In the previous video, we introduced the notion of a coordinate vector for a vector given a basis, but it was very important we emphasize that the coordinate vector was relative to a basis. Now, given a vector space v, one could actually have numerous, numerous different basis for that same vector space. So in this example, let's consider two different bases for this vector space v. We're going to take the first basis b, which will consist of vectors b1 and b2, and we'll have another basis c, which will consist of vectors c1, c2. Now, I'm not going to specify what the vectors b1, b2, c1, c2 are. The only thing we can know for right now is that because one basis contains two vectors, all bases for this vector space will contain two vectors because the base or the vector space is two dimensional. What we will say about the basis is the following. Since b is a basis for v, we know that every vector in v can be uniquely expressed as a linear combination of the vectors in b. Now, because c is likewise a basis for v, these c1 and c2 are vectors inside of the vector space v, excuse me. Therefore, we can uniquely express the vector c1 as a linear combination of the b's. Hypothetically, let's say that c1 equals 2b1 minus 3b2. Likewise, the vector c2, which is in v, we can express as a unique linear combination with respect to the vectors b1 and b2, and let's say that hypothetically that linear combination is negative 3b1 plus 5b2. That's because b is a basis, so every vector, including the other basis, can be uniquely expressed in terms of b's. Now, if we have this linear combination of c1, this gives us the c1 coordinate vector relative to b. We'll just grab the coefficients 2 and negative 3, and that gives us our coordinate vector. Likewise, we have a coordinate vector for c2 with respect to b coordinates. We would just grab the coefficients in this linear combination negative 3 and 5, so we can express the c basis in terms of b coordinates. Now, let's take another vector inside of v. This time, let's call it x. Now, x can be uniquely expressed in terms of the c basis, because again, c is a basis, so every vector v can be uniquely expressed in terms of the vector c1, c2. In this situation, let's say that the vector x is written as 1c1 plus 3c2. Much like the vector c, then, we can write a coordinate vector for x, but this would be the coordinate vector of x relative to c, and its coordinates would be 1 and 3 that we see right here. Because we have these two different bases, and since we have a coordinate vector for x right here, c1, we don't actually know what x is. And since we don't actually know what the b's and the c's are, we can't give you a specific vector to represent what's going on right here. But we do have enough information to determine what would the b coordinate vector be for x. And it follows from the following idea here. If we look at the coordinate vector, if we look at the coordinate vector for x relative to b, well, since x can be written as a combination of the c's, we can make a substitution and say that the coordinate vector of x will be the coordinate vector of c1 plus 3c2 relative to b. Now, as we mentioned in the previous video, the coordinate map is, well, first of all, it's a one to one and on to map, but most importantly here, it's a linear map. That is, linear transformations are preserved by the coordinate map. So a linear transformation, a linear combination inside of a coordinate vector becomes a linear combination of coordinate vectors. c1 plus 3c2 inside of this coordinate vector relative to b becomes a combination of coordinate vectors 1c1b plus 3c2b. Now the c1b, the coordinate vector of c1 relative to b, we know it's 2 negative 3. And the coordinate vector of c2 relative to b, we also know negative 3, 5. And so now this right here just becomes a calculation in f2. And therefore, we can simplify this, 2 plus negative 9 is negative 7, negative 3 plus 15 is 12. And so this right here captures then the coordinate vector of x relative to b. So since we knew x and c coordinates and we knew the vector c's in b coordinates, we were able to transition from c coordinates to b coordinates for our vector x. And I want to look at this above equation from a different light. So what we observed earlier is that the b coordinates of x can be written as the combination of the c coordinate or the b coordinates of the c's with these coefficients 1 and 3. Now this linear combination, in fact, every linear combination can be factored as a matrix vector product where the matrix will be the, the column vectors of the matrix will be the vectors in the linear combination.  And then the vector in this factorization, it's will be the scalars associated to this linear combination. So you're going to get these scalars 1 and 3. You're going to get these column vectors 2, negative 3 and negative 3, 5. But the first column is just c1b. The second column is just c2b. And then the vector 1, 3 right here, this was the vector x with c coordinates. And so what we see here is that there was a matrix. We could times this, we could times the c coordinate vector by a certain matrix. And this would give us the b coordinate, the b coordinate vector. And so the significance of this matrix right here and right here is that it changed from c coordinates to b coordinates. We want to generalize this idea. So again, let's take a vector space v, which has two bases. B is the basis consistent of vectors will be 1b2 up to bn. And the basis c will be a basis consistent of vectors c1, c2 up to cn. Notice they both have the same number of vectors because that's the dimension of v. It's n right here. Then there will be a unique in by in matrix, which we will denote p over c2b. So notice that there's a little arrow here. The arrow goes from c to b. And this will be called the change of basis matrix to be from c. Oops, my little c there looks like the complex numbers. That's just supposed to be the little c we had above. We want to take the change of basis matrix from b to c. And this matrix will have the property that if you multiply the c coordinates of a vector x by this change of basis matrix, it'll give you the b coordinates of that matrix. And so this actually indicates the mnemonic device we're using right here on the bottom of this matrix. Notice how it's pointing from c to b. So it's clear with the direction we're going. We're changing from c coordinates to b coordinates. But why are we pointing it from right to left as opposed to maybe left to right? The reason here is that in terms of matrix multiplication, you're going to times a by a, if you times a matrix a by a vector x, the vector x goes on the right hand side. And so what we're trying to say is that the matrix, the change of basis matrix p right here, it's going to go on the left of the matrix. And so we want the arrow pointing to the left to show you the transition. So we go from c coordinates right here to b coordinates over here. And so this is the change of basis matrix to b from c. And so we're doing that, of course, intentionally here. Now the other thing I want to mention about this change of basis matrix is not that just what it does, but we actually have a formula from it, which we discovered from this example, generalizing the principles and play, of course, if we want to change to b coordinates from c coordinates, we're going to take the old basis, which is C, we take all those C1, C2, CNs, and we're going to write the b coordinates of the c vectors. Like you can see right here. And so multiplication by this change of basis matrix p will convert from c coordinates to b coordinates. And to change between the two matrices, we need the coordinates of the old basis in terms of the new basis. Let's look at an example of such a thing. So let's again, let's take some, well, actually this time, let's let's just take R2 right here. Neither one of these is going to be the standard basis per se. But let's take two bases for R2. We're going to take the b basis will consist of B1, B2, which is illustrated here B1 is 32 and B2 is 43. Then we have a second basis C, which will consist of C1 and C2, C1 being the vector 1, 2, and C2 being the vector 5, 1. I should mention that the the dimension of R2, of course, is two dimensional. So every basis should have two elements. And let's can look at these ones right here. If you look at the B's, these vectors are not linear combinations of each other. There's no multiple of B1 that'll give you B2 and vice versa. So this is an independent set of two vectors and a two dimensional vector space. So it'll be a basis. Same thing for the C's, no multiple of C1 will give you C2 and vice versa. So the set C will consist of two independent vectors in a two dimensional vector space. So it has to be a spanning set because again, the magic number in R2 is its dimension two. So let's consider how would we compute the change of basis matrix to be from C? Well, we need to compute the coordinate vectors C1, B and C2, B. And so how would you do that to find the coordinate vector of C1, B? What you would do is you would take the basis B. So you take the column vectors B1, B2, and you'd augment that with the C1 here. So it's the first sort of consideration is like, well, how, how would you write C1 as a linear combination of the B's? So you take this matrix whose coefficient matrix is essentially the basis B and whose augmented column is C1 right here. If we row reduce that kind of skipping over the steps, the row reduced echelon form here will be this one zero zero one. Notice that in terms of bases, the first column is just E1. And then the second column would be E2. That is these E vectors or the vectors which has a one in the in the I spot and zeros everywhere else. That's what's going to happen when you row do row reduce a matrix, which is a basis, it'll always turn into the standard basis of fn right there. In this case, it turns into the base standard basis for R2. And then what we see here is what happened to the C1. So what this tells us is that C1 is equal to negative five times B1 plus four times B2. And the negative five and the four give us the the B coordinates here. That's a typo it should say C1 right there C1 of B. That's going to be this negative negative four negative five comma four. And so if we do the same operations, we have to basically do the same problem here that if we want to figure out how to write C2 and B coordinates, we're going to take the matrix whose coefficient matrix is the new basis B, and whose augmented column is the old basis element C2. So the exact same coefficient matrix, but now we have a different augmented column this time. If we do row operations, we have to row reduce the coefficient matrix. And although we didn't see what those operations were, I can promise you they're going to be the exact same row operations that we had when we did the row reduction right here. And so the basis B will row reduce to this to the basis E. And then C2 will transition to this vector 11 negative seven, which would then be the coordinate vector for C2 with respect to B coordinates which we see right here. And so by the calculation we've done here, we now see that the change of basis matrix to be from C would then be the putting together of these two coordinate vectors negative five four and 11 negative seven. So this is the change of basis matrix. We can change from C coordinates to B coordinates using this matrix. But I also want to illustrate that in this example, we kind of solve two two linear systems, which essentially were the same linear system. What we could have done is we could have done the following. We could have taken B1, B2, augmented with C1, but we could also augment it with C2 here because when it comes to row reduction, we only care about what's happening on the left hand side. That is to say in terms of how the choices we make, should we do a replacement? Should we do interchange? Should we do scaling? It'll depend on the left hand side of this augmented matrix. The right hand side is just along for the journey. We want to see what happens to it. So we could actually row reduce these things simultaneously. That is we could have more than one augmented column. Why not? And if we had done that, this would have row reduced to be one zero zero one. You get the standard basis for R2. And then you get negative five, 11, four, and negative seven. And so we could have actually found the change of basis, the change of basis matrix by actually solving one linear system simultaneously. And this is actually how we are going to generally solve for the change of basis matrix.


It's the fate of 800 million plus Hindus that Lord Ram was born at this place, whereas the Muslims don't treat Ayodhya as a holy place because their fate and the place of worship presides in Saudi Arabia, which is the Mecca Madhukah. It would be a very apt message to the entire world that if we fast, any invaders have demolished the religious places of the local Hindus, the ST, and the honour of the Hindus on a daily basis. The Muslims don't treat Ayodhya as a religious place because their fate and the place of worship presides in Saudi Arabia, which is the Mecca Madhukah. As with Mr. L. K. Advani and Mr. Munni Manohar Joshi, that that yatra was meant to gather a support for the construction of Ram Khande, but not to hurt the sentiments of the Muslims. Krishna, I won't be in Mathura, I won't be in Ram Ayodhya, so where will I be?


みなさんこんにちは。おめでとうございます。おめでとうございます。このセッションはオープンスタッグプロバイダーネットワークネットワークモジュールをNTT Westで紹介します。NTT WestはFollowing proof of concept POCFuture development of the POCinto a production environmentis not yet guaranteed.An example of the environment we described in this presentationis about a small portionof our infrastructure.This does not represent all of our infrastructure.I am Shigeyaki Kimuraand he is Shingo Takaiand Yoshiaki Ono.The category of this sessionis products, tools, and services.This session level is for beginners.Today we are going to talkabout Ansible network module.After our session,you will understand how to efficientlyoperate OpenStack provider networksto leverage Ansible network modules.At first, let me start by briefly introducingour approach to OpenStack.NTT West is a telecommunications carrierprovides telephone and FTTH servicesin the western half of Japan.We do not do ISP business by ourselvesbut provide servicesto connect FTTH usersand ISP companies.Although not shown in this picture,we continue to providetraditional copper-based telephone services.To provide these services,we set up and operate a lot ofservers that we use in the NGN.The outline of this systemis as shown in this picture.Flex is the brand nameof the FTTH service that we offer.NGN Next Generation Networkexists as a core networkto provide FTTH service.There is a server platformin this NGNto provide optional servicesrelated to FTTH.In addition to this server platform,there are many distributedserver platform for each application.But in this session,we only focus on this server platform.We set up the host OSand KBM for each serverthat exist independentlyand deploy and usethe virtual machines on KBM.The storage devices are connectedvia Fiverr Channel-basedStorage Area Network.We have evolved thisinto the OpenStack-basedIaaS environment last year.We use Ubuntu 16.04 LTSand OpenStack Metakarto build the IaaS environment.Storage devices have beenchanged to Iskaji-based one.And it is used as a cinder volume.In this environment,a lot of guest systems are already running.In order to efficiently buildand operate this environment,we tried to utilize Ansiblefor the first time.As a result,by utilizing Ansible,we are able to obtain基本的能力not only the initial constructionbut also the subsequent expansion work.We started to operateOpenStack in production environment.However,we are not able to take advantageof all those features of OpenStack.And OpenStack does not meetall our requirements.In the Metakar-based OpenStack environment we introduced,we faced three major challenges.First,functional issues.It is a lack ofneutron API functionalityfor IPv6.And a lack of functionalityof virtual firewalland virtual load balancerprovided by OpenStack.Second,performance issue.It is a lack ofthroughput of network functionand a lack of mechanismto ensure performance.Finally,operational issues.In fact,rather than theproblem of OpenStack,there are many problemsin our management policy.In order to connectwith an existing system,OpenStack wasnecessarily to be ableto manually assign IP addressand VLAN ID,not fully automatic.We recognized these challengesand we could not solve it alone.Therefore,we decidedto adaptOpenStackprovider networks designwhen introducing OpenStack.In the next section,we introduced whatOpenStack Provider Networksdesign isin building OpenStackenvironment,we can takeseveral choices fornetwork design.Although it is describedin the official document,there are the followingtwo schemes roughly.One is the providernetworks configurationthat we introduced later.The other isself-service network configuration.Let's seeeach one in detail.I wonderwhy this comes firstin official documentation.The first option isprovidernetworks.This design makeslittle use ofthe virtual network functionprovided by OpenStack.Beyond the physicalnetwork devices are responsiblefor the network function.Of course,they are not managedby OpenStack.This is a designthat we encounterwhen we beginstudying OpenStackin general.The open networkis createdon the underlay network.Composed of physical networkdevices by utilizingencapsulation technologysuch as VXLANand GRE,it's calledself-servicenetwork becauseOpenStack tenant usershave their own networkinfrastructure andthey can freely configurethem's levels.Let's see the advantagesand this advantageprovidernetworks.The advantage is thatyou can take advantageof already existingphysical network environment.This allows you toutilize the functions and performanceof existing equipmenteven inthe OpenStack environment.In addition,it is excellentin connectivitywith other environmentbecause it doesn'tuse functions of theversion network.Thisadvantage is thatyou need tomanage this physicalnetwork environment separatelyfrom OpenStack.It's necessaryfor administrators to work each time.User is added or deletedbecauseit is not possible to controlthe physical network environmentfrom OpenStack.Also,the user hasno freedom aboutnetwork configuration.Regardingthe network, insteadof giving up the useof the virtual network functionwhich should be oneof the advantages of IS,it would bea realistic option ofusing the connectivityand performance by usingthe existing system.It's important for administratorshow to efficientlyoperate provider networkconfiguration with thecharacteristic mentioned above.About this,we have two ideas.The first is to link OpenStackenvironment and other systems.The orchestratorsuch as OpenDayLitemanages the physicalnetwork environmentwhich OpenStackcannot manageand links that systemswith OpenStack environment.We have already presentedabout thisat the last Barcelona Summit.If you are interestedin this, please seethe presentation video.And the second one isexactly the themeof this session.This isto make manualoperations by administratorsmore efficientby automationsand stylization.For this efficiencywe would like to utilizeAnsible,an automatic engine.As mentionedbefore,we already use Ansibleto build servers.By developingnetwork system with Ansible,we want tounify manage both serverand network configuration withAnsible.Then,we will changepresentators andintroduce Ansible.I am responsiblefor configuration of serversand network physical network devices.Today,I would like tointroduce what is Ansibleand use case of Ansible.Ansible,first of all,I would like to talk about what is Ansible.Ansible is a toolfor infrastructure as code.We can automate many tasksof server settingand network device configuration.Ansible has three features.Simple,powerfuland agentless.The first feature is simple.We can use human-reliablesource code to work Ansible.Ansible does not needspecial coding skills.We just write some text filesto work Ansible.So we can get productive quickly.The second featureis powerful.We can automate configurationof various network devicesusing Ansible.So Ansible enablesorcastration of workflow.The final featureis agentless.Ansible configures serversand network devices byopen ssh,winrmor api without specific agents.So Ansible enablespredictable,reliableand secure configuration.Ansible can configurevarious devices by usingserial software.For example,when we useoperating system modules,ansible configures Linux,windows,unix operatingsystem.And when we usenetwork modules,ansible configures various network devicesA10,Arista,Syscoand so on.Moreover,containersand cloud modules are prepared.Then,I'd like to introducethe overview of workflowusing Ansible.First,we make a text filein yaml format.This file called playbook.Playbook is consist oflist of actions forconfiguring servers or network devices.Second,we drivethe playbook by usingansible.Ansible automatically generatesan executable programandsorry,ansible automatically generates an executable programfrom the playbook, modulesand inventory.Inventory is a text file oflist of hosts.Third,ansibletransports an executable programinto hosts by usingprotocols.For example,SCP or SFTP.Finally,ansible executesthe program in thehost.Then,I'd liketo show samples of inventoryand playbook.The left figureis an inventory.Inventory file,we have to writehost names or IP addresses.Host names have to be resolvedby DNS or localhost file.Also,we can make groups of thehost.In this sample,we define the groups,webservers and ap servers.And we can writevarious informationsof hosts in this file.In thisexample,allcolombars are SSHusername and passwordof all hosts.Of course,we can writethese variables per one host,one group.And these variablescan be included fromother files.The other hand,the rightfigure is a playbook.In theplaybook file,we have towrite targethost groupor tasks.Tasks containsnames andtype of module and some parameters.In this sample,weexecute apt module,copy module,service module.Finally,we executethe playbook by using aansibleplaybook command.This command consists offile name of inventoryand file name of playbook.When a playbook runs right byansible,configuration ofserver or network devicesis completed.I'd like to show the movie ofansible to you.In this video,ansible installsApache2 on Ubuntu.First,apt moduleinstalls apache2on targetUbuntu.And copy module copyindex.html to the target.Service module restartsApache2 on the target.Now,we can see the websiteby car command.Then,I'd like tointroduce aboutansible network modules.When we useansible network modules,we canautomate many tasks ofnetwork device configuration.For example,arista,sysco,del,file,jpa,nokia,andso on.Now,I'd like tointroduce our three motivationsto useansible network module.First,we want toautomate configuration androutine work of network devicesas well as servers.Second,we want toperform tasks automaticallythat require cooperation betweenserver and network devices.For example,also,outscalingand outhealing.Third,we want tomanage for configuration ofserver and network devicesby one playbook.This idea based oninfrastructure as code.Then,I'd like toshow our test results ofansible network module.In our test,Sysco,Nexus,Switch,5548and F5 big IPI-22600 load balancerare used.Using these devices,we performfundamental configuration tobuild open stack providernetwork system.For example,we performhostname,vlaninterface,access listand certificate configurations atNexus switch.Moreover,we performvlan,self-IP,pools,nodes,virtual servers configuration atbig-ip load balancer.The test environment is consist ofsimple component.In this test environment,has twotest targets,Nexus switchand F5 load balancerand has two servers runningopen stack.One maintenance switchand one maintenance computer.This system containsone user computer.Please show the playbookfor Cisco,Nexus switch.This playbook configurevlan for targetNexus.The playbook consists of2 tasks.First task is creatingvlan999 byNexusvlan module.Second task is configuringswitch port access vlan byNexus config module.This task configureesanet31 and 32 portsfor target interfaces ofvlan999.This task can be also writtenby another modules.The module name isNexus switch port.Both in thefirst and second task,we wrote avariable named provider.This variable givesinformation of SSH user nameand password and so on.Now I show the demo video forthe Ansible playbook.First,we typeshow running config on theNexus switch.You can see that there isNexus switch port.So,let's execute the playbook.Ansible configurecreated vlan,addsports to the vlan.Just a moment,please.Here,Nexus modulesrequiresNexus version 9.2or later.Because the module have toreceive the output of somecommands in JSON format.At first,we useNexus switch port 1.So,Ansible didn't work.OK,thecomplete is the playbook.Now,typeshowrunning config again.You can see the switch portaccess vlan 999 is configuredproperly.Next,I'll showyou an example of playbookfor f5 load balancer.This playbookis registering nodesand adds that node to a pool.This playbookconsists of two tasksto.In the first task,registeringthe node named node3 to thebig IP.We write variables includinginformation of the node.In the second task,addingthat node to the pool namedweb.Now,I'll showthe short video.Before executing the playbook,poolmembers are two nodesand execute the playbook.The third nodeis added to the pool.You can see the third nodes.In our test,we couldfundamental configuration ofnetwork devices by Ansible.For example,about system nexus switch,configure hostname,vlan,interface,and so on.And about f5 load balancer,configure vlan,self IP,pool,virtual server,and so onby Ansible.The modules that we testedare listed below.From here,Mr.Onointroduced about theuse case of Ansible.Hey,then I talk aboutapplication of AnsibleNetwork modules to OpenStackprovider networks.There are three use cases.Use case one is configuringboth OpenStack and physicalnetwork devices by Ansible.Use case two isoutscaling.Use case three isinfrastructure as code.First use case is configuringboth OpenStack and physicalnetwork devices by the playbook.Up to now,weused Ansible onlyto configure physicalservers and virtual serversand OpenStack.But we want to configureboth servers and physicalnetwork devices by Ansible.It's because we don'twant to type a tonsof commands manually.And we want to doCICD of the networknot only servers.This figure showssample case.For example,to make load balancedweb servers on OpenStack,we have to do many configurationsin the balance.For example,in switchwe have towe have to createBLANs and add BLANsposed to BLANs.And for example,in loadbalancer we have to createBLANs,create safe IPs and so on.And of coursewe have to do many thingsin OpenStack.We have tocreate project,create usersand assign load and so on.And weautomate those allby Ansible.So,I'll show you the demo.Left windowis GUI of loadbalancer.And upper right windowis CLI of Ansible servers.And lower rightis CLI of Nexus.First,execute the playbookfor Nexus.It's createBLANs and addposedto BLANs.Type show runin Nexusand BLANs are configured.Next,execute the playbookfor OpenStack.It's making project userssubnets,butternicks,keypairand so on.And instances.Now open the dashboard.And we can see two serversare running.Finally,execute the playbookfor big IP.It's creatingBLANs,sale file piece,pool,nose,virtual server.Let's check.So,we can see allconfiguration areproperly configured.Finally,call the virtual server.Andwe can seeweb01 and web02 serversare loadbalancedproperly.Next,talkabout use case 2 or scaling.And up to now,it'snot tested.On the provider networks,we can't perform or scalingusing only Ansible.There's three reasons.First,ansible can'tmonitor resources.Next,ansibledoes not have API.Andfinally,ansible does not haveso-called IFTTT functions,if this,thenthat.So,we can'tkick the correct playbookas the situation automatically.Then,we have to usemonitoring software,forexample,serometer,andheat,otherbics,andand so on.And we have to usestackstorm oransibletower,and so onto enable APIsand IFTTT.And final use case is called.We want to useonly one playbookto define whole environment.We don'twant to use,wantto manage many playbooks.The only one playbookcontains all configurationsof whole environment.So,when we wantto check the configurationof a switch or afirewall or LB or something,all we needis just see the playbook.No need to typeshowlearning commandsin the devices.And when we wantto change some configurationsin the devices,weupdate the playbookand execute the playbook.Of course,Ansibleapplies only differencesto devices.And when ST2oransibletoweror something dooutscaling,theyupdate the playbookand execute that.This is essentialfor synchronizationof playbook andreal configurations.But there are some problemsto come throughinfrastructures called byAnsible.The problems occurat deleting configurations.To delete configurations,weupdate the playbook.Task,like thebelow.The taskDeleteVilla999 hasLineStateAbsent.The LineStateAbsentis needed to delete Villa999.But the playbookof infrastructure as codeshouldn't include stateabsent tasks because weexecute the only oneplaybook at everyconfiguration change.We can makeVilla999 and delete Villa999everytime.Sowhat is the best wayto delete configurations?Of course,we can makea playbook fordating configurations.Butwe want to usealways only one playbookif we can.And another way isnot managing configurationby the playbook,but bythe playbook.But wedidn't test those now.Thatis our future work.Let's goover thepresentators again andtalk about our futurework on this theme.As mentioned before,we think thatworkflow system isnecessary for automatingservice orderwhich is a seriesof routine taskssuch as additionand deletion of users.Let's see an exampleof a use case.Users like the parametersof the desirednetwork environmentin Excel format.When administratorsreceive the Excel files,they just haveworkflow systemread the file.Then,theworkflow systemappropriately callsanswerable and thenecessary processing isexecuted.Or,it'snecessary to realize selfservice by furtheringevolving this mechanism.When a user entersparameters viaHorizon,theservice order isexecuted with the triggeror,corporatewith open daylight.We presented thesetries at the last Barcelona Summit.In either case,it'sdifficult for administratorsto create GUI partsthat are necessaryfor the users to operate.Now,we are reaching theend of our presentation.When we started,I said thatafter my presentation,you will understandhow to efficiently operateOpenStack provider networksto leverage Ansible Network modules.NTT West continuesto explore other technologiesas well.I convinced thatutilizing Ansible ispossible to extendthe functionality ofOpenStack.Now,I hope thatyou will also try using Ansible.In closing,I'd liketo stress thatNTT Westcontinues to utilizeOpenStack.We would like to contributeto further boostingtheOpenStack communityby continuingto operate in the productionenvironment as an active userof OpenStackand continuingto say our opinion basedon our experience in a placelike thisOpenStack Summit.This is the endof our session.Thank youfor joining us today.Thank you.We are sorrythat we cannot respondto your question herebecause we cannot communicatein real time in English.So,if you have questions,please email us after next week.Thank you.


So my name is Jochai Benter. I teach at the law school. I'm a faculty co-director of the Berkman Center. I'm spending a chunk of time looking at the network environment and different modalities of organization and politics. And Esther and I, despite whatever else was written, are not having an interview, but both of us having a conversation. And I think we both have decided after this morning that, A, the conversation was interesting and getting continuously interesting. And B was way too congenial, and everybody was clapping. So we needed to do something else. Esther is a professor of sociology at Northwestern. This year, a fellow at the Berkman Center working on a book who's done, at least to my mind, the most persuasive work on injustice in access to the net and what is a stable digital divide along dimensions of skills. And has also done a fascinating study that combines all political blogs as well. And is a fascinating person to have a conversation with. So why don't you go ahead and we'll move from there? Thank you very much. OK, is this picking up my voice? Can you guys hear me? Because I'm actually not feeling very OK. Is that better? Yeah, sorry. I'm not feeling very well, so I don't think I can. OK, great. Thank you, Jay-Z. Thanks. My work here is fine. This is the tall people panel. OK, so as Yo-hai said, we've been listening to the conversation, and it's been very interesting. But as people who are not exactly, whose work isn't exactly some of what's been discussed, we come from a somewhat different perspective, and we wanted to infuse that perspective into the conversation. Although I've done some work on political uses of the internet, it's not my focus. But I think coming from a different perspective might be helpful here. I find it very interesting that this conversation, the conversation we've had so far, would I think better characterize a conference that might be called Internet and Campaigns instead of Internet and Politics. And so that's a difference that I want to emphasize. Because so far, we've mainly been talking about campaigns and how campaigns might benefit from and in the future use IT. Whereas politics, to me, means something much broader. And that includes voices from below and voices intermingling and not necessarily just from top down. Even though people have referred to not just top down, I haven't really heard in the substance much below the top down. So I'd like to see more. Even the way people are talking about internet and politics usually is around campaigns. 2004, 2006, 2007, you rarely hear 2008. You rarely hear 2007, 2005. That's just not even in the conversation against suggesting that too much of the conversation is focusing on the campaign, as though nothing in between happened when it comes to internet and politics, which is not the case. As Yochai mentioned, my main focus is looking at how the internet isn't. You're far in training. OK, now it's been silenced. At least he has a cool ring. OK, so as Yochai mentioned, my focus is on inequalities and internet use. And what I'm going to say, I'm going to say because I think it's important to say. And I wouldn't be surprised if, after I say it, you forget it and we move on. But I'm going to say it anyway. Another assumption or a main assumption in the conversation so far has been, what is the internet doing to people? How are people using the internet? And the way that's phrased assumes that all people are using the internet the same way and all people are being influenced by IT the same way. And that's just wrong. And you're probably thinking, OK, well, maybe she's talking about the 25% of Americans who don't use the internet at all. And I'm sort of talking about those people. Or maybe she's talking about the 33% of those who are connected who don't have broadband. And those of us in this room can't even relate to what that means. But let's put that aside because I'm not even just talking about those people. I'm actually talking about the 50% of Americans who do have broadband. And saying that even among those people, they're very different groups. And IT will have very different implications for how they use the various tools in their political lives. And so when we talk about Facebook or whatnot and mobilizing, we can't forget that these are going to have different implications by different groups. So that's just something I'd like people to keep in mind because it's not irrelevant. It's certainly not irrelevant. It wasn't irrelevant in this campaign. If you just look at the demographics of who is using what. So then just some specific questions I wanted to throw out there related to all this. One is, is there room to influence the agenda from bottom up? And it's really, that hasn't been part of this conversation. And it's not really clear how there is room for that if most of the thinking is about how we can mobilize the 3 million who've already joined the Facebook group or those specific people who've joined our list. And while million is a big number, it's a big unit. It sounds helpful. It's a very small fraction of the American population in reality. And then, so for example, Andrew brought up that idea of how people are starting to create things from the bottom up in terms of services. And it's great. So the government doesn't have to pay for them. I guess other people will take care of those. But those are likely to be services that represent very specific perspectives in the population. So they're going to meet the needs of particular populations and certain needs that are not represented in those really savvy people who know how to upload the photos and put them on maps and whatnot are not going to be as represented. So that's something to keep in mind. And then something looking forward, and this is not necessarily about skills, although I think it relates, is we're at that moment where some of this is still very exciting and people give out their emails and you get them and maybe they even respond and they read the messages. And partly I think it's because people were so excited about the candidate this year. But how does this work moving forward? Partly when more candidates start adopting these tools and when they don't necessarily use it in the most savvy ways. And then people might get fatigued, whether it's by email or emails or the text messages or whatnot they're receiving. Are you going to be able to mobilize the same way? And then one more thing I wanted to bring up as a possible topic for conversation, which a little bit of it has come up this negative side. And so far it's been more about trolls, for example. But one issue that does relate to the skill question and that people have different skills in understanding IT is misinformation, for example. So just like the people who have the good material to send out can use these tools, so can those who send out misinformation. And if people don't know how to use IT well and they don't understand that they need to be critical of the sources and they don't know how to evaluate content online, which is a lot of people. I mean, this is what I do research on. And that includes young people, by the way. Assuming that all young people are savvy is just completely wrong. That's another thing that campaigns or whoever might need to figure out how you counter. Whether that's campaigns or government or whether local government or whatnot, or just organizations, email can be used for both good and bad. And given that people don't really understand the technology that well, and whether it's email or text messages or informational websites, that has the potential for negative outcomes. And so I just wanted to make sure that these other sides of the equation were part of our conversation today, because I feel like still the conversation is pretty positive. I have nothing, I don't have a problem with being positive and optimistic, but I think we need to be realistic. And for that, we need to consider the other side. Thank you. I wanna start by focusing on the fact that we succeeded in spending an entire morning on internet and politics without saying, for example, daily costs or act blue, or liberal blogosphere or anything like that, which to me is the core of what I found difficult about this morning's conversation. Carpenters and tools assumes you have a plan, you know what you're building. The carpenters are there, they have a trade, they're the organizers and the political organizers, and here's a fancy new tool. That's one story about what happened in 2008 is that there was a tradition and an art of organizing that met a moment of need and also used some nifty tools. There's a different story. It's a story of a network public sphere. It's a story of a technological moment that changed people's perception of their agency, not because they were given a strategic goal, Marshall, and then given freedom within an organization to act out that strategic goal, but because they have become to adopt a series of behaviors. As you say, Scott, in new models of organization, and it doesn't matter whether it's software, whether it's fan fiction, whether it's Wikipedia, to be effective in the world on their own. And one of the ways in which people found ways to be effective on their own is to bypass the understanding that somewhere between CNN and Fox is the entire political spectrum, and that there's balance and propaganda, and that's the entire universe, and to find a way to talk. It's to ignore the fact that the 2006 campaign began to see some of these practices that later on were used in the campaign, like, for example, online fundraising and targeting towards marginal users, like, for example, expanding the field and getting people on board, like, for example, attacking Lieberman in the primary, not that that worked out so well ultimately precisely because it wasn't institutionalized in these ways, but it's an orientation of a story that's very different, and it's an orientation of a story that sees the meetings that Jeremy was describing, and that Elise were describing as very, very different kinds of meetings. One was a set of meetings, at least as I read it from hearing there, and you'll correct me if I'm wrong, which was about understanding how we can get even better mobilization for the next battle. And the other was, how do we begin to create participatory fora for people to set their own agenda? And Marshall, you've already been angry at me face to face for this, so you can be angry again. To say when we lack strategy, we get diffused and break up is to reject what I take to be the core of democracy, which is people's ability to participate in setting the agenda, not only how they implement an agenda that is set for them somewhere else. And so the story that I tell of the network public sphere is a story whose core is in diffuse behaviors that transcend politics, but politics is one of them, of diffuse models of problem solving that transcend politics, but politics is one of them, that then are built into the practices of the left wing of the blogosphere. And in fact, we've just finished a study, and I think Aaron will talk about it a bit in the breakout session on collaboration if we do, but it turns out there's a lot of work on the blogosphere. All of it describes the political blogosphere as roughly symmetric and uniform on the left and the right. Turns out the practices are different. Turns out the practices are different. We see a lot more use of collaboration and discourse on the left than on the right. We see some of the things we've been talking about in terms of people participating in the campaign already happening on the left blogosphere. So that's a statement. It's an invitation to a conversation and to a continuation of the conversation that we had in the morning, but these are themes that were on the table all day. When Archon asked, how do you move the problem solving? That was that kind of question. It was a question about how do you move from mobilizing to action on a set agenda to allowing people to set their agendas and work on their problem solving? When Micha was talking about the structure of the conversation, when Andrew was talking about distributed solutions, these were solutions that were being proposed from the perspective of the networked public sphere, not from the perspective of a new set of tools for the carpenters who are acting out their art. And that to me is internet and democracy, not internet and political campaigns. And to the extent that I'm being extremely crisp and less polite than I usually am, it's because I spent a morning hearing at least several people around the room. There were moments at which Peter was making that point as well that didn't get stated as crisply. And so we have plenty of time now and I'd love hopefully to have a continued conversation on this question of what is the relative role in our understanding of what happened? Of a new set of tools to an old set of carpentry, that is to say, political organizing around campaigns, organized around an understood strategic goal which is electing a person or maybe passing an agenda item, versus a set of practices imminent in the networked environment, repeating and occurring across multiple domains, not only politics, not only culture, but along all of these domains, and then being incorporated in a brilliant way into political campaigns. That's my question to you. Daniel Grestner of the Fletcher School and I'm not here this morning, don't blame me. My question is for Esther, which I take your point about the dark side of the internet. The problem I always have with that is the notion that if something is a tendency and it's kind of research to believe that if something happened on the internet, wow, we've never seen this before all along. And so the counterfactual for me is always, to what extent is the phenomenon you're seeing on the internet happening already which is what we didn't know about. So you're trying to perpetuation of myths on the internet. Obama's citizenry, the status of citizenry or so on and so forth. But these things happened before we had an internet. In some ways, one could argue, they were actually even less transparent then because it was tougher to diffuse message or even know that the myth was out there. So do you think this problem has gotten worse with stuff going online, better? Is there any way to tell? I think, okay, so I'm an empirical sociologist, so I'll start with the caveat that I don't know any studies on this, but so I don't know specifically whether it's gotten worse or better, but I think it does have the potential actually to get worse. I see your point about transparency, but the reason I think it can get worse is because things can disseminate so much quicker, right? I mean, just your email distribution list, right? And that it can show up in so many places. I mean, it's not just the one email distribution list, you get it from three friends and then you can even find it on our website. And that I think adds to the potential seemingly legitimate aspect of that information that you're getting. And so I think it does have the potential to spread much more quickly and to larger numbers. And again, because people then lack the, I think there's too much, I mean, we know that people still trust mainly their social networks for a lot of information. And so if it's from your social networks that you end up getting this misinformation, then you have trust in that and you might have gotten that before too, but you can only make so many phone calls and you're only gonna see so many people face to face to get that misinformation in the past. And traditional media are still pretty careful with some of this information. So I don't think you don't necessarily see it there, but people will still believe it even if they don't see it on the traditional media. You don't seem convinced. I agree, the rapidity with which the stuff gets out, but I think you're absolutely right. The counter to be, of course, is that it also can be counteracted much more rapidly. Which is, if you had a myth go offline, but it's not even found out about it, trying to counteract it would be next to a possible res. If a myth spreads online, you're right, it can spread very quickly, but also you could then see the fact, oh my God, there's this myth out there. It needs to be, it's obviously is a truth. So the counter, the debunking can also spread potentially more quickly. Potentially can, but I don't see it wouldn't necessarily. I mean it's one of these, you know, you get an email that has some like myth in it and then the best I can do is, and I see I was 100 of, I was one of 100 people who were CC'd and I can write back to the person who wrote to me and say, look, this isn't true. I doubt they're gonna then send it onto the other 99 and I mean, I don't know if you can really backtrack necessarily. There's the potential of what I'm talking about. You can necessarily backtrack, but counter debunking would also take place along multiple networks as well. There would be multiple sources that way also. Scott. Quick question here, or I thought. So the genius of Facebook to kind of bridge the Marshall, Yohkai divide here is that, so the genius of Facebook, think about it this way, the genius of Facebook is that it maps the existing social network. It maps the existing social graph. It takes the, everyone you know and it pulls out the more strength and power in it, none of it, and that's great. And that's sort of related to, I think what you're talking about about the network public sphere. The network of all those connections being more sort of transparent and there and usable and exploitable and mobilizable is great. But there is no existing, there is no existing organizational network and sphere. In other words, the potholes are still there. There's no activity or, there's nothing I can do about that 14 year old Somali girl. There's nothing I can do about most anything and people don't have a sense of their own power, their own collective power. They don't have a sense of the potential of collective action. And what Marshall talks about is the, he's talking about that potential and how people can work together, how people organize can do things and get things done. And so that's, just to sort of summarize, make sure it's clear is that there's the difference between the social network and social graph and then there's the organizational capacity and those are two very different things. And so you guys disagree but you're talking about different things in my view. Well, I'm not 100% sure that I agree. So I think this problem of increasing the degree of efficacy of new social action is a problem that is shared across domains of intersection between existing organizational models and emerging social action on the net. So for example, when even an organization as grass rootsy as Wikipedia has to start organizing because it's gotten to a certain scale, it meets new tensions between people's sense of the ability to just come and write whatever they want and people's need to connect. When certainly when you're talking about free and open source software projects, these are not just social networks that map existing social networks. These are directed forms of action that are creating new forms of organization that weren't there before and that are meeting boundaries of efficacy and then begin to translate into real world organizations. And that locus of meeting is a place of enormous potential but at the same time, enormous potential threat. So when a company like IBM begins to intersect with the free software community, it's got to change what it does and sometimes also accept that there are people on the inside of the organization who actually have to have split loyalties and have to sometimes say to their manager who's paying their salary, yes, I understand what you need but I have to take it to see whether it's good for the kernel, whether it's good for whatever the software project I'm working on and that requires a recognition that it's not just a new tool and I'm doing my thing with it but rather that it's an imminent social practice that is not just a social network but a directed set of social acts that I'm an organization and can make it more effective but that I need to understand that it's that it is a different phenomenon than what I described. This particularly gets important when you're talking about democracy because clearly one of the things you want to do in democracy is successfully organize a political campaign, capture power and have the state act but at the same time if you're concerned about democracy you want to get people to actually be able to be part of the agenda setting not only execute a plan that has been decided by political elites as opposed to by organizational leadership and so I'm not sure that we're talking about separate domains. I think I at least am seeing a potential tension between the successful transition to government and a wide scale democratic practice as long as that successful transition focuses on what it's done on continuing to effectively mobilize for discrete set political action as opposed to setting up completely different kinds of platforms for actually allowing people to have their voice heard between elections. But one is the critique that my colleague, our colleagues at the teach out made of how campaigns are using internet which is they're sharing tasks but they're not sharing power and the idea that there's more power out there that people are empowered in new ways whether or not they need permission. Something very interesting today the transition, the change.gov site has launched a deep like platform you're using Google moderator and they're inviting anybody to ask a question that they want to transition to answer and load up the best questions. I don't know exactly what time it was announced it was they've already got 8,000, just now, they've already got 8,000, right? What happened? What happened? What's your comment? I just, maybe the first thing that occurred to me The first thing that interested me, when I saw that was the most popular questions are always the best question. Sometimes the least popular question is the best question. And this seems like a perfect way for them to avoid our questions. I mean, depending on who signed up for it. Which is something that they've been brilliant at so far. So power to them. Not your power, but theirs. I'm just going to say that that relates to my point about how certain voices are represented and certain voices aren't. And it's not always the most vocal voices that are necessarily the most representative. Well, that's a whole other. Go ahead. Can you comment on where the flash of a bottle applies? For example, the million voices against Mark that turn into the 12 million people marching in the streets in a very short period of time. How that, just in your theory, is that a one-time instant or is that a representative of what you're talking about? Well, it's a representative in some sense, although I think that that ends up being more of a diagnosis of a system that is incapable of opening itself to sustain conversation. Because then you get people on the street when otherwise they lack power. So again, if you understand protest as a problem, an organizational problem, just like any other, then what you're seeing is online practices translating into problem solving and coordination in the real world. But to my mind, the question of whether you build a system that people will look at and say, yes, I have real input. Whether a dig-like system will do it or not, or whether it'll divert questions to things that aren't that sustainable. I think this was part of what Arkham was trying to focus on in the morning, which is to say, to actually get a sustained platform that allows people to work things out, talk about them, and then have pathways that they say, I've been heard, genuinely heard, not just allowed to do something that is insignificant. I've been genuinely heard. We've had a conversation. It's been converted into action or not. Strikes me as more potentially sustainable as a model than things that are, when things really burst open and you have massive demonstrations. That's a particular form of political efficacy under conditions when you're actually not succeeding in being part of the democratic governance process. But I think the fascinating challenge is actually to build a governance process that allows people to participate in ways that don't require this flash protest, but actually are part, particularly from an administration that sees itself as built on this kind of community organizing, including people within the framework. Okay, I agree with the point that you and Marshall are not really so much disagreeing as talking about different things. If you take Luke's radical view of power and the three phases of power, the first phase is the ability to change others' behavior by various incentives and so forth. That's what organizing and campaigning is about. If you take the second phase of power, which Bach, Bach, and Barrett's and others have written about, it's ability to control the agenda so that you never have to coerce people or resent people because something never gets on the agenda in the first place. The third phase of power, which is more Gromchen or if you want McLuhan-like, is the ability to establish or reestablish fundamental preferences. Politics is about all three. Campaigning is primarily about the one. The interesting question is how do the second and third phases of power affect the first? And we heard an example this morning on agenda-setting where it did, the Palin question. The campaign, the organizers, thinking it was strategically important not to be seen attacking Palin, tried to keep that essentially off the agenda. But others who were essentially setting the agenda because they're going to put it there and much of that was attributed to Obama or the reaction to it was attributed to Obama even though he didn't organize it. So that's a case of the second phase of power affecting the first. The third phase of power, if you want the Gromchen McLuhan setting these preferences, goes to an understanding of people's ability to, yes we can, to point a phrase, which goes out of the nature of the candidate in the way he projects himself. And that the Obamary has changed by the pavement, he changed politics in that sense. All the people who were told, you know, you grew up with the president and 10% of them knew it was absolutely not true. All of a sudden now, for them at a deep level of understanding of Gromchen's sense is something that's not true. That's a third phase of power in politics. So the three, you really are talking about very different things. You're right to expand the scope but what we need to be spending more time on is the interaction between marshal's sense and what you're using. And that comes up with this question of what do you do with this machine you've created for the period of governance, not election? And the great danger I see is it's becoming salesmanship. You know, it's not organizing, it's selling. So all of a sudden my box is loaded with emails about my view on this or what I think is inauguration is over. I don't take any of that seriously. Nobody's really going to have much impact on the agenda with that. On the other hand, when Tom Daschle, the secretary of destiny for dealing with a health plan, calls the list of tens of thousands for those who have put in a strong interest in healthcare, not because they're seeking a job but before the campaign, this is what recruited them and calls from that a subset of a thousand or so. And it goes out and meets with those people, the virtually or a person to solicit ideas. You have the opposite of Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan of 93. We need to explain a lot more time about the way this second and third basis of power can affect the first base when you transition from salesmanship as in campaigning to government. I will embrace every single word you said. I mean, literally. I just think that's exactly the point without that structure coming from a different perspective that I was trying to make, which is when you spend your time talking about internet and politics focusing on campaign, you miss the domains of who sets the agenda, who gets to speak to what effect, and the cultural domain, soft power to coin another frame. That's a good phrase. That's a good phrase. That's a good phrase. That's a good phrase. What are your remarks? Well, I'm sorry, I should introduce myself. I'm Matt Hyman. I was going to say, both your remarks, I think, were very useful, sort of broadening our perspective beyond what we were talking about this morning. Both in terms of talking about not just campaign sites, but a whole host of other sites online, and you all know, in the whole sphere, Esther talking about not just a tiny segment of the population, but thinking about the population as a whole, including those parts of 50% of Americans who have broadband and are unnecessarily seducing it. But I'm gonna push you to expand even a little bit more. And I think that we're in some ways missing the vote here because what we've been talking about thus far is really only a tiny portion of overall web traffic. So let's take the numbers from, I looked this up this morning, October of 2008, kind of an important political moment. So for the entire month of October of 2008, according to headlines, which has ISP level traffic, news and media sites, which includes weather.com and New York Times.com, Yahoo News, got 4% of all internet traffic, which is roughly a third of what porn gets or web mail gets. And looking just at political sites, which is a narrower, somewhat fuzzy category. Does that include YouTube traffic? But even, you know, but if we break down YouTube, and we look at the videos on YouTube, I mean, there were some pretty important political videos. And certainly YouTube is probably not helpful for the McCain campaign, but you also see an awful lot of skateboarding dogs. But even looking at political traffic, which is another sort of smaller, fuzzier category, that gets even less than 10% of what news and media traffic gets. And that includes Daily Post, that includes all of the Huffington Posts, that includes Free Republic, and all these other sites that we've been talking about. So isn't one of the things that we should be worried about is not just that we have more opportunities for citizens to engage in the online public sphere, but in some sense, evade politics at all? It's not obvious to me that there are alternative behavioral or policy or structural options on the table. You're not describing a different pattern from the one that we see on TV or with newspapers. The question, to my mind, is the extent to which all the part, so there are actually two components to this. One is all the part of the people who are concerned with policy, politics, local, national, the extent to which people can participate in a conversation and organize themselves effectively to do things and get things done. And partly it's the question of how many people actually get the experience of having been meaningful in any way, and then changing. One of the things that I thought was fascinating about the campaign was the fact that they actually got so many people. Now again, as you say, 3 million is not 300 million, but 3 million is very different from a few thousand or a few tens of thousand in terms of the implications for what portion of the of a polity actually does something and participates and see it as central to what they're capable of doing. And I think the challenge is to set up structures that actually are meaningful to people and do invite them to actually try to do something or say something that's useful. And in that regard, it's true that a thousand people who have their views on health policy heard is not million, but it's a thousand who wouldn't have been there before. And it's a thousand who care. And that strikes me as important on a very substantial level, not only how many of the overall are happy to sit back and let others deal with it. Yeah, I'd like to respond as well. So as you said, I mean, if people aren't interested in visiting those sites, that's they weren't really interested in watching the evening news per se either. But that said, I think partly what might be going on is that we need to shift our ways of measuring some of these things, right? So do you have to go to the New York Times.com to be involved, to be engaged? What counts as being engaged? What counts as civically engaged? How do we measure it? And I mean, these are actually questions that we don't know the answers to, I don't think. And it's more of a call for more work on this. But for example, what kind of engagement on Facebook matters, right? Like, does it really matter if you joined a group?  And that's much harder to get aggregate logs on and certainly harder to know how to survey about that. So I think, but also this expansion of what counts as political and civic material is just something we need to be thinking about more carefully. The examples that we're talking about, you're talking about the Obama leadership not wanting to tax that or pay a limit to grassroots attack in any way and that kind of disrupted the agenda that they had. What are some examples of the masses? Truly at a high level setting, have you seen it? And regardless if you've seen it in the past or what do you see moving forward in the ability to set the agenda? Okay, so first of all, I'm not sure that agenda disruption is different from agenda setting. But you can decide that it's not consistent with you. In fact, at the core I think of what it means to set the agenda is to disrupt someone else's idea of what should be on the agenda. And in the context of participation, it's to disrupt whoever the power who is and put in your own. I think I'm not sure that this is a good example because Josh Marshall is sort of slowly moving toward being more like media, but I think his role, for example, in the US Attorney scandal is an example of an agenda item that became a very substantial agenda item that came from the blogosphere. I'm not sure that's a good enough example because of, as I say, it's not exactly a ground swelling. I suspect that there's real room in the Lamont Lieberman election. That's not an agenda item so much as a particular person. When I see looking forward, I see these two processes. It's not at all clear to me that move on's counsels will necessarily come up with the same set of preferences about what to move on and when and what to accommodate versus what not to accommodate that will be exactly congruent with what the next administration wants to do. And the question for me will be the degree to which we will have systems that will allow that set of actors to play a large role in deciding what ends up actually being both discussed and acted on. I don't think that it's about direct democracy because direct democracy is about the actual formal power to act. I do think we are potentially, and I think it's only potentially, it's far from a foregone conclusion, moving toward a more participatory democracy. One where people can have more of a say in what the agenda is as opposed to just how it's executed. If anything, I would worry to some extent if my BO really were a successful way where you can send emails out and say, today this is my agenda. Go email your senator, go email your representative, put the pressure that we'd be moving toward more of a model of a plebiscitory presidency than direct democracy. But my primary hope is neither a plebiscitory presidency nor a direct democracy, but simply a more participatory or a representative democracy. With my caveat of more participatory for some and not others. Chris Radd, Afro-Medicine. I think one example would be the immigration reform protests in Southern California and all across the country that was hundreds of thousands of people who corporate media had written off that political institutions, mainstream political institutions had written off that white progressives essentially have chose not to discuss on the most popular, left-leaning logs. Gina Six is a good example as well. These were matters that were important to in communities of color that in a larger political progressive community would be considered shared values but not shared interests. They were very low priorities for a lot of our white brethren and sisters until it became so well organized and compelling that people slowly but surely or actually not that slowly joined on and there are great folks from all kinds of communities who jumped on to make these things an issue but it's interesting that when it came around to the presidential campaign and talk about immigration and I think we have in our analysis of these different constituencies we have to talk about kind of the what I call digital capital martial referred to as civic capital in the context of politicized activity where essentially even though a lot of these tools are free the social capital around the blogs and organizations that have access to wealth and access to corporate media and other assets significantly increase status and priority for their agendas whereas a number of concerns in communities of color will not see that level of interest or dedication and I think particularly in Obama administration may be even more difficult because if he's portrayed as a post-racial or trans-racial president any kind of concerns around racial justice it will almost by definition be squashed down because we're supposed to be passed that. So I'm curious about your reaction to how essentially race and ethnicity class impacts the adoption and transference of power. Well this is exactly what I was getting at I just didn't go so far as to get specific but yes exactly research shows that ethnic minorities, racial minorities those who come from lower socioeconomic status those are precisely the people that even went online they do fewer things they have less skill to do them so that was exactly the point I was getting at that even when we look at people who use the internet they're not participating equally right now. And part of what I've been able to figure is partly because they're lacking a lot of these digital skills to do so and there are other potential reasons and that's a conversation that I think needs to happen and when we talk about wiring more of the country we need to make that part of the conversation because it's not just a technological issue where you give people the access we already know it's not gonna take care of the divide. And I think just to conclude this session I think what we were both actually hoping to do is raise this particular we have another day and a half. You're holding that because we do have more time I thought we were... Okay so I think why don't we instead of me continue to arc on then Marshall and then we'll close to the extent that we can. I think the question of examples is exactly the right questions and at a deeper level people have to have a some sort of view about what kind of democracy they want to live in and so to put the drawing from the healthcare example an example from the 1990s before the proliferation of a bunch of ICT is Oregon and in Oregon in the 90s they were faced with the question of expanding public healthcare to cover more poor people but they can't cover all poor people for all conditions so they had to decide which conditions but instead of the governor or the legislature deciding they had a pretty wide ranging statewide process that specified what healthcare values the public insurance system ought to cover and then that became healthcare legislation and for a decade or more became very very popular in Oregon because it was the process of popular problem solving and consideration whereas almost every other state in the nation this one accepted has failed to achieve any kind of meaningful healthcare reform despite large large majorities in favor of it in popular opinion and so the challenge would be can someone in this room or someone that you know create some technological platform that would allow serious direct consideration of what values should inform healthcare reform that would include one or two million people in a serious conversation where they felt like it wasn't just a plebiscite but where arguments were being listened to and then responded to and translated into policy do you like that kind of democracy or is it enough for the administration and some people in health and human services to decide what the healthcare what value should inform the healthcare plan and is that the kind of democracy that you want to live in and if it's that kind then you want to work on quite a different kind of internet and communication technology Yeah at the risk of upsetting Joe's very carefully crafted You wouldn't want to do that consensus here No I wanted to try to clarify I guess a little bit both language and metaphor I was trying to articulate six conditions that I thought made for effective collective action and that was to share values interest structure strategy action piece that I went through and what I was suggesting is that how those conditions can be well that the work of leadership that those are leadership practices that it takes to transform random wishes into effective purposeful collective action so my question was really what ways what kinds of tools can help us do that and my reference to Carpenters was practitioners of leadership not campaigners I think it's very important to and well just my understanding of a lot of this comes out of social movements it comes out of my own experience in organizing and studying social movements much more than out of political campaigns I think it's important to appreciate just how different the Obama campaign was in that respect the typical campaign would do exactly what I think you were describing as mobilizing for Arkham has described which means you get a bunch of people you send them door to door I mean and actually there were places where that's what the campaign did this is what Dana has written about in her book which is just it's a mobilizing thing there's no there's no delegate there's no location of responsibility for decision making for strategizing for imagination for creativity for the ownership of goals now what the Obama campaign did was create those venues and one reason was because on the one hand there was high motivation people were highly motivated but on the other hand the campaign had to be pushed a bit into relinquishing control enough to allow local groups local teams given within certain spheres to actually take responsibility and with the taking of responsibility comes the creativity and comes the imagination and comes the ownership of the commitment now that's the first time that I've seen a national campaign be willing to do that and I think it was crucial in the kind of civic capital that was created I think it has everything to do with why those people out there now are clamoring for more stuff to do because it was brought into organizational reality these were actual organized groups of people not just isolated individuals being sent door to door who actually had the experience of making decisions about how they were going to contribute within their domain to a successful campaign I think it's important not to dismiss that but rather think about how to build on it because the connection between strategic deliberation and action is crucial to make and so the question is how do we expand the deliberative domain without divorcing it I think this is a real danger from the action domain they really need to think about how they're brought together more effectively so the carpeters I was talking about was people skilled in leadership practice and I was trying to locate agency in the practitioners rather than in the tools because I continue to think the new media are a wonderful set of tools and like anything we shape our environment, our environment shapes us, it's a dialectical relationship, obviously and a new set of tools causes us to think about new possibilities but nevertheless we remain responsible for making choices about how to use those tools and what way we can and what way they open up possibilities in and so forth so I wouldn't dismiss the campaign, I would rather take the energy that it's created and what it's learned about mobilizing collective engagement and figure out how to build on it I couldn't be farther from dismissing the campaign, I think we're all stand in awe of what was clearly a breathtaking campaign but with the awe comes a certain fear and I think the way that you've described it now is to my ear more nuanced than what I heard this morning over the course of the morning because at some level as I was listening to you talk about what the values of leadership they strike me as correctly describing again a whole class of behaviors and it doesn't matter whether the leadership is of a cluster of articles on Wikipedia or a software platform it's just a different set of values, a different set of goals converted into action but my concern and my fear and my pushback and in some senses you may have failed to resist Joe's harmonization is precisely that we not mistake the enormous success of a system that has a well-defined goal elect this candidate and implements a set of radically different processes than those that were implemented in the past that are much more respecting of autonomy and local efficacy and local leadership and diversity and experimentation and failure I could say all of those things about practically speaking Toyota production system and it wouldn't be that off by comparison to Ford and GM if I wave my arms enough um... but um... but but understanding that that's not enough once you move from a well-understood agenda and it can be a candidate or it can be a particular agenda item that isn't being considered well enough because white progressive aren't embracing it enough uh... and to move from that to converting it into assist a component of a system of governance that doesn't take for granted what the agenda is as opposed to just how to achieve it in the best way uh... or how we talk about creating a cultural understanding of who we are what we could become why it's worthwhile doing that we should break for coffee we should break one more that's all because I suspect that that's the particular place where we wouldn't have any disagreement at all about the degree to which that something that's that targeted with that particular set of adversaries is precisely the kind of thing that you could use these platforms to mobilize large numbers of people the pressure politically um... and to uh... uh... shine sunlight on what they're doing and how they're doing it and to try to disseminate alternative messages it might fail it might fail but the difference in terms of the capabilities both organizationally the particular in the immediate time frame as long as as the energy hasn't dissipated and in terms of the platforms so that harry and louise no longer have so much of the overall airspace uh... that actually strikes me as a place where where we could uh... uh... equally be optimistic coffee


This is William Chao. Welcome to Legal Fundamentals, Module 1, Part C. In this part, we will look at the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is meant to protect our human rights, but it does not protect those rights from being infringed by just anyone. It only applies to governments in Canada, and that's because of Section 32, Subsection 1 of the Charter, which says essentially that the Charter applies under paragraph A, it applies to the federal government, and under paragraph B, that makes the Charter apply to each of the provincial governments in Canada. So the Charter applies only to anything a government does in Canada, and a government includes the federal government, the provincial government, and also municipalities. Municipalities are not mentioned in Subsection 32.1, they are caught or they are captured within paragraph B, which captures provincial governments, and all matters within the authority of the legislature in each province. Municipalities or municipal governments are created by provincial governments. Municipalities get their law-making powers from provincial governments, and that's why municipalities are covered by paragraph B. Because the Charter applies to any government law or action, any government in Canada cannot do anything that violates a protected Charter right or freedom. So any law that's passed by a government in Canada, if it's found to be contrary to the Charter, that law is invalid. Because the Charter only applies to government law or action, the Charter does not protect against human rights violations by businesses, private individuals, or other non-government organizations. Human rights codes would apply to protect against human rights violations by parties such as those. The Charter protects many different rights and freedoms. We won't talk about them all, but we will focus on a few that are directly relevant to business. The first of those rights and freedoms is the freedom of religion. There used to be laws in various provinces including Ontario, which banned stores from opening on Sunday. So the Supreme Court eventually, in the case of Big M Drug Mart, ruled that those laws were unconstitutional since it violated freedom of religion. Another freedom is freedom of expression, or people also refer to it as freedom of speech. Freedom of expression protects many different types of expression, including commercial expression which would encompass advertising. So there have been several cases involving business advertising that use the freedom of expression to strike down a particular law. In a case that we will look at shortly, the case of Irwin Toy, the Quebec government passed a law which banned advertising to children, and that law was challenged as a violation of freedom of expression. In another case, there was a law that was passed by a municipality which banned all ads placed on hydro poles, and we will examine that case as one of our weekly case problem discussions. Another case that we will look at in this module involved the city of Montreal which fined a strip club from making announcements through a loudspeaker at its entrance. Another freedom that is relevant to business is freedom of mobility. So freedom of mobility protects someone's right to work and live in any province in Canada. There was a case where Alberta law firms challenged a law which prohibited law firms in Alberta from partnering with non-Alberta law firms. So that law was challenged using freedom of mobility protected by the Charter. Another important right that is in the Charter is called the right to equality. The right to equality prohibits discrimination on various bases including race, sex and religion, but notably it does not prohibit discrimination based on economic circumstances including poverty. An example of a business case involving the right to equality is a case called Andrews which challenged a British Columbia law which prohibited non-Canadian citizens from practicing law as lawyers. I stated before that the Charter protects many different rights and freedoms but there are some specific interests that are not protected by the Charter. The key omission from the Charter is any kind of protection for economic and property interests. There was a conscious decision made by the various governments that negotiated the Charter that economic and property interests should not be protected by the Charter. The official explanation for this omission was that they did not want to hamper any government's ability to protect the environment or to regulate the use of property to control resource based industries or to restrict foreign ownership. The Supreme Court of Canada has also confirmed that economic and property interests are not protected by the Charter. It is said that there is no unconstrained freedom in economic activities. The way the Charter is set up can be best described as a balancing act. On the left side of the scale or of the balance we have individual interests such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion and all the various rights and freedoms that are protected by the Charter. On the other side of the balance we have societal interests and the way we usually express societal interests in our system is the laws and actions that are passed by the governments that we have democratically elected. The legal mechanism contained in the Charter to express or to reflect societal interests is section one and the notwithstanding clause. That balancing act can be more precisely explained by saying that Charter rights and freedoms are not absolute but are limited by societal interests. Now how are they specifically limited by societal interests? The major legal mechanism that is used to limit Charter rights and freedoms is section one of the Charter. What section one essentially says is that a government can place reasonable limits on Charter rights and freedoms that are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. And we will look at a few cases where we go through the process of applying section one to determine whether or not a government has reasonably limited a Charter right or freedom. The other way that the other legal mechanism that is in the Charter that allows societal interests to limit individual rights and freedoms under the Charter is something called the notwithstanding clause. Notwithstanding clause is a bit of a counter-intuitive clause that's contained in the Charter. What it allows, it allows a government to just override a Charter right or freedom by declaring the infringing law to be valid notwithstanding the Charter. So all they have to do is that they acknowledge that a law that they've passed infringes the Charter and all they have to say is that notwithstanding Charter, we don't care, this law is valid. That is enough to make the law valid under the Charter. Now this clause historically has been rarely used. The way it's set up is that if a government wants to use this clause, it's only effective for five years. So after five years, they have to pass another new law which uses the notwithstanding clause to make that law continue to be valid under the Charter. A notable example of the use of the notwithstanding clause is by the Quebec government. Quebec government many years ago passed a law requiring all business signs in Quebec to be in French only. You could not have a sign that was in French and English. You could not have a sign that was in Chinese or Spanish or anything. It had to be purely French and that law was challenged under freedom of expression. It was declared to be invalid under the Charter and then the Quebec government turned around and passed the law again. But this time adding that it was overriding the Charter, that the law was valid notwithstanding the Charter. And that was enough to make that law valid. But that use of that notwithstanding clause is only good for five years at a time. How do we go about applying the Charter to any particular case or situation? There are three specific steps that we need to take. The first question that we ask is does the Charter apply or in other words does it apply at all to the situation? The rule that we've looked at already is that the Charter applies only to Canadian government laws or actions. It does not apply to private businesses, individuals, or other non-government organizations. And we also know that even if it does involve Canadian government law or action, the Charter does not apply if that government law invokes the notwithstanding clause. So if we do determine that the Charter does apply, the next question we ask is does that government law or action infringe a Charter right or freedom? To answer that question we have to look at the specific rights or freedoms that are contained in the Charter. Some of the ones that we've talked about already are freedom of expression, the right to equality, and freedom of mobility. So if we do determine that a specific Charter right or freedom has been infringed, the next question, the next and last question we ask is, is the infringement of the Charter right acceptable as a reasonable limit under Section 1 of the Charter? What Section 1 does is that it allows a government to legally infringe a Charter right or freedom if it is, quote, considered a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. The way that we apply that rule, that reasonable limit rule in Section 1, is that a limit on a Charter right or freedom may not be reasonable if there is another way of achieving that law's purpose or objective, but without as much infringement of the Charter right or freedom. So we have to think a little creatively. And to see, you know, is there a better way that the government could have achieved the same purpose or objective without stepping on as many toes in terms of infringing a Charter right or freedom? Let's look at some cases to illustrate Charter analysis by the courts. The first case we'll look at is Irwin Toy in Quebec. This is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1989. This involved a law that was passed by the Quebec legislature which prohibited all advertising aimed at pre-teens. The purpose of this law was to prevent commercial exploitation of children whose minds are considered to be more open to suggestion than the minds of adults or teenagers. The Irwin Toy Company challenged the constitutionality of this law. The first question that the court dealt with was did the Quebec government have the power to pass this law under the division of powers set out by the constitution? So the court said that the federal government has the power to regulate television under the residual power because television is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution so it falls under the residual power. Residual power belongs to the federal government. The court also said that provincial governments have the power to regulate advertising under property and civil rights. Remember property and civil rights is a major power exercised by provincial governments to regulate business transactions. So what the court ruled here is that the law, this provincial Quebec law, is a valid exercise of provincial power by the Quebec government. The law had only an incidental relationship to television therefore it is not ultra-virus. So in other words Supreme Court of Canada said that the Quebec government did have the power to enact this law. The next question that the court considered was is this Quebec law valid under the charter? To answer that question we need to look at some more specific questions in our charter analysis. The first question is does the charter apply to the law? The second question is what charter right or freedom was infringed by this law? And the third question is is the law a reasonable limit on freedom of expression under section 1? Please pause this video at this point to try to work through these questions on your own. The first question, does the law, does the charter apply to the law? This law was made by a government in Canada specifically the Quebec government. Since the charter applies to any government law or action in Canada the charter does apply. The second question, what charter right or freedom was infringed? The court said that the law infringed freedom of expression since it prevented Irwin Toyer from using television to tell children about its products. The third question is the hardest question of the three to determine. Is the law a reasonable limit on freedom of expression under section 1? Here the Supreme Court of Canada said the law is a reasonable limit on freedom of expression because society has an interest in protecting young children from commercial exploitation. That was the valid purpose of the law. The ban on advertising only applied to commercials aimed at pre-teens but did not prohibit commercials aimed at adults or teens. So what it was saying is that the law banning advertising to pre-teens was reasonable in that it did not prevent Irwin Toyer from advertising its products at all. They just had to advertise to people other than pre-teen children. So the final conclusion is that the law was valid. So here is a picture from Google Street View of St. Catherine Street in Montreal which is a very busy commercial street. The entrance to the strip club is right there in the circle. The strip club in this case challenged the validity of the noise by law by using the charter. The question that the court had to answer was, is the noise by law valid under the charter? The specific questions that we need to answer for our charter analysis are, does the charter apply to the law, what charter right or freedom was infringed, and is the law a reasonable limit on freedom of expression under section 1? At this point please pause this video so that you can work through these questions on your own. For the first question, does the charter apply to the law? The law was made by a government of Canada, specifically the city council of the city of Montreal, and therefore because of that the charter does apply. So that was fairly easy question to answer. The second question, what charter right or freedom was infringed? So this is another relatively easy question. The law infringes freedom of expression since it prevented the strip club from advertising through its loudspeaker. The third question, which is always usually the toughest question to answer in the charter analysis is in applying section 1. Is the law a reasonable limit on freedom of expression under section 1? Now in this case the Supreme Court, which is made up of a group of judges, they split up into two groups. We had a majority of judges rule one way and a minority rule a different way. So the majority is the one that determines the final outcome of the case. The majority of the Supreme Court said that the law is a reasonable limit on freedom of expression, therefore it's a valid law. So the Chief Justice speaking for the majority said that noise pollution is a serious problem in urban centers and cities like Montreal. So Chief Justice was saying that this is a valid purpose for the noise by law. And he said, you know, are entitled to act reasonably and responsibly in seeking to curb it. Speaking for the minority, the another judge who we call a dissenting judge said that the law is not a reasonable limit, therefore valid. Because it effectively outlaws everything from playing Mozart softly through an open window to annoying cell phones ringing in public places and even squawking baby alarms. So what that judge was saying is that this noise by law is too broad, it goes too far, it's not reasonable and therefore should be invalid. So given these two points of view between the majority and the minority, what do you think? Which judge do you agree with?