Okay. Well, good morning. Good afternoon. Good evening. Everyone, depending on where you're joining us from. And thanks for joining this session. My name is Charles Echoll. I'm a developer advocate at Cisco. And you may ask, well, what's a developer advocate? Well, we have a team at Cisco called DevNet, and it's for helping developers understand the APIs and integration points of our products and our solutions in the building on top of those. So within that space, we have several great developer advocates focusing on different aspects of Cisco technology. And when I joined the team, I came in to advocate for two things that were very important to me. And those are open source and standards. And I saw these as really great ways for us to interact with the developer community around Cisco products and technologies, places where Cisco's contributing to open source projects and then using those open source projects and our products and solutions, especially in ways that are interesting to developers. Also places where we are collaborating and perhaps leading standards efforts to standardize new things, which are then, especially say networking technologies, which are then those standards support for those is incorporated into our products and solutions. So I really advocate for those spaces and working with developers in regards to open source and standards. Okay, so open source and standards, I think when many people think of those, you don't necessarily think as them being directly opposed, but perhaps maybe not that related to each other. However, I believe that standards and open source really can be and should be very closely related and very beneficial to each other. Perhaps in this simplistic picture, I think of the elephant kind of representing a more traditional view of standards, kind of slow moving, but steady. And then the dog on top being perhaps a bit quicker and more agile, but also less predictable and perhaps going in different directions. So here, the fact that you could possibly help each other out and work together is something that I believe is very important and that I certainly advocate for and try to make happen. And that's something that I'd like to talk with you a bit more about. So here we are at an open source conference and so why this focus on standards. Well, really standards have played a key role in most industries, certainly in the networking space where I'm most familiar with the standards. And I think what we see is that industry, they really demand standards compliance from vendors if you're going to offer products in a certain field. Then you need to comply with standards in that area. And this is to ensure interoperability and also to avoid vendor lock-in. So fortunately, vendors work very well together in general in these standards organizations. Even though they may be competitors, I think there's kind of common value in having these standards. And this is both to ensure interoperability between, like, say, a Cisco solution with our partners and with our competitors. But it also just establishes credibility for our product portfolio. And so there's lots of good reasons for vendors to participate well in the standards organizations. So for those of you maybe not quite as familiar with the standards process, you may have at least some notions of how it goes and I'd say traditionally in standards what we've seen is that it takes a while to build consensus and form a standard. Oftentimes that takes a number of years. Now once you get that consensus and you've reached that, then that's the time when you really start to see the standard adopted and supported added into products and solutions and taken to market. The unfortunate reality is that oftentimes even though multiple vendors have solutions that support the same standard, there's just enough ambiguity and uncertainty and kind of subject to interpretation in the specifications that those things don't, those independently designed solutions, even though they implement the same standard, they don't quite work together, at least not in all facets. So it actually takes a while then to get interoperability, interoperable implementations of that standard working. And while in general that does happen, which is fantastic, the problem is as you may have guessed, this can take a really long time and so that's a real challenge. Now contrast that with open source and I think what we've seen here is the ability to transform an industry or a space very, very quickly. In open source communities, we have people coming together, engaging, working together collectively to innovate as a very, very rapid pace. Things aren't subject to kind of meeting schedules and this building of perfect consensus before going forward. A lot of times it's, you know, contribute some code, get someone to review it, commit it, some people try it out, there's this more iterative cycle and that's really fantastic, the type of innovation and speed that we've seen from all of this. And in some cases, this could even result in like a de facto standard, right? If you have enough people contributing to a project, adopting it, integrating it into their product and solutions, that can happen. And just to let you know, I do see a couple of comments and if you have comments or questions, I'll try to answer them as we, you know, so feel free to ask them. If I don't ask them at the time that you state them, let me know or sorry, I'll try to get to them at the end and I'll try to leave time to answer questions at the end. So hopefully, I'll be able to answer all your questions. So while we see all these great benefits and speed and collaborativeness with open source, I'd say there is some complexity involved with it and some real challenges. One thing is typically, when you look at an open source project, the way you go about downloading, building, installing, using it, there's some assembly required there. And because the project is a little bit more say general purpose, perhaps maybe not as well documented as say something that you might get from a vendor who's offering you support for that. You know, it's not universally the case that open source projects have poor documentation. I think as a community, we've been making great strides to focus on this and improve it. But still, the fact of the matter is many people would much rather spend time developing new features, fixing bugs, doing those types of things than going back and documenting them. And you know, it's something that we have to work on as a community, but can make it very difficult for someone who's trying to use our code. Also, even when you have very well documented and great open source projects, generally focus on a specific aspect, provide some specific functionality. They don't actually provide an entire solution. So in order to get a solution, what do you need to do? You need to take multiple different open source projects, perhaps write some code of your own, integrate them all together. That's the more realistic thing. So that's hard to do, especially as all these different projects are moving on their own trajectories with their own release cycles and whatnot. So there are some real complexities and challenges with using open source and building a product on top of it, right? So what I'm seeing or what I believe is that there's a huge opportunity for us to benefit both the standards community and ourselves in the open source community by bringing these two worlds closer together and working more collaboratively. Really to bring that speed and spirit that we see with open source and bring that into standards efforts. And to go and validate a standard as it's evolving, if you're actually implementing it at the same time the specifications being written, that's a great way to validate the correctness and completeness and see if there are any ambiguities in that spec. Raise those issues forward and then get them addressed. Similarly, once a standard is being developed, if we can add support for it into open source projects, remember that industry really relies on these standards. So if our open source projects support those standards, well, that makes the code more usable by those industries. And if at the same time we're writing the standard, we are releasing libraries, utilities, perhaps implementations of those standards, that would make it easier for our product developer then to go and add support for those into their open source or even into their proprietary technologies. So as an example of this, I'd like to look at the network automation space because I think there's an awful lot going on there right now both in open source and in standards. In the keynote, for example, there are several mentions of the Cloud Native Compute Foundation. I'd say one of the fastest growing and largest projects within the Linux Foundation, probably within the world right now. So a lot of attention here in the Cloud Native Compute Foundation. And that's really going across many different layers. If you think kind of going from low level up to higher level in terms of the stack, that's the way this slide is arranged with open source projects on the left and standards on the right. So you see Cloud Native Compute Foundation there. OPNFE was also mentioned and that's kind of covering this whole stack and trying to bring a solution together there. Open Daylight, a controller in this space that I'm familiar with and contribute to, along with other open source controllers, Onos, Open Contrail, in this space, all Linux Foundation projects. So you can see Linux Foundation really has multiple different open source projects at every level of the stack. Similarly, on the right-hand side, if you look at the standards organizations that focus on different areas of this stack, the space is very well covered and the standards organizations need to work closely with each other and in most cases, hopefully, do to put a solution together and cover all the different aspects of network automation, but there's really a great opportunity for people to cross that line, right? That divide between open source and standards and vice versa and work more collaboratively with each other. So an example of a standards organizations that is, I think, making good progress in this area is IETF. For those of you not familiar with IETF, it stands for Internet Engineering Task Force and it's been around, let's see, for over 30 years now, really created with the goal of defining the key protocols on which the internet is based, things like TCPIP, DNS, those kind of core components that are part of the internet and part of really any networking system that we use. Now the goal is really to make the internet continue to evolve and get better to meet the challenges as more and more people are using it for more and more things. So in the networking space, for example, applicable to network automation, there's networking protocols like VXLAN, GRE, but then there's all the network programmability things around Yang models and NetConf and RustConf. These are all standards in the network, I'd say are relevant to network automation and I think are also very, very relevant to the open source projects in this space. Now I wanted to mention this kind of unofficial mantra of the IETF, you know, we reject kings, presidents, voting, we believe in rough consensus and running code. The IETF is a very interesting place in that you participate as an individual and everyone can contribute independent of, say, their company. When I'm there, I don't act as a Cisco employee. I'm me and I'm contributing. I don't need like Cisco to sponsor that, for example. I think very much like open source. I see a lot of similarities actually in the way that the communities are built out and how they work together. Now the challenges in the IETF are, as you may expect, it's a bit slow. And I think it's always been a little bit slow, but that was okay perhaps a number of years ago. Now with the pace of innovation, it's really becoming a problem because if the IETF spends too long working on a standard, by the time that standard's ready, there's perhaps even an alternative that's come out of de facto standard based on an open source project or something like that, so that if you're not developing the standard and the time that it's needed, it's not really useful. Although there was that focus in the mantra on running code, what I've seen and what I think others have seen is that really the majority of the time and the effort is spent on achieving this rough consensus, which is a very important thing that is done in the standards group, but perhaps not like enough emphasis on running code. So we need a bit more of a shift toward that software development practice and actually creating running code. And so these are things that the IETF realized were challenges and that it wanted to be able to address. That was actually started and continued to run these hackathons within IETF. And the goal there is to advance the pace and relevance of the standards that IETF is working on and the way we do that is by really fleshing out important ideas and concepts and then feeding those back into the working group in combination with working on the standard. So as the standard's evolving, we're implementing it, we're iteratively feeding information back in from that implementation experience, I would say, to continue to move things forward. It's also an attempt and working very well to attract more developers, right? Typically in the IETF, the standards people were more like system architects, people who might not actually write or be very close to the developers and those who were implementing and adding support for the standards into the products. Now we're bringing more developers and tends to be a bit of a younger community too and bringing them into the IETF and enabling them to really contribute meaningfully in ways that are important to them. So not just by necessarily reading a SPAC and participating in the meeting to form the rough consensus, but by writing some code and then illustrating through that that something does or doesn't work or something that needs to be addressed by the group. And that's been fantastic. These hackathons are free and open to everyone which really is great because it makes it easier for people to participate and I need to point out they're very collaborative. Oftentimes hackathons might be construed as being very competitive and working against each other. So here the idea is very different. There's no prizes, there's no winners. It's just everyone working together to move the IETF standard process forward and certainly inner working across different working groups and different teams it happens all the time and it's welcome, it's celebrated. That's kind of one of the key reasons for getting everyone in the room together. You can see the... When we first started the hackathon was about five years ago and we had 45 people participating and now that's grown to where we have three or 400 people participating. And if you put that in relation to how many people are coming to an IETF meeting it's typically 1,000 to 1,200 and overall that number has slowly been declining. So here's that increasing aspect of IETF where 40, 30, 40% of the people who are participating in the meeting overall actually show up the weekend before which is when we have these to participate. We're actually going to try this time to do something we've never done before and have a virtual hackathon. It's challenging because a lot of the synergies come from putting people like bringing them together and having them in the room together but that's obviously something we can't do much like we can't meet for this conference together so we're going to try to do what we can. And let's see. So here's an example of how the IETF as a community is embracing and trying to engage developers more. There's actually... We're using GitHub and we created a GitHub org for the hackathon and so then what we did was we... That's where we work on our project presentations and not that all the code needs to be there. If you look, you'll see there's only really a small number of projects there. The majority of the projects tend to have a home somewhere else maybe not even necessarily on GitHub, maybe hosted on GitLab somewhere or Bitbucket, but it's somewhere that people can get access to and that's critical but here we're trying to meet developers where they are and make it easier for them to participate. Along those same lines there was actually a working group created within IETF to look at how can IETF working groups use tools like Git and GitHub more effectively to put some kind of best practices and guidelines in place. Basically the IETF usually uses a bunch of homegrown tools which are very good but they're not intuitive to a developer. So now the idea is let's take tools that developers are already using and let's try to use them to help with our standard process. You can see here there's actually a GitHub URL associated with the charter page of this working group and this is what it looks like. It just spells out those rules for here are some guidelines you don't need to use these but here's kind of some best practices and thoughts about how you would want to make use of GitHub better and a lot of it relates to how do you take a community that's traditionally worked with mainly emails, email aliases and mailing lists and now integrate in a more of a web-based workflow to get GitHub into that. An example of that is this quick working group within IETF. Quick for those of you who aren't familiar with it it's defining a new version of HTTP sometimes called HTTP v3 and it's running on top of actually UDP as a base. It's a very quickly moving very a lot of people collaborating in this space and so it's a really good test and an example of how collaborating with using Git and GitHub has allowed a lot more people to mainly developers to review drafts very quickly and provide comments in a way that is very intuitive to them and doesn't require them to learn all new infrastructure and so I think this working group is really seeing very rapid development despite the fact that it's pretty controversial contentious and very a lot of stakeholders so it's a good success story I think for the IETF and something that we'll continue to see more of. Okay so an example of where this is working relatively well from an open source perspective I would say would be with Open Daylight I mentioned Open Daylight earlier in the presentation it's really a platform I would say for software-defined networking and thought of as an SDN controller or a network controller I don't plan to go into all the details of it but what I'm using here is just a block diagram that shows the components, the various components of Open Daylight and on the next slide what I'll do is light up in green this comes through for most of you those components that are directly related to IETF standards and I'm sure many others actually have relation in them but these ones even by name you can see the IETF standards that are related to it starting from the bottom you have like the virtual and physical devices the actual network equipment above that is this layer where all the different protocols are these are ways for interacting with those network devices you can see NetConf, List, BGP, PSAP, CAPWAP others all IETF standards and there's basically drivers or modules so that you can interact Open Daylight can interact with devices that support those standard protocols and this was critical to making Open Daylight a usable platform for all of these network devices that exist in people's deployed networks today in the middle you see different kind of network services that's where there's Lisp services Service Function Chaining, several IETF standards in that area UNI manager which is implementing standards developed in IETF for network programmability but also in MEF for network services also there's a group in IETF defining standards in that area as well and then moving up the stack all the ways that Open Daylight can interface with applications because that's really the goal of Open Daylight is to provide a platform on which you write network applications and that's using standard protocols REST and then ones that have been developed in the IETF RESTConf and NetConf those are standard protocols that you can use too to interact for higher level applications to interact with Open Daylight so to me this is really a great success story where key standards that are relevant in this phase are being developed and added into the Open Source project I'm just going to transition a little bit and I do see there's a couple questions on IPR and I'll come back and try to answer those at the end I'm not a lawyer but I can give you my take on some of that it's kind of a challenging thing and we could probably spend a lot of time discussing it I'll try to leave several minutes for that at the end we're doing pretty well on time so MEF for those of you who aren't familiar with it was really the place where carrier Ethernet if you've heard that term I'd say MEF developed and brought the whole carrier Ethernet market to space this is how do multiple different service providers who are using network equipment from different vendors how do they offer network services to you as a network connectivity to you as a say as an enterprise or a subscriber and doing that in a standard based way such that you could say yes this equipment actually supports the carrier Ethernet standards or this service provided by the service provider is compliant with those with that standard and really what that did was that helped different service providers interoperate with each other helped the whole industry move from really disparate hard to compare apples to oranges types of service to a more ubiquitous level of service and so the carrier Ethernet market just completely took off and I'd say MEF has pretty much addressed and solved that problem for the industry now what MEF is doing is moving up the stack defining higher level network services non-just basic connectivity services and so that's really the goal of MEF now and so those same networking automation specifications standards and open source projects that we've looked at are very relevant to what MEF is trying to do now as well so as you might have guessed how do we address this and try to make it happen well let's try having some hackathons there as well MEF is not a place where developers would typically go and participate and this was an attempt to try to address that gap I would say so similar to an IETF the idea was hey let's bring these open source hackathons in and let's try to take what the focus which was typically on defining some services and then certify those services let's shift that focus a bit more to actually defining some APIs and then writing code that implements those APIs and making that part of our standards process with that same idea of validating that those APIs are complete and that they're useful and that you can build services on top of them and that's going to enable much more interactive communication between different service providers between subscribers and service providers to really realize this sort of more automated more dynamic network services also collaboration between across different STOs and with open source communities was a real goal of this now this had a really profound impact I would say on MEF and what we saw was the shift from really just focusing on services defining of services and then the certification of equipment and providers of those services to incorporate much more than just that so you see within MEF there was a creation of two completely new components I guess I would say to complement the service and certification approach one was around APIs LSO stands for life cycle service orchestration so these are really APIs that will help with the automation of network services both east west between service providers and north south as you go up and down that network automation stack and then super important and probably the thing I wanted to focus on is the community aspect actually realizing that it's important to work with developers to have very open and collaborative development of SDKs of sample applications of sample clients and servers in this space that actually implement these APIs and start to realize the use of them and make sure that it's not just a service that we're defining on paper that you can really only interact with your certification but that you can interact with the code as well and then just one more example this is not a standards organization but the AIS it's a conference held in Africa the African Internet Summit and it's held annually and the African Internet Summit and the and the Internet Society that works closely with the African Internet Summit really one of the goals there is to help I would say increase awareness of ITF standards and where they're applicable within that space and there's a goal to try to get more people participating like to make it easier for people from from Africa where they be developers or say people in the standard space it tends to be a little bit harder for them in many cases for a number of reasons to participate in the ITF standards meetings either because of challenges related to the logistics of getting there and then also the fact that the ITF meetings tend to not go and be held in Africa they tend to be held in North America and Europe and various parts of Asia so the goal here was let's bring the ITF standards and an event focused on them into Africa and engage developers there really build some technical capacity around those standards work on deploying those standards like getting hands on experience with them and then actually deploying them and that same idea of when you deploy or use a standard or try to implement it you gain experience with it and you can feedback what you've learned into the standards process and so that really enables contribution back from the African community to the ITF standards in new and interesting ways so all of the projects there were related to ITF standards and you can see a number of them here I led the first one here on network programmability that was really focused on implementing those same standards protocols that I mentioned before in the network programmability space namely Yang and Yang models and then Netconf and Resconf were protocols by which you interact with those Yang models and the APIs that are defined by them so it was really great collaboration and just another example of how engaging with developers in this case developers in Africa to really facilitate their participation and contribution back into the standards process so my take away for you and really my call to action for you is I hope that through this discussion and the Q&A session that we'll have afterwards that you agree with me that there's a really great opportunity here for us to bring open source and standards together and for the two communities to really work well together so I'd like to see this champion this combination of open source and standards with the goal really to make standards that are being developed in places like IETF in places like MEF make those standards much more consumable by developers and the way we do that is by developing open source libraries utilities components in parallel with the development of the standard so now you don't just have a specification you actually have code that you can start using right away to help with your understanding of the standard your implementation and deployment of the standard and hopefully with incorporating support for that standard into key open source projects when we get the standards incorporated into key open source projects then that enables this industry that relies on standard space implementations to really use our open source and so that opens up just the space for our open source projects to really be incorporated into the solutions of say these service providers in the case of MEF and now you start to see much more contribution and support and sponsorship coming from these organizations because they can tie back you know they're getting material benefit from the open source projects and those open source projects are really important to their business one way you can do this is you're the next IETF hackathon this will be at IETF 108 which is at the end of July and instead of having the hackathon be the weekend before IETF which it typically is we're going to move it to the entire week before and this is because time zones are so challenging and the weekend is not it's easier for people to give up the weekend when they're all traveling to a place and they get there early and they work together for two days but when everyone's working from home there didn't seem to be that same driver or desire to spend the weekend working on it especially with the differences in time zones so this allows people to carve out time within their week when it's convenient for the individual project team and so we'll have a set of teams working on different projects related to IETF technologies and I would love for you to check it out it'd be great if you have projects where what's happening there is incorporating IETF standards as they're evolving into important open source projects in this space so with that I'm going to go back and spend a little bit of time on the Q&A and I welcome those of you who have questions go ahead and put them in and I'll try to answer them as best I can okay first one says a great point Charles happy that you and Cisco are members of OASIS Open where we are trying hard to merge open source and standards in meaningful ways so that's fantastic OASIS Open I guess another example where these worlds are already making progress of coming together and I think in the keynote we saw a few things the Linux Foundation is doing and really great progress in this area as well so IETF and MEF are two places that I'm very familiar with fortunately there's other places that may be even ahead of what we're doing in IETF and MEF and if so that's fantastic so it's great to hear that there's good work going on there as well next one Charles would love to hear more about how we deal with IPR issues and the merge between open source and standards that has sometimes been a bottleneck yeah so IPR is certainly has been and will continue to be a challenge in standards industries and I think the same reason will be a challenge in open source the model that I'm most familiar with is probably that in the IETF again where the idea is if you have IPR and a space you're obligated to declare that IPR that you have and typically the way this would work would be let's say at Cisco we have some IPR related to a standard that we're proposing or helping the industry propose what we would do is say hey we do have this IPR and we will make it we will license it for fair and reasonable terms and that way people know that there's potential IPR associated with this standard or the key I left out there and again another lawyer so don't hold me to the exact terms of this but you can use our IP for the purpose of implementing the standard and so you're kind of free to do that you're getting a license for that you can't use it just in perhaps other ways but that way it allows the standard and the implementation of the standard to be free of perhaps very any real big negative IPR problems and I would think for open source we can and should be doing something kind of similar but there is that group and sorry that I don't know the name of it I tried to make a note of it the one within Linux foundation the new project that's helping to merge these two worlds together and to help standards like behave a little bit more like an open source project I'm sure they have people in there that are very good at dealing with this and hopefully can do a better job than I am Ray says are there challenges in terms of IP or legal yeah when trying to collaborate between so pretty much the same question I guess and yeah there are I don't think they're new at least you know like I said we had to do this in the standards community and I would think in the open source community they're going to be a little bit similar in standards community you have your rules and procedures and kind of your terms that everyone agrees to in the ITF there's something called the note well and you know that at every single ITF meeting you're operating under those policies and when you contribute something you're basically contributing it to the standard process so when you speak in a meeting when I'm speaking at this conference I'm essentially contributing to to the process there either to the open source community or to the standards organization so I think we probably need to have something like that and it gets a little bit more challenging I think because of the different open source licenses and again I'm an expert here but you know some open source licenses make it very explicit that they're granting you granting you a right to the IP associated potentially associated with that code others it's not quite as clear so I think that's what you'll see open source projects making sure that they use licenses that carry the right IP policies along with them that's one thing we can definitely do to make sure that these two worlds come together a little bit better and John asks how do you see the relationship between standards bodies and the various consortiums being spun up by hyperscalers and hardware manufacturers playing out I don't know because I don't participate real actively in that space it sounds like they are you're saying that they perhaps it's a little bit new of a space I guess compared to some of the others like the networking space we didn't see good collaboration at all between open source and standards it took some time but now we're there IOT there's tons of different consortiums different standards groups I think a place where the Linux foundation can really help to bring those worlds together and the beauty of open source is and even of standards is there so many of them but it's also a challenge at the same time because you don't want to stifle innovation but you want to kind of guide it in certain directions and avoid different solutions if they actually are useful to the community so I think there's a role we can all play by being aware of these things don't ignore consortiums, open source projects in this space if you see them don't purposely ignore them I would reach out to them and engage with them and I think the Linux foundation with its kind of credibility with being able to do this would be a key place to help with that kind of larger problem with those different manufacturers together and ARPID has some IPR answers MEF and LF have an agreement that allows formal collaboration for SDOs and OSS projects so that's fantastic these agreements between LF and SDO allow for implementing standards in code and also push code into upstream standards with open source friendly licenses on interfaces yeah so fantastic ARPID that's great to hear and that makes a lot of sense again by choosing the right and appropriate licenses there that can remove a lot of that ambiguity I think and that's certainly helpful and that's where Linux foundation has great experience here and can really help navigate that space and that's one of the reasons for talking about this conference so thanks a lot for that ARPID that's great any other questions we have a few minutes left if there's anything else if you did ants ask a question and I missed it my apologies but as far as I can tell I got through them if after this session you want to reach out to me at any time my you can reach out to me via email Twitter my email is eckelcu at Cisco.com and on Twitter I'm the same I'm eckelcu as my hashtag you can reach me there if you look at my bio hopefully that's there I don't know if it is but I'm happy to connect with you through this platform too I hope we all so far I'm enjoying using this this new platform and meeting virtually of course I miss seeing all of you in person but this is much better than not having been able to meet at all so excited to have had this opportunity thanks a lot for tuning in and listening and with that let me check the Q&A one more time and if there's nothing new then thanks so much I look forward to engaging with you throughout the rest of the week at various other talks and in the virtual chat rooms and whatnot so yeah thanks for joining please enjoy the rest of the conference


Okay, I'm gonna record, okay, okay, record is on progress. Let's roll here at 13 half the hour. Thanks folks for sticking with us here on the 9th of March, 2023. We have Sherwood Moore, friend of the group here, Supply Chain and Trade Finance SIG, who is a leader for the Climate Action and Accounting SIG. And we've been talking with a little bit and we wanted to kind of catch up and see what they've been up to and have them share the evolution of climate accounting and the new measurement economy. That sounds very cool, Sherwood, the new measurement economy here. Yeah, thank you. Without, well, I guess before we get going, well, actually before we get going here, we've had some problems with the advice. If you have an old invite on your calendar, please delete it and go out and get the new one from the Hyperledger calendar since we had some challenges and that's why we're getting going a little bit late here with things and as always the Andrea puts out the new or puts out the invite link for Zoom, the correct one that we're gonna be using for the rest of the year here. And so that's the one that we're gonna always use. So with that, no further ado, Sherwood, we'll turn it over to you. She should be able to start sharing screen and take us through Sherwood while you're doing that. Are you okay with questions along the way or do you want to- Yes, in fact, I would prefer to have questions along the way in particular also with the presentation. This is kind of a newer version. So if there are any kind of questions about the presentation, please let me know. Good. Yeah, I'd like to make this a dialogue conversation. Great, so go right ahead, Sherwood. Okay, I'm just trying to do a little slide show action, okay. So yeah, so I changed the title on here actually just before I got on the call. But this is going, essentially what I'm gonna do is introduce the work we've been doing around distributed climate accounting. But I'm gonna kick that off by describing what we are or sharing what we're describing is the measurement economy. And the reason I want to do that is because essentially the climate accounting solution that we're talking about is something that offers a new level of granularity to corporate emissions data. And in general, corporations are reticent to share that information. So the reason I want to kick this off with the measurement economy is because this has kind of prelude to why companies are going to be interested in kind of sharing very accurate climate data with kind of publicly. So without further ado, hopping into it. So right now corporations are primarily reporting because they're required to. There are different regulations out there that are asking companies to report their carbon emissions. And so they're doing it in kind of annual reporting. And I'll kind of share some different reasons why it's not super accurate. We are seeing indicators that that is going to have to change and this is the reason why. It's because emissions data is currently and we think increasingly going to be affecting corporate bottom lines, affecting their profitability. And so that's going to get their attention. That's going to require accurate climate data in real time. So what are the building? We described this as the measurement economy, the measurement of carbon emissions. And there are four different kind of pillars of the measurement economy. The first one is government regulation. This is happening in the European Union right now. There's kind of a pilot called the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which is effectively providing a tax on carbon for about five different goods that are being imported into the European Union. It's like concrete, steel, aluminum, fertilizer, very high carbon emissions activity products. And so to quantify that, that particular, so this was my backup. So this is affecting the operating expenses of these organizations and we expect this to be rolled out because the European, Europe is generally about significantly ahead of the rest of the world as far as kind of climate action. And they are kind of consistently the pattern setters. And so the government regulation for this one particular, these five particular industries in the European Union that's going to be the equivalent of about $8 billion by 2030. So it's quite significant when you consider this is just for five different industries. The next one is sustainable finance. So there are finance vehicles like sustainability linked loans and bonds, for example, but there's a whole kind of ecosystem of sustainable finance that is emerging. It is offering preferential rates of 5%, sometimes even up to 10% to corporations that are reducing their carbon footprint. This is a significant amount of savings on the cost of capital. And the size of this marketplace, we estimate this to be about $22 trillion is estimated that will be injected into the green finance market by 2031. That's a massive amount of capital. Can I ask you a question? There's a little bit on the 5% to 10%. Is that the actual rate or is that a reduction in the rates? That's a, a loan at 5%. 5% reduced by 50 basis points or something like that. Yeah. My understanding is that that is, this is numbers that I got from one of my colleagues. This is the reduction on different interest rates. And so that's obviously going to depend on, you know, a broad range of kind of financing. I need to kind of ask him where he got this number. I've seen up to 8% reduction, just kind of on some superficial digging. It's a good question. And that number, this sounds more weird. 80%, I'll tell you from my point of view. So 5% to 10% reduction. Yeah, but I need to kind of verify that number. No worries, thanks. Yeah, yeah. Good point though. Thanks for pointing that out because that's going to make me get on the ball on that one. The other piece is demand for low-carbon products and services. So we've seen this beginning to set price premiums, market share, and also even creating new product categories. So what I point to is the electric vehicle market is an entire marketplace developed around people interested in low emissions. That's the $208 billion market. The last is the financial marketplace is pricing environmental risk into investment opportunities, right? So this is impacting core evaluation. And to provide an example of the magnitude of this injection, $130 trillion in investment capital has been earmarked to investing corporations committed to achieving net zero. This is just by the UN Glasgow Financial Alliance. They made that announcement at COP26. So there's a lot of investment dollars, specifically earmarked to looking to investing corporations. It's been committed to investing corporations that are moving to work towards achieving net zero, which obviously affects demand for that stock, but it affects evaluation for that stock. And also the valuation is impacted by the fact that we're talking about these government regulations, sustainable finance, demand for low carbon product. This is operating expenses, this is cost of capital, this is revenue. So this is what a CEO is looking at the corporate strategy. These are the things that they're looking at. And so we're seeing these indicators coming down the pipeline. And this is kind of what we describe as a measurement economy. And this is why we think climate data is so important because to survive and thrive in the future, corporations are going to, the corporations that learn how to turn their climate data from what now is perceived to be a liability into an asset are the ones that are going to be able to thrive. And how do you turn it into an asset? Well, you begin decarbonizing, you capture that data, you use that data to develop competitive advantage by having decreased operating expenses, having larger market share, higher market valuation, being able to kind of raise lower cost of capital, beat out your competition. So what we're focused on the MO for this decentralized climate accounting platform that we're developing is essentially to create an efficient marketplace for this data. We need to be able to share that data between corporations and these different stakeholders. To do that, any efficient marketplace requires the three things, accessible data, low cost data, trusted data. And blockchain is perfectly well suited for this particular use case. So we're focused on using blockchain to deliver an interoperable layer of emissions data across supply chains and connecting them with market stakeholders. Providing for low cost data, providing transparency into how emissions data is calculated and how it flows through supply chains and digitizing the process of measuring, reporting, and verifying. The last piece is trusted data. So if we can decrease, I'm sorry, these two things are mixed up. Essentially with the trusted data, if we can provide transparency into how this information is being captured, we can provide trust in the data. I'm seeing the hands great. OK, so now when we're looking at the marketplace right now and to the right, this is a real supply chain for the development of photovoltaic solar cells. The chat, we currently are looking at an inefficient marketplace. There are a lot of barriers up, and that's why climate data isn't really being able to be used as a corporate strategy quite yet. And this is because there's low data access. Corporate reporting is being done in silos. It's housed in centralized databases. It's generally being reported at the corporate level. And it's locked in annual reports. So there's no kind of inability to have a centralized database of information to work from. Data cost is high because it's manually being measured, reporting verified, and a lot of most often in each emissions event or each kind of corporate report has to be analyzed amongst a sea of reports. So each one of these little dots in the supply chain is potentially developing their own emissions report, and they're kind of sharing it up the line. But there's no ability to really kind of have real time of shared access into all the data. And the last piece is there's low trust. And the data is trusted because it's easy to manipulate. And that's because we have fragmented standards and we have a lot of lack of primary data. And so corporations are gaming the system to benefit themselves, not pointing any fingers. This is what they're designed to do. How you develop trust is transparency to how that information is kind of captured. And then the standards and the approach to kind of calculating carbon emissions, that's how you develop trust. You have transparency. And I don't know if this is a question for you. Sure, one of the challenges I have, and maybe this comes a little bit later, it's not quite this, but it feels like there's millions. Maybe there's probably not millions, but maybe thousands of different pieces of software out there or different attempts to capture carbon emissions. Yeah. Yeah, I went to Caterra and I saw it. I don't know what to do here. So if you could speak to that, that would be helpful. How do you sort the wheat from the chaff? Why do we need another one? You know, that kind of stuff. Yeah, let me speak to that right now, actually. Because I would love to kind of hear your feedback on this. I find that to be absolutely overwhelming and it gives me anxiety every time I try to kind of do like a competitive analysis. What I will say- I'm not alone here is what you're saying. No, it's awful. And you can only imagine every single different node in the supply chain being, if you're like a materials provider and you're supplying 10 different industries with a hundred different vendors or people you're supplying in each industry and each one of them has a different system that they're asking you to use, I mean, it must drive them crazy. You know, so what we're trying to do is essentially build an open source solution that can reach scale by allowing everybody to kind of build, you know, open the solution collectively and build whatever kind of components they want and have the solution be set up so that we can capture data from any number of existing solution providers out there and just kind of bring it together in a centralized place that's open, right? So the way that we're different is that all of these solutions are kind of walled gardens and they're running on basically SaaS business models which generally don't cooperate with kind of their competitors, right? So they don't really want to share information. So that's, but the value, the value in the environmental data is the ability to share it, right? So that's a kind of a key need that these different vertical solutions aren't really kind of set up to solve for us. I'm just curious, on the fragmentation, GS1 has done pilots with IBM and SAP, FoodLogic and RIPE.io. I've also seen other pilots in Europe. I know OriginTrail has done a lot of interoperability of data, supply chain management data. Do you know if any of those interoperability pilots have included climate data? I don't. And you've really piqued my interest, Alicia. Thank you for sharing that. I would be very interested in kind of in finding that out. There's a lot, I mean, you bring up a good point too, like there's a lot going on and it's difficult to kind of keep your arms around everything, but I think that's, that'd be a really interesting thing to explore. Do you have any visibility? Could you remind me later, I can reach out to OriginTrail to see if they've done any climate data. Yes. Just remind me later. Thank you. Yes. Alicia, this is Jeff. I was just wondering, do you, on that interoperability analysis, that include functionality descriptions of these other solutions? What's the functionality that they have? What, especially on the data collection, I've got experience in, vast experience with the oil industry around reforming gas in the US and Europe. And there's a reason why, well, company that I work for built an in-house solution and never touched on all the marketing ones that were out there and had to do around data collection and enable the trader, the trading desk then, to have verified data and get out there and do trades certain times when the data was more, credits more valuable than others. And I was just wondering, like Sherwood is saying, like the two bullet items there, we found that to be huge. And I was in, I forget the call on Tuesday where I asked a question to the, who was it Sherwood where I said, I see your system, it's all great. How do you collect the data? Is the data often be pre-prepared by spreadsheets, by some internal systems and get it all prepared and then feed it? Or can you collect raw data and have smart contracts or blockchain functionality? Not only put an identifier on it so that it's locked by an entity, but also can compute that for you and get and meet these two items on there. That's where I was wondering if you had any info around the studies that they did. What's the functionalities of their systems that are out there? My experience has been over the years as they're all very poor on the front end. Not the user front end, the data collection end. They're poor. That's a really good question. I'm not remembering the details that were shared with me. Last year, the year before last, I believe, Raja Ramachandran from ripe.io spoke, I think it was to the social impact sig about a project that they were doing. But I think at some point I've also seen him talk and I think it was during that about a little bit about the interoperability pilots that they were part of with SAP and IBM Food Trust for GS1. What does interoperability mean in that context? I mean, with other systems? Well, others have been called different companies who are working with the producers, the Fisher people, the logistics companies. So in this case, they were moving the data between different SaaS platforms. Oh, I see, okay. Yeah. Well, I worked for BP for decades and I'll just say that because of the Sin House system we had and we were able to manage the data flow into it, we'd kill for a blockchain solution back then. That was the only way I could sell millions of dollars of credits in the open market because the way we brought data in and the trading desk, get the data right away, it was verified right away and no systems could do this. And so this data piece I always looked at is huge. Anyway, millions of dollars of credits were sold by BP. Southern world companies. Sure, that's easy. So they didn't give me any of it. You need to negotiate a cut next time. That's a big bonus. Anyway, Sherwood, you were talking about interoperability. I wanna make sure that we get as much from you as we can with your time here. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, I mean, I don't know if I have too much more to share there, you know, with the solution that I'm gonna share with you, there's a couple of different things that are out there. Like the interwork alliance is in the process of developing a standard for emissions profile, kind of net emissions token. So it's a token around, yeah, standards around how to kind of develop tokens around emissions. I think that'll probably, if a standard like that is picked up, that will really significantly help the interoperability. Yeah, ultimately, I think what I'm gonna kind of share is the kind of solution to this challenge. It's the tokenization of emissions data in a standardized way. And that if you're able to kind of follow a standard, which thankfully there are no standards yet for emissions tokenization. So hopefully the one that the IAWA is putting out is promoted enough so that nobody tries to develop two or three or four of them. But that would significantly help with the interoperability. And Sherwood, I guess one thing that Jeff said, where he said the challenge where he worked was on the data collection end. Do you see that as a broad based kind of issue that the whole data collection issue is still maybe more manual than sensor-based out there? Yeah, I mean, so this is kind of coming back to the point that was the point of this whole solution. I think that I think that data needs to be collected by each individual company in the supply chain that they're responsible for. And if the measurement economy is essentially providing financial benefit to having accurate data and that is the case, the market forces will kind of drive just like the market forces drive different companies to try to find ways to cut costs. It'll also drive them to figure out ways to cut costs in improving, in capturing data, but also improving the quality of that data. And I think that's the real secret to this. Essentially, when I'm kind of describing the measurement economy, what I'm describing is, instead of price pressures on cost, you have the same kind of market forces that are focused on the carbon cost. And that goes all the way down the supply chain to the measurement reporting and verification. But in a very, due to the nature of supply chains and the complexity of supply chains, I think it needs to be decentralized in order for it to be decentralized and still be trusted, there needs to be transparency. Okay, good, thank you. While we go along to the next slide. Sure, moving on to the next slide. So very quickly, and I'll kind of describe some of these things, but what we're trying to do is provide high data access by converting the supply chain into a decentralized, using the decentralized ledger technology, blockchain technology to create that underlying shared database for information to be kind of shared and stored. We want to lower data cost by, essentially allowing these financial pressures to encourage ways to lower cost. And you can lower cost by digitizing the process of measuring, reporting and verification. Some of our solution kind of help with that, but other sensor technologies will also kind of help with that. And also lower data cost by decreasing the cost of obviously sharing information. If all that information is shared in one layer that you can have access to and kind of slice and dice the data however you want, that's significantly more cost effective than having to request, you know, a hundred different suppliers to share their emissions data and then analyze it. How else am I to analyze that, right? That's expensive for every company on the planet. The last piece is low data trust. Again, trust to transparency. If we can show how that information was measured, reported and verified, the standards that it used, that I think is the first step towards this level, this idea of interoperability because you can at least, even if you have data using different standards, you can at least kind of understand that and begin to kind of navigate how to solve for that. I'm not gonna go through like the basics of how the technology works and what we're using. This is the solution that we've built so far. There are kind of three major components of it. One is a net emissions token network. And this is essentially just an open source tool that calculates the emissions profile and it can do it at the company facility or product level. But essentially you are creating the profile through tokenized emissions. You have an emissions debt token, which represents the emissions debt that's incurred through the activity. It emits the greenhouse gas. There's also an emissions credit token, which can be used as an offset of the debt that might remove the emissions from the atmosphere. So, we all know what that is. So the general idea is this, you have companies that are obviously buying, they're emitting, they have emissions, they also are taking actions to offset those emissions. If we're gonna work at the product level, this allows them to basically apply those two to kind of create a profile for their net emissions impact, which can then be added to the product as it kind of goes through the supply chain and each individual organization adds their own to create the overall net emissions profile. I've got another visual that will hopefully kind of share that and make it a little bit more clear. We also have an emissions data channel. So this is, it's an open source tool to aggregate and verify emissions data that's used to mint the tokens on the emissions network. We also have, excuse me, secure identifier solutions. This is for identity and credential management for all the different stakeholders on the platform as part of the supply chain. So everybody knows who's who and everybody has kind of clear identity and kind of permissions. Does that all make sense? I mean, that's... I get the token idea. I guess the question I would have if you go to the top there. Basically, instead of collecting individualized or discrete data, you're allowing you to create yourself a profile that says, hey, at a product level, we have this kind of emissions associated with it. This kind of might take away from what that first line says. Yeah, so I need to improve this here, but the general idea is, I mean, what I really want to do is, so essentially the emissions activity will probably following IWA standards, it'll be the green token will represent a certain amount of emissions for an action, right? And that emissions can be assigned to a product, right? So by combining the two, you create the emissions profile right here in the middle, which has two emissions tokens and one offset token here. And those, what I'm trying to share, so this middle piece right here is this token right here and each customer is kind of adding on their own impact to that particular product. This is not a good visual. Let me just be upfront about that, like I'm working on it. I understand it's work in progress, no worries. Yeah, yeah. I'm just trying to figure out the old garbage in, garbage out, where's the data coming from on the emissions and how does that jump? Yeah, right? Is it, somebody just pronouncing, hey, I know this and you're kind of trusting them or it was an audit or something. It's a problem everywhere. So it's not just, this isn't just emissions. Yeah, I mean, so we're trying to solve that just through transparency, right? So this is at a high level what we're trying to accomplish. The data pulling, the emissions channel network is simply, it provides a space for them to kind of provide the data related to their emissions. Now that data can either already be verified or it can just be measured and reported and it can be verified on the platform, right? Once you have verified emissions, that emissions can be added to the, that's added to the emissions profile, which then can, this is what provides kind of that interoperable layer of information that kind of flows through tier three, two, tier one through the value chain. And that's really the slide that I'm gonna build is showing how these tokens follow a product through the different tiers. But the idea is that if you have calculated your emissions based on, essentially based on each activity and you're kind of adding it and allowing that to kind of be tracked altogether on this database, you can use that data however you want. Again, you can use it to calculate at the product level, at the facility level, at the company level, but it's from the bottom up. And the value of that is that you're able to provide this environmental data to these different stakeholders that I mentioned for whatever needs they have. So in the green finance market, access to data is kind of the primary barrier for all these, all this investment dollars that are sitting on the sidelines and it's a huge cost impediment, right? And so having a solution like this really lowers that the cost of borrowing cost and kind of opens up the ability to kind of bring financing to the carbonization activities in kind of a much more liquid way. That's just one example for green finance, but it's early days, so what we built is a skeleton and it's open source. So what we're trying to do is, some of the questions you're asking, we've only have to figure it out, but we have the infrastructure in place. Yeah, I'm just, what the state of the art is right now, because I mean, I can tell you what the state of the art is right now. The state of the art, the state of the art is, a lot of these accounting, these emissions or these scope three emissions platforms, they're essentially SaaS platforms and they are, everybody in your supply chain signs up for it and you upload your documents and your data to this closed network and the guy at the very top who's demanding the emissions data is able to calculate it. And so what you end up with is a million PDFs and that's not the future.  We need to have access to the data. We need to see it real time. If you want access to kind of capital. And so, I think that there's a shift that needs to happen in the marketplace but the challenge is that companies currently aren't comfortable sharing emissions data in a very public way and they're not going to until there's real money attached to it, right? Until their corporate profitability is affected by their emissions data and their ability to get that data out to the right people to allow those people to kind of have, easy access to it, be able to use it how they need it. So we're kind of, but it's a chicken and the egg, right? Because you need to have a system like this in order to allow these different forces to work. So this is very, you know, the emission space we're working through. All two you can continue on since we have 13 minutes left here. Okay, so very quickly, yeah.  We, you know, we won the Hyperledger Foundation award last year, I forget the exact name of it. We also won the IBM call for code green practices accelerator. We've got, you know, some interesting research going on around kind of this measurement economy space. But what we're really looking for right now is, we need corporate partners. We need, you know, and so I'm kind of, and actually Jeff is helping with this kind of working on evangelizing, this idea and trying to kind of bring more corporate partners to the table. And so I'm in the process of really kind of, really it's almost kind of like presenting what we're doing, but also informational interviews. I'm kind of trying to find out where they are and what the challenges they're looking at. And if anything that we're doing is lines up with, you know, what they're doing and if they have, you know, innovation people that want to kind of play around and explore things, like that's kind of the stage that we're at. It's a really interesting stage.  And so I kind of wanted to kind of engage with you guys to see how we might start engaging with some supply chain folks and start having some conversations and start exploring the space. Because I think, you know, we're, I think we're ahead of, I mean, it's good to be ahead of the game a little bit, but it's also going to be challenging, right? So we, you know, and it's not a huge, it engages in different companies. It's not like we're asking them to buy anything. At the most, if they're interested, we're asking them to kind of devote resources to kind of exploring how they can use it, right? So it's not a real high barrier to entry. So I kind of wanted to kind of touch base with you guys just to hear your thoughts on anybody that, you know, or how, you know, if you're interested or if you know of anybody that might be kind of interested in kind of discussing this stuff. So, Shobhi has a question here and he has to leave now. Shobhi, I don't know if you want to mention real fast what you got here. Or she'll believe, I'm not sure. Oh, no. So looks, I'll read it here for you. Sure. What we are looking at is supply chain, product on blockchain and it's running in Germany. They want to expand it to US and the real challenges set up a database for US should be specific to US region only. So it sounds like there's some data, data protection standard stuff. So that's going into this. Oh, right. And in database of blockchains, we had our setup node in the US but regulatory is not accepting because they mentioned block data. Gene data is encrypted. It does not work for layman language or verification. And so he's interested or Shobhi's interested in what are you looking to do in such a situation? So the real challenge I'm just setting up on the data is for US region only and that is regulatory is not accepting because they mentioned blockchain data is encrypted and doesn't work for layman's language or verification. I'm not sure that I understand the question. Yeah. It didn't. I think I'll just. We'll have to get you linked up or we can look like this. Yeah. Linked in there? Yeah. So be calm. Let me see if I can reach out to him on LinkedIn. Okay. Good. Yeah, when I just, when I read that it sounds like somebody doesn't understand blockchain. Yeah. The regulatory body doesn't understand blockchain data. Blockchain data is encrypted. Okay. Well, it's easy to encrypt it with the keys. I don't know what they're saying. Yeah. Something something doesn't. They're saying it is encrypted. Yeah. Blockchain data is encrypted. It doesn't work for layman language or verification. I don't know what layman language means but verification you're gonna unlock with the keys obviously. Yeah. I mean, I don't, yeah. That's what I don't understand. I'll have to reach out to, to. We'll be, yeah. Okay. See if I can get some clarification. Good. Okay. Well, why don't we leave that one off the side? Folks around. A couple of questions that we have for Sherwood here and Sherwood, you know, it sounds like you're called action here. Next steps is kind of similar to what our group is. Finding corporate partners, finding folks who would be willing to help take this to the next level is what you're saying. Yes. Is that what we're all looking for? Yes. We all want to create, we want to allocate a more successful ecosystem that uses blockchain, right? In some form. So let me stop there and let's see what the rest of the folks have to say. Yeah. Sherwood, I'm wondering, have you looked at or spoken with anyone at provenance.org, Jesse Bakershop on London? No, I'm not even telling you. They've been around since at least 2019, 18 and their formation was really around verifying companies, climate claims and labor claims, or organic fair trade, et cetera. And I just took a quick look at their website and it says that they're verifying client carbon data. Okay. I'll put a link in the chat, but they might be somewhere to, they might be a company that would be useful for you to talk to or. Very interesting. Thank you for that. I'll do that at least. You're welcome. Excuse me. We need you to get this cold to just won't quit. Okay. Anybody else thoughts? Not only about my hands, this is Jeff again, is I'm like, I actually look at the Providence site, but one of the things around scope three emissions, which is the emissions of the product you're producing is, is how can like, I'll call it Sherwood solution. But what we're looking at here is how to get the auditors out of it. That's expensive. The auditing. And get them out of the middle with smart contracts that are immutable. Then once that form is computed, once what the carbon emissions are, then you need an auditor anymore. I'll go back to the gasoline picture is every gallon of gasoline in the United States and Western Europe has to have measured properties before it's shipped through the pipeline system. Every gallon, they don't measure, they do a big batch of 70,000, 80,000 perils of fuel, but that's stored in silo databases. And let's say Exxon BP had one sort of shell, but the stuff is stored and then it's shipped to the EPA. Well, in the law, auditors have to come in once a year in the UK and then every five years and they audit all your data. Like if they look through your database and so forth. Now, I'll admit we changed things. And the auditors came in, they're going to get a sample out of the data. That is expensive. But if there's, they don't have a carbon profile on gasoline or jet fuel or diesel, you could easily do it because they do profiles on the other. So with all the pollutants that go in the air, you have something that would store it in the blockchain today. It's immutable. So now with a smart contract, you throw the auditors out. The auditors are expensive. These people are there at your site for a month every year. They don't charge $15 an hour either. And can this solution assure which one get rid of the auditors also? I'm not sure. I mean, for some components, I think, yes or some no. I mean, we can like, I don't know about the auditors, we get verification in certain ways. Like if you can verify something just by looking at the data or looking at reporting that's been put out. Like the value of this is essentially you're providing the all the information involved with measurement reporting. And so if you have, if you can do that off on the screen, one thing you can do is essentially what we discussed is creating a DAO where you have auditors competing to audit. So you can bring down the market costs there. There might also be some AI applications for that. But yeah, I mean, I think that for some components, it seems like that could be a possibility. Good. Okay. Thanks Sherwin for sharing your thoughts here on the new measurement economy here. We're at the top of the hour. We'll post this session on YouTube here with the help of this at Hyperledger. So that'll be out there. Sherwin, I think if you want to put in the chat, your email or just mention it, boy, you'd be a voice recording. Absolutely, let me, I'll go ahead and share it. And Sherwin, can you share the deck with us as well? Absolutely, let me actually just, I can actually share both into the chat really quickly. Okay, good. One moment. So here is the deck and I'm in the process of updating it, but y'all can watch that progress. Okay, where's the chat? I'm just sorry. I know you guys, I need to do this really quickly. Chat, there it is. Okay, here. Here is the deck and here is, oh, whoops, to everyone. Ask me a direct message to everyone there. Okay. Okay. Is it a deck? Got it, thank you. Beautiful. Yeah, absolutely. And Sherwin, if you could get back to Shelby, if you can't figure out who Shelby is, let us know and then we'll help you figure that out. Absolutely, I'll do that. Thanks for having me, everybody. Great speaking with you. Absolutely, it's great stuff. It's great you got code here, that's wonderful. You know, that always is half the battle. Like you said, you know, you got a lot of the chicken and egg here and you're working on the chicken portion of it. So that's good. Yeah, yeah. All right, yeah, it's by Sherwin. Thanks for talking to me. We'll talk to you in a couple of weeks. Enjoy your life and supply chain and trade finance and climate action in the new measurement economy. Bye. Absolutely. At the beginning of the meeting, you were talking about, you were going to discuss something about upcoming work or picking a project or something. I think we'll save that for maybe the next time. Oh, okay. Yeah, the idea of it, because I'd like to close it here on time for our bikes. I know everyone has to move on, but, and Jeff, I'm happy to give you a holler flying here. I just meet you at Starbucks. Yeah, that sounds good. Okay, well, maybe we can, well, I don't know, I'll give you a holler and we'll figure that out. Okay. Yeah, you this time closer to you. Yeah, that sounds good. Okay, thanks everybody. Enjoy the rest of the day. Thanks Sherwin. Bye. Thank you. Bye everyone.


Hey everybody, this is Brett and I'm at the 2022 Chicago auto show here in Chicago, Illinois, and I'm pretty excited to show you this This is kind of been a legend. It's a SEMA build of a Toyota Tacoma with a camper body on it, and it's called the tacozilla This is a real vehicle at it. It's right here in front of us And I'm gonna do a walk around here and then at the end of this video I've got some something pretty cool to show you But we're gonna go in the front here and notice have the LED running lights the rigid industries LED Lights and the fog lights there the worn winch on there has these really cool Toe hooks on there as well comes with general grabber tires on it and You can see Has the quilted seats on there this is a manual transmission build so it's kind of kind of crazy Then you can see you can actually get into the camper through the back seats Which is pretty cool as well, and those seats are orange and yellow stitching on there Notice they have all the classic Graphics on the side these are painted TRD rims, and it has general grabber tires on here, and these are LT 285 70 R 17s With the aggressive tread pattern on them Get the metal bumper in back you can see right into there. There's a shower. There's a toilet There's a sink. There's also a Table and beds up top has the cool ladder rack Kind of old school finish looks like my garage floor on there Now we're gonna go around here Kind of look up top Really a neat concept has a snorkel on it as well and I'm gonna see if I can Actually have the exhaust coming out the side here. That's pretty cool. I'm gonna see if they're gonna let me Get inside here. So One second here just wanted to check out Getting into that into your back area Pretty cool Basically took the whole back end out and then attached it to the camper made a cutout Pretty sweet Seats really get me See the LED light bar right above the roof there really a cool piece almost forgot the Lizard with the taco on there So that's pretty cool All right, so this is inside the taco zilla as much as I can get Looks like it has a dishwasher has a sink a stove in there has a table show another thing you got the sleeping area up there and Very very cool the wood floors you get the go-rino step on there as well and very very cool Very very cool truck And I just like to thank the people at Toyota for letting me to check it out And it's cool to see this thing in person. I've only seen pictures and didn't know it was real So remember to like subscribe and share on our channel In fact a second you'll see link to subscribe to our YouTube channel in the upper left a Link to more auto show videos like this on the upper right and a link to one of our latest YouTube videos in low Right click those check us out, and I'm super excited to be showing you this taco zilla Just got a stove and a sink Has sleeper up there Shower toilet. It's even got a panoramic Skylight up there pretty sweet


My mum and dad are alcoholics so like me and my brother are supposed to have to cook for ourselves because they're like inventing something so it's great. Make breakfast, lunch, dinner, make coffees, that sort of thing. I work at the housework and also I help out with making sure she's okay when I go to bed. I pull the sheets tight so she doesn't have to make the bed. I do stuff like that and basically make sure I take her cups of tea in for her and sit her down, help her in the shower sometimes. It's not like what they portray on children in need. It's kind of like normal teenage chores and then on top of that you've got to be a mum and you've got to be a referee in the fights and you've got to kind of separate your little ones away from the adult stuff and things like that. Sort of like being a normal person but with a bit more responsibility kind of thing. My mum was really poor and she had mental health issues. We had to hide the little ones away from it because they were just too young to understand and they didn't want to see what was going on because they were only a few months old and four I think it was. I can't remember quite well at the moment because I'm too blonde but yeah so it's kind of just separating it. I don't mean that this has got autism so that's loads of fun matters. That's a bundle of joy and basically she hates everyone and everything one day and loves everyone and everything the next day. My mum because she's got depression I like more help her when she's upset I help her to calm down a bit and stuff like that. When mum was busy feeding him and then the cooker goes off and then we have to hold it for her. Well I care my brother because he's mostly autistic. He's the autistic one in our family. I like helping with his homework, playing with him and if he falls over I tell my mum or if he wants something I just go to my mum and tell him. I do housekeeping and take care of my mum when she's drinking alcohol because she's affected by it.