I'm happy to have seen this morning a panel of experts who seem to agree on issues, which is quite extraordinary, I think, having realized what it's doing on all the stuff. I would very much appreciate it if we can have a lively session. Everything seems to be arranged, but I'm sure there will be many questions if we start hooking at the details for the topics that have been brought to the table this morning. I will give the floor to anyone with a question to one of these picnic experts presented this morning. You see more and more journals that not only publish your publication, but also the data sets that are linked to that, or really the original data set. In Belgium, in our universities like that, the data set is owned by the university because research results are owned by the university while the copyright of the article that is owned by your firm. So how do they have to handle this when they give their rights to the publisher? Then you have the data that they are not owner of. How do they have to do that? And how do publishers have to deal with that? It's quite complex. Can everyone understand the question? Anyone want to see it? I ask you. They're all you. I don't know. Is there a second model called? Yes. Of course the question is to the data is the same as we discussed this morning. First I have to think who is the owner of the data separately from the article we wrote. The question is data copyright protected or protected by the general's wide. If it's copyright protected, which is rather rarely the case, would be the one who collected the data, put the effort into collecting the data in a clear way. If it's protected by database, what is more likely than the question turns out who is the owner of this database wide in the data. Just presuming that data you collected were put into a database. There's different things to think about. First was the producer, the owner of the database wide is the one who took the risks in investment. So it could be the university, the university who paid for this effort. It could be the party funding institution who paid for it. It could be co-producers, co-owners of this rights. If it's like this that they are the owner of this database wide, then they would have to run this wide also be publisher. There's another notion we have to think about. The effort of collecting the data or retrieving the data from somewhere as such is not sufficiently constituted database wide, but only efforts would really go directly into the collection of data for putting it into the database. Anything before that, like for example, I talked about the collection for weather forecast data, meteorological data, very difficult for that. All the efforts you put into collecting this data is not relevant for the database wide, but only as soon as you start collecting directly for the database and putting it into the database becomes relevant. So there's a good chance that the data is free to collect great. It all depends on which kind of data you have and at which stage of data collection you are. Whether they have to be producible at some point. Well, yeah, I'd like to pursue the thinking further. Assume two assumptions. Other, the data is not protected, but the university owns the visit. I mean, they have it. If I summarize your question is that you have two different entities who want to license one thing under hopefully one license. So you have one author and one institution. How to go about this? Question back to you. Does the university of Kent have an own access policy that either the institution or the author have to live by? There might be agreements to be reached between the author and the institution to license both their individual outputs under the same terms, even if the owners are different. I don't think that is the case. If you do have an open access policy for publications, you are still working on policies on data. So what would that be the best way to make sure that they are really good harmonized? Well, apply the 4.0. But also make sure that the university also has an open access policy on research data and by implementing that open access policy aiming at a specific license, the CC By, for example. UK was very drastic when it came last April with the decision. It was the research councils of the UK imposed a golden access, a golden road policy on everyone who gets a grant from the research councils in the UK. Well, that created a lot of turmoil, not from the beta science, but from the social science. And now they're trying to patch things up slowly but surely, trying to calm everyone down, that it won't affect their authorship, won't affect their moral rights, et cetera. But I guess this again goes back to the bold statements that the UK is making together with the text of data mining efforts and efforts to modify the law to allow text data mining. But the RC UK came with the policy saying, well, now it's not the green road. I guess hopefully you all know what the difference is between the green road and the golden road. But the UK went to the most drastic route. This ensures that there's more communality between all the players that they have to abide and live with common terms of licenses and that they go to the same direction. That would solve your problem, I think. If I can just add one observation that probably kind of emerged but it has not been spelled out, is that in these aspects a proper policy is one that doesn't leave the researcher alone. So what we cannot create is a system where the researcher in itself is on the one side bound by this type of regulatory or legislative interventions to public in open access, but at the same time he has, and then we can define the obligation to publish with a publisher who requires a different type of, let's say, closed license, because for example in terms of promotions, tenure, et cetera, that you have to publish in these ABC journals, otherwise it won't be considered as important your publication. So under this point of view I think that the role of the university as an institution and to back up the researchers to tell them our scientific assessment and evaluation will be based not only if you publish in this journal, which is very good but is a typically closed traditional model. But we also consider, and I think this is part of the European Commission's recommendation that scientific evaluation, professional progressions, promotions need to take into proper account the fact that researchers publish in open access. And that's key because you have to create this incentive and you have to help researchers not abandoning them in a situation where there is no way for them to comply with two different obligations, one to go, for example open access and the other to have to deal with a publisher that doesn't want that, offer this crazy thing that they call Golden Road, but it's not, which is the author pays model, which is only one potential avenue for Golden Road. But Golden Road and author pays are two different models that not necessarily has to exist. They could exist most of the times, but that's a publisher invention, the fact that you have to buy back your rights to open access publish. This doesn't have to be like that. I just wanted to, well I agree with Thomas, but I think that I could even say this more strongly that by experiences that most researchers, they don't want to think about copyrights, they don't want to think about licensing, they don't want to resolve all these legal issues when they publish. They simply want to publish and sometimes they just want to perform their obligation to get the so-called points to be able to present to their institution. So that means that not only the institution should pack up the researchers, but I think to some extent the institutions should do most of the work for them. That means that the open access policy should be more in terms of an open access mandate, but not just simple obligation to publish an open access, but also a detailed specification for the authors may be even a choice, a choice of a licence for them or just an explanation what are their options so that the licences are interoperable and so on and so on. So the institution should go not only for the open access policy, but maybe kind of a ready-made tool box for a researcher to apply, to call, for example, to go to the publisher who already prepared draft contract and similar things that the researchers would not have to think or would not have to find lawyers for them. Does the question come first? It's okay. Okay, my question is the following. Yes, the university should pack up this open access, should pack up the way the researcher has to survive within this new era of open access, I agree. But there is a crucial issue, I think, as a researcher, that the open access infrastructures, the whole lira, does not have a very developed review process. And the big issue for an academic institution and a researcher is to publish in high-quality journals. High-quality derives from a long tradition of a very strong review process. So there is a crucial missing link, as I see it, that should be developed further or maybe it's already developed and I don't know about it. Bwm, are you asking this question to Lucy? To Lucy. Thank you. Well, I guess the answer to this is that it's evolving. And it may evolve in different speeds in different sectors of science. I can't put numbers on which, but I know that some sectors of science, peer-reviewed open access journals are high-quality. But in some sectors of science, people choose to publish in these open access journals because of their higher quality of the rest. The thing is, open access is a very recent business model for publishers or for royal communities, scientific communities. So of course, new journals open access, they need to establish their reputation and they need to establish in a transparent way how they go ahead with peer-reviewing. But I think this might take time. But if the good, renowned professors in their field engage also in the open access movement, they will be part of the editorial boards of good open access journals. They will encourage and heighten the quality of those open access journals. It's a moving... I agree, but there is a transition period that is very costly for the researcher. And also for the good researchers that are the editors. It's a big decision to give one very good traditional journal as an associate editor to go to a new, with high potential open access journal. So it needs a bit of incentives, it needs motivation, I think. It's a little out of scope for this discussion, but we want to focus on the legal aspects. So I will continue. Thank you for... OK, you have a question? So maybe I should... Yeah, it might be from the technical university of Denmark. Yes, I think that was also very much out of scope. I mean, we should really spend our time discussing the legal issues here. I mean, first of all, it's complicated enough. So bringing in this whole social area of culture and all that, of science into it, as well that brings on even more complexity. Of course, it's an integrated part of the legal system, I don't know. One thing I'm wondering about, because I think it's very... In the end, Moose, you talked about looking at the repositories, how many of them actually provide information about what license they provide their content under? And those repositories were repositories with publications in them. So basically, I'm wondering what can actually be done in that area. Because repositories, they may be there to provide a place for the green road for open access to provide a place to parallel publish stuff. And most of that, published in traditional journals, high impact journals, is really licensed with the publisher. So they are using the exception in the copyright agreement with the publishers to actually put the stuff into the repository, which then brings on the question that actually all that stuff, or not all of it, but none of it, is actually the copyright. It's owned by the publisher. But because they have the exception, you can put a version of an article into a repository. But what can actually be done at that? That's the big question. And the thing is that all those, you have that 85%, basically can't really give you an exact license because they can't double-license them. They can't say, well, the copyright is owned by the publisher, and then I put a CC by-license on that as well. That's not possible. So the question is... What can we actually do with that? And to whom? Well, to me. I feel concerned by this question. I think what we can do is a bit the same thing as all the libraries and the museums out there who have items in their collections and they don't know what the right status of is. I think the basic, the first step is rights labeling. And that's something that I don't know of yet. Julia Fallen here is swimming in for at least three years. You're absolutely right about what you're saying. That repositories, they're gathering material all via the green road and that they don't own the rights. But the very first thing that they can do is to have a field in their metadata saying, indeed, well, what you can and cannot do. We might be surprised. There might be publishers who are willing, indeed, to at least maybe not go all the way CCBi, but they might be willing to go CCBi, non-derivative, non-commercial. But it's a lot of work to go back in the... I mean, it's still the same task as for museums who want to digitize their collection and make the metadata available. Libraries would need, according to this scenario, to go back and put a field in their metadata about the rights label. But if we start thinking about this and not accepting the percentage of 85% as a given, but saying this is something that we'd like to work on and we'd like to improve now from today and on, we can add this field in the metadata and we can also probably negotiate agreements with publishers that after a period of embargo, the public might be allowed to do a CCBi, non-commercial, no-derivative. So for the future and on, it might be easier, of course, than going back for the whole content of the collection. But we need to start asking ourselves the question, what do we want to achieve? It's not just enough to put it in the repository if you don't know what you can do with it. It's the same for Europeana. It's no use to have access to no objects if you don't know what you can do with them. So rights labeling in the sense is the key. Maybe it's a good point to add something to what Thomas said in the morning, also the difference between the version 3 and 4 of Creative Commons. You asked the question, what happens afterwards, and of course if you take data from a protected database and use it for your own database, you can create new rights for yourself under version 3 where a database right is not included. You would be free to use this data also in a commercial way. That was the thought and thinking of the drafters of 3.0. They thought excluding them or waiving the rights would be enough to get rid. Waving the rights would be enough to get rid of the database right, which is not true, because somebody else who uses it later in the distribution chain can use it for freely as he wants, also in a commercial way. Version 4.0 takes care of this point, so this copy left effect will be further down in the chain also under version 4. This is a very important part of this version 4.0. Can I just make a small comment? I think I just want to explicitly stress that access is not sufficient. I think it should have been clearly visible from what we were talking about, the problems that open air infrastructure has, that it uses accessible repositories and accessible datasets. But especially when it comes to data mining, the fact that these repositories are accessible is not sufficient to conclude that they can be used and reused in the infrastructure. So the policies of some journals that take away your copyrights but allow you to put something to make available in a repository are not sufficient from this point of view, because this does not mean that by putting something in the repository you can license reuse of that. And certainly we cannot bypass it for some journals, but at least for some we can, because some of them are parts of universities which can declare their policy, which can declare that they do not take away copyrights, they just take a non-exclusive license, and then under the open access mandate the researchers supply to open access a bit more. But there will be some sets of such publications which will still be burdened and will not be able to be including projects such as open air. We have time for one more question. Prisoner. So you said you can't wait. Okay, I'll bring the microphone to us. I'm not able to hear. So it's a question on the version 3, version 4.  Mae'n mynd i ni'r ddarparu yma, y pethau'r tîm lle bydd y dataebau hynny a', ddylai'n dyfodol llywodol, a twisted fel y dyfodol yma, chan yn dduw i gael ein bod yn lle i'w dweud i'w newid, ond rydyn ni'n ddweud y contentau yn ôl o ddod ni yw rhan Cynllun. A'r ddigon o bwysig o'r cyffredin o'r cyfrun? Mae'r ddweud o'r cyfrinarau a gwylwch, So, mae sy'n detall sy'n achrod Can, once the 4.0 are out, can a 4.0 be applied on the same database?  So you can apply as many licenses if you want, including dual licenses model, if you want. I think part of the question was also, is it technically difficult? Well, it's the same thing as applying 3.0. You go on the website, creativecommons.org, you click on license, they ask you three questions, whether you allow or not commercial uses, you allow or not the creation of derivatives, and if he has under which conditions, for the version 3, the jurisdiction, and you have to choose in that moment a European jurisdiction, and then they ask you some more information regarding, which is not mandatory, but regarding the metadata, so a name of author, publication, type of publication, etc. You click license, you obtain the HTML code that you can apply to the website, and also link to the entire license, and to the common date that we saw the screenshot before. Switching to the 4.0 means going through the whole selection process again, right? Yes. So it's not just the switch of one button, it's going through the license chooser again. It takes literally 30 seconds. However, if you have a lot of garrisons, then it's, yeah. I think it's a good moment to bridge through on this panel. You have really a chance, which is right there on Venus, so we'd now went on to Venus and that. Yeah, thank you. I think we have a last point in our legal session today to have a little bit of panel discussion looking into the future. I think we should not only discuss among ourselves, but also take questions in between, if you have some questions to make it a bit more interactive. I think we've finished at a point where we can continue our discussion about one question would be like compatibility of different license. There are so many different license models now on the market, and is it a big problem to have compatibility? And also one question I would like to raise maybe to Thomas mainly, the version 4.0 of the CC is meant to be, you mentioned that it's not adopted to the laws of different countries anymore, like used to be with the 3.0. And as far as I remember, GPA was very much dominated by American law. So is it now different with 4.0? Is it more international? Is it possible to have like international license or will there be problems with national law more than we had with 3.0? Thomas may be losing also. So interoperability, there are a lot of licenses, that's true, and that's why we recommend to use one, which doesn't mean that there are not other licenses that are actually fit for the purpose. In our study we actually analyzed a few of them, but to maintain some sort of uniformity grants the higher level of interoperability, and that's an important thing. Now that being said, is also true that Creative Commons, especially 4.0, made clear that the obligation to license under the same license is not limited to the same license, but to the same or an equivalent license. And then there was a debate, but an equivalent license is a link to the website where are listed what are believed to be a license that are equivalent. That's of course for the outbound part. So if you take Creative Commons 4.0, you want to re-license it, you have to use the same or one of these listed one, so it gives you this possibility. Inbound, meaning if the database is licensed under some open access license and we can apply the Creative Commons, it depends of course on what the specific license says. There are many that has this compatibility clause as well, or they either recognize explicitly Creative Commons, or they give the parameter to determine what is an equivalent license. But in that case, we should look at the specific wording of the license. That's another reason why to me it's good to make reference to one model. Wikipedia uses it, it's a lot of university uses it, so it works, and a lot of people recommend it, and I know that you agree to stick with it if it works. 4.0 is to, well, there has been a lot of effort into the drafting process to make it as international as possible, and we have to agree that to a great extent this has been achieved. It's true that some passage, some interpretation might still create different reactions among lawyers from the two shores of the Atlantic, that's true. I mean, we have having a few of these debates right now, but I would say that, for example, to define specific concepts, we try to use burn convention wording, for example, and of course you know how it is hard to convince, for example, Americans to rely on the burn convention wording. I think that you might still identify maybe some, let's call, Americanism, but I don't think that they would create a problem, hopefully. Of course there's still a difference between, for example, common law and continental law systems, and is there not a need to really adapt, again, the license a bit to national law, or would it work like it is and you don't have to make any adaptations again, maybe Lucy? Well, I'm rather confident that the licenses drafted now will work in both traditions, and I would like to emphasise what Thomas has pointed out, that the drafting process is the result of consultations among the Creative Commons affiliates worldwide. So you have people who really devoted time to react and to react to drafts and consult from Australia, to Japan, to Taiwan, and everyone in between to the US. Of course we gave the drafters in the US a course on database rights, on moral rights at some point. We did at least the Dutch group and other groups in Europe and other groups elsewhere have really done their best to really make clear why the choice of one word instead of another word would be preferable. I'm rather satisfied with the draft that's coming out, and I don't think it's influenced that much by traditions, and that's a big difference from the GPL. GPL is traditionally drafted in the US, they consult a small circle of people in the US, but not abroad, and the Creative Commons process was entirely different. Any questions from the audience at that point? You can ask anything. This morning I had breakfast at a discussion with Thomas, and I'm working in a library, and we are at Homer Strong in Economics at our university, and we signed for some contracts with Thomas and Boykers, and basically if I read the contract I'm allowed not even to share metadata with all the researchers. Thomas says, just don't sign a contract, which is a very practical recommendation, but as in the libraries we're often sort of the middle man, I can't go into my research and say, hey, I've heard we shouldn't sign that Thomas won't sign a contract anymore. So how to make this practical and workable, that's a question of mine. The second question is from a more technical perspective. If you put a resource, if you put something behind a DOI, and open air would have to resolve all the data sets that go behind a DOI, I don't have a clue what is behind a DOI. That could be a simple fact, or it could be a complete database, knowing what is in that database, as you were saying, you have no idea what's in our repositories, how to make progress with that. Is checking on DOIs an institution? No. That's to you. So who runs for the microphone? I run for the microphone. It's coming out of questions. Mould it at me. Mould it at me. Thank you very much. Well, Rob, I'll answer your first question. I'll leave the second to Crystal. Something that I've been advocating in some of the talks on open access that I give is, first message, publishers in the mid to long term will have to adapt. So, I realize it's not the task or not the sole task of the researchers to negotiate better license terms with their publisher. That's why I feel that it would be the task of higher level from department level, faculty or university level, even grant. I don't know. I don't think the grant, but at least to help negotiate with the publisher's model contracts. That's also one way to get the people of your university, not the library, you're not in a place to negotiate those contracts. Second one, not faculty or the college from the student administration board with the task of negotiating better licensing terms with some of the key publishers. And then the information has to go back down again to the level of the individual researchers saying, now we have a model contract, this is what I would like to use from now on. And the publishers have to be made aware of all this because even as a law scholar, sometimes I want to upload an article or submit an article. Submitting an article now takes place all electronically and you're only capable of submitting your article if you click the little box I agree with these terms. Now you can't change that unless somebody higher up changes it for you. Yeah, just intermediate observation before passing to question number two. That decision to sign the contract or not has nothing to do with the law. No, but... No, let me finish. It's not about concepts, it's about... Yeah, no, but what I want to say is basically what Lucid just expressed. This is not a legal problem, right? I mean a lawyer can assist you or a legal analysis can assist you on determining why and how to sign a good contract in a way that... But the decision cannot come from us, cannot... I mean it's a strategic decision that the university or the research institution has to take at the highest level because it's one of the most important future policies, strategic research decision that they can take.  I know, I'm just saying that most of the time the law is seen as the key to fix the problem, right? Which not really, we can explain where there are obstacles and how to overcome, but this aspect in particular is connected with... As we, you know, and probably many of you know much better with the whole business model, vision of the research that the comment you were making before are perfect. But you know, to go up an access is not as, you know, an entire institution is to have a completely different view of the role of science in society. It's not just about, you know, getting cheaper subscriptions and that will take, you know, time and commitment. That's true, but yeah. Well, recently I had a very passionate speech of Professor Eben Moglen, who said something like Thomas. He said, just say no. He said, not only you shouldn't accept such contracts as we have discussed, but you should say no to the whole system which does not allow some activities which we consider more or less, well, basic for the existence of the science and the society. And obviously in the ideal world the university wouldn't sign such a contract. And in the ideal world everyone would say no, but in the world that we live in some people just think that, well, okay, maybe it's not our problem and so on. So the such contracts are being signed. And obviously this means that when you accept a contract where you try to deal with, where you try to use a work subject to some exclusive rights, and you accept the fact, obviously you have to accept it because you are bound by the law and you accept the fact that there are some limitations on the use of this material, and if you want to make it more reusable, more accessible, you have to clear the rights. And obviously that's the question of the cost of the clearing of rights. And you can do it individually, but you can also think about some kind of a technical system which could try to help you in solving this, in clearing the rights. And creative commons has, apart from the human readable version, apart from the lawyer's readable version, also has the computer readable version of licenses, and made that some solution that if we, like Lucy said, when we start, the first step is to clearly mark what are the rights, what are the limitations, and maybe then computers could help us sorting out what's the interoperable, what's the possible way to use resources coming from the distant sources. But this actually reminds me of, well, we had a joke during communist times, I think it's in all these countries that were more or less in this camp, that the question is, what's communism? And the answer is that communism is a regime that boldly solves problems which are not existent in other regimes. And I think that we are in a status, in a stage with copyright law that we are, and actually we don't have to, we should not forget that creative commons is not that solution, but creative commons was designed as a kind of a patch on the system. And I like to think about creative commons as a tool for making people realise how much the problem, how big the problem is because of the current copyright regulation, not actually to solve all the problems. We should not forget about this. The question for you was on DOI. When you resolve the DOI and then you find out, you don't know what to find out. And so as I understand that you have a problem because you can find out something which is protected, you can find something which is protected. So we have questions. You sort of answered the question out there, but still, I mean I'm looking at the very short term when you're like, what should we do now? I mean basically a lot of the stuff we're doing already now with the whole OEI, harvesting data from repositories that are distributed is basically not legal. But we're doing it still, I mean and it's working and no one is really complaining. So what's the risk assessment? I mean should we just continue and just, you know, hopefully time is solved with the problems that we have? So that's basically the question. My idea was, if provided that the resource behind the DOI is clearly marked with a license or some other description, then you could use some kind of a technical tool which would tell you what you can do with the resource. And obviously you have the question whether the mere resolving of the DOI somehow involves, somehow infringes the right, but then I don't think that anyone would come up with a clear answer to that. But actually we're both down in practice to the risk assessment because as you just said many things are being done in the scientific environment and no one complains. As a lawyer I experienced a kind of, I don't know, a schizophrenia that I come to people and I tell them that there are exclusive rights, we have to license them, but they give me a blank stare and they say that, well yes, but everyone does it. And well, I don't think that any lawyer would tell you okay, so do it, don't care, but you should take this practical risk assessment under consideration. Well without forgetting that you should also think about the same policy for clearing the rights, but obviously every time you clear the rights you come to the place where either you want to invest another euro in clearing the rights a bit more or you are just satisfied with your risk. So I think every institution just has to take to establish the level of risk that's accepted for them. I think it does not know how much risk there is. What is the risk of it? We don't know what's the real risk of continuous what we do now. So the remedy, I think there are two points. One is that as long as your activity is insignificant usually you don't get sued. But since in our opinion our activity will not be insignificant because we will be a competing working model for the future at some point it will be significant and at that point you want to have clear the right because otherwise you get sued and that's what you want to avoid. What's the risk? Well it's hard to say beforehand but to a very basic point of view there are two remedies that are available once you're found infringing copyright. Injunctive relief and damages. Injunctive relief means you have to stop. Damages it means that you have to pay the damages. Now in this case it's also true that we could even argue that since we are in Europe there are not statutory damages, we are in a scientific environment, the money that eventually university could be found to have to pay it's hard to say but would not be in the terms of millions as in the United States. But that's maybe not even the most important problem. The very important problem is that you stop doing that. You cannot continue. Regardless of the amount of money that you pay unless the right holder plaintiff decides that you can go ahead you have to stop and you don't want that. So that's why I think we need to work on all fronts negotiating model contracts with publishers but then going ahead with what we're doing anyway. But would it just be great to have that one big giant case which just made it really popular that we need open access? Yes, yes. So that won't do it. So that's the risk assessment. There won't be a publisher that's going to sue anyone doing this. Are they really scared you? At the moment probably also because from the point of view of the image it's tricky but you cannot rely on this. I think we just have a couple of minutes. Is it just to this question? What you said is in all fronts and we have heard that library perspective, the researchers, the scholarly societies, how about the funders? What is their role in this situation? Because now there is, for example, we were last week in the Global Research Council in the regional meeting and they are talking about their supporting open action in research data and publications mainly. And they are talking about action plans. What is there? So from the legal perspective, what can they do? Now they have virtual organization that they are all together and they are funding this data. So can they do something? Or is it like the libraries that they can't? No, just don't sign. Can they have any means of pushing, any legal means? To see? That's a tricky question. The tough get going. I don't think that legally funders can do much. They can only exercise influence and exercise their policy consistently and go your way and push in the right direction. They can send a message that they will fund projects where researchers are involved or institutions are involved who really support and live the principles of open access so which would actually reward the people publishing in open access in journals that may score slightly lower than others. So those are messages. It can send really strong messages but legally I'm not sure that funding agencies are in a position to legally do stuff. I think the last two minutes, which was used for the last round of statements, I would like to, Christopher, open up the field already to a more general view on copyright. And there's a lot of discussion going on now on copyright in general, especially related of course to the questions of internet. We changed copyright. There was movement in the US to completely abolish copyright. I think Europe is not so radical but still thinking about different options, how to deal with the problems we have, get rid of this idea of copying. Copying is traditional technology, not really digital, doesn't fit any more in this environment. So in the broader context, we are also maybe moving through some sector specific regulations. So what do you think will copyright look like in ten years? Will we have an exception for research area in general from copyright? Or what do you think how it will develop? Maybe Lucy first. What I'm dreaming or what I think? Maybe both. Well, the dream would be to have one uniform European copyright system where you wouldn't be looking at the national systems of 28 member states but at just one global European copyright that would have a single set of limitations exception. And in my dream we would also have a catch clause in the type of fair use defence, catching all the situations that do not neatly fall within the exceptions but that would justify according to a set of criteria to be exempted from the application of the copyright. Now that's the dream, to have something coherent and flexible enough to be workable and to work not only for science because come on, we're talking here about reforming copyright for the purpose of science but copyright regime needs reform not only on this front but on almost all of the fronts. So the copyright regime needs to be reformed period. So we need to push the wagon coherently forward. What I think might happen depends on the time frame maybe before I retire we will have something workable in line with my dream. But within the next 5 to 10 years we may have another list of limitations that might be slightly more flexible but we won't have this coherent European framework I don't think. There are too many obstacles in terms of legal traditions, in terms of cultural dimensions of each country, in terms of complexities because there are so many players and stakeholders.  We'll multiply that by all the copyright industry area. It's a nightmare. Anyway, so over 5 years well hopefully something a bit more workable in certain areas. Yes. Well yes I think the European legislator will not be able to harmonize the European copyright completely within the next 5 or 10 years. But I think an important fact in the harmonization is the European Court of Justice who actually harmonizes the copyright where it isn't harmonized. For example the ECJ already harmonized the term of work and its infobar decision and this is something that is not harmonized by European directives. So I think a strong factor on the European harmonization of copyright is also the European Court of Justice. Since the perforphone go back to me, I agree that the ECJ plays a fundamental role here also. But sometimes the ECJ has the talent of launching bombs. Yes very much. Very much. And it needs more competence also. I'm afraid for the bombs that the ECJ may launch and I'm also afraid that the ECJ action is not governed by democracy, by the democratic process. It's a set of judges who decide in this case the law applies and that it's by interpretation applied everywhere. But it's not a democratic process. They don't care, they trust it. So beware for the bombs of the ECJ. OK, so I think I want to use this last chance to speak to make it clear that I'm not convinced that we should abolish copyright. That's not my conclusion here. But I think what we can expect in either five years or maybe ten years time is that we will maybe look back in the history of copyright which evolved from a set of specific rights. It started with the rights to coffee and then it evolved into a property right which covers almost every use that you can imagine. And maybe we could somehow bring the balance back to the rules. And then I just want to say that I'm coming from a jurisdiction that seems that we have or we had such a rule that there are certain people who do not have to think about copyright. They want to do certain things with copyrighted work. Like librarians, like scientists, etc. And the problem is not that the copyright exists for them. The problem is that they are forced by the current copyright regime to think about it. And you can move this problem away from them by carefully drafting or redrafting the limitations or exemptions or maybe some other way to bring the balance between the private and the public interest in copyright law. And I am quite optimistic. I would like to see that done in the next five to ten years. Just two seconds. I would like to add one more point. I think we should also be more open in copyright to self-regulation which would shift the regulation a bit from the contractual level like licenses not to the legislative level of laws but intermediate. So we have the interest group sitting together and agreeing on some points more flexible than the legislator could do it. Of course there has to be a legislative framework. All participants have to be present, involved, but I think there should be more flexibility also in copyright like we have seen now in data protection developing to have self-regulation in place. So about future of copyright we saw everything we are ready so there is a data I can add. What I would like to see in the future of research in five or ten years an open access transparent model of webometrics may be supported by some European institution Open Air Plus somehow in a way in which we can develop indexes such impact factors but better based on open and accessible tools so that the necessity to sign that contract is not there anymore. And that I think would be to go beyond the current model and that's something that we really need because that would offer the right incentive. I think that's a good closing statement.


Okay, so now you're running known, that's easier. Is it in any way possible that this is just turned off? I don't know, it looks turned off, doesn't it? It's completely off. Touch this and I will not change anything, I just want to look at it. So VGA, okay VGA it is, no VGA, so probably VGA should work. Yeah it does. So I think we actually just needed to switch this to the amount that we are not allowed to do that. Okay, just run it from your laptop. Andrea, did that display just come out on its own? No, I touched it, but I didn't, I just touched the display to wake it up and I didn't touch any of the stuff that I am not going to do. No, in the right side it looks like VGA and it just magically works, right? Yeah, I think it's just configured to just use VGA. Switch that to HDMI, that would work. But we are not going to do that because we are not allowed to. And the VGA now, it's just sealed. Andrea? Yes? Oh, filming. Sorry. No, there's no sound. No, there's no sound. Okay. And now we're going to turn this on so I can hear that in the corner. Okay, so we just... What cover is that? Yeah. Okay. It doesn't speak to you for some reason, but remember for the guy, for the mission, it's done there. Okay, if we need it. Awesome. If you could set your external display to 4x3 resolution, not revolution. I know how to do that in none. Okay. Sorry. Yeah, say that slide about it. Did you get the clicker? Yeah. And then for the clicker, you just need to put this in. And it will just go through the... Okay. Let's write your... You need to put it into USB? Yeah, USB. So I guess we are one minute over... One minute late. You can unmute and start. Do you want me to introduce you or will you do it yourself? Maybe you can do it yourself if you have a certain time. Why would we? Yeah. Just unmute. Okay, get started. Okay. Okay, so... Hello, my name is Maxime Coquelain and we speak with Victor today. We talk about how virtual networking, virtual machine networking can benefit from DPDK. So first, we will start with an overview of DPDK and virtio and virtio user. Then we will talk about the challenges that we can face when implementing virtio into DPDK. And finally, we will talk about the new and upcoming features that are being introduced to address these challenges. So let's start with the overview. So DPDK is a set of user space libraries. Its goal is to achieve fast packet processing. So it means data plane development kit. And the idea is to benefit from the flexibility bring by software in order to achieve performance that is close to dedicated hardware solution like ASICs, for example. So the project is released under the BSD license. It supports multiple architectures like Intel X86, IBM Power 8, Teleride TechJX, and ARM V7 and V8 more recently. Most of the server grids are supported from main vendors. Also, it supports now over kind of hardware like crypto devices with a new crypto framework. And some parts of the DPDK project are being reused by a storage project called SPDK in order to have a virtio user backend emulating exclusive. So the talk will be about Linux but DPDK is also supported on BSD. So I draw this timeline. So the idea is that I draw the main milestone. So in 2012 Intel released the first version of DPDK. It was stored on their website. So multiple companies started to fork the project and created a kind of fragmentation. So we have some drawing problems. The year after in 2013 a French company called Sixwind initiated the DPDK.org community. So they put in place servers, mailing lists and git repositories so that over a company could start to contribute back to the project. In 2014 it was first released in DPDK, the first package into a Linux distribution. So it was Fedora. So before 2015 only Intel architecture was supported. But hardware diversification started in 2015 with IBM and Telera architectures being introduced. ARM followed the year after in 2016 and also with the crypto framework I took in the previous slide. And in 2017 it's not a technical milestone but since we know support the project is not supported on multiple architectures it's no more an Intel only project. There is a decision to move the project under the Linux Foundation umbrella. So I draw the versions below so I won't list all the versions. I wanted to highlight that since last year the numbering scheme changed to a year dot month to give more productivity. And starting last version 16.11 the decision was made to move to four releases a year because there is more and more contributions. So in last version the project represented about 750,000 lines of code split in 6,000 commits from more than 300 contributors. So the idea of this slide is to give a simplified comparison on how an application based on DPDK compares to a traditional application relying on kernel networking stack. So the idea is to bypass the kernel to do all the stuff in user space. So to access the NIC register directly we rely on VFIO so that the application can directly write into the NIC registers. And also the user space pages storing the packet are directly referenced by the NIC descriptors. There is no copy from user to kernel of the packets. So to achieve the best performance DPDK relies on number of system features from which we have it relies on CPU isolations and soon CPU partitioning. So the idea is to have dedicated physical cores that pulls the NIC. And to do this polling as I said earlier it relies on VFIO or we could use also UIO but for security reasons we would advise to use VFIO. To have the best performance we also rely on NUMA RNS. So the idea that all the resources, the memories, the PCI devices have to be on the same NUMA node as the physical CPU that is running the PMD threads. And also it uses huge pages so that we relax the TLB cache and also the advantages that it avoids swapping. But we couldn't have that we cannot afford. So the idea is to avoid inter-attangling, to do polling mode, to have best latencies. And as I said earlier to avoid switching from user to kernel mode. Because for example Syscall, some measurements made by Jesper Boer showed that the time budget needed to perform a Syscall is higher and the time budget we have to transmit a 64-byte packet at a 10-gig line rate. So this slide shows the different libraries that the DPDK project is composed of. So we have a first set of libraries that are the core libraries that are used to do abstraction layer, packet presentation, memory pools. The main part is the PMD drivers, so all the unique drivers. So they can be physical like Intel, Cisco or Melanoc Snicks. Or in our case of what interests us today are DPDK support, Virtio and Vost PMDs. And the Vost PMDs relies on the Vost library. So that applications can either use the Ethernet API directly. The Ethernet API to be able to use the Vost device as if it was a physical NIC. Or it can directly use the Vost API which maybe provides some more flexibility. So Victor, we talk about that. Thank you, Tim. So we have DPDK library which is all about high performance. And in general it's not related to virtual machines or virtual machines networking. It's a way to enable user space application on the host to perform very fast in networking by implementing network stack in the user space. So it just happens that DPDK also support some kind of virtual devices. But let's see how we can achieve this kind of high performance. And just to give you some understanding about the speed and bandwidth and latency that we are talking about. We're talking about sending and receiving 10 million packets per second. And we're talking about smallest packets. And we want to achieve the bandwidth of order of magnitude of 10 gigabits per second. And at this speed we have each packet to handle each packet about 200 nanoseconds which need to be used also to copy and to handle all the needed stuff. But before we see how DPDK feeds virtual networking in VMs, I want to show you some overview about how regular networking is done from virtual machines. So we have different options. One of them is device emulation when we just emulate some simple networking cart. And this approach works well but the speeds which we can achieve is about 50 megabit per seconds with this approach. Another approach is direct assignment of networking cart into VM and then to give network stack in the kernel of virtual machine to handle the network traffic. This way we achieve about 500 megabits per seconds and main overload is in the kernel of the guest. Another possibility is much faster and is using virtual device. Virtio is just a virtual device that is supported by KVM and QM. And modern kernels both in Windows and Linux have inside them the driver for virtual IO devices. And QM and KVM support these kinds of devices by Vhost. And what is the Vhost? Vhost is instead of implementing the network cart in QM and user space, we have in host, in kernel of host we have some entity which we call Vhost. It's just thread that running and it communicates directly from kernel of host to the VM. Usually it's kernel of VM and it can place packets and buffers to and from the memory of guest operating system. So in this installation it still runs the network stack in host machine. So it's quite large overhead but we eliminate the additional overhead which related to virtual machine layers. So we can achieve the same speeds of about 500 megabits per seconds with this installation. And to go to much higher speed we have to use solutions like DPDK which enable to the user application some kind of direct access. So how does it work? We have this virtual host in the host which can access directly the physical memory related to virtual machine. And we have a possibility to send and receive signals about new buffers that arrive to and from VM. So we achieve it in one direction by IO event FD, the usual mechanism in the Linux kernel. And to signal guest operating system about new buffers that arrives we use the protocol of IRQFD. And this internal virtual emulation is really the main mode which is currently used when you use today virtual machine with virtual drivers. It's what usually means that we have virtual emulation on the host operating system. The QM handles all the control and negotiation and all the things around that not related directly to the data pass. And the data and buffer themselves goes directly from the host operating kernel of host operating system to the guest. And this way we will bypass the QM and anything which lowers the speed. And in kernel we can just pass the buffers between guest to top device or directly to the NIC and all the switching possibilities exist. So it just was an overview of what is virtual networking and later I will explain how we want to introduce DPDK very high speeds into virtual machine networking. Another existing possibility which is very useful and is going much acceptance by enterprise and by industry is that we enable to third parties to supply their implementation of this V host. So we call this V host user and QM has a new interface which enables user applications from third parties to supply this back end and to supply such functionality. And DPDK have V host implementation in its library to support this and this enables all communication like OVS and software switches and other features. It works very similarly to V host in the kernel just instead of using IRQFDs and event SDs every signaling is going through unique sockets. So it's slightly slower but the main data pass is still going directly from one user application to the guest and all the buffers are just mapped to shared memory and everything works smoothly. So Maxime will talk about some challenges that we currently see and later we will explain how we are going to address these challenges. So yes we have a number of challenges that we need to address. So the first one and the most important one is the performance because DPDK is all about performance. This is what we want to achieve. So we can split changes in the trade-off of multiple aspects and three of these aspects are the bandwidth. So the idea is that we want to achieve line rate even for small packets, something that is not possible with the kernel today. Of course we want to have latency that is as low as possible, for example with the 5G norm that is coming, this is becoming really important. And of course the CPU utilization because the more CPUs you need to achieve the best bandwidth and latency, the higher the price the cost will be. So today we invest much on bandwidth and latency because that could be show stopper if we don't achieve the right performance at the expense of the CPU utilization. And to do this we need to take into account the hardware architectures of the CPUs as much as possible but the problem is that we have multiple architectures to support and so it's a challenge because one optimization that you will do for one architecture like Intel could cause regressions on over like ARM. The second challenge is reliability. So especially for NFV use cases we cannot afford packet loss. But this is something that is hard to achieve especially when we want to achieve the max performance because Vertejo is only relying on the CPU. So it's really CPU intensive and any scheduling glitch can cause packet drops. So you need to have your PMD thread isolated from over possible perturbations as much as possible. The over challenge is the migration because when we want to migrate from one host to another, QMU saves its states and restores them. But in the case of the host user we have a third party so that could be OpenVswitch or VPP and we need to ensure that the migration that will happen will be successful. So if you migrate from a new host to an old host and that doesn't have the same version of OVS for example, you could have started the first host with a feature set that is not available on the destination and that would break the migration. And to achieve this, so this is ongoing work but we need to rely on the management tool to ensure that when we start the host we start it with the right configuration so that migration is possible with the over ones. So Victor, talk about security change. Generally the security and high performance is a big trade off so since to achieve high performance you need some kind of direct assignment of hardware to the user space and you lose security. And using VM is mainly in the scope of applications that want this isolation and security between VMs and between processes. In context of NFV if you want every network function to be run in different virtual machine we need to supply both high performance networking between these virtual machines and high isolation and it's quite hard to achieve. And all current implementation of networking between VMs required some kind of mediator in the past between VMs or between VM to the network cart and this mediator mainly just copies buffers from one memory to another memory from one to another. And memory of one virtual machine to another and by the way just checks if there is writes to read or write that memory locations. And to achieve zero copy we need something else since zero copy is required for high bandwidth and it's problematic from security point of view and later we will see how we propose to address this point. Okay so now we will talk about the new and the upcoming features that we are working on to address these challenges. So receive mergeable buffers so this is not a new feature so this is here since quite some time but I will refer to this feature in the next slides so I wanted to give a brief overview of the feature. So the idea of receive mergeable buffers is to make possible to receive packets that are larger than the virtual descriptors buffer size. So for example here you have descriptor zero but transmit one packet so we have number first equal one and we want to transmit a packet after this that fits into three descriptors so we need to set the number first field of the virtual net header to three. So this is allowed to transmit large packets but it has one disadvantage is that it introduce some extra cache miss because even if you always only send small packets you will have to pass this number first field and even if we know that it will be equal to one. Second feature is indirect descriptors so it had been introduced in 16.11. When you have direct descriptor chaining if you want to transmit a large packet if the VM want to transmit a large packet it will use multiple descriptors that will be chained. So for example here we chained from descriptor two to descriptor zero etc etc. So the problem is that when you only send large buffers you will if all packets you will send text for descriptors you will divide your ring capacity by four. And with indirect descriptors we add a new table so that whatever the size we fill this table with the number of descriptors needed and whatever the size the ring capacity will be the same. So as I said the advantage is that the ring capacity is increased and we see some improvement when transmitting large number of large buffers, large packets. But we also noticed that it improved zero packet loss when your system is not fine tuned so as I talked earlier on the reliability challenges. Small scheduling glitches can cause a packet drop and so even for small packets we always use two descriptors today. One for the vector unit header and one for the buffer descriptor and by using indirect descriptor feature we double in fact the ring capacity. But it has a small cost because you have one more level of end direction. So if you don't care about packet loss you will notice performance degradation of about small performance degradation around three percent in my measurement. Another feature that has also been introduced in 16.11 is the Vost DQ zero copy. So by default what we do is that when we receive on Vost side a buffer from the guest, a descriptor from the guest we perform a copy from the buffer descriptor to the Mbuff buffer. Mbuff being the packet structure in dbdk. So the idea is simple is just to reference this descriptor buffer directly into the Mbuff. So for VM to VM we see a big performance improvement for large and standard packets. But it has a very limited scope today so it's a little hacky because the Mbuff structure is not a thing today to point to external buffers. So it works only for VM to VM today and because when we transmit to NIC the NIC does not release the packets as it releases them by batch. So sometimes we can run out of descriptors into the VotQ. So there are some work going on to improve this situation. Another feature is the MTU feature. So the idea is for the host to share the maximum supported MTU. So it can be used of course to be able to set the MTU value across all your infrastructure. But it can also be used to avoid the extra cache miss I talked earlier when we want to enable receive mergeable buffers. Because if we know that the host will never send packets larger than the descriptor buffer size, we can just disable the feature at initialization time. And so we save this extra cache miss. Another feature that is being reviewed on QMU is the host PCI. So maybe it will be in DPDK 70.5 but it's not here yet. The idea is simplified here. So when using a traditional way to transmit a packet from one VM to another, the packet goes to the host V-switch and V-switch will transmit it to the second VM. When using V-host PCI, the V-host PCI device maps directly to the second VM VotQ. So it's a little more complex than this because you have to set this up. And so it requires an introduction of a new protocol, the V-host PCI protocol. And QMU runs a server on the first VM and the second VM will connect to. The advantage is that it improves the performance, of course, because the two virtual machines will share a single VotQ. And so the packet does not have to be copied multiple times. And there is no change needed into the VotQ guest because of its design. But it has some disadvantages that we have in the first release. On the first version that is being reviewed today is our security challenges because the first VM will map all the second VM memory space. So if you don't trust the second VM, this is something you cannot use today. And this is something that could be solved with IoT-LB features. So Victor will talk about this after. And also there are some concerns about the migration because your two VMs, the two QMU instances are connected through a socket. So it might be at some complexity to perform a migration. Okay, so now I will let Victor talk about some security stuff. Okay, so to achieve high performance, we have several solutions. One of them VHOST PCI which maps directly part of memory from one guest to another guest and implement in DPDK library the functions to access virtual queues. Another solution is to enable networking from VM to host user space. It's VHOST user. But again, to achieve high performance, we map the whole physical space of guest to user process and to enable to access any buffer in any place. It's not secure, it's not isolated. If you think about two VMs, you cannot trust another VM from bugs or from some malicious software. When you talk to some process on the host, in theory it's better. You can consider it as trusted, but still if it's some third-party user process, it can have bugs and it's not healthy to give the access to the whole physical memory. So how we can fix it? On the host, we have a notion of IOMMU. IOMMU is one of its features is to restrict the access to the physical memory on the computer from devices, from physical devices. The physical device today can have firmware, can have bugs, and also if it's on default, it can overwrite some places on the physical memory of host. And modern processors, both AMD and Intel, each of them support different mechanisms that enables every access from the PCI bus to undergo some address translation. And it's IOMMU and it's implemented in real CPUs. So when we talk about virtual machine, for today there is no any support for translations of guest user space address to guest physical addresses. And if you want to supply such a feature, we have to implement IOMMU emulation in QM and KVM. And this feature is going to be added both to the KVM and DPDK. First of all, I would like to explain how it's going to work in case of the host when it's sitting in the kernel memory of host. So the basic idea is quite simple. QM represents the machine to the guest operating system like it does support IOMMU and then VM can start using it by means of IOMMU driver. And from that point, every physical descriptors to the network card will include guest logical addresses to the memory instead of physical addresses. And that means that when we work with buffers, every such address need to be translated from guest logical address to guest physical address, which is the same as host user space address. And the knowledge of such translation table is sitting in QMU since QMU handles TLB requests. And the actual accesses are performed by V host which sits in the kernel. So the kernel each time he sees the new address which needs to translate, just send the question to QMU about how to translate and for following accesses just caches this translation information. Another mechanism that need to be explored when VM unmapped the DMA memory, the QMU sends the invalidation request to Vhost just to let Vhost know that this address is not more in use. And next time Vhost need to ask again if he sees the same address. So it's the basic idea which also going to be included in the probably next release of QMU and KVM. And to support this for Vhost user backends, the basic idea is the same. The difference is that the means how we communicate information about IoT-LB translations and about cache invalidations. So again the backend has to keep some kind of IoT-LB cache and each time it see new IO virtual address which it don't know how to translate it just ask QMU but this time by means of Unix socket and also IoT will be cache invalidations are sent by means of Unix socket. It's slightly slow but it's still not in main data pass so it doesn't affect much the performance. So the conclusion, the DPDK is now under active development to support various features for virtual machines. We think that 10 megabit packets per second is really achievable with DPDK running in VM and on the host to supply VM to VM communication. And we think these features are crucial to support industrial transitions to NVF, SDN networks since both the security and high performance are very important for this. Thank you very much and now we have time for questions and answers. Was it interesting? Now we have time for questions. Repeat the question. So the question was just maybe we can use some copy on writes and eliminate this way the copying of buffers. And I think Maxime could explain about feature of zero copy which I think does pretty much the same. Actually this is something we haven't considered yet. So maybe if you have good ideas we could discuss about this. And I got the same numbers. So that showed me that VHOS user is light. It seems to be fast enough. But something else like the VHOS PCI is not working or not fast enough. So the question was about that actually the VHOS implementation is quite efficient since you can achieve about 3 million packets per second. It's still lower than we want to reach. We want to reach 8 or 10 million packet per second and we're looking for possibilities since your management and our management shows that 8 to 10 million packet per seconds are achievable when you use some shared memory. And both DPDK on both sides, right? So that's exactly the point. I think that you measured only 3 packets per second VM to VM because all current implementation still needs some imediator in OVS. And what we call the zero copy eliminates only copy from weird queues to M buffs. But there's still one copy from one weird queue to another weird queue. And this which lowers the performance. And we're going to address this by Virtio PCI devices which will enable us to map directly the ring buffers of one guest to another guest. And this way we eliminate this last copy of the elimination of OVS. In reality it's much more complicated since if we want still to have some switching capabilities we need to implement some small switch inside DPDK which will reroute this traffic directly to the buffers of another VM or down to full OVS on the host. But it is a way since if we want to have NVF and SDN on using virtualization and virtual machine we have to supply them with this kind of performance. Since the only things that just trade off between flexibility that NVF require and high performance which only till now only bare metal solutions could supply. And we still not there but we are going to that direction to supply bare metal performance with flexibility and security of VMs. Any other questions? Please. I don't know. I think a JSON is working on it. So you should add JSON. Okay. The question was if the host implementation, current host implementation supports busy polling to the channel. And if there's no more questions, so thank you very much for your interest.


What's up everyone? It's your girl Kenzie here from Layton Sports Guards, and I'm ripping up personal here for Jeffrey H We've got two of the new release 2021 Panini Don Russ optic football hobbies. All right, Jeffrey. Thanks as always for your order Here we go. Let's see down How fresh case Here we go I'm a brown the rookies insert and Josh Palmer We've got Jeremy chin on the aqua out of 299 Darby silver circles to 125 Amari Rogers pay in book rated rookie refractor Saints and refractor hollow Rogers we've got a Mac Jones rated rookie. We're a talker rising Suns Joe Shasty Why some Mitchell nice aqua to 299 shrubber Lawrence boom Beautiful color match on that too That is sick Very nice small dimple right kind of by his elbow there You can kind of see it right there Little dimple other than that it does look very nice So mag this one for you. Love that color match Congrats on that one Jeffrey We've got Larry roundtree the third on the pink velocity to 79 Jamar chase rookie hollow Jared golf lines Steven Collins mythical short print case hit Another one wow every sick Tom Brady Very nice mythical we'll mag that one for you. Wow It's only half the box Chats a rat blue to 179 Hayden Hurst Mondry Stevenson orange to 199 Nick Bosa this Evans Joe Montana hollow Great new some rookie Warner we've got white hot rookies terrace Marshall Jr. Hollow Panthers Davis Mills rookie purple to 50 David Montgomery Bears Si we've got orange to 199 Kenny Galladay I don't know Patrick. Oh, nope. It's right here. We've got gridiron kings rookies insert auto a mon-raw St. Brown That is Eight out of 99. Thanks a mon-raw. All right, as I say that a little Herbert last pack box one Jeffrey Marshall Jr. Global of Chuba Hubbard Panthers Nice first box there number two Good luck Jeffery got a ps2 Dominators Stefan digs That's Zach Wilson rookie and orange to 199 Matt Stafford And he's so all we've got aqua to 299 Marcus Davenport Kitty we've got blue does Fitzpatrick rated rookie auto Titans Is blue there that is 27 out of 40 Mayor Smith Marseille, okay, Stevenson global inserts of Daniel Hunter from Jamaica Yes, I'm thinking food sounds fire right now. Javante Williams Silver circles DK Metcalf for the Seahawks to 125 Yeah, we've got blue ice to 15 rated rookie semi fohoco Very nice Almost middle school, I think hollow rated rookie Jake funk real cocks his aunt used to have a Jamaican restaurant right over there in Longwood by the Kind of I like saw some in a hospital Elijah Moore We've got white hot rookies hollow of Justin Fields But the city bought out the little strip of Buildings that were right there. I guess to expand the road or something Agilore, we've got pink velocity Berry Sanders for the Lions. There's a really good one. It's a bit of a drive It's called a taste of Jamaica That's all Somewhere in Orange County, Nico Collins blue to 179 Russell Wilson We've got Earth Smith junior hollow I'm Sanders you've got Micah Parsons rated rookie Trey Lance rated rookie the rookies insert Justin Fields. Yeah Orange to 199 Elijah Moore jets Yeah Scritch we got awkward at 299 rated rookie Richie Grant Lunch yet Jimmy G. Hollow Niners And Felipe Frank's rated rookie Alrighty Jeffrey that will do it for your two boxes congrats as always on your heads. Thanks so much for hopping in get this right out to you