 Third perspective comes from Heather Leesaw and Steve McGeckin from the Australian Data Archive. We're the Australian Data Archive which is a social science research data archive and our mission is to be a national service for the collection and preservation of digital research data and to make these available to academics, government and other researchers. We hold about 5,000 data sets in over 1,500 studies of all areas of social science from social attitudes, surveys, censuses, aggregate statistics, administrative data and many other sources, both qualitative and quantitative. Our data holdings are sourced from academics, government and private sector. So we undertook the process with ANS as part of the trusted repositories. We originally started under the data seal of approval before they had actually combined fully with the World Data Service, our systems. So originally we were the DSA and then we became the DSA WDS. When we found out that they were moving to the core trust seal, we delayed our implementation of which guidelines to take. We officially started the DSA WDS in March of 2017 and submitted our application in April of 2017. We were due to have a review from our reviewers in May but it didn't actually arrive until August. Then we made our corrections to this. We sent it back in and then we got another aspect of corrections, did the other round of corrections and submitted and finalized in February of 2018. So slightly less than a year's length of process but we are a core trust seal repository now. We did use the November 2016 DSA WDS guidelines which weren't as detailed as what is given in the core trust seal and there were no people to look at for reference as in Mikayla had said she looked at others for reference. There was no one to look at for reference for this new core trust seal. So we flew from what people had done in the DSA WDS and flew blind for a bit. So when we went through the process which was a very useful process for self-assessment, we identified four of the guidelines which we set at a level three which is the implementation phase of process which were data integrity and authenticity, the guideline 10 which was preservation and planning, guideline 15 which was technical infrastructure and guideline 16. Later in assessment with one of our reviewers we also changed guideline nine which is documented storage down to a level three. Everything else we had set at a level four for our repository. Our repository has been around for about 35 years coming up on 40 years so we do have quite a few procedures in place. So some of the challenges that we found doing the core trust seal process. When we initially undertook it there was no recommendation of what a minimum requirement would be for any of the guidelines so we didn't know if we set it at a three if that meant we wouldn't be able to get a core trust seal or not or if it's if you set it at a one can you still get a core trust seal. There doesn't seem to be a minimum requirement that we have ever found. The extended guidelines do detail things a little bit better nowadays for those who are undertaking it in the future and we weren't sure if you had to respond to every aspect of all of the sub-questions in a guideline or just to the overall arching guideline. We also found that there was a complex interplay between the relevant documents required for a guideline and those for other guidelines so that one document may respond to up to four different guidelines or it may respond to only one guideline. And also we found it difficult for providing evidence from documents which were not in the public domain. Like the other two we had to go through our own websites and find out what we did have forward facing, what we had internally facing and which aspects of those we feel we can now put into an outward facing website or wiki page. There should be all aspects should be outward facing but if things have to be inward facing there seems to be some basis that the court trust seal can deal with that. The assessors did not indicate in our original guidelines that you had to have a timeline for things that were in process. The new guidelines do state that you have to list a guideline of when you plan to have your implementation in place by. So we had to add that in our final version of when we planned to have these items forward facing and our new website up and running and we had to come up. We had no idea when we originally started the process what the process entailed and what time frames it was going to take. We were unclear if it was going to take a few months or a year. It ended up taking us a year but the court trust seal does seem to be coming along as an organization much better so the timeline should move a bit quicker now. So from our experience we found that doing as Mikayla and Andrea had done going through and finding out what is in the public domain already and what can safely be put into the public domain is a good first step for any repository undertaking the court trust seal and how to cite the items which are out of public domain in the private elements is still an area of question which the court trust seal is dealing with. We also would like to know how to deal with items that are out of our direct control such as funding models, infrastructure and governance being a part of a larger university or as CSIRO part of a governmental body and Andrew being parts of multiple institutions. How do you fit into their governance models? How do you fit into the infrastructure and how is this relayed to the court trust seal with these complexities? Also the risk management section of the court trust seal we found a bit difficult because they kept referencing almost ISO standard requirements and to undertake an ISO standard for a risk assessment to do a base court trust seal seemed a bit overkill for us so finding some risk management standards that are free and in the public domain would be very useful and we've actually answered the final one which is the guidelines are freely available for self-assessment without paying to obtain the seal you can just undertake the court trust seal as a self-assessment for your repository so you can define what your repository is, where your boundaries are and undertake the assessment. So in the Australian context these aren't necessarily only in the Australian context we did find that they relate to other repositories worldwide but the complexity of how institutions and repositories, one institution may encompass multiple repositories or one repository may encompass multiple institutions and how this affects your governance, your funding, your security and all of those aspects as well as things that are in the national framework so things that are involved in our national roadmaps, how these play into the court trust seal and how they're also out of the control of the individual repositories. Infrastructure frameworks, infrastructure that is provided by your host institution and the government frameworks of host institutions which are not easily explainable in a court trust seal. So these are not necessarily as I said Australian specific but more to the repository sector because the repository sector is a very varied sector with multiple institutions, multiple repositories playing different roles.