 Well thank you Cheryl, that was a great summary and I'm so pleased to welcome the forum actually to the Bay Area. I'm not sure if people here know, but the forum has recently started an office in the Presidio as I understand it. And maybe you can talk a little bit about what that means for people in this audience in the Bay Area. Yeah, absolutely. So the forum is based in Geneva, Switzerland, that's where it started 50 years ago. But we recently, 18 months ago, opened an office in the Presidio. We actually sit up at the top of the Presidio and we have a couple of buildings up there recognizing that as technologies of blockchain precision medicine, AI are moving forward very, very fast, having policy frameworks that can be adopted globally becomes really critical if we're going to talk about a future that actually envisions the better outcomes and helps more people to get there faster. And so we've hired teams of experts in technology and policy there. We have governments from around the world succumbing in people too. So Japan, Rwanda, Mexico, China have people coming in and they're actually working on well what would be the framework that you should think about to have performance based drone standards. How and why should a country think about having drone policy? And so we put out a policy framework last fall on drone use. It was actually adopted for the first time in January by Rwanda, which you might think that's kind of weird why Rwanda of all countries, but they were actually leading in the world in drone use because they partnered with a Silicon Valley startup called Zipline. And Zipline's business model was that they could deliver blood and vaccines to the hospitals of Rwanda in 15 minutes versus five hours by truck. And so that doctors literally today can use their iPad to say I need two units of this kind of blood and order it. This drone shoots off. It's like a little catapult. It goes flying off. The doctor gets a two minute warning, goes outside and out parachutes this little package. Looks like a little fast food takeout container, kind of gross, sorry, with their blood in it and off they go. But they do deliver 80% of their blood. And so Rwanda had a really good reason to want drone specs because they had to declare the drones to be commercial airlines beforehand because that was all the rules they had. And so they stepped in and said this is really good for our country. And so we want to have frameworks that work. So it was really nice to have a good test case and a good model for a startup that is a business model that provides such social good. So we're working on other things, Internet of Things safety. What are the minimum standards that should be on Internet of Things devices so that the insurance sector will insure them? So that was the conversation we chose to have. Let's bring the device manufacturers and the technologists together with the insurance industry and talk about what does this look like? And just like you have UL standards, you know what that means if you're going to plug in a device, how do we start that way? So that's the type of thing that's going on there. If you're interested in it, you can sign up. They have talking about ethics of technology. They have specific work streams. If you're in a business, and certainly Stanford too is part of our network to be able to be involved up there. But really, really interesting, vibrant place. The president of Germany was there yesterday with a big entourage of startups to really look at and think about how do these policies have impact on them. So yeah, it's exciting. That's great. You talked a lot about these public-private partnerships, and I just wondered kind of what's easy about setting them up and what's hard? Everything about them is hard. You know, it's going from awareness to action, right? When everybody knows we want to do it, everybody sits in a room to say we should do it, and then it's like, okay, well, how are we going to do it, and what's the right path? But once you get a commitment from a senior level people in a number, like a government either a head of state or a minister, that we really want to make this happen, and they can sincerely look at members of industry or NGOs in the eyes and say we want to make this conversations happen, everything falls into place. And so it becomes about commitment. And I get a lot of questions about in the fourth industrial revolution and digitization of everything, are we going to ever need to have meetings? Will Davos go away? It's six feet of snow this year. I was kind of wishing we didn't have to actually do that in that environment. But I think that there is a moment at which you trust someone or you don't. In the minute you trust them and you've committed to something, the rest of your organization lines up behind that to actually make it happen. It's still hard work. And that's where I think the forum comes in after that initial commitment to be like, okay, well, what do we know are the sticking points? How do we pre-sell, prepackage some of the language around, well, what do we mean in some of these spaces? Where are there examples where others have actually overcome these things? So what are some proof points? Why should we believe that it's going to happen? How is it worth our time? And it often just takes planning that it's going to be multiple meetings. It might be subgroups after this happens, but it's all about people. It's really not about the knowledge going in. I think everybody intellectually gets the ideas. It's really about language communication, trust, legacy, putting on the table that things have happened in the past. It didn't go so well. And that we need to actually come back again. We have a new mandate and then others endorsing those things, I think, is also really critical. I'm going to ask one more question, but I also want to have people in the audience get their chance at asking questions. So think of them. And I guess my closing question will be just few people have as international perspective as you do on energy and innovation. And I'm wondering what some of the lessons from other countries are that you might want to share with folks here. Yeah, I think probably one of the biggest ones to share is that other countries need to think about working together more because they are often smaller markets than the US. And so because they're driven by economic development, they can often at least have conversations about what it would take to come together. And I do think that sometimes when we get into big places with critical mass, we forget that there may be others that can be crowded along. And so I do think sometimes there's this awareness of other that we can lose track of when we're in a busy market and there's a lot of day to day very positive things going on that there may be more there that we can bring more conversation to. And I do think I'm seeing more and more that ideas are everywhere. Innovation, I mean, we used to believe that very strongly at RPE. We funded in almost every one of the states in the United States. So innovation was everywhere. It can come from everywhere. And I think being able to figure out how do you access solutions that may have an international component is also something to consider. It's not easy. International teams are a challenge. I'm sure people here have faced that. But it is it is really a critical piece. One of the things I'm looking at with this Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship is how do we help people understand where certain global challenges sit so that they as startups can crowd into those spaces? And I think that way, you know, I was talking to a woman in the UK the other day, she's working on solar solar diesel. She's like, Well, who else in the world is working on this? Because I would love to know, where's my technology compared to others? Could I partner differently? Is there a way of thinking about moving my company forward with others in different countries versus me trying to go in and set up a business in every country? And so I think that that's also how to look at partnership and extension beyond beyond borders. Yeah, really good. Thank you. Do you have any questions from the audience? We've got people with mics and it looks like you're gonna have to say who you are because I can't see you over there. I like your idea of packaging. And I was also interested in the fact that with palm oil, it was a global perspective, but it really took the acquirers, the purchasers of the product to really come in line with the goal of making palm oil sustainable. So with that said, and what you've just said about how to get a small business in one part of the world to connect with other opportunities, how do you package these in a way that is favorable for the end consumer? And the end consumer can be an industry like the healthcare industry or it could be the auto manufacturing industry. You're packaging solutions that are sustainable. I know entities try to do that internally as best they can, but it's also nice to have packages of solutions that are available. And sometimes it's nice to have what are called performance guarantees or energy savings contracts that are tied to those packaged solutions. So what's your perspective on that and how have you seen that implemented successfully? On bringing together total solutions for the end users. Well, a number of ways, I think there's certainly appetite today among large companies to bring alongside innovative technologies as part of their total solutions. So we see it in some of the ways that storage and batteries are coming together and new types of inverter systems as total solutions. To come together as a single startup with a bunch of other startups to have a total solution, I do think you have to look at, okay, what kind of performance do we have to show? How is that valid globally? And that's where I do think some of the global associations in some of energy areas, some of these conversations that are coming together with some of the mission innovation alignment is a good place to have a conversation. What do we need to show that's going to be valid to governments around the world? But I do think alongside some of the bigger players gives you access to market that you may not have the bandwidth to really understand all the subtleties of working in some of those markets. Are you going to manufacture here and sell there? Are you going to set up offices there? There's different levels of bureaucracy depending on what you're trying to do. Again, from a startup's perspective, one of the things we're looking at is, would it be valuable to help share the efficiency of starting your business in other countries, both from getting in ease of permits? There's been a lot of work done on that in certain countries and others not. So I think helping startups understand what's it going to mean to move into other companies. So I know that's not a how to get it into the market, but actually how to set up business in certain places that also comes into it. But depending on what area you're talking about, happy to make some suggestions on international folks to talk to about bringing those together. Cheryl, this is Vinit Parma with ExxonMobil. The question I have is innovation and open systems thinking in the energy industry. This industry has been very niche and proprietary, but to take it to the next level, we have to be a lot more open. What's the framework? Where's the discussion? Because the providers are extremely niche. Yeah, I think that is one of the big questions. I think the place I'm seeing it most right now is in the conversation starting to happen, like I'm assuming of interest to ExxonMobil, in the material space. I think that people are recognizing that we need faster evolution of our materials understanding. I think our legacy of testing and the protocols and the timing it would take to get products to the markets way too slow, and so we have to figure out how are we going to accelerate the cycles of learning and the cycles of acceptance into larger scale industry. And so I think this particular partnership, I know that there's academics and industry players in these conversations, including some of your peers, in those spaces. I think that is an awesome place for this one to go forward. So the material space, particularly for me as a chemist, I'm only slightly biased, but is great. And so I'm happy to put you in touch with the folks from Berkeley and Sofar to have you get a view of what's going on there. But it is to me road mapping from industry, so pre-competitive shared road mapping, and then partnering to say, well, what are some of these partnerships among academic and testing labs able to do to move things forward? Good morning. I'm Melissa McKeith. First, I just want to say congratulations 30 years ago. And I started practicing international law. You wouldn't have seen two women running the world. So that's encouraging. But a lot of what you talked about this morning was stating the obvious, which is people don't communicate. They don't understand the aspects of other disciplines and that there is a lack of mechanisms in place to convene real dialogue to solve problems. And we can look at our own government right now to highlight that. So what you have been discussing this morning is so encouraging because in the absence of having those mechanisms in place, everybody flounders in their own little world and we don't solve problems. And so my question is beyond just energy, more structurally, are you seeing any changes in education, in business, in government that would begin to support thinking, critical thinking, and the kind of dialogue, respectful discourse that's necessary to solve not only the energy market issues, but so many of the other public policy issues that we face in the world. And then finally, I did mining in Chile in the early 90s and I'm glad that people are finally talking. Yeah. No, it's important. So yeah, it's super obvious. That's why it's hard. I think to actually get us to figure out what can be different. I really am encouraged that by framing the problem in a way that everybody can get on board that we want the change to happen. So we want the outcome. And then acknowledging that we're not all in the same place to start with is the first piece to Barbara's question of getting on board and moving through those three phases of impact. It's like I said, you could trivialize the first one of agreeing that there's a problem, but it's the fundamental to getting anybody to agree to action. And so I honestly think that in our day to day, we could have conversations that are about that. Sometimes those conversations have to take place because of the legacy or the sensitivity or the worry about being on Twitter in five minutes and you can never take back that first opening position. Even if you've learned something and changed your mind is something that we really have to actively acknowledge that there are conversations when I need to actually absorb a lot of stuff and learn and I may actually change my mind and be able to adjust my position. How do I make it safe for all of us at all different levels of organizations to actually learn and change again without it having to be something that is about I was wrong before? Why is it always about if I've changed that I was wrong or it's always a head to head combat versus we're really trying to learn? And so are we setting up conversations? I mean, even at something like this where mostly we agree, we have a lot of really interesting debate formats, but do we ever have the quiet conversation where we say, hey, we are going to bring together a multi-stakeholder conversation about something that is still a problem in order to move forward here? Do we have it in our classrooms when we talk about how do we learn? So I think there's all kinds of opportunities but each of us has to take it. I think we have to take it on ourselves and actually look at who are we with day to day? Where do we have the opportunity to acknowledge that conversation where we don't necessarily understand or agree up front with what appears to be their position? And I don't know, at least for me admitting that I don't know what's going on in everyone else's head, actively saying that actually makes people relax a bit. It's like I really don't, I don't know what's in your head. I don't. And so let's talk about this problem is a key piece. And you know, and I think it does sound obvious, but I think we actually have to pick it up one by one. And I think that's for me, the fact that the CEOs I do see, so two years ago at Davos, I felt the dynamic in Davos was tense. There was a lot of populism, all the votes had gone in different directions, everybody was worried about things and everybody was super tense. It's not like the past year was like easy and rosy, but this year at Davos it was intense. And I felt among the business community that they were ready to pick up the rock and help move it forward. And that to me is very uplifting, that if businesses feel like they need to be more open, more vulnerable, more about let's find solutions, let's come together in these supply chain discussions, then that's really hopeful. And I think that each of us needs to look at how do we help, how do we help with that? And I don't know, I think that's the call to action is how do we embrace that each of us in our organizations and urging others to do that as well. Well, I always like to end with a call to action comment. So I think we've reached the end of our time. And Jim, did you want to make a couple other notes before we wrap up? No, thank you.