT. I do think that there are some interesting examples in terms of that buy verse build and the level of service that are being played out right now. One example that comes to mind is to I to see, not saying that they're, you know, looking to be sort of bought and brought in but they are modeling a values aligned service provider and not for profit service provider for Jupiter notebooks and computational support. Right. And so this is a group that has been involved in developing many of these tools around Jupiter notebook Jupiter book and looking at creating sort of that computing infrastructure to provide in a very transparent way elements of developing and maintaining and serving those communities in a very values line visceral sort of means and so I am hopeful that we will start seeing more of that, as well as additional usability built into some of these either groups that are building out these tools themselves or other mechanisms that can help with supporting that again, are also making sure that that money gets reinvested into the community I think there's a number of examples like I think of for example the repository space for science and at my are they might contribute to the open source development of a tool services service provider to help address some of the challenges in terms of implementation, but also in terms of, you know, contributing back more I think that there's still some areas for optimization. I will say to Evans question to be slightly cheeky, one of the anecdotes that I heard from again during the pandemic where budget constraints became really, really sort of gridlocked. We heard from group that was looking to justify to its IT department, the investment of I want to say it was $20,000 that they normally support one of the repository services as sponsors and was finding that that was even getting stuck in this sort of quagmire of questioning with this diverse build sort of mentality and the person used as a justification, the amount of money that is spent supporting Microsoft 365 and Google accounts for every person on campus, and the conversation ended. So, you know, in terms of thinking through like where we can help to surface some of that I know that that is not like a catch all solution, but we are very aware of those challenges and I think learning more about how we can move forward and think through the efficiencies for that IT department as well, and incorporate them in the conversation think about those incentives. That's work that we're interested in taking on. And I guess part of that is to do with making, making some of these services move from being seen as being sort of nice to have almost like a charitable, you know, I've got a little bit of money left over my budget, I, you know, I want to support something because it allows my values through to a key part of an infrastructure for supporting academics and I think you can, you know, if I think about some of the things like archive and such like which are, you know, are essential for physics but maybe seen by some institutions as being well I don't actually have to support it because somebody else. But I'll tell you this much people would notice if archive or bio archive or met archive got bought by elsewhere. Right. They would be up at arms about it, or even by the chance like a burg initiative where I know invest significantly in bio archive and met archive. And so in terms of those forms of at risk infrastructure I think what you're touching on to is something that we're thinking about in terms of slightly different mechanisms for supporting these these efforts and also again thinking about looking to enable and who can help serve those needs, knowing that some of these organizations will fluctuate. But for example, if you thought of the investment that has gone into ensuring that institutions have wireless access like we think of you as a states, plugging into edgirome internet to, Jean, you know, some of these sorts of groups that exist. For providing those levels of services, if it was financially insignificant in terms of, you know, having broader collective aims to have a foundational set of open infrastructure services made available to every place of higher learning in the UK by participating in a broader scheme, it would shift the conversation, right. If it became sort of a no brainer in terms of, you know, not needing to have the initial sort of like the additional sort of case making but every institution has the same set of building blocks might not solve all your problems but at least gets a foundation. So like those are some of the things that we're thinking about of, you know, what can help move beyond this sort of piecemeal one service at a time mechanism to really thinking about the infrastructure and how it relates to one another as well. I guess that would go towards some of the coordination issues. I mean, I guess there's always going to be a danger that popular services may attract sufficient money, you know, overly sufficient money to survive and then other services that could be of value you may not, you know, for whatever reason if they if they haven't, if they're not fashionable, if they're not seen as being essential, they may not thriving quite the same way. So there's a potential coordination problem there, I guess in supporting them. Yeah, and I'll be even more explicit about that, you know, it's if there is an attention game and money begets money, right. You know, if you've got an established funding record we've been, you know, privileged in terms of having this in terms of name recognition, but we also recognize and this is where we're also looking at how funding across a number of the major players has been allocated where it's concentrated and where there are gaps in terms of doing a gap analysis in that sort of way. One of the other key elements in which we're building forward because we're looking at examples such as how water and sanitation infrastructure has been funded and the recommendations from the OECD and thinking of knowledge also as sort of a utility. How can we think of frames in that sort of way. But one of the two of the groups that are sort of interrelated give well and open philanthropy in the US that focus on different sort of issues are not in the higher education space. They're also radically transparent and really anchored in evidence based grant making and philanthropy. Some of the really fascinating ways in which they approach this is they think of the causes and then who can help address those causes, right, so that it's not here are the 15 projects that we need to ensure that we sustain. But being allowing for there to be a critical understanding of those projects may change. There may be groups that don't exist yet. Where can we have that conversation and ensure that you know as we start looking at the needs and starting there versus starting with the services that you know yes do need additional resourcing, but at the end of the day at least for IOI our aims are ensuring access and participation to research, not just supporting open infrastructure projects of a certain. I think that we've we've exhausted people. The comments coming from Claire about whether or not you see companies increasingly making their tools and services open for some companies. I do. I do think that there is. I mean, we are when you know this goes back David 16 17 years ago when I started in this space. You know there were a lot of questions around the advantages to having tools and services be made open and also in terms of business models you know we could point to groups like Mozilla and Netscape and Firefox and things like that. And other sorts of examples in the open source space and you know the free software and open source movement think we've seen more examples now about how that can be a real boon, not just in terms of the development and innovation and what have, but in terms of trust, like in terms of really being, you know for. Ensuring that there is understanding, I will also say that in terms of companies increasingly making their tools and services open. There are also some really interesting examples. Which I did not get into in this about for profit entities that are dedicating and committing to exits to community instead of like your usual like startup exit in terms of investment about transferring power and also, you know revenue back to the share, like the shareholders as the communities that are being. Served. And so there's an interesting experiments that are happening as well as more understanding about how open can also exist in a way that helps again make for better experiences also furthering mission aligned aims that we haven't seen before. It's interesting. I'm being actually cynical I'm wondering what's in it for the large organizations that are funding in that way and making you know making those startups back into the community but. Yeah, some are mission aligned investors to be honest with you that are not looking for things to be paid off in this sort of entity, or like in the sort of short turnaround investment. We've had deep conversations about even the way that we think of return on investment being like a three to five year game, like if we're really looking at redistribution if we're really looking at a regenerative sort of means of moving the ecosystem forward like we need to think I'm much longer time spans and that needs to be okay, like in that getting stuck in sort of the bros. So that's a broader structure that we associate with how the services get supported. Yeah, that's brilliant. Well, thank you so much. I mean it does really, you know, as I say it. We put infrastructure into our into a new strategy. I think you've given us a great launch pad for how we think about that about some of the things that we might be able to do within our UK and some of the things that we might be able to do in collaboration with with yourself and other organizations around the world. So thank you so much for that.