 Good afternoon everyone, so now I must cope with not only with this presentation, but with Yano's standard, Yani's standard and also the video, and I'm between you and the coffee break, so I try to do my best. I will start, I will talk today mainly or only about one of the components of the OpenAir project. Yani's already mentioned that we have three main components, so I will talk mainly about the human component, the human network of OpenAir. And at the beginning, like on the book of the books, at the beginning, there were 38 partners from 27 very diverse European countries, culturally on traditions, on languages, etc., and also very different on open access activity levels and traditions. So, and that's why also OpenAir is really a European project, because we, I think we made a strength out of this challenge of getting all these people together, and this is a photo of the kickoff meeting of OpenAir in Athens, all these people together, as written on our description of work, to deliver an electronic infrastructure that will help European Commission to implement its policies. But I think we can say it in a much probably better way. We were there, we got together in Athens to really to create this open knowledge infrastructure for Europe. And we did this through this participatory design, so through networking. So, one of the main components of the OpenAir project since the beginning was this building of support structures and tools that will facilitate the collection and deposition of FP7 content, funded content in the OpenAir infrastructure. As the time goes by, and also Yanis already mentioned, our scope and our ambition is getting bigger. But this is, this was our original vision, and we, the strategy was to do that, mainly through two tools, one, or two strategies. One was to create an European help desk system, and I will talk a little bit about it. And the other one is also to liaise with all the open access activities that were already going on in Europe, as I mentioned, with different levels of activities, with different strategies, or with different actors. But when we started in most European countries, there are already some level of open access activity. So, we have to face since the beginning some challenges, and I probably can sum up those in two main points. One is to bring together very different stakeholders, so research institutions, researchers, research administrator, libraries, repository managers, open access journal publishers, etc., etc. And also, from, they are not diverse on their views and on their perspective, but also from, there is a big diversity also on language, on geographical, cultural language, and also, of course, disciplinary point of view. So, we have really a very diverse landscape that we aim to, in a way, to unify and to get together for promoting this vision for open science. So, and the strategy, as Yanis also mentioned, was to create a network structure that covers all the European member states. And again, this was the beginning of open access. So, now we go beyond this on open air plus, our repository, our network, our human network is bigger than this one. And we also, for coordination purposes, we, and to avoid some other political problems, we just divided in North, South, East and West. And for each of these regions, there is a member of the coordination team that works together and closely with the national open access desks at the country level. So, in each country, so on the 27 countries, which we establish a national open access desk, there are very, also very different types of organization. In most cases, there will be universities, but there are also other types of organizations. For instance, we have also funders and other types of organizations. And also, with very different involvement and activities on open access. But most of them, and that's a very important point, their connection to open access and to the local reality was already very strong before open air. So, we are not only connecting the 27 countries, or the 27 participating countries to open air, we are really connecting open air with the open access activities that are going on, on those countries. And one of the main results of this network is an help desk system that is available for anyone in Europe to use. On these years, we have collected a relevant number of questions already. I'm just showing the origin of those questions. So, again, we have a big diversity on the origin of the questions that are inserted on the help desk. And also, the help desk addresses several, the several stakeholders. So, we have one of the main stakeholders that use the help desk during this period was repository managers. But if we look more closely to the questions that were initially classified as general questions, they are really probably distributed by several other categories. And mainly, they should be classified as research general questions because most of those questions come really from researchers. And not only we have this tool that is the help desk system, but we have developed different information resources that are collected in the open air portal. And they have proven to be very useful. So, we have national information pages for each European country. We have specific pages aimed at different stakeholders to researchers, repository managers, et cetera. We have FAQs, and we have several guides or toolkits for the know-hats, for researchers, for research institutions, et cetera. And if we look at the usage of those resources, we are now, we are here speaking of more than 10,000 views of all of these, of each of these FAQs. And so, copyrights and questions of license to publish comes I here. But then, and it's very interesting to see that the FAQs that are more used afterwards are really very basic questions about what open access and repositories are about. And also related with the guides, we have also a big volume of usage, especially from the guide for researchers and the guide for repository managers. And during the project, one of the very important things that we have made is that we need to share experience and knowledge. We need to make sure that every know-hout in each country has the capacity to reply and to promote open air at local level. So we have used every opportunity, not only we do regular Skype or video conferencing meetings, but we have used every opportunity to get together. And this last picture is from our last meeting just yesterday where we have discussed the current situation and also the future perspectives on open air and open air plus. Another very important area is this area of not only supporting researchers, but also repositories and repository managers. And to make research's life easier so that by depositing in one of repository, they are immediately complying with requirements from DC. So we have to make this activity mainly in three ways by developing guidelines for content providers, by promoting information and training. And we have done several training sessions also in face-to-face and by webinars and other remote training strategies and also by developing tools. So the guidelines that we have developed were intended to be very lightweight guidelines, so very lightweight requirements not to impose a huge amount of work on repository managers. And because of that, we needed to build them as supplementary and built upon the driver guidelines that already existed instead of starting to create from scratch another set of guidelines. The first version of the guidelines was available on July 2010 and just about a couple of weeks ago or three weeks ago, the new version, the version 2.0 was released. And on this version, and I think this is also important to mention, I think Yan is already touched that point, we are not longer only supporting individual data providers, but now we are supporting aggregators. So, for instance, we are looking forward to see some countries that have still a kind of low level of open-air compliant repositories to reach very quickly a high level, because they will do it not at the individual repository, on each individual repository, but at the level of national portals. And on this guidelines, we also wanted to address this need to, and this is a need that now is even more important with the policy that was announced in July, this need to make the efforts convergent between what are the efforts at the European level and also at national levels. So, we want to create a generic way to describe project information and founder information. So, by using a solution that can be used not only for describing European-funded projects, but projects founded by any founder in Europe. So, the same requirements will apply for repository managers. We will have to use the same approach to comply with the EC policy, but also with local national policies. And this is also a very important point. And finally, we have developed add-ons for the most common repository platforms. So, there are add-ons for this space and E-prints. And it's a pleasure to announce that on E-prints 3.0, that will be released soon in December. Open-air compliance is built-in in the code. So, there will be no need for an add-on. So, this space version will be born open-air compliant. And I think that's an important achievement, too. And there is a picture out of the place, I think. Regarding dissemination and outreach, we have also done a lot of dissemination and outreach. That's one of the major tasks of the know-ads in each country and also the European the coordination team. So, we have made on the last couple of years, we have made more than 200 presentations of open-air. And we have contacted more than 2,000 projects. I must admit that the reply rate is not so high as we would expect. So, we just got probably a reply rate of around 20% from projects. But we have contacted more than 2,000 projects. And from the presentations, if we look at it from both a regional and a stakeholder perspective, you will see that across all regions, the stakeholders that were approached more frequently were researchers and repository managers. And I think that's a right strategy. But, of course, it is also very important that we have addressed policymaker and research administrators, because they are also very important stakeholders for our success. But during this period, we also encounter problems on getting all this together. And the main problems is that the policy, as we knew it until now, was really a weak mandate, because there was no carrots and no sticks. So, you need at least one. Probably, you need both. But for sure, you need at least one. And the FP7 pilot was really lacking one or another. And so, we have already good news that the default for Horizon 2020 will be different. And I think it is very important that compliance mechanisms are built into the details of the policy, and so that the carrots and the sticks are built into the details of the policy. And we have another problem that some of those problems were problems that were very important at the beginning of the project, and things begin to change and to get better as time went on. So, for instance, Yanis just mentioned that we are probably the only project that has access to some European commission databases, but that was not the case for a long time. So, we have lots of problems, for instance, to know which projects were at the special clause 39, which was the universe that we should address to. So, there was a lack of information from EC. There was also kind of a low awareness, especially at the beginning of end involvement from both project officers, project coordinator, and also researchers. And because this is or should be kind of a cascade, so that the information about open air and special clause 39 should flow from the project officers through the researchers. And it was not always the case. And also, in some countries, we have a low or slow involvement of the repository community. And in some others, we have this approach to solve not by each individual repository, but at national level. But despite these problems, I think we have very good results and very good results in three dimensions. So, on implementing the EC and RC policies on the overall open access situation in Europe and also the open air network per se. So, as also Yan is already presented, we have now collected more than 40,000 FP7 reference to FP7 publications. From those, about 4,000 come from institution repositories, about a little bit less than 400 from open access journals. Around 8,000 from subject and disciplinary repositories and almost 1,000 were claimed in the portal. And we have seen, especially on this last point, on claiming in the portal. I think in all the other sets, but especially on this last point, we have seen a significant increase in the last month or so. Regarding repositories, this is a picture that tries to represent because I think the absolute numbers are not so important here, but tries to represent the percentage of open air compatible repositories by country. And this is compared with open door database. And this is not a good comparison because not all open door registered repositories are meant to be open air compliant. So, I have another picture that compares open air compatible repositories with driver repositories. And that's probably not also a complete, the most accurate picture because probably there are some repositories that should be open air or could be open air compliant that are not yet registered on driver. So, the truth probably is in the middle of these two slides. But as you can see, as the bluer ones are the countries that are already, that have already a very high. And we have already some 100% or close to another percent countries. And we have some low countries. But again, as I already mentioned, some of the lower countries are countries that will become probably almost 100% compliant from the day to the night because they will be at the national level. Regarding open access in Europe, of course, not all this was because of open air or only because of open air. But I think we can claim and rightfully claim an important part on these results. On the growing number of repositories and of course on open air compliant repositories in Europe. On the growing number of institutional and national open access initiatives and policy. And I think this is a clear effect and not only because the commissioner said that she was a firm believer on open access. I think the number of firm believers of open access has really been increasing in Europe and elsewhere. But I think open air has given an important contribution to this. And finally, I think one of the very good results from this project is really our network. It's a network that shares a common vision, this common vision of opening science in Europe. And a network that shares experience, expertise, information and support at a truly European scale. So involving each and every European country and now from the member states of EU and now beyond on this common vision of opening science to Europe. So I think in conclusion, and I think this probably sums up well the spirit of open air that is the same spirit of the inventors of the web and is the same spirit of the people like Jean-Claude get together in Budapest and dream in connecting the world in a common intellectual dialogue and all this is possible because we joined the dots because network is our power. Thank you.