Thank you very much. Thank you for having me here. Brendan delighted to be at the institute which you founded in a lovely building. So I appreciate good buildings for institutes as I'm lucky enough to be in a nice building in London as well. It creates I think some of the culture and the mood of open discussion and hopefully we'll be able to have that. I'm very happy to engage obviously on this topic or others after I've finished my remarks. The timing is quite good I think for the talk. I was particularly interested to be able to come and do this because we are sort of a little over a year into the government in the UK. And so there's been some commentary about a year in how has the UK's foreign policy done. Although the visit by President Obama last week in a way sort of, how could I put it, changed slightly the context in which that kind of discussion might have happened absent that visit and give it maybe a bit more of a US focus than we might have had otherwise. But what I'm talking about today is rethinking UK foreign policy. I think it's worth perhaps throwing in the word limits. What I want to talk about a bit today is the extent to which the UK government has been able to follow through on its intention I believe to recalibrate, reorient somewhat UK foreign policy from a heavily Euro-Atlantic focus to a more international focus. So I might call that back to the future rather than necessarily being a real change. But nonetheless that's the approach as I've seen it, being one year in and in particular being one year in after the dramatic events in the Middle East of these last few months makes it a particularly interesting time to review it. So let me sort of do four things. Talk a bit about how I think I view where the UK sits right now and I think the kind of overlaps let's say therefore with where the UK government thinks the UK sits. Secondly a little bit about what they've been doing about it for the last year. A little bit about the challenges, the difficulties that are emerging to kind of put the foreign policy into action. And then just a couple of comments for conclusion. So on this first bit of where is the UK today or where has it been and where did it think it was when the new government came into power. Three important things, self-evident perhaps to state. And these were all in the paper that I put out back in May of last year around the time of the changing government. But I think the three things from the UK standpoint, the shift in economic gravity and I use the word gravity quite advisedly because I'm not sure it's a shift in power. There's certainly a shift in economic gravity from west to east, that kind of magnetic effect that's taken place because of the rise economically of China principally but countries around it. This has led and is leading to a shift in political power as well, the emergence of a G20 world. For a UK that's prided itself, as you were saying, being at the heart of some of the key institutions that helped govern the world, one way or another, since the Second World War, this rebalancing is important for the UK. We don't want to lose our centrality, no country that has power once on a COVID, and a UK with a fairly internationalist outlook feels it has something to offer. So it's wanted to adapt itself to a G20 world, and I think you saw this in the way that the Gordon Brown government really embraced the emergence of the G20, has even helped try to define what it might be in the future and the kind of agenda it might undertake. So that was the first element. The second is that I think the UK government has been conscious that there are new risks emerging with this shift from west to east. Risks which come about partly through the huge competition for resources come about also because fragile states have a way of exporting their fragility over to the UK and to other countries in the world, and therefore an awareness that even though the kind of interventions that we undertook in Iraq and Afghanistan may have had unintended consequences, the UK would not be able to bury its hand in the sand and assume that its stability around the world would not continue to be of concern and whether we'd have to adapt our strategies to reflect that. And then finally, and perhaps most importantly almost, a realisation that the UK had hit a brick wall in its growth model. You know, we spent a good ten years lauding it over continental European countries, you know. Well, of course, you know, Germany stuck with eight or nine percent unemployment and stuck with one percent economic growth forever. And here we are with our five percent unemployment and our two and a half percent, three percent growth. And it's because we have a better model. And it's the inheritance of Maggie Thatcher, et cetera. Well, I think we woke up to the fact that a large part of that model was credit and spinning money faster and faster around the UK economy. It was the large contribution that the UK financial sector played in offering large amounts of money through tax revenue into our coffers, allowing a new labour government to be old labour, new labour simultaneously, et cetera, et cetera. Any case, we need to do something differently at a time when the world is shifting in the centre of economic gravity is shifting. We need to grow and not just cut and growing at home won't be enough. And so, you know, my call on this I suppose in the paper that I made is that the UK should go back to the future somewhat and focus heavily on open markets. If you'd had to pick one theme that would be relevant from the UK standpoint that would in a way answer almost all three of those questions from the UK national interest standpoint from a point of view of slowly integrating the weaker economies into growth models and that would make sure that the rise of new powers didn't lead to some sort of instability, let's say, in the international system, then supporting and promoting open markets would be good. It's especially good for the UK and I should note this just quickly here because the UK has relied hugely on foreign investment and exports to drive economic growth through that 2010 period. About 30% of the increase in UK GDP over that period was accounted for solely by exports and FDI and foreign direct investment. That's a significant element and in service sector that's been even more important where we are one of the world's, well the second largest exporter of services in the world after the United States. So those are logic. Now the UK government, not because I wrote it, I think they were thinking elements of the same thing in any case and this is the UK government that proclaimed when it came in a distinctive British foreign policy. It would be different and I think a key aspect of this distinctiveness has been a reference to open markets but trade and especially less reference to open markets, more about the need for commercial diplomacy. A kind of shifting of British foreign policy into the service of its commercial policy and as I said I find that understandable, logical and fine. Second has been to trying to take advantage and you've seen speeches by William Hague about the importance of the UK in a networked world. The UK is particularly well placed within a networked world to take advantage of this changing power because we're not just in the old institutions of the UN Security Council of NATO but we're also in the new parts of the G20 and we're influential in the financial stability board etc. Thirdly they have taken this shift in global economic gravity to mean a real emphasis on bilateral relationships with new powers. So to state the obvious is China, India etc. Finally the government has decided that it didn't want to let go however of the importance of values and in the series of four I think it was foreign policy speeches that William Hague gave each of which touched on an aspect of this foreign policy agenda just describing values and the importance of keeping an eye on the values of democracy, openness, politically etc. has been an important part of this component. So that's kind of where the UK is, that's how the strategy has been laid out over this last year. What's happened over the last year? What have they done? A second part. Well I think it's been quite interesting. This has been a government that has been really active over this last year I think in redefining some of the axes of British foreign policy. With President Obama's visit here I think one of the most interesting issues and something I'm particularly interested in has been the US-UK relationship. There's no doubt that the UK-US relationship is now more balanced than it was when the coalition government came into power. Remember all the phrases that they used before they came into power wanting to have a solid but not slavish relationship? Well they've gone ahead and done it. If you look at the G20 debates about whether you should be stimulating your economies or cutting, we've now got the US on stimulating and the UK firmly, in fact probably at the lead of the pack on cutting. So no longer do we have Gordon Brown and Barack Obama shoulder to shoulder at the London G20 summit talking about the importance of stimulus. While the French and the Germans were more in being cautious we've had a complete flip of that in the most recent G20 summits with the UK really on a different side of the ledger to President Obama. It's interesting that Obama picked his words very carefully on this topic and his speech is in London. UN Security Council vote on settlements. UK went right out there, you know, did not stand back with the US and was supported the resolution critical of Israeli settlement policy. And I think more broadly you could look at the Libya, you know, how much we pushed on that action. I guess there have been a bunch of issues where the UK has stepped aside somewhat from where the US was. And now in a way they're in a position to re-engage. Now we can talk about an essential relationship. The phraseology used in the jointly penned article, though I think David Cameron's team had more to do with it than the Obama team on rephrasing this as an essential, not just a special but an essential relationship. Secondly, this is a government that is, because it's wanted to look more internationally, has put the EU into cold storage. I'm happy with putting it. We don't want any issues with the EU. Not good, not bad, just will have good relationships. In fact, we'll treat the EU somewhat like the bilateralism that we want to have around the rest of the world. We'll do a Franco-UK deal on defence. David Cameron hosted his kind of Nordic summit of governments, including I think Norway was there. So not just countries inside the EU. It has not wanted to rock the boats on financial regulation. It said that the euro is a critical national interest for the UK government. They've really kind of want to say we don't want to fight over the EU because we need to move away from this Euro-Atlantic focus where the US was the plus and the EU was the negative. But each of them were distracting in a way and we need to focus more third point on the bilateral relationships and there they really have done it. And I think whether you look at the rejigging of embassies that were just announced earlier this month with a huge increase, well huge in terms of personal times in the Beijing and New Delhi embassies and in other parts of the world, some cuts back in parts of Europe, that's been interesting. Fourthly, they've gone into the smaller states, Turkey, Gulf, Chile, Colombia, visits to Australia, New Zealand. This is a government that's looking at all those middle-ranking powers that might be influential in a G20 world. It's not just China and India and Brazil. It's other powers, South Korea, Japan, ones that are at a UK level that need to be nurtured and cultivated if the UK is going to be able to push its international agenda going forward. Fifthly, it's pushed its ideas on open markets. Sixthly, push for Doha, rhetorically at least, a big argument in favour of opening up a single market rhetorically at least. Sixthly, they have focused on fragile states, adding a lot more money to the international development part, not just on traditional international development, but more on the security dimensions of those fragile states that we talked about earlier. It's very interesting to see the increases in diplomatic capacity in countries like Pakistan, Madagascar, Kyrgyzstan, South Sudan, Cote d'Ivoire, El Salvador. These are all countries, interestingly, in many cases, pre-conflict, the impact that you can have. Don't go in in an Afghanistan point with your development aid. Try to get in there before the crisis gets out of hand. Finally, and maybe this is all worth a completely separate discussion, I've only got five minutes left of my 20 minutes, is on the whole business of the national security strategy and the strategic defence and security review, which took place, which again was part of this rejigging British defence resources as well to a new world, except that I would say this was the area that has been most explicitly inconsistent with the vision, in my opinion. And we can talk about this in a minute, but you would have thought if open markets, rising powers are the theme of your foreign policy, then you'd be thinking more about your navy. You'd be thinking about being able to be influential in sea lanes and around the South China Sea or the Malacca Straits or capacity maybe to do targeted interventions in fragile states. Instead, we've hardly cut the army and we've cut the navy back heavily, and this has all to do with Afghanistan and legacy problems. But any case, the point I wanted to make is this is a government that has been activist in my opinion, activist in the last year to try to say this is a different foreign policy. But I suppose the hinge point of the talk is this working, isn't it? How's it going? Let me talk about three issues where I think the limits stand out. The first is right at the crux of it, this business of hanging our star to the rise of the new economic powers of the world, the countries where growth is powering ahead, the Brazils, the China's and the India's. If you look at the end of the first year, you might say it's too early to tell, but actually our performance at least in the hard nugget measurement of exports and so on has not been particularly impressive. You all know the UK economy has been basically in standstill over the last six months with a 0.5% growth in the last quarter of 2010 and only a 0.5% then growth, so a sort of negative 0.5 cancelled out by a plus 0.5. But if you look at the trade, our exports have gone up in this first quarter by about 4%, imports dropped by half a percent, but still we're running $3 billion in a quarter roughly deficit. So trade is still a negative overall in terms of UK economic growth and most of that trade we've done, the increase that has taken place, has gone to the US partly to Europe. Our trade profile remains heavily EU with 50% US, almost a quarter focused. And our ability to break into those great markets despite all of the trade missions, diplomatic discussions and David Cameron, I thought quite, how can I put it bare-facedly, criticising Pakistan in India, criticising Israel in Turkey, people said, gosh, that was a very naive thing to do. I thought it was actually quite mechanistically intelligent. He was playing to the gallery and playing to markets, but it hasn't made that much of a difference yet. And I think what we've suddenly realised is you can say it's so, but that doesn't make it so. And the one thing Germany knows, was in Germany giving a talk just the other week, comparing the UK and German economies, they've spent 10, 20 years building their relationships in China and India and Brazil. And their export machine, which has done so well during that period, has really been on the basis of long, long-term structural change, not because the government decided those markets were important in the last six months or a year. So this is a difficult ship to turn in the UK economy. And in addition, I think what we've realised is that if the UK is going to suddenly break its way into the Chinese, the India and the Brazilian markets, especially in the service sectors where we're so competitive, we're going to need the EU behind us driving those markets open. Because actually our diplomatic clout, while it might be important on issues of high security in the UN Security Council and even the G20, that doesn't mean we have clout when you go to Beijing economically, et cetera. And there really the weight of the EU is what makes the difference. But have we played our EU card well? This is where I'd say that the idea of treating Europe in cold storage doesn't help. Europe, as I'm sure many of you will know here, is all about package deals.  And then yes, maybe we'll talk about trade. No, the UK has thought that if we just put Europe into the quiet space, people will be grateful. And somehow we can then turn around and play the economic card. Well, no. And this is, I mean, I don't think the government is unaware of this. But the fact is that, you know, it's all very well for William Hague to stand up in his mansion house speech back on May the 4th and proclaim that Europe should look at having a free trade area, and even a customs union with North Africa in coming year states, because that's, you know, the best for the future. But have we been building the relationships with those countries that will bear the brunt of that more open market, which will be Italy, Spain, Portugal, all of those countries that are suffering most within the euro crisis at the moment, in a space where we're really not playing in that debate. So I think we've kind of confused commercial diplomacy with what it takes to get open, what open markets mean. Commercial diplomacy is a good slogan, but I'm not sure it's quite working out right. Last two points on this. One is the US relationship, and maybe I'll save up some of this for Q&A because otherwise I'll go on too long. But am I okay? Well, you know, one of the most, I think, fascinating shifts in UK foreign policy has been this effort to detach itself from its obsession about having a special relationship with the US. And in a way what the government is leaning towards, I think, is a sort of alachart relationship with behind it aspects of specialness that are purely tactical. That's a phrase I used in the Foreign Affairs Committee evidence which I gave, which is that, yes, it's still a special relationship, but it's in intelligence cooperation, it's in aspects of military cooperation, it's in sharing nuclear missiles on trident submarines. These are tactically extremely important, but they're not really a definition of a strategically special relationship. And we have drifted into, as I said, almost in our efforts to try to show that we're over it to ourselves, not to America. We just think America would like us more if we didn't seem so desperate to have a special relationship. We've ended up drifting towards an alachart relationship, which I felt the Obama visit actually epitomised. High on pomp and ceremony and all of that, but maybe a little lacking on the substance. While we're running our commercial diplomacy with China, the US is thinking the future of Southeast Asia and Asian security. And I don't think we have much to say about that, to be frank. And while we're trying to maybe make sure that our very successful commercial relationship with Russia isn't undercut by the hangovers, the Lvivianenko assassination, the Americans are really well into actually, I think, quite an effective reset of their relationship with Russia that goes way beyond commerce. We've got commercial bits, but it's not doing well for the US. So, you know, in India, do we really have a weight on it? America's got a really long-term strategic idea for what it's doing with India. Do we? No, we want to sell some more aircraft or some bits and pieces. You know, I just have this feeling we're on a slightly different track. Afghanistan timing, again, we have a different view on that. The Palestinian vote on statehood, which is coming up September, I can see some real sort of bumps in the road going forward. And what worries me is that our credibility in the US has probably been most affected by, in my opinion, this is what I said at the end of my worry about the disconnect between strategy and actions has been in the strategic defence and security review, where I'm worried that our effort to play the short-term political game of the importance of Afghanistan is undercutting our relevance and our value in the US on the really strategic questions of security that we'll be facing in the next five or ten years.  You know, that's just not a credible naval force in my opinion. And the US sees this, and we had a very interesting meeting on this just ahead of Obama's visit with some senior former US officials, who this was their main concern, was that we just wouldn't be standing alongside going forward. The third point, which is the most interesting one for this government politically, the disconnect, is that our commercial diplomacy is starting to look like mercantilism as the Arab Spring blooms. Suddenly, I mean, it's a little unfair, it's a low punch, but the fact that what was the arms trade trip to the Gulf, I remember a tale on the news, and there was David Cameron in Egypt. I thought, brilliant. First there, ahead of Cathy Ashton, ahead of everyone. This is Britain doing some of its leadership stuff. Of course, I hadn't quite looked at the calendar. This trip had been long planned and was planned as part of the commercial diplomacy to the Gulf and to other parts of that world. And all of those countries, China, which way is China going right now? Heavily on the crackdown track. Russia will see where they go with their presidential elections. Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states that were always mentioned, including by me, as being countries that you had to pay attention to. What's their view of the Arab Spring? Well, we know Saudi Arabia's $4 billion that were just put on the table, already been put on the table, unlike the EU's $20 billion plus, is not there to support the Jasmine Revolution, as far as I can tell. I mean, it is important. It will help stabilize the economy. But I think it's fair to say that some of the Gulf monarchies have a different view of how these revolutions should play out to a values-based UK and US foreign policy. And maybe the UK has even been more in the forefront of the values-based foreign policy in the US, which has got a lot of brickbats, and Obama's got a lot of brickbats for playing it cautiously.  So any case, we're in a very interesting hinge point where a government that I think does not want to detach itself from its values, values that I think it believes in and which I would share, is having to sort of work out how does that fit with a desperate need of the UK economy to be adjusting to a more bilateral, multipolar kind of commercial diplomacy. And my conclusion would be, therefore, how do we adjust? And all governments adjust after their first year. I'm sure this government will be no different from any other. The adjustment will have to take, I think, within Europe. And that's going to be very painful and difficult for the government as the cuts start to happen and as the backbenchers get a bit more restless. But whether it's on the budget, whether it's in the kind of role that we play in making sure we're supporting any further downturns in the euro crisis, not within the euro group, obviously, but in parallel to it, there will have to be some tactical compromises in that space. We're going to have to think about who we partner with vis-a-vis the Arab Spring. I think it's fascinating that the G8, which had been pretty much written off, became the vehicle of choice, not just for the US, but for the UK as well, to lay out its response to the Arab Spring in Doverville what last weekend. That was quite a shift from the G20 multipolar world that we were presenting just prior to that, and suddenly the reliance on the EBRD, the European Investment Bank, et cetera. And finally, I think we will have to realise that this absolute emphasis on commercial diplomacy is clearly insufficient without the deep changes that will have to take place within the UK economy, which are going to take a long time to play through. This government is not going to be able to pivot UK foreign policy alongside its economic policy into this more multipolar world without realising that education reform, venture capital funding for small banks, for small companies, export credit insurance, all of these types of things are going to be as important as the big trade visits and the increases of consular staff in Beijing and Moscow and Brasilia, et cetera, over the coming years. And to be fair again, I think the government is already making this adjustment with some of its appointments and some of the linkages between our UK trade investment and our foreign office. But nonetheless, adjustment will have to take place, but it's a fascinating time to be looking at UK foreign policy. So thanks for the chance to talk about it. Thank you very much.


The President's Borla Tindebo says his administration is strongly committed to provide an accident healthcare facilities for all Nigerians and will continue to prioritise domestic and foreign direct investments in the sector. The President made these remarks at a meeting with Professor Benedict O'Rama, President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the African Export Input Bank, AFRICSIM Bank, accompanied by a delegation from King's College Hospital, London. A strong partner of the Nigerian government in many ways and of course Nigeria is a very important member of the bank and shareholder of the bank. We support the country in all aspects, all sectors with an exposure of about almost $12 billion dollars, so we came to bring the President and also to pay a courtesy call with the delegation I led, the delegation of the King's College Hospital and King's College London, with whom we are partnering to build our first African Medical Center of Excellence, a project that is ongoing in Apuja, say 500 veterinary hospitals that we are developing that we expect will help to promote in traditional medical tourism, help stop at-band tourism from Nigeria and Africa to other parts of the world. The President welcomed the partnership between AFRICSIM Bank and KCH London to establish a first road healthcare facility in Apuja called the AFRICSIM Medical Center of Excellence, scheduled for completion next year. AFRICSIM Bank intervenes all across the value chain and it's called for the President the aspects of what we could do to support agriculture and also to support banks, make sure that we increase supply of foreign exchange to the country to stabilize the currencies. The situation in Nigeria is difficult, but it's not unique to Nigeria, it's something happening all over across Africa caused by challenges that started with the COVID-19 of course, the Ukraine crisis, the rising interest rates and the solving the crisis that is affecting many countries in Africa. We are intervening not only Nigeria but other African countries to help them manage the negative impacts of these developments. And don't forget to hit the notification button so you get notified about fresh news updates.


All right, thanks everybody for coming to the legal and policy dev room We look at all the hardcore fans that are stayed in the audience because like we filled up. Yeah, thank you for being here Like the van stock was the only thing we were full for today, but I actually had to flip the sign To the full setting But we're not full now. I think that's obvious But we are so thankful for those of you that stayed just to hear us at the final session So I think we should we did a lot of new things that were one major new thing this year And so if it's okay by everybody, I think we should start out with feedback on that so debates Did you like them? Did you know let's start with let's start wait. Let's start with hands So raise your hand if you really liked them It's nuts like three quarter well, it would be easier to do this raise your hand if you really hated them So two people really hated them you didn't even have to do Sure, whether you like raise or not sure if you're like them or not Okay, then then if you're not for people are not sure it's about a quarter And then raise your hand if you really liked some but you really disliked others Okay, okay, so so I think in full disclosure we this was a real experiment, so we didn't know exactly how to organize them I think we learned a lot And we can see what works. I spent the entire day yesterday studying debate theory so so I think with the With the assertion that the vast majority of the people in the room really liked them a lot or Really liked some of them Maybe we could go to the negative and have people give constructive feedback on what they would do sure Yeah, yeah, that sounds great, then I don't have to run around with the okay I see a reason and I have something that a Comment that was made on social media that I can read as well. That was in the negative, so I Like the format, but there were possibly too many of them So it's sort of got a little repetitive because the format was the same again and again and again So yeah, I wouldn't run as many again, but I definitely do them again I feel like this sort of Scratch an itch for a lot of people because a lot of people want to debate after a talk often And so this kind of solved that in a part, but I think yeah, probably went a bit too much in the other eye erection So a mix of a few debates and a few talks and and kind of on different subjects that will be great But I love the concept of some debate Happening here and not like in the hallway Okay, you here then Kate so I think the debates were very entertaining, but there was I think there's kind of a problem that Since the folks who participated are more on one side of the debate actually Then the when when there's a need to represent the other side it sort of becomes a caricature So it would be maybe useful to have actual proponents of the other side participate Although it's kind of also a problem to sort of invite them to the lion's den to be like Yeah, we really appreciate that to be very frank about it There was a tremendous amount of effort done primarily by Tom I actually want to take a moment to ask will somebody else a mic run for us for this session So Tom can be up here with us. Okay But just to give me a second Kate I'll finish that other point So so yeah, we we spent a tremendous amount of effort emailing people begging them to be in the bates begging them to be on various Sides we reached out to people who are on various sides, and we had a hard time filling some of them on certain sides Just a quick question raise your hand if you didn't participate in a debate, but you totally would in the future So like two four six seven eight, okay nine Yeah, I just wanted to echo the prior point It would have been better if there was something more sincerely debating each side as opposed to People putting on a persona and then putting these big disclaimers up We're probably learned more. I want to read the negative feedback that we got on social media Just because I think it dovetails with it which is just dislike new debate format of illegal in policy room at FOSDM Informative sessions With respect to less sensational things going on in legal and policy and FOS replaced with rehashed conversations We've been having for months for entertainment. Glad my legal team isn't here would waste their time So I happen I don't agree with that comment, but I do think that that I Felt that there was too much, you know, this was good entertainment but I what I originally loved about this dev room was the more serious discussion of legal and policy issues and This was as someone said, you know, it kind of at times verged on caricature and I see how it's sort of fun But to me I mean, I'll just like state some some other Problems I had I thought that I think the format is somewhat exclusionary because I think only certain types of personalities are going to be likely to enjoy Doing this kind of thing and be good at it And so I think it's kind of much more exclusionary than than general presentations are which are exclusionary enough already and I think that's something that should be born in mind And one of the reasons we did this is because we looked at the last few years of the of the dev room talks and we get the we get Rehashed recycled submissions of the same thing every single year from the usual suspects And we do a lot of effort to get the CFP to new places and the CFP has like way too much text because I wrote it Like paragraphs saying like we want people who haven't talked about policy before please submit etc Etc, but we haven't been getting that the last few years And so we didn't want to just run the usual suspects giving all the same talks for yet another year And that's why we did it this way That's true, but I wrote the pie. I did not write that alone, but I wrote the I wrote the the two verbose stuff That's what I did one point. I think a lot of the participants were what we would call usual suspects That's one of the problems. So I'm glad that there are some people who are willing to Make any debates debates in you know future years So if we get you know additional people to do it who haven't spoken in the dev room before I think that'd be great But I think that there were a lot of I mean speakers that we really like but but there as Bradley would say usual suspects Yeah, I mean I think that it's being a first-year proposition that might happen, but go ahead Pam Yeah, so I was going to say and I'm saying this with my open-source initiative board member had on that as we shared privately I'll say publicly that it was very Difficult it was very difficult for the OSI to sort of see our CR our mission sort of up for vote first off with A very click-baity title that was negative towards us and then and then as first conveyed to us that there was going to be sort Of a vote on whether or not the open-source definition is appropriate or not Which I just can't tell you how much angst that that created at the OSI that that so it's maybe less click bait I appreciate that you didn't ask those questions I appreciate very much that it and I didn't like the questions you did ask was did you learn something to do? I think those were appropriate, but less click-baity titles or sort of Hanging people out to dry less on the titles would we would have appreciated that yeah So what we had this year was like a mix of some of we could we did the general call Like CFP for folks that would want to submit the debates and then we also created some of them And I think I think we would have a heavier hand in In constructing those in the future and it for many reasons including that So just actually building on Kate's comment from before that it's maybe preferable to have People who are actually taking not sorry not just taking an opinion for the sake of having a debate But actually hold that opinion as well I think the advantage of having it this way and actually putting or forcing people to take a specific Position makes the debate less heated Because sometimes it feels like if you have someone on the on the panel who's actually holding an very controversial opinion They will get attacked and it will really go to go into that and you you lose focus of the topic as such So yes, I understand this is kind of a you know it turns into a caricature Maybe but it also has the advantage of allowing a debate about it What if the topics were more subtle? Yes, I would have preferred that as well and for some of them. I think I would have preferred them to be clearer On what you know what you're actually talking about and what the debate is going to be about but yeah They know that's not that's not a format issue. That's more of a like a phrasing issue Yeah, we actually originally Wanted a structure going even further in a very traditional way that they do debates where you don't know what side you have to take It's a coin flip Which is how debate tournaments usually run you're given a policy issue and you're told with a policy issue to head But not which side you have to take and then the coin is flipped at the beginning and that's how you end up on either side Basically, we couldn't get anybody to agree to that It was If people could pass the mic around and Tom you could come up because I feel like so you can keep the mic where it is and We'll pass it around but Tom. You're not participating in So this kind of relates to what Maria was saying and probably also outs me as being My first time in the legal dev room, but what I was thinking about was there seems to be Too much of an assumption of a base level of knowledge on in two different ways one is I had no idea What people were debating about at times because the debate topic wasn't clearly well defined and that I would click on the Description and the page and I'm like this doesn't sound right It sounds like people were actually talking about two different things But something else is that the people in the audience I got this impression earlier when somebody said, you know What are the four freedoms for example, and I'm lucky that I know some of this stuff But being somebody who has been out of the open-source movement for a long time and coming back You know, I'm like, oh, I actually haven't thought about a lot of this stuff a long time And all this really assumes a very high level of knowledge and it prevents a lot of audience members I think I'm gonna speak for a lot of other people and I'm assuming It prevents us from being able to engage really Because I have no idea what you're talking about sometimes. I think it's a really fair criticism we have kind of Maybe enjoyed a lot of success in the dev room and by having a lot of legal geeks and policy people involved that You know really go deep on this but what we missed I think and very much to your point is that it's all we kind of Make out we have especially today I can tell from not just your question, but many questions that we're we have made a whole bunch of assumptions about a Lot of things not just How copyright law in particular works, but also some of the The decisions that have been happening that are influential and kind of how it will affect us and some of us you know think about this a lot and and Some of us don't but in and I think that that's it's sort of like having an open-source project That's newbie friendly, you know, or we have starter bugs and we have a way of getting involved We need to have a better on ramps to to this and not just assume that everything is easy Another thing that that that I've noticed happening and I really it really didn't make I'm clear to me until today Or maybe maybe yesterday when I was talking to some people We in this dev room are kind of a victim of our own success in certain types of ways We were the first historically we were the first dev room to not be about software development, which we're very proud of This was you know Tom's idea basically was like hey we could have a dev room about this stuff And it's never been done before that was we're excited and now there are more than just us We're not the only dev room now One of the reasons we always give up ours We don't do try to do two days anymore is because community dev room has a lot of the talks now that we would usually have to do here Because they weren't welcome in any other dev room And I got I get the impression and actually I've heard this from speak from speakers and potential speakers that there's like a Career need to speak in this dev room like people need to speak in this dev room for their own career development I mean I was surprised by this and a little bit flat I think I'm probably all flattered as organizers that that's that it's so important to be in this dev room speaking But on the other hand it kind of changes the nature to a certain extent but I Don't know if that's really true. I know that definitely we know of a person who believes that to be the case I don't think it's true. I don't I think I think you can have you can have a very successful career without ever speaking in this Yeah, so from the very beginning we we conceived of this dev room as being an advanced one And that was because you know not eight nine years ago. There were conferences Free software open-source software conferences that had legal presentations and they tended to be very kind of introductory and we thought well There's there's already conferences like commercially kind of conferences around open source and free software not really free software open source That are doing very introductory level legal stuff Why don't we be the one that talks about things at a more advanced level and we're not the only one now That does that although like we may be the the only one that's kind of really open to the public which is something One challenge I faced with some of the talk with some of the debates was Remembering what role people were supposed to have because I knew a few of them and you'd ask them to play a different role to normal I don't know whether we could have had hats or personas up or color coding to help us And maybe also them remember which position they were trying to take in that debate. I Thought about you know creating a web app or something that would show you where you were in the process and You know what position people were taking and you know the dog ate my homework More questions. Thank you first. It's really cool to see us experimenting with the Dev Room. I think this is my Fourth or fifth time here and this was definitely way different than the experience. I've had other times so I like that we're trying to iterate and improve and Give new voices and give other people a chance to experiment with these positions I Think first I like it. I think we could do a little bit less of it That would be like my first one would be like have a few more traditional talks mixed with it, but you know putting my Advocacy hat on We're in the midst of like a very fud-ridden cycle right now and there's a lot of misinformation going around and I actually felt more confused about the issues by the end of it because it was I Don't know and I'm like I I would consider myself a sophisticated, you know person who studies these things and it was There were moments when I forgot like whether or not the speaker was you know, there was a lot of context switching So maybe like sticking to the guns a little more would be helpful And it would be I it's hard for me to imagine like a brand-new person to the dev room But again like this is an advanced dev room in the assumption So I am thankful that we do it I think it would be cool to do a more of a balance of traditional in the mix and have the roles better delegated to And just you know, I don't want to be the guy that says we shouldn't have fun in here Like it was cool to say everybody laughing We need to laugh and we need to have some joy in the dark times too So thank you for bright bringing a little bit of levity to these times too I also want to we can continue to talk about the debates But I also want to just make a shout-out to our two collaboration sessions We I mean I had the idea that you know because there are a lot of really smart people in this room That we could brainstorm ways of addressing some some issues and I'm really glad that a tello and Nate came to talk about that. I apologize that you know The timing is short 25 minutes is really short to to address these things and I really applaud them for introducing these issues and you know and And Nate proactively, you know setting up a link for people to continue the discussion afterwards. So Just a Question on that Do people think that the idea of doing a collaboration session was a good idea? Okay, let me ask a different question Well Yeah, they were just the idea was for them to be more discussion sessions to you know Put it put it forth a problem statement of something that was happening in our community and maybe you know really just have an interactive session About how to address it And if you I you know, I guess I you know instead of asking a question I'll just maybe pass the microphone and have people share their thoughts about that What that we could do differently what you like what you didn't like that sort of thing So Kevin you can say whatever it was that you were gonna say I just want to make a last comment on the debate topic This is mostly for Bradley because he just said he did all this research When these kinds of debates are held, what is the expectation for the audience knowledge level? That might be an issue here is if people didn't already have the background knowledge of the topic that was being discussed Then you just jumped right into the debate. Maybe you need two minutes From an introduction to just say this is a current topic of discussion Here are some situations that are gonna be dated or something like that So I think there might be something on the mic because it sounds like you're not miced So I just wanted to make sure I heard the question I'm gonna repeat it just in case so the question was like what like how does this normally handled in other places that have debates? The thing is is the base structure we were using is used for debate tournaments Where to be quite frank about it. It looks like for my research again I just did a crash course like on this myself I'm not an expert at all John Sullivan who I don't think is in the room Actually did both high school and college in a graduate level. He did judging at these debate tournament So he knows a lot about it, but I was talking to him about it at lunch as well And it was they the policy position is all almost moot, right? You just you're graded and you're judged on how well you construct your argument And that's who wins is not necessarily who Right-side and so and so I don't know if that format is right for us because we're not trying to do that But that's the format that is typically used for formal debates What if instead what we do neck if we do it again, and there are a lot of ifs contained in that But if we do it again, what if we have a presentation on a certain topic and follow with a debate related to that Presentation raise your hand if you think that would be a good idea. Okay? So Tournaments the members of the audience are not going to have strongly held personal opinions about the thing being debated in this room almost everyone will so So on the co-lab sessions I think that Any of the anything that we bring up that is going to be meaningfully advanced within Within 25 or 40 or 50 minutes is going to be too simple for this group And anything and anything else is not going to be meaningfully advanced within that time time frame I think that the co-lab sessions would be better used in Better used in in other ways Okay, sure Karen were you thinking like a fishbowl type format? when you were asking well You're getting close to it not necessarily fishbowl directly, but more of sort of an unconference thing so Yeah, so I mean I guess that that's one idea the other idea going going van at what you were saying is I mean honestly it you remember the the open-source think tanks where we would go and You could spend a couple hours break up into groups work on some problems And then everybody comes back and presents stuff that would be another Format which is a huge deviation from anything we've ever done here But which people might be interested in if we have problem statements that are of the right magnitude I Think Jim you're kind of agreeing with van that it needs more time Raise your hand if you have burning feedback on today that you absolutely really want to give us because I also Want to give us a second if anyone wants us to address any topics of the day which this has traditionally Been the purpose of the panel and I'm cognizant that some people may have stayed for that I don't know but We want to hear important feedback If folks feel like there are points that haven't been shared, but we're also very happy to get feedback by email Or we're in more public Places to with whatever you feel comfortable with so we have so we have 20 minutes left and I turned to Richard Fontana because I think he's a good person to decide what things we might talk about for the remaining 20 minutes of this panel. Oh, I don't know why you think that I mean There's so much that we could talk about so many so many exciting issues will not Yeah, we can ask questions Pam Chastick I've no exercise today. This is great It's way too much trouble to move as as for highly experienced People people involved in open source for many many many years I'm curious what your perspective is on two things in particular the ethical the ethical licenses and commercial open source and whether You see this as something that is very different and groundbreaking or whether this is same old same old. We've been here before. Oh I guess I can start So it's not new Neither thing is new. We've had Ethical licenses that are sort of aimed at kind of ethical or social policy problems that kind of are That look a little bit like free software like what we've thought of as free software open source licenses Those of the debates over those have happened at various times in the past. I think the what's different now to me is It just feels like a louder kind of thing like there's more and I think it's less marginal So so it's not less marginalized. So it's it's being treated seriously by people who I wouldn't see as being on the fringes But rather are kind of like very much within the the the central part of what I think of as the kind of Foss Community and as for the the commercial open source I mean that doesn't seem new either what what I what kind of annoys me and I think I actually got this maybe originally from from From Josh something that I heard Josh say once is that that The people who are advocating for what's called what I think you mean by commercial open source are kind of trying to piggyback on the the ethical source people, you know, it's sort of trying to to Appropriate their You know their political viewpoint for basically making a kind of business argument or a business model kind of argument So that's very disturbing Well, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not your lawyer and this is not legal advice But I don't think a license is the right place to try and promote ethics. I think that it's a license sufferer license needs to be As simple as possible and no simpler really I think that what makes open source great is the ability for us to collaborate without having to ask permission and and Well, many of these ethical aims are completely laudable. I think that The potential for proliferation of ethical licenses will only cause problems for us and that was one thing that I learned are Really stood out in my mind from the debates today is that we could have a variety of ethical licenses and Then there will all be incompatible with each other and our compatibility will be excruciatingly painful So I don't think that that I don't think that that works I know I don't think it's the right way to do it Um, and I'm going to ask Pam to clarify. What did you mean by commercial open source because I don't understand the question The companies that complain about strip line Yeah, okay. Well Yeah, so I I think You know the short their shorthand version of commons clause in particular is that if you sprinkle that in your open source license That's no longer open source um, I think that the idea of Restricting licenses use for Well, I think let's be honest really to discriminate against cloud providers or softwares or service providers is Defeating freedom zero, which is the the freedom to run the program. I I think that it's really not It's not It's a goal. That's not really an open source goal. It's more of a It's more of a business goal And if you really want to have a license like that, that's completely fine And you can have a proprietary license just please don't try to call it open source or try to come to me and Redefine what the word open source should mean Right, I think we need public processes around it I mean, I think this is one of the the the things that I really like about Licenses that have been drafted in a community process. It's one of the things I like actually I really like about the OSI Review license review process is that that's done in a public way with with input. I think that the draft I I think that having more drafting processes that are groups I mean so to from my view on the ethical licensing and I'm leading a discussion on Monday at CopyLeftConf Little plug in case you don't know about it. It's a it's a one-day conference on Monday CopyLeftConf.org and My my my view on it which I'll be more coy about there because I'm more leading a discussion is that I think it reflects our utter failure as a movement to be leaders in like For ethical technology like I think that we identified that there is something special about software freedom that there's something special about the ethics of Technology and we got on board early, right? We were like some of the first people to start talking about it and then you start seeing TV shows like Silicon Valley spoofing companies using our rhetoric and so much of that is that we failed to really draw a Clear line and we failed to lead and there's this idea that while there are all these problems And we have the sense that licensing may be able to take care of some of that And so why can't we use this and embrace it and go to the next level? And I think that we as a software freedom community both the existing Old guard and and everyone new who's expressing an interest now can come together and take the best ideas of some of these These things and start thinking from from scratch and not throwing away Anything that we have before certainly but But you know seeing if any of those ideas are good for any other initiatives that aren't necessarily licensing Yeah, to the first part of your question Pam, which was is this new I agree with Montana Is it is so un-new that it's ridiculously old the first time I saw a Modification of GPL to say not for military use I think was 1996 but it was no later than 1998 of people trying to do that and the first time I saw you know, basically Non-commercial use only source available licenses was when I was an undergraduate in like 92 93 I was very common in academic communities. They would put software out non-commercial use only and hope to get some sort of Contractual funding for the commercial use so those things have been around for a while. I think the difference now Is Really a failure like Karen was saying a failure of leadership and but I have a slightly different way of looking at it. I think the community that understood why clear licensing was important and Definitions of what licenses should do was important Was not very connected with a generation of software developers that kind of came up in the late 2000s And I mean I think how many people in the room are would consider itself primarily a JavaScript developer There's actually two in the room. I was expecting to get three as if I think it's zero Because there's really because we never connected with that community in the way that we should have as as like free software activists And there's a ton of different things that why I'm wrong because of that because we didn't take them seriously And that was our fault and that was another way the leadership was bad Historically in FOSS. Hi, I think they're it.  So one question related here is that the ethical licenses seem to be following a code of conduct kind of behavior trying to enforce a code of conduct for the corporate user community or provide a community if you want it while Trying to defend against abusive for some reason behavior by these corporations against others or in the community or as isolationists, so How have we been able to enforce our course of conduct in user communities in the past? Well, well codes of so so project codes of conduct haven't been As I understand them haven't been targeted Against Participation outside of a project itself. So there there's been this assumption that you you can You can if you're a copyright owner you can police Behavior that falls outside the scope of the license But but codes of conduct are things that only apply to in Activity within a project or activity at a projects event for example at a conference like this one So I think that that may be that that kind of distinction may frustrate some some people who You know, they they see this the I would say the success of the adoption of codes of conduct by projects But they see a gap between you know what those cover and the way the software is being used In a much larger sphere outside of the project itself so I mean I'm I'm pretty sympathetic actually to a lot of the the people who are Talking about, you know ethical licenses. I agree with what others have said that that you know I don't feel that that licenses are a good mechanism. I Don't currently believe that That these kinds of licenses should be considered free software licenses but but I do I think that I have a lot of sympathy and and I Feel that what I don't know what others here think but as I said before I think that what's different now is that this is not This is not a fringe thing. This is like There are people who are speaking out about this issue who are at really at the very center of of this this movement This question is for you Karen because you sort of mentioned Better You sort of mentioned the sort of the ethical core of the free software movement that got a lot of people interested in how it feels like Maybe in some ways it's failed or it's moved away from that And this is a big issue that we are seeing in the software industry I'd like to hear more about you know Do you do you feel like this issue still sits within the free software community and the organization's advocating for it? And if so, what sort of role do you envision these organizations playing? Yeah, I mean, it's funny because saying this issue is tough There are so many issues that are being raised and I don't know but the intersection from between Our software and our lives is the critical part of where we operate and you know for and you asked me so I assume it's in part because I work at software freedom Conservancy and I advocate for software freedom as a You know public good so I'll say in that like if in if in Conservancy's judgment that though it we're not talking about Critical issues that affect people's lives and that are essential for us to have a better you know Situation with our technology then I don't then I assume that We in Conservancy's board would decide not to work on those issues So to me I think where software touches all these issues I think they're critically important and I think we need to think about them And that's why you know I've tried to work on things like contract patch and getting people to talk about their employment Agreements and thinking creatively about all the different ways that we can the the main thing about what I try to do And we try to do is to think about like what pragmatic? activities can we do to address the issue at hand? And you know that's been in sort of our our role in our niche And so we're we're kind of like project-based you know like and I think that's true of some of our member projects too We have very close relationship with like outreach II for example because where we see in equity That's a project that that we You know we're we're a little more involved in than even just our normal member project so You know and have a real partnership there So I you know this is a very blathering non-answer actually as I listen to myself talk But I would say we have to be active here because otherwise what are we doing? Yeah, hello, so following back on today, and you've been participating in a lot of things Just ask a question about like the Politics of open source that we've seen today, right? And first I highly respect I discover more and more about your background and what you've done over the last years And and I totally respect that But let's say from a lot of the people who spoke like there is a big Let's say indirect direct or indirect link to big corporation funding right at some point and and we can state that They've done great things also to contribute to open source But my question as you are leaders leaders in this space and for all the leaders in that space say What are the guarantees the community takes to be sure to always be independent in ethics with this? I'm sure I think we can keep our ethics. We even with it. We are funded with Whatever funds the thing but what are the guarantees the community has taken over time and what are the current ones today if I'm understood well Well, I'll take a stab at that. I I think that It's a it's a really tough question. I for me in my experience You know when I first got involved with free software it was almost exclusively volunteers and now there are a lot of people that are you know The do open source is their day job and I think that's great and You know you bring up a question of what it what does that influence mean, you know for the movement and You know, I think that it's a tough question But I actually think that you know stepping back. We're at a moment in our in our movement where we're being challenged by The definition of our movement at all. What is it that frees? What does free software mean? What is open source mean and you know, one of the things that we heard earlier today is that our original notions of this that we got written down are you know quite quite old 20 years old and so Answering your question about ethics. I think has to we even have to You know think of what is the evolution of our movement and what does it mean? I think that that Can answer your question I for me I'm really motivated by the idea of collaboration and not having to ask permission and Maybe some classic notions of software freedom and I think that it's tricky to see how that's going to evolve with all the things that have put pressure on us like network computing and In such things so it's a it's a tough question, but I think that we even have a bigger question, which is How are we defining what we're doing and how are we educating people that are that are new? Into caring about what it is that we care about. I Appreciate you mentioning politics many Karen often tells me to stop saying that Fundamentally the work that at least I do not too much as she does is basically being a politician But the free software and open source has become a political process It's the worst kind of political process in a lot of ways because we as you mentioned we have all these companies that have this influence Nobody elected them that they don't represents the community and nobody elected me either. We a conservancy We have a self-perpetuating board on the OSI deserves credit for being basically the only Organization in our community that actually holds an election and goes to the people, you know The but let's let's put that aside for a moment I think it's great that they run an election and they actually get votes and respect the votes of of their constituency and and we need more of that kind of Republic a small our Republic kind of Representation Debbie and is another great example. That's a constitutes the only free software project. That's constitutional Republic And and so and so we have this weird political structure Which is just ripe for corruption because there's corporations floating around hiring people and people go to work for companies even though they're technically working on a project and we have not solved any of that political complication and I Work on it every day, and I really don't even know if I understand how it works and how to fix it and how to make it Better so so I it's it's really tough. I don't know what to do about it But I recognize this is what you're raising a huge problem So first, thank you for this session because I think it's the most interesting session of the day One point on my side as a European person. I'm a bit Not finding everything I would like to find in this type of session because I like the European vision as Well in addition to a more US centric vision of the low So I would like for example the Google versus Oracle case I would love to see what does the supreme court result means for us in Europe What does it mean for us? What would be the consequences? Is there any impact for us as well and For all the rest of the day I would also like to have in the board with you some European lawyers that could bring an additional Set of information around what what what you are bringing, which is already great. Don't take me wrong So a couple of points Your question is very very apropos. I think it would be really great to have an analysis of what Oracle v. Google would mean specifically to the European Union. That's a it's a fabulous question We have throughout the history of the dev room we've really tried hard to represent a diversity of views and diversity not just of Europeans and People from all around the world, but also from women and underrepresented people so And you you saw European lawyers up today. You heard Miriams cross-examination. She's brilliant. That was great And we've had you know other Yeah, so we had a variety it could be better and I take that I take that point and I do want to go further and acknowledge that one of the the campaigns that I most admire in Europe is Public you know code, you know public money public code. I think that this is a great message and this is Something that can articulate what we care about to a broader audience and and I think that that that message and talking to my fellow Europeans has been Well received I think people in the general population get that message more readily than equivalent Americans so I Love the like cross-jurisdictional aspect of your question and I I think if we do this again We should absolutely see because we do a CFP But we wind up not getting as many submissions or all along the things that we think should be addressed So we'll work hard to encourage people to submit on topics that Evaluate these cases in a cross-jurisdictional way. I really like that And yeah, I just want to say as I often do when I travel outside the US I apologize for my country and the policies that it exports around the world. I Was born there. It wasn't my fault Okay, well, we'll pass Philippe the microphone a little bit later for him to make his point There was a question here It's not a question. I would like to to answer what does Oracle the Google mean in the European Union? so the European Copyright Directive on computer programs explicitly excludes interfaces from being copyrightable to to foster interoperability so At least from my view there wouldn't be such a case in Europe Google could just have taken the interface Thank you so much I just there is a case the SAS case the in the ECJ. I think that is directly on point on what to your comment It's interesting to imagine if the ECJ rules one way and the Supreme Court rules a different way That's going to make our life even more complicated Okay, if he wanted to say something Okay, okay, so My question following up on what you said about what could be new ways for the free software movement to Not really reinvent itself, but like Find an identity that matters now you mentioned just now public money public code But in general the starting from the free for freedoms or the open source definition all the definitions of the free software movement have been very much focused on what Could be appealing to developers Do you think that we miss me missed an opportunity to involve the users? Yes. Yes. Yes. I agree with you I agree with everything you're about to say yes No, no, I was going to say when and how and what could we do now? It's only questions. You cannot agree with them well, I well This is what you know kind of a subject that's close to my heart, which is how can we give users standing in free Software culture and hardware and one you know one of the challenges that we have especially in considering open hardware licenses is that The end user that receives a product Doesn't have standing to insist on the source and I think we need to You know, I think we need to involve users. I like that This might be a good thing to discuss next year if we have a room If you did you want to follow up? It was covered. Yeah, okay It was discussed before one more question or So again great thanks for all this wonderful talk and please upload to the wonderful And I personally looking forward what you have in store for us for next year 10th anniversary session, right? All right Well, I want to thank everybody for coming out. I know it's been it's a it's a long day It's a hard building to get to and we really appreciate your input You can you forgetting your shoes muddy? Yeah You can find at least my email address on the foster mailing list where we let out the CFP and I'd love to get your feedback if you didn't have a chance to get your question or thought in and Before you leave today if you could we could ask you a favor to look down and pick up Any trash that you find and deposit it in the trash bins that are on either side of the room and help us clean up That would be great. I just want to point out that last year was our one zero anniversary in octal anyway So it's already happened One last applause for Tom Marvel the amazing


And we're going to take this opportunity and welcome back Kyle Floyd here of Vox Royalty with a huge announcement here. The company is firing away on all cylinders and it is just everything we can do to keep up with the progress of this high growth third-party royalty company and it has everything to do with investors' favorite word and that is dividend. But I want to welcome Kyle back to the Independent Investor Channel and have him discuss the particular surrounding that big announcement in the company. Kyle, take it away. Oh, thanks Ryan, always a pleasure to be with you and thank you for the opportunity. Vox has consistently demonstrated that we can find really, really great royalties in all the places that people would at least expect and we built a business model around finding value for investors and so we have continually demonstrated our ability to find royalties pre-production, in-production and across that spectrum at great value and this announcement that we made last week about our dividend is just a furtherance of the development of this business, its focus around investors, making sure that investors also see the benefits of what we are producing at the company level and it's really just a product of us and the company building a systematic advantage in an industry that has really yet to have a company go and focus on creating competitive advantages, creating a natural property that enable it to find the value that we are able to find in the third party royalty landscape and the dividend is just the furtherance of our capability and the demonstration that we are focused on our investors, we are focused on returns, we are focused on finding values so that investors can find a home to invest in commodities that is going to respect them and shareholders that is going to deliver the returns that they should expect and continue to execute in a disciplined fashion and so the dividend is just reinforcing all those key pillars and the foundations of Vox. Now Kyle, this dividend that you've declared here is a one cent per share right, puts the annual yield at what 1.8%? Where does that place you in the who's who of your competitors in the royalty space and this information is actually told in the investor presentation on VoxRoyalty.com but I want you to elaborate a little bit on kind of where this puts you in context of your competition out there that also offers that dividend yield. Yeah, and Ryan, what's really exciting about this is when we discussed this going back months ago about how we're focused on generating returns for investors, we were going to look at how we started to return some of the excess capital that we're generating back to our shareholders and so this 1.8% yield is very significant. We think it's meaningful. We believe that it's sustainable and we expect if we continue to execute that it will be growing and when you put that in comparison to a lot of our peers, as you can see from our latest investor presentation, they're much larger companies and we are in the range if not in the top four tile in terms of the precious metals weighted royalty companies and the dividends that they're offering. So we're excited about where we are in terms of the landscape of our peers and what peers are offering but ultimately it's really about what we think we can and believe that we're going to continue generating as a company which is a very sustainable, free cash flow and one that's capable of supporting a growing dividend and so that's the expectation internally. That's what we expect to deliver and the reason for that we believe is a very meaningful dividend and the capacity to hopefully expand that is that we have been able to find royalties pre-production that are now coming online and growing into very meaningful producing assets also complemented by royalties over assets that we picked up that have gone into production and now are expanding their production capacity and so these are kind of the core tenants that you and I now have spoken about on your program multiple times and the dividend in that context is just the evidence that we continue to find these great royalties with our mining geologists and our mining engineers on the front line and we're bringing those assets into the portfolio at very good valuations and then in turn being able to deliver those returns to our shareholders. Yeah I think you guys are right there at the top, you guys are tops in my mind in the space. I cover the space intimately, I'm a big proponent to Vox Royalty and those videos that have been released through the evolution of the independent investor, I'm going to leave links to those because it's imperative that anybody that's interested in the space and with the current volatility in the market guys you need to pay attention to this stuff and I'd like Kyle to kind of get into with the volatility in the markets and how royalty companies have fared over the last 10 years through bull markets in the S&P 500. I think it's going to be interesting to track at least Vox Royalty's progress over the coming years but what is to expect over the next decade in the royalty business as a whole with what we're dealing with right now, unprecedented volatility in markets. How does Vox Royalty provide some level of insulation to would-be investors Kyle? Yeah Ryan I think Vox is a really interesting investment story and opportunity with where we sit today both in terms of what Vox is delivering and what the macro environment is and that backdrop. And so I think it's worth reminding everyone that's watching because we're a royalty company and our fundamental interest they're called NSR, Net Smelter in terms of royalties and what those are basically one to two percent usually percent on the top line revenue that's generated by a mining operation and the great thing about that is we get the benefit of all the capital that mining companies spend whether it's for expansion increasing resources and reserves you name it all the areas where they're out there investing to increase the size scale and scope of their business and ultimately the cash flow profile of business we get a percentage of that without having to contribute any of those costs and so an inflationary environment that we all see and feel as consumers and businesses Vox is a really unique business and that because it's a top line revenue percentage and we don't contribute any of the capital to the expenditures that mining companies need to make those input cost inflation the capital expenditure cost inflation that does not affect us so our top line revenue is insulated from those increased costs that are that the mining companies are feeling and what's contracting their margins what we are benefiting from is to be honest with you a very sustained buoyancy and metal prices and we're seeing that and you're seeing it very specifically within our portfolio where a lot of assets are going undergoing expansions Janet Ivy and our Vinduli North royalty is you know I would say a case study in that where we bought the royalty was essentially go going back into production but it was around a much expanded production case and that's because metal prices have been sustained at a very high level the one mood of producing iron ore royalty we bought that at four to five million tons per annum run rate in terms of production now that's going up to potentially double that number maybe even more so we're seeing that consistently within the portfolio where we are getting the benefits of a very high sustained metal price without the drag from inflation and then when you overlay what Vox is doing fundamentally yes it's a very volatile market right I mean I think we're all feeling that seeing that investors have been beaten up really across the board and almost any asset class except for the dollar and so where Vox sits with paying it and where you can look at our investor presentation when you stack up the comps we believe we're the cheapest royalty company out there from a relative valuation perspective as well that is lowering the volatility in general with what the share price is doing I mean we've been one of the better performers that being said being flat in is never necessarily a victory lap but our volatility is low and I think that's a unique it's a unique position for investors to be in where you've got really explosive upside in Vox with what we're generating and the development stage assets that we have but being one of the cheaper royalty companies out there are relative valuation basis means you're not exposed to excessive promotion premiums and you know really inflated asset values so I think we're a great place to be for investing capital especially at this point in time where we continue to deliver the upside to investors but with where we're trading and the relative valuations and the dividend I think we present a unique opportunity to weather the storm as well. You do you've unpacked a ton there Kyle I just want to talk about you said you think you are undervalued you know you are I mean let's just speak facts to facts you guys are sitting at about 0.6 you guys have lost a little bit on the nav which is incredible because your revenues have increased and I think remaining flat in this market I think you're to be commended and I think to put it into context for investors I think you need to compare the stock performance of some of the competitors in the space and and Vox just like any other company has not been immune to just the headwind that has been delivered in the stock market I mean the baby's being thrown out right now with every company irrespective of really what they're doing. Kyle I digress if I'm a stock I'm interested in the commodity space and I'm intrigued by the Vox royalty story do I have to understand everything there is to know about the junior mining space do I need to understand everything there is to know about the royalty space which is pretty complex or is there some value there to be had with scrutinizing the management I think Vox royalty is right up there with the best of them and I think you would agree with that. How is it that I can take some solace in becoming an interested party in the royalty space specifically and understanding that you guys are kind of doing the legwork for me as a would-be investor. No Ryan you're absolutely right I mean Vox was created for investors that was the impetus and the motivation and the genesis of this business was to be there for investors that aren't mining engineers you're not you're not a geologist you maybe haven't been investing in the space through three cycles and three decades the commodity spaces is unique I think within the general industries in the equity markets and that is very complex it's an esoteric industry with esoteric risks and also unique upsides as well and what I would take solace in as an investor is when I looked at the landscape of how to invest in commodities when you looked at the returns the empirical evidence and the empirical returns of royalties as just their own asset class they have outperformed any relative commodity benchmark by magnitudes that's the pure asset being a royalty then you overlay that the the larger royalty companies have outperformed the gdxj they've outperformed the physical they've outperformed pretty again any commodity they spent ready to compare them to Frank Nevada's outperformed the nasdaq and the s and p 500 and they've done that because they find they found the right royalties and leveraged around that and that's what box does but on top of that where I think we're different than most of the junior sector in the royalty in the royalty space is that we have a team of mining engineers and geologists on the front lines of our business as a former investment banker I think I get I'm entitled to disparage the industry a little bit it's not bankers doing deals for the sake of deals and scale for the sake of scale this is our technical team understanding the risks understanding the upside and overlaying that to find the best value in what we believe is by far away the best asset class which is owning royalties a lot of your viewers would have seen this success in the oil and gas space the royalty world and oil and gas has also done very well and it's because that unique position that royalties hold which is it's more secure they typically run with the land so in up cycles and down cycles you know you still typically have your interest in the revenue generating capability so you it's more secure than equity it's not diluted like equity and you get all the benefits of the investment that the equity holders are making that hold these mining companies for growth without having to contribute any capital to it so these assets have well performed we do the right kind of diligence we do the right kind of work and underlying all of that is the most significant competitive advantage of the industry with our royalty database so when you put all of that together that's why we are obviously so bullish and positive on the prospects of our business and our ability to keep finding value creating value for our shareholders well let me drill down on that point would you suggest that vox royalty is about as strong as it's ever been in its history and i want to follow on with an idea that what is keeping some of these large institutions to the side and looking at this value proposition look i'm just a small fry on youtube kyle right but i look at these fundamentals that you guys boast and and they are incredible and it's it's not going to last forever this flat stock price is not i think the the fair market that they've got for you guys with the analysts that cover the stock have you guys just shy of five dollars cad with right now i think the last us stock price which is what i track it in was had yet about 214 is are they just remaining on the side or can you speak about any type of institutional interest in this company from the commodities perspective looking at your companies and saying something's got to give here this is this is getting getting kind of ridiculous well what i would say is we are starting to see that and a lot of it is you know we haven't been around for very long as a public trade business we were a private go very heads down doing what we were doing focused on finding value building our competitive advantages in the royalty sector and doing that very successfully we've only been public for two and a half years and really you and i on you know on there together we've talked about what was coming for vox and how that projected out and we've delivered on that the reality is the last nine months have been the most explosive growth for our firm that we've ever realized and the next nine months continue on that trajectory but that's overlaying with what has been for the last nine months i would i would say a very significant bear market so the success that we're bringing to the table has largely been kind of lost in the noise of a very very bad equity market so but you started to see a lot of stabilization in our share price most of the peers are you know while we're still undervalued most of those peers are very very significant contractions of their share price so i think we're really well positioned we're seeing the investor appetite and the large institutional appetite certainly increase we've had some of the large institutions we've seen from their filings that they've made i won't name them but they've increased their portion than us recently and you know we're about to embark on a two-week road show in europe speaking to many of the who's who and some of the most notorious and successful both general investors and commodity focused investors on the planet so i'm really excited about what we have in front of us we've been out in front of a lot of the institutional investment community over the last few weeks and will continue to be for the next few weeks purely non-deal we're just generating the awareness on vox because what we believe we're doing is special and it is generating returns that i think investors should be aware of it is it's incredible i want to share a link with my investor audience as well the emerging growth conference kyle you spoke at it a couple of weeks ago i thought that was a phenomenal breakdown i'm going to share that link to our would-be investors as well for the sake of transparency let's drill down a little bit on the performing assets right now currently sits at six you guys are looking to project moving out of 2023 with over 10 can you just talk a little bit about your organic pipeline and what that means to the vox royalty portfolio and the opportunity that it could present right now with this prolonged opportunity i'm just going to tell it for what it is i mean this flat stock price is just prolonging the opportunity for you guys to realize and walk this road along your organic pipeline can you speak a little bit about that go yeah and so from from a internal vox perspective what we look at is clearly those revenue interests so when we start collecting checks from mining companies that's what's generating the revenue and so it's really that crystallization of assets going into production and also assets expanding once they're already in production and in the portfolio and so when you look at the the vox presentation and you look at the chart of producing asset count so we went public ryan in may of 2020 we said this is what's coming investors especially in small cap world which is where we live for better or worse right now you know it's very much a show me and then i'll value it and so what we did is we said we're going to have this five six producing assets that we do now we've done that we've actually exceeded our expectations and that's been delivered and then as you point out we believe that we're going to be in double digit producing asset count as we exit 2023 most of those assets are already in construction or i have just entered production and so we feel really good about those assets coming online and generating meaningful revenue for box shareholders and so that's that's where you see the growth our capability in finding those assets one two three years out from production having those actually crystallized come into production and then ultimately you know hopefully as well expand production within the portfolio that's what's generating this outsized growth we're not going out and paying exorbitant values for in production assets and hoping that we get our money back we're finding really really deep value on assets that you know have performed generally better than expected within the portfolio and investors are certainly benefiting from that so really excited about the trajectory of the business that's what supports our obviously our confidence in coming out with a very meaningful dividend and it being sustainable and also what we would expect would be a growing dividend as well i don't think being in public markets for two years you would have anticipated offering a 1.8 annualized dividend this this soon in the game i that's impressive i i was very surprised to read the news release when you guys announced it and i thought what a what a power statement you guys are making because what surprises me is the fundamentals that you guys do boast within a company fundamentals are there kyle but on the flip side you guys and i don't mean any offense by this you guys are fairly conservative operators and in other words you guys trust the process that you guys go through to scrutinize royalties and it has to go through some rigor before it's introduced into the vox royalty portfolio and i commend you guys for it so if you want to speak a little bit on that but also speak about i think right now you guys are at the precipice of needing needing an uplifting is there any possibility of looking at any time in the foreseeable future or potential of getting the visibility because you guys have got the fundamentals to boast but a nasdaq listing would really provide you guys and and blow open the doors to transparency which i think is the key pet agree to what you guys need right now yeah look absolutely agree i think we were always built the problem that we were solving for investors was you know there it's it's very difficult to get your hands around the right type of exposures in the commodity sector in the commodities equity markets and that was why the company was created and so we've seen very good uptake with some of the very sophisticated mining investors out there but that was truly never who vox was created for it's great that they see the value what we're doing and we're thrilled and appreciate their support of shareholders but it's really for you know audiences like yours ryan that want the commodity exposure but need to find it in in the right ways and so we did we file the 40f to be listed on nasdaq that was back late june and we're in that process with the sec in terms of just addressing some comments they have it's it's you know it's a usual process to go so we're you know we're expecting we could be on the nasdaq and what i would say is just the near future we certainly believe we qualify and kind of every material respect so it's a matter of just going through that process but i agree with you that's going to open up the investor awareness around us it's you know the nasdaq is a very liquid exchange and that's probably some of what's held us back is that we've been somewhat closely held there haven't been a lot of shareholders that wanted to sell and we've been really new to the public markets and generating that investor market so i agree with you i think the nasdaq is going to be a very very big milestone for us i'm very excited about that i think that's coming in the near future but you know we continue to find ways to build value around really good assets and that's what it's about when you look at the outperformance of companies in the sector it's can you get a royalty over good assets and we turned down you know you talked about the discipline that we employ for the benefit of our shareholders i'll tell you right now we have more deal flow than anybody in this industry we turn more deals down as a result of that than anybody in this industry we get to be very very picky on what we bring into our portfolio it's got to be good assets with great prospects where we understand the risk we understand the upside and then those brought in a very good value for our shareholders and we consistently perform on those metrics and so when you look at where the business is in terms of the strength of the business the fundamentals are as strong as they've ever been our pipeline is as strong as it's ever been and you know despite very challenging markets you know i believe that we're a company that's built so much value that's not represented in the share price going back flashback to may of 2020 when we went public we actually went public in a slight premium to nav that's common in our industry i'm talking about the the biggest company in the industry trades at north of two times npv or na nav traditionally so that was normal what isn't normal is that we have added so much net asset value per share cash flow per share and we're trading at you know about flat stock price to down stock price from where we were at that point in time with a dividend with an inflection point in terms of the cash flow that we're generating for our shareholders so i i find it very difficult to argue for any reason of why we be valued the way that we are i think there's a tremendous amount of upside and a tremendous amount of strength and up swelling in our business yeah agreed and just for complete transparency here want to invite everybody uh to visit voxroyalty.com i'm going to share that in the description below as well as the previous interviews with kyle kyle's one of the most forward CEOs that i talk with and it is absolutely appreciated you heard it here first um he does this for you guys and if you're lucky enough to catch this corner of social media talking about a company voxroyalty man it absolutely is my honor uh to pay forward this opportunity because what they're doing behind behind closed doors making these deals the way that they do um it is absolutely incredible and their story needs to be told we're glad to do it kyle i'll round it out and i'll defer back to you for anything you think we've missed here any updates on the portfolio that you've got any announcements anything looming that we should be aware of uh to keep our eye on um as we track this voxroyalty store we're going forward well we touched on the nascent listing i sincerely believe that that's going to be a very big catalyst for us it is kind of what i would say is connecting the dots and bringing us full circle what this company was created to be and the problems that it was created to solve and so i'm really excited about that overlay that with just the the burgeoning successful performance of assets within our portfolio that should continue to show what's being generated quarter over quarter over quarter so i get more excited every time we get close to a quarter and for what we're going to be able to show investors in terms of our our financial performance and those fundamentals that we've talked about so i'm really excited where our business is i understand for investors is a very difficult investment climate to be in but you know there are certain companies and certain opportunities that i think stand out and and you know frankly should be very well considered during this this specific time and backdrop that we have and i think vox stands out in terms of you know the kind of opportunity where investors can be comfortable with their where they're putting money and with the prospects of the returns are for a company like us so it's always an absolute pleasure to be with you ryan we're excited about how the business is positioned we have both the fundamental catalyst nasdaq listing coming what we believe is in the near future and and couldn't be more pleased with how the business is performing my charge for anybody that's catching this interview spend a few moments it'll cost you nothing other than time to educate yourself up on the vox royalty opportunity guys you heard it here first from the boss himself mr kyle floyd ceo vox royalty thank you so much for your time kyle and good luck in in all all things in the future as we track this story going forward thank you so much thank you ryan always a privilege you got it


What's going on guys got Kyle and Donnie here with late in sports cards. We got 2022 tops dynasty, but baseball This is a personal for Michael S. Good luck Michael. Let's see what you got. Good luck Michael It is four of ten and it's a rookie nice. Come on. Well, I might be Bobby Whit. That looks like a Royals to me It is MJ Melendez still the Royals there four of ten on the three-color patch MJ Melendez nice rookie there four of ten That is game used as it always is in the tops dynasty there Nice one there for you Michael S with the MJ Melendez Number to ten. Alrighty guys That will do it for Michael's personal there. Thank you so much. We'll get that one right out to you