 Welcome to the first of our seminars, our autumn series. I'm Rebecca Rumble. I'm head of research at My Society. And we are putting these seminars on as a way of kind of keeping in touch with our global tic-tac community and to kind of talk about some of the things that we've been thinking about during the pandemic, some of the work that we've been doing and what we've been hearing throughout our community about what's important, what's interesting, and what's new. So we thought it was quite timely to get people together after hopefully some of you might have had a summer break. Maybe not, I don't know. But yeah, a good point to start thinking about data and openness and transparency, I think, as we're going into the winter months in Europe at least. So thank you very much for joining. Thank you very much to our panelists. I'll introduce them in a moment. Just as a quick, fun introduction, Gemma's going to throw a little poll up. It'd be interesting to know where people are joining us from today. So if you wouldn't mind letting us know, that would be great. OK, thanks very much. So that's pretty interesting. We've got a decent spread. Obviously, most of our people here from Europe but we've got some early rises in North and South America and some people are working a little bit late in Asia. So welcome to everyone. And an interesting spread amongst public sector, private sector, civil society, and academia. So again, a great mix as we love to have an Arctic Tech event. So thank you very much for sharing that information with us. So just to go through a couple of housekeeping points, this is being recorded. Please do ask questions in the chat. We'll be monitoring those so that we can pose them to our panelists. It'd be great if you want to tweet to talk more about the conversation. If you use their hashtag tic-tac, that'd be great. We can keep monitoring that and sharing it on our feeds. We have a collaborative notes document. So if you would like to take part in some of the note taking, if there's some really powerful sentiments or statements that you think we should keep abreast of, then we can record them there. And finally, later on there is the networking session. If you have signed up for that, Mark and Gemma, my colleagues, will be running that straight after the discussion using the Zoom breakout rooms. So you'll get further instructions on that towards the end of the seminar. Finally, don't forget to fill in our tic-tac survey. We'll share the link in the chat. It'd be great in terms of our planning to know what people find useful, what people might want to talk about in future, and indeed, how we might want to run these kinds of events in future, especially given various different restrictions that are being imposed globally on travel and meeting up and such things. So please do let us know through that survey. It's immensely helpful for us in terms of trying to put events on that are useful for you guys as well as us. So without further ado, I'd love to introduce you to our panelists. Very, very grateful to the three of them for agreeing to join and take part in the conversation today. So we have Fabrizio Scrolini, who is Executive Director at Open Data Latin American Initiative in Uruguay. We have Karago Rajuli, who is Country Manager for Open Ownership in South Africa. We have Olivier Thoreau, who has had research and development at the Open Data Institute in the UK. So a really great spread of experts that take forward this discussion today. Thank you all for joining us. Right, so we may as well dive straight in. I am basically here just to ask these interesting people interesting questions. As I say, I've got a few lined up, but please do use the tap bar to ask your own questions. And we will monitor that and pose them to the panel as well. It'd be great if each of our panelists maybe could give a very brief kind of introduction and a little bit about their roles and their interests. And yeah, please enjoy. So Fabrizio, would you like to kick us off? My pleasure. Thank you very much for this kind invitation and welcome everybody. Yes, I lead the Latin American Open Data Initiative Ilde where we explore the use of open data and data more generally for development. And we do this in several ways, through research, through helping to develop prototypes and through community building and engaging. And at the moment, you know, Latin America seems to be like the worst region affected by the COVID or the one with most cases. So it's a very particular hotspot to be spring is coming to this territory. So who knows? Maybe we might we might be a spare but or cases could go down. But that's that's part of the problem we are having now. And if you want, I can quickly jump in into the problem we face, which is data. And at the moment, our governments, depending on where you sit or where you live, are issuing several decrees and measures, some of them quite restrictive of personal freedoms of several civic liberties that are justified because of the pandemic and because of the data about the pandemic. Now, the nature of this data, the way this data is compiled, the way this data is shared and the transparency about this data. And if you want the metadata about it, varies, varies greatly across Latin America. And as a result, this is a problem not only for the management of the pandemic itself, but for the lasting consequences that this could have in these countries. Just to give you a bit of context, the continent has several I will say degrees or various varieties of democratic regime. It's largely a democratic continent, but with several challenges in this front and this disruption is affecting elections, is affecting schools, is affecting several key institutions. And as a result, we still don't know how this might unfold or the long lasting effect of these measures. So I think as a way of an introduction, I will be there. So basically telling you I live in the worst spot for this today. Unfortunately, Uruguay is not the case, but just for the region. And we do worry that the nature in which data is being used will not be the best in terms of justifying the measures we are now seeing from several governments across the region. Thank you for bringing it to you. Caraba, would you like to introduce yourself? I think she might be frozen. OK, I think we're having a few technical difficulties. Caraba, are you there? OK, well, come back to come back to you. Olivia, would you like to introduce yourself, please? Sure, with my most sincere apologies, the perils of working at home means that I've had a fire alarm ringing for the past five minutes and it's still ringing. I am told it's a test and I have been joking in every remote event that there's no such thing as that old discussion about here are the fire exits and there's no fire alarm plan for today. But for once there you go, there is a fire alarm. It stopped for a minute. So I'll introduce myself and hope that the noise is not too annoying. So my name is Olivia Thoreau. I'm the head of R&D at the Open Data Institute. As as Becca said earlier, we're we're based in the UK. We're a global nonprofit looking at the ecosystem of data sharing and open data. We we're working towards a world where people can access and use data to make better decisions and a pandemic like COVID has been a really a stress test for the kind of data ecosystems and data infrastructure. I've been leading a piece of work with my team on that, looking at well, helping people, sorry about the noise, helping people and researching the practices. And for me, from perhaps a perspective, you know, slightly contrasted from what Fabrizio was saying, in that I'm looking mostly at what's been done in fairly democratic countries. But the stress test for me is that a public health emergency like COVID is a case where the myth of having a few big brains in a central department, in a government that are looking at data and making policy decisions and communicating policy decisions doesn't work anymore. You need as many experts to see the evidence. You need help of two of as many people as possible to help you make those right decisions. So already you have a need for that data to be more, more broadly shared. But more importantly, what we're seeing in all the policy decisions around COVID is that the decisions need to be made at national levels, at local levels, at regional levels and also at international levels. We've been we've been helping some data policy with the WHO. And one of the things that we saw fairly early on is that while governments were doing some efforts, well, some governments anyway, making some efforts of publishing some data, the data was completely different from point to point. And so to me, you know, trying to see the silver lining in this pandemic, this has been a really good case for us to understand how data can make things better in in getting people to understand a problem very quickly, to collaborate quickly and to communicate through a mix of the usual communication means, but also with the evidence, also with the data as a way to get a deeper and a deeper understanding of the of the the logic behind the decisions and therefore more by an orderly or or more pushback, but informed pushback from from the population. The the other point that might be interesting to talk about today, depending on where the the interest lies is that it's been a case where, unlike usual, open data and shared data has been not just the prerogative of governments. There's been many, many more actors publishing, making available data and many a much richer ecosystem of organization, researchers, companies publishing and using data and much less of that usual dichotomy of government publishes and civil society explores and and prods at the data. It's much richer and that, to me, may be a picture of the future. Thank you very much, Olivier. Tadella, do you know if we have Caraba back yet? We've lost her, unfortunately. So I would advise carrying on until we get her back. OK, we'll we'll soldier on and hopefully when she rejoins, we can we can give her the floor as well. Great. So thank you very much for Ritio and Olivier. Some really great points to kick us off there. I mean, one of the reasons we wanted to have this conversation today is because I think quite a lot of us in especially the open data community have been saying for years, we, you know, we just need to do better at open data. There's no reason why we shouldn't do it. Surely it's going to be helpful for all kinds of policymaking decisions. And it's it's always felt like less of a priority. Obviously, you know, six, seven months ago, we found ourselves globally in a situation where actually what we've been saying for an awfully long time about having better quality and more open data might have helped in in a number of different ways in tackling the pandemic. So I think I think maybe some other people in the community like myself feel like I think we told you so to some governments at the moment. You know, especially since global supply chains are global, they are they are global. It's not just about what information we have here in the UK or in the US. But but the access of that information to everyone around the world to know how to efficiently procure and examine beneficial ownership and the transparency of all of these kinds of concerns. So, yeah, we're hoping that this will be a really positive conversation to kind of demonstrate exactly how useful some of these things that we maybe have been saying for years really are and that we should be focusing on them in future. Again, we're seeing a lot of a lot of kind of knee-jerk reactions. I think at the moment, especially in the funding community towards, OK, we're pivoting everything towards COVID recovery, which is great. And yes, there are certain things that really need attention in terms of the economic and social and health recovery. But again, actually tuning to this data issue and saying, well, actually, we need to kind of double down on some of the things that we have been kind of chipping away at. I think might be really useful. So we've got Kara go back. Do you want to introduce yourself? Brilliant. Thanks, Rebecca. I don't generally leave meetings as I'm about to speak. The difference of online meetings. So, yeah, my name is Karabo Rajuli, and I'm based in South Africa in Cape Town, and I am a country manager at Open Ownership, which is a global initiative supporting countries moved from commitment to implementation of their beneficial ownership of transparency commitments. There are over 90 countries who have now got some degree of commitment to beneficial ownership of transparency globally and Open Ownership is providing support to about 40 countries globally. So that's in Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, in Uruguay, as well as Europe and Southeast Asia. So we cover quite a broad range of countries in a broad range of contexts and data challenges as well as opportunities and how data can be used to address some of the challenges and the variety of them, which arise from lack of having transparency around the true owners of companies. Thank you. OK, right. I am going to kick off asking you some questions. As I say, everyone listening in, please contribute your own questions in the sidebar. We will hopefully try and get to as many as possible. And just to kick off, I suppose in open and accessible data terms, what, if any, changes do you think has COVID-19 catalyzed, you know, does the crisis represent a watershed moment in how governments and policy stakeholders think about and do open data? Or is that is that not actually the case, do we think? Caribo, would you like to step in first? Hmm. So I think I prefer the term rather than say watershed. I think what we have seen, certainly from the beneficial ownership adoption angle is an acceleration of how this particular type of data is understood as a way in which to address other social, political, economic problems that countries are trying to resolve. And so there's been a large amount of advocacy and awareness of the importance of having reliable, accurate and readily available access to beneficial ownership data from a range of countries. What COVID-19 has done is really situate those advocacy type objectives with an actual real world challenges. And so examples of that would be where we have seen countries grappling with lack of due diligence around procurement arrangements, certainly in a range of countries where I particularly offer support, there's been a number of corruption scandals around public procurement. And there the absence of having data around true ownership has been a limitation in the manner in which governments or law enforcement is able then to address some of these either conflicts of interest which have arisen or the conflicts of interest which have involved politically exposed persons. What you're also seeing very interestingly is a demand side from private sector for beneficial ownership data. So because of the, I suppose, the limitation in economic resources, which are now available, there's a much stronger desire from public private sector users to be able to do much more robust due diligence checks before making investment type decisions. The other aspect of this is that as you're seeing many countries and many governments wanting to offer some kind of relief or support to SMEs who are often the backbone of many economies, having some kind of check to ensure that the SMEs which are being supported, which are getting access to a limited amount of funds has been it's been important to be able to have some kind of data to verify whether or not the SME who is claiming to be an SME is indeed an SME and not linked to other sort of larger, larger corporate structures. And so what COVID-19 has done, I think, is really embed the idea of actually it really matters to be able to have this data. And it's not just about having this data, but it's about having accurate and reliable and readily accessible data, which is also in a structured format. Yeah, really kind of good use case. OK, this is not just nice to have. This is really, really important. Elevier, there was a lot of vigorous agreement, I think. I saw from your end. Yes, a lot of nodding. I mean, Carabo really put it really well that that the pandemic really showed the need for accurate, reliable, structured data very much. So and that's something that to me has been, if I don't know if Watershed is the right word, definitely a big penny drop moment in that until now, we hadn't had, as far as I can tell anyway, that much of an understanding that open data is something that can be used to help with a crisis. And therefore, if all you're doing with open data is transparency about how your day to day going on is of your government, then you don't really necessarily understand the need to build the infrastructure. And by infrastructure, I don't mean just the technical infrastructure. I mean, everything from the communities you work with, the people, the roles, the standards, the and the technologies, of course, as well. But the big dear in the headlight moment with government saying, we need to we need to make this data available quickly, was completely at first inadequate in that you've seen the governments that did decide early on that open data was a way for them to work on this openly and transparently. Most of them, what they did was to create dashboards, which, you know, they're nice, they're pretty, but they're not actually useful and usable. And I get back to what Carabao was saying, data that is accurate, reliable, structured, findable, all those qualities can only be achieved, especially in an emergency where you don't have the ability to just start from what you have to start from scratch, but you need you need that the infrastructure in place. And so for me, the one thing that hopefully will have really got into people's heads is that you need the infrastructure so that when the challenge arises, you're ready for it and you can then build on that build that data ecosystem quickly and efficiently. Otherwise, you just scramble for months while the crisis hurts. Thanks. And Fabrizio, you it's a little bit about there being, you know, a few a few gaps that this is highlighted, that there's certain limitations on the data that has been collected. It can only go so far. And then people are coming up against a bit of a barrier. Do you want to kind of do you want to talk us through a bit that? Yeah, I mean, I certainly echo what my colleagues have been saying, but I'm really cautious about government embracing open data. Governments might be embracing data because they need it now. Where are my hospitals? I don't have a decent open street map to actually show me where my hospitals are because the coordinates were never put into. So there's people actually collecting data on where hospitals are across the world. You know, and so on. But many layers of basic data that you need to make decisions were not there. And some governments are now curious about how to get that, let alone the fact that they need to set up this dashboard just to contain public opinion that has been widely speculating about this virus and you are probably very familiar with misinformation and other phenomena that has been around for a while. So as a result, you know, data is important. How the governments handle this is different. So in some countries, we have seen in Latin America, a very open approach, not only putting all the data available, but the metadata itself to open data portals and trying to engage, you know, the public and trying to engage the media about the limits of the data and what they will actually extract from it and what couldn't and trying to improve that. So we have seen some governments actually actively engaging and doing that, particularly at the local level or the city level, but also a few national governments as well. And also we say we have seen governments more cautious about how they share good quality data for basically security reasons or for actually for the if you say this argument that you don't shout fire in a crowded theater, which is one of the traditional arguments where people coming from the access to information or freedom of information communities will already hear before. And that said, I find the argument you can say this is reasonable up to some point, but in a context where governments are unable to influence, you know, all these information campaigns that got around this virus and the illnesses and so on, maybe they will need to say something anyway, because other people are actually saying things for them. So, you know, the voice of governments is very important. So I say that to some degree, the data agenda has been vindicated. In some cases, the open data agenda has been vindicated as well. So we do have a moment of we told you so and we have been telling this for the last 10 years or so. That was nice for me for the last for the first five minutes, I guess. The other five minutes was nice for the epidemiologist and all the people who have been working on the spread of virus around the world that say, you know, we haven't seen this for the last 10 years or 15 years at least. So for all these people, I think it's a great moment as well for the open science advocates who are now getting, you know, ways of comparing the databases and the studies that are published. And this in some few cases in Latin America, we are getting to see very good groups of advisors providing up-to-date information to governments to actually make sense of protocols and other measures that are only possible because, you know, the open science movement actually managed to prevail in this context. So how long are we going to remember this? I don't know. But, you know, I think that we are now getting to see that data is important. The governments are coming to terms with that. The development of an app, regardless if it is, you know, developed by Apple and Google or national governments to do the contact tracing process, which is itself a powerful discussion or a very complex discussion, also, you know, reminds us of the complexity of the data where we are facing. Whether that world is going to be open or not. Well, I think that's up for the graphs at the moment. Thank you. So, yeah, quite interesting to kind of think about, OK, well, now we have managed to demonstrate that there is massive value to good data, to open data. But, yeah, government memories are often not so long. So I suppose one of the things that would be good to hear from you guys is how you see what barriers there are to getting government to not only admit and say, OK, yep, this is important, but invest in doing it better and how to kind of keep this momentum going so that it's not just a very kind of fleeting acknowledgement. And then it's kind of deep prioritised again. How do we kind of keep good open data on the agenda? Karaboh, do you want to come in on that? I may have missed part of your question. But the question is how do you maintain momentum for these open data initiatives which have been adopted rather directly during this current period? Before I hop into that, I want to tie into a bit of what tie into some of the race just now on the context of why open data policies are adopted by governments. And what we have seen at Open Ownership and our approach is saying that data is one aspect of a set of decisions and commitments which need to be made by national governments. And so we don't just look to, say, get it online and the solutions will be found. It's about saying what needs to be changed along a long sort of implementation cycle in order to get to the point of high quality data. And so some of the things that we certainly see in various countries is the importance of ensuring that there's a stable legislative and policy environment which they will underpin any kind of open data initiatives which take place and then also ensure that to address the question of momentum that is not just a once-off disclosure of data but that is actually embedded into a legal system and allows for certain other actors to then rely on that should not maintain its commitments there. There's also something to be said around what we all think about to say how do you think politically about data and how do you ensure that the political world around data is retained outside of a crisis or emergency or perhaps a response to a scandal or lease? And so that part of thinking about data in context and the context of legislation and the context of a legal framework and the context of a political system is as important as ultimately getting good quality data out. The other aspect, I suppose, is that part of what open ownership is doing or positions as a theory of change is to say that we are wanting to drop the momentum for adoption of a particular type of data so that there's ownership data. But as more countries and others are seeing as more countries make the commitment to improve the quality of their data, it's just from just being a growth in momentum to becoming a norm. And I think that's what we want to see as more countries begin to say what this is just a normal part of governance or a normal part of what information is required for a variety of reasons. It changes from being an advocacy or a just a nice to add to a but this is just a natural part of what needs to be placed in order for society to function effectively and for the official ownership of data in order for procurement officials or law enforcement agencies or for society to be able to do their job effectively and have kind of transformative impact they are looking for. Yeah, so a few of the questions that we've had from the audience have also talked about the quality of data. It's not just is that data, is it good quality data? Is it in a standard format and not just an open data format, but is it against a certain standard like the open contracting data, for instance? And that's half the challenge as well. I suppose it's not that is the data out there. Is it easily usable to actually be able to achieve anything with it or to cross compare or anything like that? So data standards are very important as well. And Olivia, I think you actually you raised this a little bit earlier that it's not just about data. It's about having a good standard that is global. How do we how do we make sure that that's what the aim is and not just Oh, well, technically, we published it even though it's in a PDF. Yes, that is that that is really, really it's there are different layers to this. And I completely agree with the fact that lack of interoperability and lack of standards are are a barrier, if not to the access to this data, but to use usability of the data and data that is being published in completely non-standards way are our barriers in themselves and they're only the job half done. I think the pandemic has been a really, really complicating factor in that usually. And some of my background is in is in a technological standards and standards take time you need because a standard is an agreement with a lot of people present. Otherwise, it's not a standard. You can't just say, here's the thing, it's a standard. It needs to be to to be developed. Now, there are technical standards like, you know, for formats, for instance, that can be adopted and they ought to be adopted whenever making data available. But when it comes to the vocabularies, the identifiers, all those more specific elements of how we structure and and make data available. If you need new vocabularies, so I'll give an example. There there has been hundreds of symptom tracking applications and studies at the beginning and since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. And, you know, symptom tracking is not a new thing. There's there is precedent there. But one of the questions that early on was, if you're if you're symptom tracking, what is your dictionary of symptoms? Well, how do you define those symptoms so that if you are getting data from one symptom tracker to and data from another symptom tracker, which a lot of research institutes were doing, that it's actually interoperable. And the reality of it is you do not have the time to get all the symptom trackers around the table and to figure out how they're going to agree on a thing to use. And so in this case, the the the the interoperability needs to remain the goal and the adoption of existing standards needs to be the basics of the definition. But in some cases, there needs to be other bits of the infrastructure that bridge the gap between the existing and the and the need for standards that you do not have the time to develop. And that's where another part of the open infrastructure happens, is that if you if you are building a set of software that will work with data across a spectrum of varied formats, for instance, making that software available openly means that other are going to be able to use that that those disparate sources of data. And so while, you know, the banging the drum of standards as one way to to overcome this barrier is an important one. What I would what I would really stress is saying, oh, yeah, we need standards. Therefore, let's drop everything and build a standard and we'll get back to you when we got standard. That's not applicable in this case like this. And therefore, a mix of using the standards that exist, but also opening the bits of your pipeline as much as possible. If you are using some of this data, it will bridge the gap. And it will and it will help overcome that barrier. Thank you. And so Civil Society is obviously a big part of, of, you know, the open data community and the people that have a lot of expertise in in this area. So for Britsio, you and you've actually said that it's very important for Civil Society to be able to get their eyes on this, not just Civil Society organizations, probably like a lot of us on this call, but the press and, you know, wider civil society journalists as well. But again, there's a there's a political element to that that is a bit difficult, not only in terms of who gets access and how it's presented, but who then actually has the expertise to understand that the data they are presented with then. Yes, I mean, there is an issue in terms of how civil society in general, at least in the experience I'm grounded here in Latin America, get access to data and in a pandemic context, context that that has been troublesome as, you know, it is the case, for instance, for for data on contracts and budget, which is usually, you know, in times of emergency, governments do have the powers to speed up contracting procedures. And in doing so, well, sometimes they might not publish all their related data about those procedures. And as a result, governments become more vulnerable to overpriced or to several market practices that are not OK. And some colleagues here, the Red Palta, which is a network of journalists across Latin America, has been doing that work and trying to to spot these trends to some to some success, right? Then the old question arises, whether the publication of those reports or that analysis delivers accountability. And that's a wider question, which strictly depends on how strong are your accountability institutions in your country, just as a spoiler of the whole literature in this field. But then the question remains, though, that the fact that we are able to know this is a good sign and the fact that we do have civil society equipped to analyze this is a good sign. But that capacity is relatively low. And I think someone was pointing out in the chat that there seems to be a lot of software there, but not people able to analyze it. And and that is the fact that we still need to invest more in, you know, building capacity, not only in civil society, but probably in a more general trend across society, but certainly, you know, newsrooms, small NGOs are a great way to test this, to build equipment, equip people with skills to run proper data analysis. And as a result, that actually leads to several avenues on computational thinking and so on. And but at the end of the day, I think that's something we might need to invest more. And that's something that if the trend continues, we definitely need to to upgrade these these capacities across across civil society, not only for if you want organizations such as my society or Ilda or the ODI and others that were born out of the digital era, but actually people that, you know, are doing the contact tracing in Uruguay, which at the end of the day, they they were born with, you know, pen, paper and the best of luck, a central database where they're able to keep these names and addresses in place, which is so far to what the available evidence I have in this country, the only successful way of containing this virus, right, because at the moment that's that's so far what has been successful to keep this going. And that's done by a bunch of doctors, pen, paper and, you know, maybe the support of other technological elements, but it's not more sophisticated than that. So so I also think that when reflecting about the pandemic, we might need to be a bit a bit more humble about what that can deliver and what kind of deliver and and so that that's also important because the other gap I found in this pandemic is the gap between the people in the front line, in the trenches, mostly in the health sector and the people doing this fantastic analysis in, you know, in a statistical complex model and armchair epidemiologists across Twitter and all these people are like, yeah, somehow that doesn't up, you know, and I think that some of these models might be, you know, having wild assumptions in there. But just because you have access to a statistical software and a bunch of who knows how was created, that the sets doesn't give you the right to, you know, extrapolate decisions that could influence for worst what what what we are trying to achieve here, which is to control this pandemic. So so that's complex and I'm a bit annoyed about that because we have seen a lot of that in your way. But but also because I think that it's going to be something we we need to come to terms about the limits of how our data is created, who is in the process of developing these standards. And this is not in the context of the pandemic. My colleague, Sivana Fumega and others wrote recently a blog post on a reflection of how standards and the community developing them you know, might exclude certain voices. We had some experience developing a prototype on a standard on feminicides in Latin America, which is the unheard pandemic so far, right, like we are getting to see and we cannot document properly violence against women in this region. So as a result, you know, the standards are very, very important because not only even if it's a prototype, they allow us to capture things that the reality is not it's not that we are yet unable to assess. But but on the point of civil society, I I think that that that we need to to get better at equipping equipping a lot more civil society organization and newsroom and with with basic data skills so they can engage further and act as as a spare head for demand. Absolutely. And there's obviously the question, I think again, I think some people on the sidebar have been raising this, that it's it's a political choice what data gets released as well. On the one hand, there could be some really great data in really great open formats released by government, but it's a political decision a lot of the time at the moment to release that data and there are being cynical here. Some governments around the world that are using the pandemic as an opportunity to not release certain information, whether that is in data format or whether that's in the form of just general information here in the UK, you know, our Information Commissioner is not telling people off, telling public bodies off for not disclosing information within a timely matter at the moment. So there's there's there's issues there. I mean, Olivier, what are you? What do you think is the way forward here in terms of pushing for the right data? And as for Boots, you said in terms of getting good education, the right skills, the right people to be actually analyzing this information and getting it then in front of normal people. The it's complex. I mean, that's your, you know, the question you're asking is pretty much the whole mission of the ODI. So work with us, you know, but a less flip. An answer is I think there are essentially three big things that we need to keep pushing for one. And Fabrizio really talked about that quite well, that skills is an important bit. Although I would I would mention that we need skills across the board. We need we need we do need people able to work with data, but we also need people who need to understand the value of data. We need to people to understand the impact of data. So things like getting decision makers to understand what data is, what what data can be used for is is an equally important skill in order for for the demand and the supply to to be adequate. The second the second one thing that I would mention and and and I'll echo something that was mentioned in the comments is that we we need to empower organizations and whether it's local government departments, but also other organizations, non-governmental organizations to to be part of that effort to publish and make data available. If you wait for central governments to have the right motivation, the right skills, the right infrastructure, the right timing, the right message and all of that, you you put it's it's you put literally all your eggs in that one basket. Whereas we've seen, especially in this pandemic, that there are specific questions for for local governments to to answer and giving them the ability to to collect and share and open this data themselves, giving them the infrastructure, technical skills to do that means that you don't have to wait on the political will in the in central or federal governments to make that happen. And very briefly, the last point that I think is really, really important to keep in mind is that we need to get a much, much more nuanced view of risk so long. And that was something that Fabrizio said, I think, much early on in our conversation that notion that if it's risky, we're not going to do it, risk is not a binary thing. If we get people to understand that risk is something for data, as well as for everything else is something that you manage is something that's on a spectrum and that you can mitigate risk by with data, for instance, through processes of of anonymization. You know, we've got we've got statistical agencies that that publish data that are about us on a regular basis, and they have got the right the right skills, the right frameworks to to make sure that that data is safe when it's published. And so understanding that data can be modified, can be processed in ways to make it safe means that we can have a much more nuanced and useful discussion on risk rather than I know we're not we're not opening this data because it's sensitive or because it's private. That is that that is unhelpful and that is thinking that data cannot be changed or processed when it can. Thank you. Yes, so we are running quickly running out of time. So I'm actually going to just ask of maybe final question here unless anyone's got some quick last minute ones to put in the sidebar. Carabao is open ownership. Firstly, I'm just going to do a two part question here. Firstly, is there any one example of how data is being collected or used? During the pandemic that you think is worthy of note and that people here would be interested in hearing about. And I suppose, secondly, what are your ambitions for the future in terms of, you know, asking things of the South African government or asking things of the international community in in relation to kind of open data? Yeah, both great questions and big questions. So in relation to demonstrations of how data has been used, particularly under COVID-19, we've got a couple of good examples where there are already existing public registers of beneficial ownership. And so in the case of Slovakia, there's a particular set of SMEs who were linked to where there was a conflict of interest identified, which was which was picked up by civil society. And so in that instance, that potential risk was identified quickly. The opportunity that I think open ownership does offers that because it's a relatively new policy and data area, it does allow for this idea of a multi-stakeholder process to set up a system or to set up what will ultimately be a public register or a a sectoral register. When I would transfer a ratio or Olivia, we're talking about the importance of standards, I think that's a huge that that's a huge element of what open ownership is trying to do. So by use of the beneficial ownership data standard, countries have got some kind of mechanism needs to be put in on the data side to make sure that the policy or other objectives are addressed and what ultimately the register looks like. Something else that our tech team has done, which has been very useful for the useful for data users. And this has been from government implementers in particular is creating a data visualization tool. And so what we often hear from an FIU or another government implementers that company ownership is extremely complex, we've got this huge database of information about company ownership structure, but want to understand the relationships. And so by creating a visualizer tool, which open ownership has done through the tech team, it allows an implemental civil society to be able to then actually see through in a visual form or hear all the relationships and be able to then identify whether there's anything which is of interest or anything that can be explored further. So if open ownership, what we will be doing going forward is looking to support how to use a particular interest in the visual ownership and development in South Africa, Mexico and and Indonesia. But then also make me telling the scope of our work, which is to support all countries who are moving to implement their commitments around financial ownership transfer. Thank you for raising over to you. Same question. I mean, I don't know, like the visual on standards is that I think I would echo Olivier in the previous in the previous question that we need a range of skills and people and not all are around the same part of the chain. Right. So we have people. Definitely, we need more awareness and connecting these people together. And this is applied to any silos or to any domain, basically. And and doing that is difficult. And and because we also in time in where we are muddling through different generations of people, different generations of organizations and and quite frank and different differences in terms of power, access and location. This is the nature of our world. It's not the same to fight this pandemic, you know, in in a in a coast town in Uruguay than to do so in La Paz, Bolivia, or to do so from the center of London. It's just not the same thing. We don't have the same resources. And as a result, we might need to be to be, you know, very eclectic in how we tackle this challenge as a one good one off solution for everyone might not work. I think to some degree, this applies to standards. But I'm an echoing echoing Olivier as well. I think that there is something to be said about how to to weave this these communities in the in the long run. In the short run, though, I think that we need to essentially be much much better and in terms of processing, analyzing and I'm feeding this to the decision makers, particularly to guide the crucial decisions that we're going to get to see in the next 18 months or so. And also to guard against, let's say, misuses of emergency powers that we get to see across, at least across Latin America. Because this can have long lasting impacts at the moment. This is a strange situation, a weird situation, a one off, if you want, that probably hopefully we all get to experience in our lifetime. But that will have effect. And I think it's the time for people working on using data for for to monitor this development to also remain vigilant about not only, you know, they used to solve the pandemic, but also what doesn't get noticed because we are all, if you want, embedded in this pandemic climate. So so it's tough times. And and I echo what you said about, you know, this kind of knee jerk responses about, yes, it's all about covid now. In a way, it is because, yes, it's it's a we need to recover from this. But the way we do that might need to, you know, to find us in a better position of where we started, right? And for that transparency, accountability, use of evidence remains very, very central to this agenda. If we are yet to live in democracies that value evidence and rational discourse overall. And that's that's also up for debate, but I would like to live in one of those. Thanks a great deal. Elevier, if you could keep it super brief, we know we're running dangerously low on time here. OK, so I'll I'll leave you with one with one thought then that. We need to reconcile the two things that are that seem at odds with one another. One, which is to know that data, if made open or shared, can have uses that aren't necessarily understood. But at the same time, that we tend to create better value because it's more appropriate when we start from the problem. And I think covid has shown us that that if we start from a challenge, if we get the people together around that, then we can make the case for data being being being part of that solution. We can make the case for data to be collected. And by the way, not just by governments, but collected, put together, made open and used openly. And I think if we managed to keep the two together, the desire for openness as a as a as a baseline, but also an understanding to not always start from the data, but start from the challenges, then we have a we have a chance to to to to build something better. Fabulous. Thank you, Elevier. Very concise. So I'm sorry to say we've run out of time. That our flu by it was really, really interesting. And I'm extremely grateful for Briceo, Caribo and Olivier for joining us. I'm sure everyone had a lot more questions that I'm sorry. I didn't have time to ask, but, you know, keep the conversation going on Twitter if you fancy it. And I'm going to hand over to Gemma and Mark now, who are going to do the wizardry thing and get everyone into the networking session. But that's that's it from me. So thank you very, very much for joining us. And I hope everyone stays safe as the pandemic progresses.