How's the preparation been this week? Getting ready for the Panthers, close proximity of the games and so forth. Prep's doing good. You know, quick turnaround from Sunday, which I think is a good thing for us, myself, and I'm just excited to get back on the field for Thursday. But prep been good. It's been helped that we've just seen them the game before the last game we played. So I'm sure it may be some new wrinkles, but at the same time, familiar with the team, playing them for years and being a division opponent. So it's been a good prep. How tough are these games? Why are these games so tough? They always have a good battle with the Panthers. Yeah, always a tough game. I mean, it's going to pull out the best in both sides of the ball. I mean, both teams want to do their best, you know?  And there's a lot of pride in this game and essentially one of our rivalry games that we have. So both teams, both cities take a lot of pride in this game. And on third down, you all have five, three in an ounce, but then with a stretch where they hit a couple in a row on you guys. What are y'all focusing on getting off the field on third down? Yeah, definitely got to be better on third down, getting off the field, man. Because when you do good on first and second down, instead of your third down, then when you do get some third in longs and they convert, this can be disappointing at times, but we have to put ourselves in better position and be more disciplined with our calls and defending certain things that the offense are doing to help us get off the field. So it's definitely been a point of emphasis through these couple of days that we have, and we want to be better. And Tim Rihorn, well, how's he doing? You know, young guy undrafted, going home to play the Panthers, he's about that way. How's he been doing? Nobody gets to y'all that it's hard to get him. See what y'all going up against inside there. But how's he doing? Yeah, man, Tim been doing a great job, man. He's been active for us every game. You know, been a great guy to step in there, clog up the middle, and actually get some push there. I don't know, I have to have, because he had an amazing, you know, preseason then. So it was no bearing. He was going to make the team, but he's been a heck of a contributor, man.    And I'm excited to see a young guy like that be able to have the opportunity to play, play ball. Y'all been pretty good stopping.  So I think that's something that we take pride in and stopping the run. Obviously, every game is important, but speak to the importance of a divisional game, you know, wanting to stay on top of the division. I mean, it's super important. You know, you want to division you in the dance, you know, so no matter really, no matter what the record is, you want to division you in the dance. So I mean, I think that says, says within itself and we in the position to where we want to continue to strive and compete to win our division. So this is a division game next game up. So it's a big game, you know, and you can't take it for granted and everybody in division, you know, shooting for that number one spot in division. So we got to go out there and do it. You mentioned a little earlier. You can take them for granted. Obviously the last game could have gone either way. Can you speak to how tough this matchup is and how you want to sort of impose your will on them this time? Definitely a heck of a matchup, man. It's super tough. The first game we played a couple of weeks ago was one of the most physical games that we had all year without a doubt.  We stopped them. So it's going back and forth for all game. As you can see, the first game went. But, you know, it's a thing that's super, super important for us to come out and start with some good energy up first because you don't want to, they don't want to give them a minute. We don't want to give them a minute. You know, and I mean, I don't think there's nobody around here that's feel like we're taking this team for granted because we know what the capable of. We know the skill that they have. We know the guys that got up front and the guys playing with a lot of pride. So I think that narrative is so far gone that we had to get our own stuff right as well. So it's going to be a heck of a hard fought game.


Item number SCP-255, Object Class, Ketter. Special Containment Procedures. Tissue samples and specimens related to SCP-255 are contained at BioSight 16, a purpose-built containment and research facility designed to priority beta-contagious phenomenon specifications. BioSight 16 is subject to a remote-location personnel rotation waiver, in addition to standard contagious phenomenon preventative quarantine periods. BioSight 16 is located in the Vaitupu Atoll of Tuvalu, on an island owned by Ragnarik Ecological Modeling Incorporated, a foundation front organization. Persons and animals determined to be infected with SCP-255 are to be secured and transported to a designated temporary holding facility prior to transfer to BioSight 16. In cases where capture of an SCP-255 carrier is exceedingly difficult or impossible, lethal force is authorized. The Office of Celestial Anomalies is to continually track the orbit of 3214 hybris, maintain a schedule of upcoming near-earth flybys, and alert the research director if any changes in observed orbit occur. The next scheduled flyby of 3214 hybris is 11 November 2023, when it is predicted to pass within 950,000 kilometers of Earth. Description SCP-255 is an anomalous infectious phenomenon of extraterrestrial origin, manifesting in most living subjects as a neurological disorder with varying symptoms. Eligible carriers of SCP-255 have thus far been observed to be organisms possessing a cerebral cortex, with approximately greater than or equal to 5.4 billion neurons. Experimentation has determined that species capable of contracting SCP-255 include humans, chimpanzees, African elephants, bottlenose dolphins, false killer whales, and others. In non-human carriers, SCP-255 causes through unknown means, degeneration of motor neurons and nerve cells. The rate of degeneration and severity of related symptoms is inversely related to the number of neurons the subject possesses in its cerebral cortex, with less neurologically developed organisms displaying the most debilitating effects. The effects of SCP-255 on humans however is markedly more complex, while degradation of brain cells in the nervous system has been noted on a limited basis in humans. A range of more unusual symptoms occur in these subjects. Individuals infected by SCP-255 can be reliably diagnosed through EEG observation and confirmation of verified markers and measurements of neurological activity. Outbreaks of SCP-255 coincide with close flybys of 3214-Hybris, a relationship that was theorized using advanced statistical models following the second outbreak in 1965, and confirmed during the asteroid's 1987 close approach. Observations of 3214-Hybris have determined it to be an approximately 110-meter C-type asteroid, with no anomalous properties observed at this time. The nature of the orbit of 3214-Hybris brings it into close approach with Earth once every 11 years. Addendum 2551, Research Log. The following is a listing of known SCP-255 outbreaks and relevant data. Estimated date of outbreak, 23rd of May, 1968. Location, Sagaing, Myanmar. Number of confirmed human cases, 86. Incidence rate, not available. The first known outbreak of SCP-255 occurred in 1968, known now to have coincided with 3214-Hybris passing within 350,000 kilometers of Earth. All known infected individuals resided within 7 kilometers of the township of Malik. Foundation assets became aware of SCP-255 while investigating an unknown illness affecting certain primates, including humans, in rural regions of northwestern Myanmar. The number of animals affected is unknown, but was estimated at the time to be between 1,000 and 5,000 individuals, primarily among forest-dwelling monkey species. All human instances in a representative sample of infected monkeys were brought under Foundation control, and special containment procedures enacted. In controlled laboratory conditions, animal subjects displayed advanced signs of motor neuron impairment, with a 100% mortality rate over a period of three weeks. Human subjects displayed mild neurological impairment, comparable to that experienced after a minor stroke. Experimentation confirmed that the disorder was not contagious. All human subjects were covered within 10 days, and were released without incident after being informed that they were treated under a World Health Organization initiative. Estimated date of outbreak, 19th June, 1979. Locations, Acre, Brazil, Rote Island, Indonesia, Croker Island, Australia. Number of confirmed human cases, 11. Incidents Rate, Not Available. A second SCP-255 outbreak occurred in 1979 in three separate regions, undetected until 19 months later when a routine review of forthcoming medical literature documented several individuals complaining of a phantom limb sensation affecting the dominant hand, simulating the spastic movement and persistent ache of an extraneous 11th digit. Foundation personnel covertly interviewed subjects claiming to be affected by this phenomenon. Subsequent research determined that all individuals resided within 25 kilometers of the 11th parallel south, and were experiencing an anomalous condition. Lack of person-to-person transmission capabilities were confirmed, and disinformation measures in the scientific community were carried out, achieving effective containment. The second outbreak was classified as a separate SCP designation until 1984, when research determined it to be the same phenomenon as SCP-255. Estimated date of outbreak, 30th May, 1990. Locations, Chihuahua, Mexico. Number of confirmed human cases, 121. Incidents Rate, Not Available. The third documented outbreak of SCP-255 occurred in Chihuahua, Mexico, in 1990, coinciding with the passage of 3214 hybrids within 550,000 kilometers of Earth. Characteristic of SCP-255, the outbreak is noted to have started in what was at the time the 11th most populous city in the 11th most populous country on Earth. Beginning in this instance and continuing through subsequent outbreaks, only human subjects have been infected by SCP-255. Affected subjects in this outbreak displayed altered circadian rhythms, sleeping for periods between 3-4 hours at a time, and waking fully refreshed, conducting activities, and then tiring and sleeping within an average period of 7 hours, thus operating biologically in accordance with an 11-hour day. During interactions with researchers, test subjects displayed a tendency to change subjects in the middle of speaking to say hello in either English, Portuguese, or Indonesian. The languages spoken by infected subjects in the second outbreak. Subjects would state hello in one of these languages regardless of any prior linguistic knowledge, and uniformly claimed no recollection of doing so. Additionally, these subjects would address Foundation personnel as members of the World Health Organization without prompting. In all other manners, test subjects observed in this iteration of SCP-255 functioned in their altered bio-rhythm in a normal manner, before recovering and returning to a normal non-anomalous state within 2-3 weeks. Estimated date of outbreak, 11th of November 2001. Locations, Keto, Ecuador. Number of confirmed human cases, 1,331. Incidents rate, 13.9%. The fourth outbreak of SCP-255 took place in an office building in the 12-day October Avenue Business District of Keto, Ecuador. At the time of the outbreak, Ecuador had a population of approximately 11 million people. Additionally, the building in which the initial outbreak was localized was 11 stories high. The fourth outbreak is the first observed instance of SCP-255 being transmitted from person to person, with an incidence rate in laboratory conditions of 13.9%. Infectious iterations of SCP-255 have since been observed to be transmitted from person to person by sustained close proximity, generally within a 2-meter radius, despite the lack of observable pathogens. This change in pathogenicity, along with the higher initial number of cases, was responsible for the reclassification of SCP-255 to Keto, effective the 23rd of December, 2001. Foundation operatives seized control of the building under the Established World Health Organization cover. The size of the outbreak, however, mandated heightened secrecy protocols. Test subjects were transported to BioSight 16 for observation. Similar to the second outbreak, infected individuals reported experiencing a phantom limb-like sensation. However, in this event, the phenomenon was intensified greatly. Test subjects reported the sensation of seven additional limbs, originating at seemingly random points of the body, with no apparent relation to existing anatomy. While the precise nature of the additional appendages was difficult to ascertain, infected persons reported that they felt as though they had three joints, were approximately a meter in length, and had no structure analogous to a hand or foot at the end. These limbs were apparently not subject to the painful contractions and sensations normally associated with apiates. However, subjects uniformly reported heightened distress at the sensation of seven additional limbs, moving independently of their control at most times. Additionally, test subjects lost conscious control of their left arms. At most times, subjects were unable to move their left arms. However, at 1,100 hours local time each day, the left arms and hands of infected individuals would independently make motions analogous to what appeared to be the act of writing. When supplied with pen and paper, these individuals all wrote, in crudely formed script, the numbers 11, 11, 65, theorized at the time to be the date of the next outbreak, and confirmed 11 years later. All infected individuals ceased to be affected by SCP-255 within three to four weeks. Test subjects were administered broad spectrum amnestics and released to Ecuadorian authorities. Foundation assets within the World Health Organization disseminated disinformation related to an exotic strain of malaria and subsequent treatment efforts as part of containment efforts. Estimated date of outbreak, 11th of November, 2012. Locations, Brussels, Belgium. Number of confirmed human cases, 11. Incidents rate, 100%. The fifth and most recent outbreak of SCP-255 took place in Brussels, Belgium, where 11 individuals working on the 11th floor of the NATO headquarters building, all complained to medical staff of constantly hearing a set of 11 electronic tones, repeating constantly. Containment protocols were activated by Western Europe's sector personnel, and all infected subjects were transported to BioSight 16. Test subjects continued to complain of hearing the repetitive set of tones. Most subjects experienced heightened stress and irritability, as well as sleep deprivation. Infected individuals were administered sedatives to ameliorate secondary SCP-255 symptoms. Testing of this group of infected individuals revealed the incidence rate of SCP-255 was now 100%, ensuring that any humans exposed to the subjects would contract it. 11 days after the test subjects were secured at BioSight 16, infected individuals reported a cessation of the perceived repetitive tones. One test subject immediately reported hearing an electronic voice, similar to that generated by speech simulation software, repeating the Spanish word, estrella. Once the subject reported the phenomenon to researchers, it immediately ceased, whereupon another of the original 11 test subjects reported a similar phenomenon. The original cluster of infected individuals appeared to comprise a phrase in this manner, the constituent words of which were repeated in order for every new case of infection beyond this group. The phrase is transcribed below, translated from Spanish to English for this version of the document. Binary star lost, not lost, transposed dead instruction, urgent, await transmission. Upon relating to researchers this particular symptom, all test subjects ceased to display any signs of SCP-255 infection. Subjects were amnestatized per SCP-255 guidelines and released. Lesson complete. If you missed the previous orientation, go watch SCP-254, Employee of the Month, right now. Or for the complete course, watch this playlist.


Boys, welcome back. Super heat ban your inbound. Also, don't vlog and drive, ever. Quick back story, like two weeks ago, I was at Jesse's house for the first time ever. It was me, Jesse, and Jaidell. We were filming something for champs. It was really fun, but while we were there, Jaidell was talking about possibly filming some football videos for our left back from Michigan. I was like, hey, we gotta do that, bro. That'd be so fun. So, Zach is joining us, but we're going to that field that I always kick at, cause it's like the only open field here in California, but hey, it works out. So we're gonna film something. I haven't even put too much thought to it. I might do a game of like football horse. So not just kicking horse, cause I mean that worked with these drawing, but I don't expect everyone to be good at kicking. It's kind of niche. We're excited new camera too. So you guys know that I'm excited to get all this stuff worked out. I'll see you guys at the field. Peace out. It's gonna be a banger.  He's lobbed up. Cameraman and the camera was good. You got another one right here. And they got the new merch on. Yo, this man did not know that I kicked in high school. And he's got kicking as part of the challenge today. I'm geeked, bro. I got a big leg, bro. You know, I'm the number one Google image result for thundercats? You see these cannons?  I wish. I wish. Jaidell's having us do throws, kicks and punts. If you guys didn't know, I cannot punt, can kick, can't throw.  But it's a beautiful day out here. The new camera's looking crispy. And I actually can't prepare it. I got a wind mic this time. Let our camera get some stud. Like there's wind hitting it right now, but you can probably hear me pretty well. Very good. Good day, baby. And I feel strong. I was warming up. I feel good. Third time breaking in the cleat, too. Be easy for kicking. Hey, you feel me? You feel me? I don't have any football cleats. You don't need them, bro. You don't need them. All right, we're starting up. Let's do it. Oh, we got one more. One more man's here, right? It was good. Damn, I like the rings. Thank you, bro. Can we see those ones? Yes, sir. Wait, what's this guy? It's 13. Friday at 13. You're just like a family member or something. No, that's cool, too. We're starting with the longest throw competition. We are starting with the longest throw so you can get the furthest throw. What do you think you can throw it up to? It's so embarrassing. When we would run wide receiver routes in practice and stuff, most people would catch the ball and throw back the QBE. I literally run it in.  So I'm going to say like three yards. We'll see. It's going to be tough. Yeah, you guys will see exactly how far I went on Jidel's channel. So I got you. Definitely going to grab some of that footage. Just bomb the 48 and 60. Don't really know how, but it's pretty cool. OK, Zach's going to do some kicks now. I'm actually so excited to watch this. All right, mother, just tell this thing. Not it. Kickers at home do not tell the ball. We just got to get the man to make one, you know? Could be an easy dub here, boys. Hey, don't say it's easy, boys, but that man could take Blair Walsh's job right now. You want to go second now? You don't want to go last? Said he's a sucker guy. Oh! That's not what I was saying. You just hit too high on it. That's a good, that doesn't look good. What? That's like harder to do. That's harder to do than making it or missing it. That is like the most difficult thing to do, is actually hit it. The current winner or the current leader is Zach with 25. I just got to hit past 25. I'm actually like an embarrassment to my family if I don't hit past 25, so. I'm going to go a little deeper though. I'm not going to cheese it. I'll start with just a chip shot 30 and then I'll see how deep I can go. Well, you know what? I'll start, I got to make it difficult. I got to make it difficult for myself. I'm going to go, I'm going to try 62 kickoff steps. Just to completely blow it out of the water. But it's got to be hard for me. I can't just go kick a 30. All right, so for everyone at home, the goal line, like the whole end zone, that's 10 yards. So if I'm standing, if the ball is on the 50, it's a 6D yard field goal. Where people get confused is in the games, when they snap it, they're snapping at seven yards back. So they might be on the 30, the team. They snap at seven yards back to the 37. Now you got a 47 yard field goal. So this is 60 and I'm going to go 62. That was not a clean kick anyway, so I'm okay with that. He's never going to live this down. He's never going to let you play him again. I'm tempted to do the 30 yard chip shot. Why do kickers do that? Why do they press it together? The ball is like long and if it's more basketball like, it goes further. So the kickers will get the ball for a kick off the goal. Yeah. Try and flatten it down. Like a little balloon. Best kicker on the field, he's got it bro. I will say this though, he did kick a 60 yarder and God's honest truth, the cameras weren't on. Wait, was it? It was on, it was on. Oh, you did record it? Yeah, I did. Okay, we'll show that one day. We'll show that one day. I'm just going to hit a 60, I'm just for fun. Just a flex. That's why I like to see, I have two witnesses and that was my first attempt right there. Thank you. He literally just pulled that out of his bag. All right. Blasted a 48 and then blasted a 60. Hey, those weren't even your official attempts for the video and I'm like shook. I'm very shook. Not going to lie, I might have just lost the kicking challenges, Zach. Best kicker on the field. What do you have to say? Man, honestly, you literally just taught me how to kick, so. Yes, I dug my own grave dude. Dude, this new camera is so cool. Am I just tweaking balls? No, that looks cool, dude. That's sick. We're getting out of the QV net right now. I think this is for Zach's video. I'm not exactly sure what we're doing, but throwing is not my expertise. I'm going to channel my inner mat staffer. You're going to channel your inner Danny Dimes, the Spanish Giants fan. Dude, no, bro, Eli. Channeling my Eli bro. Ah, cool. You remember when you beat me on some questionable out-of-balance calls to Madden? Applying actual Madden, yes. Yeah, I prayed to Eli bro. That's when I started my game winning drive. That's how you did it. I think I'm going to use it as a second prayer. The way I know how to throw a football, there's a video of Peyton Manning. Teaching you how to throw a ball? The video of Peyton Manning is like, you're going to go back, hit on the ball, and then the follow-through.  Yeah, I watched that video, and that's how I learned. It's like beef for basketball. Balance, eyes, elbow, follow-through. I took my hoodie off. Don't worry, it's not a different day. Just recorded some super heat. We had this QV net out for Zach's video, which is fire, check it out. I'm going to see if I can kick one into this. Where should we go from? Okay, so I'm on 35. What's that on the 10? So that puppy's on the 10. I always struggled to get it in, you know? I think he meant Del Rey. You meant Del Rey, didn't you? Do it for either. My brain went straight to Lana Rhodes.  I know. Here we go. Buddy! Wait, this is actually so awesome. Dude, I'm always out here by myself. This is so- Are you really? Yeah, when I'm kicking, I don't have anybody fielding it. You live a lonely life? Yeah, sorry. That's what I got Lana Rhodes for, bro. I've spent way too much time in the weight room. All right, final attempt. Try the on-site kick again. It's kind of deep for an on-sider, but...  Couldn't drill it. You want to go one-on-ones? All right, I'm running ones with Zach. See how this goes. Watch this interception. I love the stance, the BB stance. Good catch! What do you think? I'm on his head. Here's my thumbnail, baby. Good dig. Ooh! All right, I'm subbing in. Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh! Boy, what's going on? I can throw. So slam and go. Or out. So, it's not... You gotta go get Zach, bro. Ooh, good route, good route. I told my Lula's open when you broke my ankle. No. I'm so depressed. No. That's the pain that I get for doing a bum and getting burnt. Clamps. No flies on. I gotta redeem myself on it. Hey! I shouldn't be this tired, dude. I'm a life-shaving. This is a post. You want to run it back? I don't want to get mossy again, bro.


Hi everybody. My name is Robert Lawson. I'm an instructional designer with curriculum development at Northwest College, and I'm also one of the program co-chairs who helped to put together the program for this year's conference. And I'm very excited right now to introduce our next keynote speaker. This is someone I encountered for the first time at the University of Alberta during Open Education Week. It was a webinar and kind of an introduction to open education resources, and I really had no kind of background in open education at that time. I probably couldn't even have told you what a NoER is. So listening to him speak really helped me to understand the open education landscape. It helped me to understand what the Creative Commons licenses were. And he also introduced some very compelling introductory research on how open educational resources are equal to or in some cases better than traditional publisher resources. So it was a wonderful moment, and it really inspired me to in part get into open education. And so therefore, I'm very excited that we are going to welcome Dr. Cable Green to speak to us today. And he's been a very prominent figure in the open education landscape for a number of years. He's done some very exciting work in looking at how open licensing, open education can help to resolve complex problems, can help to help us to reach the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. And I think this is just fantastic. It really illustrates the power of open education to help us with these with these very complex issues. So I think he's a wonderful choice to really speak to our conference theme, Building a Sustainable World Through Open Education. And I just want to mention that he's done so much work in open education. He's been involved in so many different projects. They're just too many to name, but you know, there's the open course library, open up resources, digital public good standard, UNESCO recommendations on OER, open science, open climate campaign, and he's also been involved in the open climate data project, among many others. So please join me in extending a very warm welcome to Dr. Cable Green, the Director of Open Knowledge for Creative Commons and a real trailblazer in the field of open education. Hi everybody. First, a big thank you for the invitation to come speak. It's always an honor to come to this conference at all and to be one of the keynotes is a great honor. So thank you for that. And thank you to the Program Committee and the folks at OE Global for the kind invitation. As I was sitting there listening to people talk about sustainability, I realized there are several people in the audience that have sustained me. So Kathy Casserly, if you didn't know, actually hired me 12 years ago at Creative Commons. I wouldn't even be in this business if it wasn't for Kathy. And so Kathy, thank you for that. There are several people here that you may know. I almost died a few years ago, had a liver transplant. And there are people here in the audience that actually came to the hospital and took care of me when I was there. And one of our friends, David Wiley, who actually gave me part of his liver, which was an important part of my sustainability. If you don't know the story, he actually asked his surgeon to put a Creative Commons license on the piece of liver that was coming from him to me and because he wanted attribution forever. And the surgeons did not think that was funny. And they told him to stop talking about that. So I wanted to lighten the mood a bit because we'll talk about some serious topics. So today, what I want to talk about in terms of sustainability is I think that several sectors of open that I'll talk about today have hit a bit of a moment where it seems like we may have hit some existential threats, existential threats, and a bit of a crisis moment. But also I think there's tremendous opportunity. And so I want to talk about talk through what I think over the last 20 years collectively we've agreed upon in terms of some foundational principles and how we might use those to go forward. So this is a brand new keynote. I've titled it Diamond Open Knowledge. It'll make more sense in a moment. So, of course, all these slides unless otherwise noted are CC by. I have reached out to several colleagues. You'll see them credited at the bottom of the slides. I actually don't know if their their works are CC by. So please just use mine if you want to reuse or reach out to those other folks. I am with Creative Commons. I'm the director of open knowledge at CC. As I said, I'm going on 13 years. I was director of open ed for a long time, was CEO for a while. And now have a broader portfolio of open knowledge, which which I'll talk about in a moment. CC, if you're not familiar with us, we are a global nonprofit organization. We are kind of the de facto open licenses steward for open copyright licenses that the world uses. We're 20 years old, 20 more than that, 22 years old now. The licenses work everywhere. And like OE Global, we have teams around the world. We call them CC country chapters and they help countries and other communities locally. Just a few facts about the licenses, which sometimes people don't know. Licenses are free. They've always been free. They always will be free and to ensure that we've dedicated them all of our legal tools to the public domain, so they're there forever. We are 20 years old. This will be important in just a moment and some other facts here. Of course, the CC licenses are legal tools. They're backed by the full force of copyright. They've never lost in court, et cetera, et cetera. So that's that's all fine. And that's an important part of what we do is the steward of the licenses. But that's not the most important thing that we do. So our vision of Creative Commons is to to work on, create, improve a world where knowledge and culture are equitably shared in ways that serve the public interest. So you see that we're already very well aligned with the strategic plan at OE Global that was just put up. We're talking about public interest, public good. That'll be the main theme of today's chat. So I mentioned the licenses. I, of course, won't go through these today, but we have this whole suite of licenses so that people can have the tools that they want and public domain tools as well. We proudly put the we say we put the open and open access research and open educational resources, open data and other sectors of open. I'm mostly going to talk about today. I'm not going to talk about open culture as much. That's another program area at CC. I'm going to focus on open knowledge. And when I say open knowledge, this is what I mean. I mean open education and all the components of that. We mean open access research, open data, the broader establishment of open science, which is kind of parcel and part, or open access research is part of that, but open science is broader. The open communities in these spaces and then the open policy that exists usually at funders to support all of these various areas. So I'm going to take a moment to go through what some of our key principles are at Creative Commons when we are deciding whether or not we want to work on an open knowledge project. So bear with me. These principles will become more important as we go through this. So first, and you've heard me say this for years, publicly funded knowledge should be open by default. And by that, we mean all of this stuff, research, educational resources, et cetera, should be open by default, should be openly licensed. The data, where possible, should be in the public domain. And there should be a zero embargo period. We shouldn't have to wait to get access to open access research to open educational resources, et cetera. That's point one. Second, public funds allocated to produce this open knowledge should be spent as efficiently and effectively as we possibly can. Open tends to be more efficient almost always than closed. Why do we put this point in? Because we never have unlimited funds. We need to be effective and efficient with the funds that we have. And I am a firm believer that that's part of our responsibility as stewards of public funds, that we owe it to the taxpayers that paid these to be effective and efficient with them. Third, this publicly funded knowledge should be stewarded, hosted, served up, analyzed by public institutions, the academy, and or trusted non-profits. Okay, this will be kind of a key theme throughout this talk here. As we're designing these systems, we should design from the core out to ensure that they are socially just, that they are equitable so that these public goods can be accessed, shared, contributed to, revised by everyone in the public. Next, commercial organizations where we need them should be treated as work for hire. We should hire them when we need them. If we sign contracts with them, we should ensure that copyright stays with us, the public or the public institutions, or the individual authors who are writing it and not go to the commercial entities. Which is this last point, that the copyright or other intellectual property rights of publicly funded knowledge should be held by us and not by commercial entities. And nor should we transfer the ownership of publicly funded knowledge to commercial entities. You may say, well, obviously not, but in fact we do this all the time, especially in the area of research and data. So I've broken the talk up into four areas. I'm gonna talk about the opportunities we have in front of us. Some of the challenges or headwinds that we're facing at the moment. Changing landscape, there's some interesting new things happening. And then a bit of call to action of what we can do next. So what's happened in the last 20 years? Well, a lot, as you've seen from GOGN and OER Global and Creative Commons. There are a lot of organizations which are hitting their 20th anniversary. Iskme is another one with OER Commons. There are several examples where folks are hitting 10 and 20 years. So over the past 20 years, we've had this suite of tools that we've all leveraged and we've taught other people how to use. Things went digital. We can make perfect digital copies. We've had the internet for quite a while where we can share this digital stuff. We've been able to openly license it so we can legally share it and make changes to it as we see fit. And then the costs around these spaces, the cost of computing, the cost of cloud computing, the cost of network, the cost of devices has fallen. We still have digital divide issues, but those costs continue to come down. And so what all this netted us was a set of a tool bag where we could legally share digital knowledge at the marginal cost of zero. This is incredibly important in terms of access for more people. It was important in terms of efficiency of the expenditure of public funds. There was good arguments and continued to be good arguments to be made around return on investment for the investment in open things with public monies. And we reduced friction. It's much easier to share things that are digital and that are open. And so if you look at the literature, you'll find across all of these various categories of open knowledge that pick your variable. Open is oftentimes a better and a more effective way to do education research data, et cetera. Okay, so we've had those tool sets. This is nothing new. We know all this. We seem to have lost our way when it comes to what we commonly refer to as digital public goods. And so the key phrase here or the key part of that is public goods.  Is that a threat to the business community? And I say, stop, wait a moment. Why is it that your government is interested in science? Why do you fund science in Brazil? And they'll say, well, funding science is important. We need to understand the universe. We have to understand our country. We have to understand people. We have to understand problems and how to solve diseases. And I say, okay, why do you fund research? Why do you find education in your country? Well, you know, there's all these really good reasons. And very quickly we get to a conversation where we say, yes, knowledge is a public good. And public goods should be funded with public funds. And yet we continuously allow publicly funded knowledge to be extracted, to be commercialized. I was actually warned about being in Edmonton and using the word extracted in my talk, so I apologize for that. But we continue to allow knowledge to be extracted and commercialized by commercial entities and have the knowledge extracted, commodified and then sold back to us, right? And so this is something that we've allowed.  They just have a different set of incentives than we do, right? They are not in the, their mission statement is not produce as many public goods as possible at the highest quality level and make those freely available to as many people as possible. That's not their job. Their job is to build shareholder value and to raise their stock prices and to generate revenue. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's just a different set of priorities than often what we're talking about, right? Our foundation principles are things like this, open sharing, advances, universal access to these various areas of knowledge and culture. This is about human rights.  And they talk about the importance of science for the betterment of humanity. These are not things that ought to be commercialized and put behind paywalls. These are things that we all should have access to. I told you I worked at Creative Commons. Creative Commons just had its 20th birthday. That was a lot of fun. We waved the flag, but we were mostly interested in what do we do in the next 20 years. So we started asking questions. And one of the answers that we came up with is we really want to work on the biggest challenges in the world today. And so what are those biggest challenges? Well, we all talk about these. We looked toward the United Nations sustainable development goals. And we started off by saying, well, which of these? These are all important. These are all unanimously supported by nations around the world through the General Assembly of the United Nations. They all need work, but what's most pressing? We decided to focus on 13, 14, and 15 to start. Climate change, if you haven't heard is a bit of a problem. And so we decided to start there. Our kind of key idea is that, so why Creative Commons? Why should CC of all these various organizations work on the SDGs? And our kind of core argument is that if you want to solve any of these problems, doesn't matter which one you pick. If the knowledge and the culture about these problems is closed and locked up behind a paywall, you don't get to solve the problems. Imagine trying to solve, I don't know, let's pick one. Imagine trying to solve affordable and clean energy, number seven. But all the research about affordable and clean energy is locked up and unless you're rich, you don't get to read the research. What if all the educational resources about affordable and clean energy are also locked up? Now learners don't get to read it. UNESCO just ran a study six, eight months ago that asked the question of the schools, primary and secondary or in the United States, we call them K-12 schools. Of all the schools in the world, how many of them have curriculum on climate education? The answer, and anybody see this study? No, it wasn't zero, it wasn't that bad. It was 48, 49%. Which on the one hand sounds pretty good, like there's a lot of schools that haven't. On the other hand, it's over half of the schools in the world have nothing about climate curriculum. And one of the reasons for that was they can't afford it. It's out of their budget, they can't go buy the curriculum. So why do we not have OER on all of the SDGs made freely available for all schools around the world? And so this is our argument at Creative Commons. If you wanna solve the world's biggest problems, the knowledge and the culture must be open. Knowledge I think we kinda get in this room. We need the education open, educational resources, we need the research, we need the data. That makes sense to us. What about culture? So my colleague Brigitte at Creative Commons leads our open culture program. The idea there is several fold, but the core idea is that if you look at the SDGs, these are all human-caused problems for the most part. And if you don't understand the culture of the humans that caused these problems, you don't understand the culture of the humans that are gonna need to solve these problems today, the knowledge isn't enough. Okay, moving on. So I said we decided to tackle climate and biodiversity first. We took a good hard look at this, and if you look over on the right side of the screen, this is the punchline. How much of the climate research is open? The time scale here was 1980 to 2020. We've got a live dashboard of this. It's constantly updating, and the good news is it's getting more open, but it's still about half. Of all of the climate research in the world is locked up behind paywalls. This also happens to be climate research, which was funded by public governments around the world. So we've given our knowledge over, it's now locked up, our climate researchers can't get access to it. And so it's like this, we've tied one arm behind our backs, trying to work on climate change, and half of the climate research and the data that we've paid for as a public, we can't get access to unless you're a rich institution somewhere that can afford the exorbitant access fees. That's a problem. And so it looks something like this.  We've cut this paywall, which is stopping knowledge from moving forward. We decided to do something about that. We put together a coalition called the Open Climate Campaign. You'll find this at openclimatecampaign.org if you wanna see more information. And the core idea of the campaign, this is a four-year campaign to promote open access to research, to accelerate progress towards solving the climate crisis. We know that opening up the research and the research data is not the whole solution. Our argument is, if you want to solve climate change, you had better have access to all the research and all the data, or it's simply a non-starter, right? If you're interested in the campaign, you can sign up. One of the things while we are focused on research and research data for the Open Climate Campaign, we are also, I know there are several people in the room, we've talked to about this, we're also very interested in the open educational resources about climate. So if you have OER about climate at your institution, or you've got climate researchers who, or professors who you think might want to open up their educational resources, please let us know. We're eager to make that part of the campaign as well. Second project that we launched is called our Open Climate Data Project. This is not research data, this is the largest climate data sets in the world. So this is like Copernicus in Europe and the European Space Agency. This is NASA's data in the United States, NOAA's data, all the weather data, and the sea level rise data, and temperature data. So these are big petabytes, terabyte-sized data sets all around the planet, and we brought those folks together and asked the question, how can we share, how can you share your data better than you're sharing it today across a whole host of variables. Legal was certainly one of them. Many of them were not openly licensed or dedicated to the public domain, but a lot of it was about technical interoperability and ease of getting access to an account and getting access to APIs, et cetera. And so we're working with them to make that data more shareable. Same argument, you don't get to solve climate change if the data about climate change is not open and easy to get to. Okay, next, challenges. Everything I'm talking about, about how we want to keep commercial interests as work for hire, commercial interests don't like this. Apologies to any commercial interests that may be in the room. Here, there are several things that commercial entities in various sectors of open are doing to push back on our collective efforts. Here, I just want to highlight two very quickly. The first one in the area of research, for open access research, we started off 20 years ago, 25 years ago, worried about large subscription rates to journals. So journals were very expensive to subscribe to. And basically, you had to be rich if you wanted to read. And then over 20 years, we flipped that. And now you have to be rich if you want to write. And so we have this thing called article processing charges where the journal said, fine, you want everybody to read for free, you're going to pay on the front end instead of paying on the back end and we'll make the same amount of money. And so they have these things called article processing charges where after your article's been peer-reviewed and accepted, you have to pay a fee to the journal. So let me back up a step. Your research was funded with public money from probably your national government. You got the grant, you did the research, your team worked it, you produced multiple articles. Now you want to publish. And what do they ask you for? What do you have to turn over to them? Somebody shout it out? Money.    What's the phrase? It'll come to him. Right, so this is a real problem and we'll talk about this more in just a minute. The second one in education, and I was just talking with some Canadians here today, this is a big problem in the United States. Apparently this is also hitting all of you in Canada and I think some parts of Europe as well. Our publishers are saying, okay, we've listened to the OER arguments, day one access, reduce costs, making sure everybody, all students have access to it throughout the year. We can play that game as well. We're gonna call it inclusive or equitable access. So I want you to look at the terms. They've taken our terms, kind of like greenwashing if you will, sometimes happens. This is like open washing, coined by our colleague. You guys should go to openwashing.org and see a good definition. And so inclusive access, the idea is that rather than students paying for a curricular cost or textbook costs, all that gets wrapped into and hidden, I would argue, in the cost of tuition. And so then the students simply pay higher tuition and good news, your textbooks and other materials are free. Well, they're not free. They've been hidden, so you're paying for them in your tuition. The problem with these programs are the challenges for all of you who are working to promote the use and production of open educational resources is now the faculty at these institutions. And by the way, these tend to be three year contracts that universities and colleges are getting locked into. The message to the faculty is you've got unlimited access to all of these catalog of commercial materials and you can use them when your students have already paid for them. And so the incentive to use OER because of cost or some of the other arguments may go down. A lot of faculty are still hanging on to OER because they like the open license part of it. They wanna be able to modify it, translate it, use it in the class the way that they want to. But nevertheless, this is a headwind. If you haven't seen inclusive access, it looks like this. The costs are hidden in tuition. There are additional costs for print. There are access typically expires either at the end of the course or when the student matriculates from the institution and these are all rights reserved copyrighted materials. So there's no legal rights to revise or remix. OER, you know the story there. If you want more on this, our colleague, Nicole Allen at Spark runs a great website called inclusiveaccess.org that talks about some of the facts of how this is happening. I'll give you an example that we just faced in the United States. The White House under the current administration did a good job and said, hey, all of the research that we fund with public funds in the United States, we're gonna make it more open and accessible than it was before. So new data sharing standards, we're gonna take it from a 12 month embargo to zero embargo so that the public gets access immediately. There were a bunch of goodies in it. They talked about open licensing for the first time and the importance of text and data mining. So this was a big win. Just a few months later, the American Association of Publishers went to the U.S. Congress with campaign contributions and other incentives and actually put this language into the appropriations bill, which is how we fund operations in the U.S. government. And I quote, none of the funds made available in this appropriations bill may be used to implement, administer, apply, enforce or carry out the new memo from the White House to ensure free, immediate or equitable access to federally funded research. So you can have your nice little policy that says we're gonna share public knowledge, but you can't use any federal money to implement it. This is the kind of fight that they bring at the highest levels of government. They do not want publicly funded knowledge to be open. It is not in their interests and they will do everything they can to make sure that that doesn't happen. Okay, changing landscape. I believe there are some new opportunities in front of us. CC, OE Global, many organizations worked with UNESCO to help write two really important recommendations that recently came out. The first one was the UNESCO REC on OER. This was back in 2019, a few years ago, unanimously adopted by UNESCO member states. Next step was the recommendation on open science. Also unanimously adopted in 2021 by all UNESCO member states. So this is good. Both of these documents say publicly funded knowledge should be open by default. They go further and they talk about the importance of open licensing policies and open procurement. They talk about the values of public knowledge. So we've got these international frameworks that we can lean on, that we can use. Igor talked about the network of open orgs. This is a group of us that convene and we're trying to figure out how can we support national governments around the world to implement the recommendation on OER. There's similar conversations happening around the REC on open science. When we work with national governments, we have scaled impact, right? So this is also something we're doing with the open climate campaign. We're going right to national governments and we're saying to their ministers of science, will you please require that all future, as of this date going forward, all climate research and data is open and now that we have your attention, will you just do that for all publicly funded research? So it seems to me that we're at this point in the conversation where we should be asking, how do we share knowledge, publicly funded knowledge in the most effective, efficient, equitable and socially just way? Well, many organizations have an opinion about this. The European University Association came out and said a just scholarly publishing ecosystem needs to be steered by the research community and its institutions through coordinated policies. Next week is International Open Access Week, their theme, community over commercialization, right? There is, how many people have heard of Diamond Open Access? Okay, a few of us. I've been watching this, this is kind of why I built this keynote in the first place. I've been watching this emerge in the open access space for the last couple of years. Open access, as I mentioned, has watched the space go from really high subscription rates where you had to be rich to read to really high article processing charges where now you have to be rich to write. There are parts of the world that don't have the kind of money which is necessary to pay these high article processing charges and so they started asking the question, this is mostly in Latin America, they're the real leaders in this space. They started asking the question, what could it look like if you didn't have to be rich to read and you didn't have to be rich to write? What if both ends of that spectrum were available at no cost? How much money would it take to run journals, to run the peer review process, to do all the things that we need to do to have quality research publishing processes with all the services therein? Could we do that? And could we do that as a public good, as public infrastructure to support public research knowledge? And their answer was yes, let's go build it. And so the idea of Diamond OA, and I should quick caveat here, the word diamond, I'm not sure that's gonna stick around. Diamond, of course, are related to blood diamonds, the diamonds are related to colonialism and extraction from many countries and so it's not a friendly word in that sense. So a lot of people are starting to move away from talking about diamond and talking instead about community owned and operated. It's a bit longer, we'll see how the phrasing comes out but I just wanted to say this is something that's under discussion. But for right now I'm using the word diamond because next week there's the Diamond Open Access conference in Mexico. And so there's still some name recognition around it. But this is a work in progress. And so Diamond is trying to move toward this idea of community over commercialization. How can we, the non-profit, the academic community, actually take back this space? So they're doing it in several ways. Let me bring these up here. So first, Diamond Open Access doesn't charge subscription fees, doesn't charge article processing charges. In 2021, there was a big study done just asking the question, is anybody doing this? And the answer was, yeah, a lot of people are doing it. There are over 29,000 journals in 2021. There's even more today that are operating on this diamond model. Something like two thirds of them are in Latin America. Why are they in Latin America? Because they didn't, in many cases, the universities and the researchers didn't have the funds to play in the existing commercial models. And so they just built something new. It was very innovative. These tend to be relatively small. They're mic multilingual. They're across all sectors of what we teach in universities, all different disciplines. But Diamond OA is more than just about cost. It's also about governance. And so the idea is that instead of turning over ownership instead of turning over the responsibility of services, of hosting, of data analytics, all these things that research needs and does, we, the community, are gonna build those things. We're gonna build the public infrastructure. We will own it. University presses will operate those things and other nonprofit entities. Both in terms of the content-related elements, but also many of the services that are provided. So why do we need to do this? Well, because over 25 years, commercial publishers have created old gopoles where they have controlled the space. Anybody heard about the company Elsevier? There's been a lot of consolidation of the space where Elsevier and other companies like them have bought up journals. And when you get oligopolies or monopolies, they control the market and they can raise prices and there's not a lot that we can do about it. Except that there is, we control everything. So I'm always careful not to blame Elsevier or Pearson or any of these other companies. None of this is their fault. They are acting as they act as commercial entities. This is our fault. It's our fault when we sign over our copyright. That's our choice. It's our fault when we let our public funds be extracted and go somewhere else. That's something that we have the power to stop. And so a lot of what they're talking about in the Diamond Open Access space is this idea that we need to take back control. Researchers need to stop turning over their copyright. They need to retain their rights and not turn those rights over. We need to retain control of the various content and service related elements. There is, as you might expect, a plan for how are we gonna do all this stuff? It's called the Diamond Action Plan. This is led kind of, it's co-created by Science Europe, Coalition S, big players like Redilik and Latin America and others and they've come together and said, let's work on this globally. Let's not work separately and recreate the wheel. We all have the same problem. We all can get together and talk about a common solution and we need to be coordinated in our efforts because we're simply outgunned when it comes to lobbyists and money and resources and so we must work together. And if we stand in solidarity, sorry, there's a lot of union action happening in the United States. I'm a bit of a solidarity person right now. Yay to the unions. We need more union activity. I lost my train of thought. Now I'm thinking about union negotiations. So next week actually in Toluca, Mexico, many of us will be back on the plane to go back there. There's the second Diamond Open Access Conference. So the point I wanna make here and you can probably see this coming, there is an opportunity to work collectively globally if we truly wanna take back publicly funded knowledge and they're showing us how to do it. They've got a roadmap for how they're gonna actually pull this off. They are acting globally. They're not acting regionally. They're not acting as individual institutions. They're acting globally and they're taking the time to do it. There are supportive recommendations not just from the UNESCO recommendation on open science but also from the European Council itself. Just a couple highlights here. They want zero embargo period as well. Immediate OA, authors shouldn't have to pay APCs. Non-profit scholarly publishing models need to be supported. And it's not just Diamond OA. There's other interesting models out there like Subscribed to Open and others. Rights need to be reserved. Pricing needs to be transparent. All things that we oftentimes don't have when our knowledge is extracted into commercial spaces. There are, I would be remiss if I didn't say the letters AI while I was standing on stage. I know we're all thinking about it. We're wondering what's next. I think this is an interesting opportunity for the open education space as well. We in the OER space, a lot of our work has been in the fat part of the tail where we have the highest enrolled courses. And when you get to the long part of the tail where there's fewer students, we oftentimes don't build OER there because the return on investment just isn't as high. We don't serve as many students. There aren't as many cost savings, et cetera. We don't have as many people to work on sustaining that content over time. I've seen some interesting experiments where we can take, we can ask certain AI devices to help us create OER. It's still in its infancy, but I think it's something we should keep an eye on. There's some interesting work happening at the Khan Academy and other places about this idea of personal AI tutors. It is fraught with controversy. I realize I'm very interested in that. I saw some, we had Anya Kamenetz keynote, the CC summit last week in Mexico, and she showed some research that these tutors are actually just distracting right now in the classroom and aren't very helpful yet. But again, interesting, interesting idea, something for us to keep an eye on in education. I mentioned I was at the Mayo Clinic getting a liver transplant. I just read a Mayo paper the other day about how they had rubrics that they used to use that were human created that helped them make medical decisions about people that had the diseases that I had, and now they're using AI to analyze those. And instead of running a few scenarios, they're having the AI run millions of different scenarios and they actually improved the rubric and got better outcomes as a result just using chat GPT-4 to run some analyses. We've got universal translation, climate solution options, interesting things. I think those are something for us to keep an eye on. I'm particularly worried about the challenges right now. I think now is the moment where regulation is starting to happen, discussions are happening at the highest levels, and we need to be in these conversations today. I think that we need to be looking at public infrastructure just like we need public infrastructure for research and for educational resources. We also need public infrastructure for AI training, data sets for machine learning, for compute power, et cetera. We need to make sure that if we're gonna use AI in education that these AI things are not hallucinating and making up fake citations and none of that, that's just all garbage in, garbage out. How do we make sure that these training sets of AI's training on are not biased today? They're tremendously biased. And we can't look at them and the algorithms are closed as well. And so our ability to critique and analyze and improve and iterate, we don't have access to that today and we must have access to that. And then this last one here, I think goes to the heart of our movement, which is how do we ensure equitable access to AI knowledge analysis, knowledge production for everyone? If you look at the big AI players, they are moving toward paid models. And the question, just like article processing charges on research, will people be cut out because they don't have the money to pay for these services? I'm worried about that and we need to keep an eye on it. I'm not gonna read through this. This is too, way too much text. I'm gonna invite you to go look at it. Out of the Creative Commons summit last week, so I should say our theme for the conference was AI in the Commons. And so we talked a lot about AI and at the end of it we came out with this. This is on the Creative Commons blog. You can find it, but it's seven principles for regulating generative AI to protect the interests of creators, people building in the Commons and society's interests in the sustainability of the Commons. So that was our angle on this. And like I said, there's seven here, I'm not gonna read through them, but I wanna highlight number seven because it pertains to this talk. We said to counterbalance the current concentration of resources in the hands of small number of companies, these measures need to be flanked by public investment, public infrastructure for computational infrastructures that serve the needs of the public interest, users of this technology on a global scale. In addition, there also needs to be public investment in training data sets that respect the principles outlined above. Principles like making sure that people are opting in and their data is not being sucked up without their permission. So if you're interested in this space, I invite you to go take a look at this. Okay, so what do we do now? There's a lot of stuff that's going on, we've got threats, we've got opportunities. What should we do now? I think first and foremost, we need to recognize that we have tremendous power and not just us in this room, but governments that are giving out money have tremendous power and we can fight back without fighting anybody. We just need to change our own behavior and our own actions. And so this is an example, this was an article, I believe, in The Guardian that talked about 40 leading scientists leaving an Elsevier journal. The journal was called Neuroimage. This was like the top journal if you were into neuroimaging of the brain using CT and MRI scans. This is where you wanted to be published. And Elsevier, this journal was incredibly expensive. Elsevier went lower the cost, the APCs were very high and these editors, which really were the people that made the journal quality and high impact in the eyes of promotion tenure committees around the world, they said, no more. We are leaving. They got up and they walked and they went and they created a brand new open access journal and they said, we're taking our expertise and our reputation and we're going over here and don't publish there anymore and they put out a memo to the entire neuroscience community and they said, this is what we did and you should think about doing the same. That was within their power to do so. They didn't have to fight Elsevier. They sent Elsevier a memo that said, we're leaving. Good luck. We can fight back with the policies that we put on the money. At CC we often refer to this as shifting the money to open. So if you require that publicly funded knowledge is opened by default, guess what? It's opened by default. If it's educational resources funded, you have OER. If it's research that's funded, you have open access research. If it's data, you've got open data. We have to have policies that require that things be open when they're funded with public funds. If anybody needs help doing this, give me a call, we'll get you the resources, we'll help you do it. We can also do it, so that's a very top down, right? If you take our money, you're gonna open up what you build because it's public funds. This is a bottom up approach. So I'll pick on Rajiv again. Rajiv is at Brock University, he's got a budget. He can make decisions about how he spends his budget, including how they procure materials, resources, data, educational resources, et cetera. And so he has an opportunity at a local level, even if there isn't an open policy in his province, he can build and buy and commission what he needs done. He can ensure that he keeps the copyright or Brock University keeps the copyright or the authors that are doing the work at Brock University keep the copyright and then they can choose if they want to to share and openly license. Put this in shorthand, it's buy what you need, own what you buy and share what you own, right? We can do that locally. I've talked, I just talked with our, as you can imagine, I'm all kinds of fun at parent teacher conferences. I always wear my CC shirt and I ask them, are using OER and my kids are just like, oh my God, dad, please stop. But we, I asked them this, I said, you know how much? So we live in Olympia, Washington and they have a 500,000 USD budget every year for curriculum acquisition and procurement. We've got about 100 cells on the Excel sheet. We've got about eight subjects per grade. We've got 12 grades, that's 96 cells. With our 500,000 dollars a year, guess how many of those cells they can update? Two a year, right? So my kids had political science textbooks in high school that are copyrighted in 1998. Has anything interested happened in political science since 1998? Just a few things, right? We need to build the infrastructure, the public infrastructure that we need to make the knowledge open and to solve the world's biggest problems. This is a project that Creative Commons and Open Futures and others are working with, with NORAD in Norway right now and we're building a stack of open source software services to serve up open climate data. So I mentioned the Climate Data Project we have at CC where we're helping the world's largest climate data sets open up and be more open. We're gonna take API feeds and we're gonna jam them into this open source software stack just like Norway has its seed bank. This is like an open climate data bank and not only will you be able to go there, one stop shopping for all the open climate data you might need at no cost, all open, but you'll also be able to get services. So if your province or your country wants to create apps to help people have smaller carbon footprints, for example, you don't have to recreate the wheel, you don't have to build the infrastructure. Norway is gonna fund the infrastructure to make that simple and easy. We're calling this the Open Earth Platform Initiative. It's public infrastructure for public knowledge. I mentioned REDALIC, this is an organization in Latin America that is providing infrastructure, the entire stack of infrastructure and services that are needed to support diamond open access journals. Heavily used across Latin America and increasingly used across Europe and the United States and other countries as well. So much so that they're getting into conversations about, hey, Europe, you seem to be using our platform a lot, can you kick in some funds to help? Sustainability. My colleague at REDALIC, her name is Ariana Garcia, she's amazing if you haven't seen her speak. She says the same thing that I say, this is up to us, this is our choice, we have the power and this is one of her slides from last week. She said, look, we got two choices. Science can be a commodity that gets extracted, goes to commercial interests, gets sold back to us and science will be embargoed. Science will be controlled by commercial companies. Science will be APC based.  That's what we've been doing or science can be a public good and we can have immediate open access. We can have epistemic justice. I love that phrase that she uses. We can make sure that these are equitable. Everybody in the world can both read and can participate in writing because science is not just for a few countries, science is for everyone. So that's what Diamond Open Access is working on. They're building public infrastructure. What would Diamond Open Education look like or community owned and operated education? Can we do the same thing? Can we also have a global conversation and be coordinated around these ideas? Can we go to our national governments and say, hey, you signed on to the UNESCO recommendation on OER. It says publicly funded educational resources should be opened by default. Can we work with them to enact those policies? And then can we also ask those governments to fund the infrastructure or support existing open infrastructure to host all of that? I think we can and I've been talking to a lot of folks that are interested in putting together such a coalition. So can we build a coalition both inside the open education community and outside? I was talking last week with some folks who said, you know, we need to partner up with labor unions. They know how to do this better than we do and particularly teacher and education unions because this is a point that they care about. How do we both plan for the future and figure out, like Diamond Access says, what's the stack of services we need, just like you saw with Redalick, but also how do we fight what we oftentimes refer to as a rear guard action? Because the publishers are not stopping. The commercial entities are coming to your universities all around the world and they're trying to sign these three to five year deals where the cost of educational materials gets jammed into tuition and it makes OER or any other open activities very difficult at your institutions. We have to expose that. We have to try to stop that. We have to educate our faculty and our administrators. We need to make sure that we don't let that get too entrenched because as we build the plan for the future, we don't want to leave behind universities that are stuck in these long-term contracts. The theme of this is sustainability. People always say, geez, how are we gonna pay for this? In my opinion, the answer is very simple. We need to find open knowledge as a public good. There's, I get hit every time I say this, but I'll say it anyway. There's oftentimes enough money in the system. We're just really bad at how we spend it. In the United States alone, just for K-12, we spend between six and nine billion US dollars a year procuring educational resources. In higher education, it's closer to nine to 10 billion US dollars a year. How much money would we need to build open educational resources for all subjects, all grades? Is it more than 20 billion dollars? My guess is probably not, right? But those are choices that we can make. I've already said that, I'm gonna skip. So final slides here. This is not easy, right? It's easy for me to stand up here and talk about it, but I realize this is really hard work. What I put to you is that we no longer have a choice, the open access community got to a point where frankly they just said, this is untenable. We have article processing charges getting entrenched systematically and we are not going to beat the commercial entities on this fight. We're simply outgunned. And so we need to take the tablecloth and pull it off the table and have a clean table and we're gonna build a different model that has different principles where we own everything, we run everything and if we need the commercial entities we will use them, but they will be worked for hire. As I said, out of the gates, we need public knowledge in order to solve the world's most pressing problems. If the knowledge about climate change, if the knowledge about education, if the knowledge about gender inequality, poverty, life on land, life below water, pick your favorite SDG. If those are locked up behind paywalls we don't get to solve the SDGs. And last, it's our job to ensure that publicly funded knowledge is a public good accessible to everybody, not just the rich. I put to you, we should work together to solve big problems. There are plenty of them in the world. Let's start working on this. Thank you very much. I think we have time for a couple of questions. Yes, please. Thanks so much, Cable. I think you may have given us a theme for next year's OE Global Conference, perhaps. I was wondering if you might suggest for people who are really energized by what you're talking about here, anything that's coming up in the next few months that we might direct our attention to how to engage in any particular aspects of the work that you've laid out here. Yeah, that's a good question. Well, if you're free next week, come to the Diamond Open Access Conference in Toluca, Mexico, it's gonna be great. So that's what's on my brain right now is the next week. There are always opportunities to get involved with the open climate campaign, of course, but Kurt, I think the honest answer to your question is that we today in the open education space, I don't think we have a good answer to that question, like they do in the Diamond Open Access space. If you ask that question in the Diamond Open OE Conference, they would say, here are five ways to get involved right now. And I think that's a conversation that we need to have, is are we ready to act collectively to actually start to, starting with a plan. So they have a Diamond Open Access plan that plots out the next 10 years and what needs to be done. Can we do the same thing in the open education space? It's not easy, right? And there's gonna be a lot of disagreement and a lot of drafts that get written, but I think that's the direction we need to have so that when questions like that get asked, we actually have on-ramps for people. One of my favorite organizations in this space is Mozilla for projects that they run. They oftentimes put out a short pamphlet that says, if you are looking for a job, here's what you can do. If you're looking to volunteer five hours a week, here's what you can do. If you only have 30 minutes a week, here's something that you can do. And they find ways, if you're a graduate student, here's how you can get involved. And so I think we need to get a bit more organized so that I can give you a better answer. That's actually what I think. Hi, Cable, it's nice to see you. Cable, I have kind of a tough question. So when we talk about our community and we have a great large community here and we have a lot of organizations, large organizations like Creative Commons, they get the lion's share of the funding for open. Small organizations, small people, small nations do not. And so I'm wondering if there's a way, as a big community, we can start to solve that. Can we mentor, can we train for leadership and asking for funds? You're super good at it. If you walk to a government representative in the US, you get listened to. For those of us who don't have that connect, it's much harder. But there's so many great ideas, so many grassroots ideas, certainly the diamond publishing, everybody needs to be paid for their work appropriately, right? So how can we, as a community, find ways to talk about how we get funding and train folks to get more funding? Great question. I would say there's... Yes, thank you. I think there's two important answers to that. First is that we have to have the funders at the table as we're having these big conversations. So for example, next week in Toluca, Mexico, the big open access funders are all there. The Gates Foundation will be there, Arcadia will be there, and many others that fund in the research space. The big scientific institutes will be there, and several governments will be there as well. Because as the plan was being written for Diamond Open Access, part of what was implied in that is we need you, the funders, to fund along this plan and not off the plan. And that was also a change for the funders. The funders were used to a model where they talked with their grantees, and grantees would say, hey, I've got this idea of this thing that I wanna go do, and the funder would fund it, and it was a bit of a thousand flowers blooming, but not a lot of coordinated direction. And so the funders really have, in the open access space, have really adjusted their framework to talk about funding along that line. And so when it comes to smaller organizations, individuals, what I think they've done well in the open access space is provided a way for everyone to be involved, and because the funding is starting to align along that plan, there's just so much work that needs to be done in different parts of the plan. There's spaces for people to plug in, and because the funders are committed to fund the plan, it's more likely that more entities receive funding. I think that's part of the answer. I think another part of the answer is when you go in coalition, it's easier to participate both with ideas and to receive resources and funding if you're part of the group that's acting in concert against a common plan. And I've seen some of that happen. We had several people at the CC summit who were independent consultants who were attached to several of these larger projects, and that was how they were getting involved because there was a long-term plan. I hope that's helpful. Last one. One more question, yeah, please. Okay, hi, Cable. I'm just wondering, all of this at the macro level sounds great because we're building a system that makes the previous system obsolete. However, if we take it down to the individual, where often those of us who are working in open education are a single person or part of maybe a two-person team on the ground, and we've got the situation where publishers are, they have their trusted relationships with individual academics, they're short-cutting a lot of the systems by striking deals with individual academics. They've got access in that way. From if we're looking at this as being quite overwhelming from an individual perspective, what are some of the practical things that an individual can do at their institution to start to make these changes? Good question, right? This comes up all the time. I think there's two answers to that. The first thing is that all of us collectively have a responsibility to locate, identify, and start to solve pain points that make it hard for people to be open. So for example, one of the things they're talking a lot about in the Diamond Open Access space is, hey, I'm a researcher, I'm just trying to get promotion and tenure so that I can become a tenured faculty member. I have to publish in six reputable journals and my promotion tenure committee defines reputable as this set of commercial journals. And I wanna publish over here in Open Access, but if I do, I'm worried I'm not gonna get promotion tenure. That's a pain point, right? And part of our job is to go to those deans and those department chairs and go to those promotion tenure committees through a variety of channels and say to them, you need to support your faculty because part of it is the first half of my slides, right? Knowledge should be a public good. What you are incenting, and in fact, requiring of your faculty is for them to publish in closed spaces where A, they're not gonna be read as much. B, anybody who can't afford the expensive subscription rates or maybe your faculty member can't afford the expensive APC fee to even get published in the first place. So why, we have to educate them about how the existing models are harmful and why they need to change their promotion and tenure rule. So part of it is identifying pain points. Another part of it is helping the individual actor, the individual faculty member, the educator, the researcher to realize there are some things that they can do on their own. So for example, with researchers, we say stop turning your copyright over. Here's an author's addendum that you can use from Authors Alliance or from Spark. There's several of them out there where you say to the publisher, yes, I will publish with you, but I will not give you my copyright. And if you have a problem with that, I'll go publish somewhere else. And more often than not, they'll take it. And then they can put it in green open access in their institutional repository and put an open license on it and share it. We can do the same thing with our educational resources, right? As an act of self power, we can openly license and we can share if we choose to do so. So there are things that we can do as individuals to continue to contribute to the commons and use from the commons that will send signals to our colleagues. And then there are also things that we have to do at a higher level to essentially clear the pathway. We need to get these barriers out of the way so that sharing is easy. For example, with the open climate campaign, we're actually, we've hired OAWirks to provide direct support services to researchers who want to open up their climate research and might have questions about how to do that. Like we need to clear those pathways to make sharing easy. Great. Dr. Green, thank you so much for your wonderful keynote address. It was very inspiring. And I'm sure there'll be a lot of discussion about this in the next couple of days. And as a token of appreciation, we would like to present you with this gift on behalf of Norquest and the OE Global. Thank you so much. Beautiful. Thank you very much. Thank you so much.