 So generally, when you run workshops, there's often a feeling of, particularly once about urgent problems, there's a feeling of, at least for me, of getting depressed at the end of it because you've managed to have an extensive summary by brilliant people over the course of a day of all of the problems that need to be resolved and careful and painstaking analysis of all of the things that stand in the way of any solution. I have to say, in this particular set of discussions, I don't feel that way. Carl is somebody who, as Andrew noted, has made a career out of doing things in 60 days or three months that people said might happen in 10 years and listening to some of their remarkable progress that Erica and her collaborators had done, I did like the way of tricking people into starting the inventory of legal materials. It reminded me of the way that the British used to recruit people for the Navy. You know, here's a pint of beer, oh, there's a shelling at the bottom, you know, that means you've just joined for 20 years, hence British tankards where actually had glass bottoms that you could check to make sure that you weren't being conscripted. But I digress. So we've had some very positive examples in front of us and listening particularly to David Ferriero, who I'm prouder than ever to call a colleague, actually sketching out a vision of the archives of the United States in a way that implied that archives would not actually be closed off to everybody. I'm sorry, Erica, you should come down and join us, we need everybody for our final session. We've got extra chairs, here we go. So, this is just going to be informal, I was offering Jennifer a seat, I was saying. This is called all the U-Stream for unbelievably clumsy. How many law professors is it to get a microphone? Okay, so as I was saying, listening to what is being done, what Andrew and his colleagues are doing, what David's doing, what Carl's already done, what Erica's been doing, strikes me as very positive, certainly working with Dick here at Duke, I've seen some of the things that have already been done, like Dick's approach towards creating an open archive, which was delightfully devious. So I feel positive about this, and I think that Carl's already sketched out some very concrete steps forward. The reason that I always put in half-hour sessions at the end of my conferences to talk about what needs to be done is that the speakers are frequently not sufficiently concrete about how to deal with the problems, but I think that's not been an issue today. So what I'd like to do is maybe just go around each of our presenters and ask them to speak for just a few minutes about if you had your dream of the top one or at most two things that you would like to happen next in the particular thing that you spoke about, whether or not it is law.gov, whether or not it's the National Inventory of Legal Materials, whether or not it is educating the public, legislators and the judiciary about copyrightability of legal materials, opening government data to the public or the attempts to buy librarians and others to open up access to primary and secondary legal materials, what would be your dream set of one or two things that need to happen next? So, Carl, can I start with you? Well, Professor Boyle once said that in a successful project the people go away and the ideas remain as in creative commons, and I think what needs to happen on law.gov is the core idea, needs to be out there, that if it's a law it needs to be available, and there's a lot of subtleties to that available in bulk available, authenticated available at different levels of government, but I am convinced that this is only going to happen in this $10 billion per year industry that's grown up over a hundred years in this situation where states feel ownership over the law rather than custodianship, it's only going to happen if there's national leadership, and so if you ask me what the one or two things that I'd like to see happen, I would like to see the executive branch convene, you know, if not the general councils of the agencies in the executive branch, if perhaps even going a bit broader, I certainly would like to see the judicial conference take official notice of the kinds of things we've been hearing from people all over the country and for the Congress to do the same, and so if you ask me what I'd like to see, I'd like to see congressional hearings, I'd like to see an official briefing to the judicial conference and the administrative office of the courts, and the same thing to the executive branch, which I believe means the White House, and so official listening as opposed to official decisions, we're going to do something, but a willingness to say there's been this process going on and now we, the policymakers who might actually make it happen, want to hear from people like Professor Boyle and Erica Wayne and others all across the country that have been studying the issue, and have not only horror stories, but success stories of what happens when it really works and why that's so important, and I think that's really the next step is to see whether we can literally throw this over the wall and let the folks that are in the position of making the policy take over these basic ideas and have it be theirs. I guess two things, what I mentioned that we use lot of gov is an advanced legal research assignment for the students, I think it's actually taking to that next level, anyone here who teaches legal research, whether it's one-on-one at the reference desk or to law students generally, I think these concepts belong every bit as much in their curriculum as teaching how to jeopardize or how to find a case, because I think the young lawyers of the group that actually might make changes that really stick and keep them going, so I think it's really important that we make them aware of these things, and the second thing is I know a lot of law librarians, I know, get very outraged or disgruntled about what big publishers do on a routine basis, Donna's nodding her head, if we could just channel some of that outrage into getting the inventory going and being on top of these issues, so instead of being the angry recipient being more proactive that would be great, I think it would be good for the profession too, so. Jennifer? A single broad sweeping legislative solution would be wonderful, perhaps that's too polyana-ish even for me, so that was the one thing, but on a more realistic level, I guess I would like to, in terms of states asserting copyright over their statutes, opinions, regulations, ordinances, a sort of reorientation of attitudes where they see themselves as allies with groups like this in the movement to free things and not only not just looking at the cost out of the equation and their existing relationships with publishers and things that actually exist, but actually looking at the potential of opening their laws and seeing themselves as sort of, you know, shared players with the other movements in opening their laws to the public, so. Dick, June, back towards the center. Well, I guess I have some, I have questions more than I have. I could tell you my dreams, but that would go on and probably would drive many people out of the room. But I guess as long as I've been, you know, looking at law.gov and which was well before we started preparing for this workshop, I still, what I'd like to hear is what Carl may have to say about once we get beyond the conceptual stage and start thinking about implementation. You know, as Jamie has mentioned and most of you know here at Duke, we've published our journals on our own website since the late 1990, you never agree on the date, but they're sitting on a server somewhere here in this law school. We have a faculty scholarship repository, which has about 1,800 papers by our faculty in it, which used to sit on a server here and now sit somewhere out in Berkeley and it's stored in a mountain somewhere in California. So, you know, those things aren't really tangible in some ways, but they also are pieces of equipment which this stuff is held. And I have trouble having a sense of what is law.gov going to look like. Once you get through this process, is there going to be a big server sitting at Berkeley somewhere, is there going to be distributed repositories around the country? How are the states, the federal government, all the entities that make law going to be made to deposit authenticated copies of the law in that repository so that normal people can get to use it and so that the people who are going to add value to it and create products can get to it as well? I mean, I know you don't have the answers to that, but I'd like some sense of where you think that's going to go. Let me give you a brief answer, though, because that's actually something I thought about a lot. And I've got a lot of ideas on how one would architect a distributed repository down to the level of which encryption algorithms and authentication mechanisms, which protocols one might use. And in fact, at the Cornell workshop, for example, we did a very, very deep dive into what exactly does a document IP look like and metadata. But we made an explicit design decision, which is that the basic principle that the law must be available is really the key obstacle that needs to be gotten over. And once we're over that, I'll be frank, if the judges simply wanted to put WordPerfect files up for an email gateway, and that's the only way I could get them, I wasn't dreaming of that. Let's start. If that's the best they're willing to give us, at least the data would be there. And then somebody like Tim Stanley at Justia would take that, and he'd authenticate them on behalf of the government. And it wouldn't be what we'd want, but it would be getting there. And so there was an explicit decision to stay out of some of the areas where there might be lots and lots of controversy over. Should a vendor build the system? Should it meet these federal security requirements? Should it be? Here's the big food fight. So let's say you want a registry and repository of the law for the federal government, right? Obviously the states are going to have different ones. Who's going to run it? Is it the administrative office of the courts? Is it the government printing office? Is it the national archives office of the federal register? Is it a distributed system? And if so, is there a committee that establishes the metadata standards? And those seem to be issues that, while I have many opinions and many others do, I wasn't sure we'd get an agreement on that level of architecture, whereas I did think we might get an agreement on the issue of eight states asserting copyright over their state statutes is not a good thing. And so that's a reason we're up at the high and fuzzy 50,000 foot level because we're aiming at the president and the chief justice. And I don't think they want to hear a discussion of MD5 versus shot one. They do want to know, however, that we thought about those issues. And so there has been an intensive process of going through an examination. And in the final report, there will be a section describing authentication. And for example, Vince Surf is leading an effort to define, could one make a registry in a repository based on open source software, right? So that any state could download the software and run a registry. And so we're doing a workshop that looks at, how is DOD handling this problem? How has Red Hat been handling open source specification issues and trying to at least bring some of those things into the process. Andrew. So my biggest worry that you have in open Goblin is that you'll build it and no one will come. That you'll get all this data up and it'll just, nothing will happen. So my pitch on this are some of my requests to the research community in particular is don't become my parents with the VCR with regard to data. In other words, become data jockeys. Like learn how to use data, deal with data, mash it up, make it part of your lives. Don't be scared by data. A lot of people think that data means, scary file formats you've never encountered before, hard to use tools. You might have gone to school on stats analysis platforms that were much harder to use than possible. There are lots of great tools out there and one of the things that I love the research community to do is to really take ownership of learning how to handle, manipulate, deal with, visualize, mash up data because that kind of embrace is part of this two-sided equation that we've got to come up with in order to make the Open Goblin Project really meaningful. Plus it's really cool and awesome to be able to do the kinds of mash ups that we're talking about now. And because of all the things that I mentioned earlier thanks to Moore's Law, it's super cheap and super easy and very doable for anybody that's got a mind to do it. For myself, I would say it's watching projects like this being involved with projects like Creative Commons, Science Commons, watching Carl's work, watching the kinds of things that people at Google did in their more sort of publicly oriented projects that looking at the things that can be done within open government. I've actually been struck by the extent to which individuals can make an enormous difference on these issues, particularly ones where no one's sitting saying, I think it's great that legal materials are locked up. I think it's great that nobody knows how many bicycle fatalities there were. There isn't a community out there. I mean, there might be communities who benefit from the current architecture but no one's going, oh, it's fabulous. It's just the best thing ever. There's a surprising number of things like that in the world where the power of individuals with ideas has actually sort of stunned me and being involved with those movements with those individuals. This actually gives me a great deal of optimism about that. And on that note, the other thing that I hope for is that you join us outside for a reception. So thank you so much. This has been a great conference. Random applause for the participants.