All right, I think it's time we get underway. Welcome to the Space Sustainability Research Program Reports from our Space Sustainability Fellows. This is the Secure World Foundation. My name is Chris Johnson. I'm the Space Advisor here at the Secure World Foundation. We are going to be going over our research fellowship reports. Firstly, as some housekeeping notes, I'll first thank everyone for coming back to our rescheduled webinar. We originally intended to do this last week, but technical issues with Zoom and changing a meeting, setting from a meeting to a webinar caused untold mayhem in the logistics of it. So we apologize for that, and I apologize for that. Nevertheless, we're going to get underway with our two research fellows. First, I want to talk a little bit about what the program is and why we do this program. So I've written there aimed at investigating fundamental questions and clarifying fundamental concepts in space sustainability, including spaces and global commons, and that issue of applying polycentric governance concepts to space. The reason that we have these research fellowships and we have focused research is because over the life and course of Secure World's work in our various fora, international fora, national fora, academia, scientific community, commercial actors, in the discussions that we have on promoting and fostering space sustainability, we quite often continually run into, I would say, issues that have to do with assumptions about outer space and governance of outer space, where we kind of see this is where the debate and the discussion ends, where some actors just voice their assumptions or come to conclusions that are not uniformly shared. And we felt that, you know, in actually, in order to push the conversation forward, we do need to have focused research and really shine a light on some of these areas which we do have these underlying assumptions and I would say misconceptions. So one of those that we'll get into is on global commons and is that quote unquote is space, space itself in global commons and another one on, well, where should governance happen in the space domain? We felt that these were key issues and questions to look at and see if we can contribute to the discourse out there and make something which we hope is impartial, we hope is lasting and useful to contribute to those discussions. So this is why Secure World has set up this fellowship program last year with two of those issues and questions to be looked at and we're gonna continue with these research fellowship programs, the research that we do and to really continue to solve these persistent obstacles that we have in the discourse that we have as we try and foster and promote space sustainability. So here's the agenda for today. After I've given this introduction and some housekeeping notes, we're gonna have Claire present on polycentricity and space governance, 10 minutes for Q and A, then we'll have Mr. Daniel Patton answer that question, space as a commons is space of commons. We're gonna have some questions. The questions that you can submit are, please submit in the Q and A function and not the chat function. We have turned off, cause this is a webinar, we've turned off video for attendees but you can certainly still put your questions in there. In the Q and A, we are recording this and for the people who can attend now, we do hope to be posting it on a couple of different sites within the next couple of days, 24, 48, 72 hours. So those who are not in attendance can also take part in addition to the posting of the full reports and the executive summaries from our excellent scholarly research fellows. So with that, I'm going to now make an introduction to Ms. Claire Otto. She is a senior policy analyst at the University of Virginia's National Security Policy Center. And prior to joining UVA, she was a communication specialist at the DOE, Department of Energy. Claire earned a master in public policy in space and national security from George Washington University and a BA in comparative politics from the University of California, San Diego. You can see the research questions that we posed for applicants to the research fellowship on the right side of your screen, those bullet-pointed questions. I'm going to now hand over the remote control to Claire and she'll be able to talk about those questions and then talk about her research and her findings and her conclusions.  Yeah, can you hear me okay? Yes, we can hear you fine. So I'll give you the floor and you can go over those questions and you should also be able to run the slides. Is that true? I believe so, yeah. Good, all right. Yeah, great. Floor is yours. Great, thanks, Chris. Thank you so much for having me first off and thank you so much for the opportunity to do this research this past semester. I learned a lot and it was a really good time. So hope that this can sort of help contribute to any sort of space governance conversations. To get started, just I definitely need an agenda to keep me organized. So we're going to go over the guiding questions that we originally had at the beginning of last semester and what was posed by SWF and how maybe that changed a little bit over the course of the research. Then looking really quick at a polycentricity, kind of what it is, where it comes from. Some of that will be some of the literature that I looked at, some of the foundational polycentricity literature, some of the space governance look. In that, I also took a look at some analogous domains. So I'm going to take a look at a few of the ones that came up and had some good lessons learned and then move on just to my findings and some application at the end. So first off, the questions that I got from Secure World, there were sort of three main ones as Chris's slide had and as they are here. Generally the first was, how does the existing body of literature on polycentric governance connect to an informed space governance? Then looking at that, seeing if there were any gaps, what was missing from the discussion and then looking to how we can apply the concepts from other domains and concepts from the theory to both near-term work in space governance and long-term sustainability. So initially I had thought that the value add was going to be more of a review of the polycentric literature and the connections to space but there are already quite a few really good, really current resources there. The Ostrom Workshop, obviously, Stephen Marshall McGinnis did a really good review in 2019 of polycentricity from 1951 until 2019 and Tepper and Coon and Shingler from the Open Lunar Foundation both have very current connections to space governance. So that was great to find and good to have but I sort of shifted after that from thinking that this would be more of a literature of your in connection to looking more at the last question specifically kind of trying to take a look at how can this be added to how we think about applied governance, building a framework which in policy schools is a big thing that we love to do. So it was a good project. But before I could get to that, of course, first I needed to look at what polycentric governance was. It's a concept that I found myself sort of having trouble explaining at the beginning because it seemed to me kind of so, so inherent in so many things and so understandable. So polycentric governance in over the review of the literature that I found kind of the broadest definition, the one that includes the most things is a system in which multiple authorities oversee the same area with overlapping interests and differing scopes of responsibility. So we can see this in, I mean, metropolitan governance is where it was generally originally kind of applied in governance theory. There's a lot of environmental management, polycentric theory. If you think about like a power grid, there are lots of more local power grids but we care about it as a nation. So it's sort of so inherent and so simple that it can be a little difficult to describe. But yeah, so that's sort of the concepts. Obviously on the other hand, monocentric governance is when there's one overarching authority that oversees everything. Moving on, looking at the polycentricity literature just to get a brief foundation. It first was kind of articulated as a concept by Polly Annie in 1951. He wasn't a political scientist. He instead articulated this more looking at the concept of science and scientific research called it the self coordination of independent research initiatives. And it was then applied to governance. Most I think notably early on by Ostrom, Taiba and Warren in 1961, they took a look for quite a while at metropolitan governance and specifically used the idea of polycentricity. So the idea of local municipalities all under a city that's under a county that's under a state, it's under a country. It's very polycentric framework. Eleanor Ostrom continued this look at metropolitan governance but also applied it pretty often to metropolitan or to environmental management as well. And then more recently, we have seen expanded upon and applied to a lot of internet governance which is Shackleford and Tepper. Both have done really interesting work expanding this to cyber governance and recently space governance. Like I had mentioned the work of the Open Linger Foundation and of Tepper again. So some really great resources. They're definitely, yeah, all of these are linked in the report worth a look for sure. So some other research just kind of adding onto the idea of governance and maybe a framework to start thinking about space governance through a polycentric lens. Obviously looking at the large body of space governance research that there is, there's some really good books by Clay Maltz, Martin France and John Fox. There are quite a few resources there. Also looking at norms back to sort of foundational norm literature, Finnemore and Skikink and more recently Robin Dickey of the Aerospace Corporation. Both all have really great norms research and also looking at the idea of public goods and the commons and management of both of those. This is really where the idea for kind of a framework to consider how the different levels of governance and how they can be employed came about. Sort of a obviously a sort of simplified way to think of it, but a useful tool I found. So that being said, after that I looked at sort of characterizing space. It as it stands is quite a polycentric governance system. I think that that I don't find to be debatable. It's their national bodies, international bodies and subnational bodies that all have overlapping interests and some level of governance or control oversight over different parts of space. But as it stands, again, this is relatively simplistic but helpful to visualize. But sorry, moving on from that. I also took just a brief look at analogous domains. There are so many that have different lessons to be learned and obviously the lessons, the analogies break down a little but looking at things like maritime, specifically commercial whaling and lobster fisheries. There are some serious, some useful historical parallels about different levels of management, lobster fisheries. There's the tension between self-governance and regulation coming from state bodies and seeing how those kind of work together to form a useful, flexible and responsive governance system, commercial whaling. There are some historical parallels with how governance systems had to walk back environmental degradation after technological change that I found pretty applicable. Environmental management, as I had mentioned, the Austrian workshop especially has done a lot of work looking at how different environmental management systems can be both responsive and also still not entirely self-governed. And more recently, internet governance is more self-directed and informal, which is interesting considering space, definitely began formally but now has the proliferation of space companies and the impact that commercial companies have. There are some parallels that can be pulled there. It's also still evolving with the government kind of catching up to technological pace, which can be similar to internet governance. There's also, I looked, there's bridging artificial intelligence governance work. A lot of it is sort of strictly advocating self-governance, which I find interesting, but there are some concerns, especially for space and I think sustainability environment with strictly self-governance. Why in large, just a quick question, why are these domains analogous or how are they analogous? Yeah, definitely. Thank you for the question. So it varies, definitely none are a one-to-one analogy. Everywhere is different. The physics is different in space, of course, but with maritime, I think that's probably the one that has been most often parallel to space. You have the competing economic security, civil interests. There's, especially with the commercial whaling around the Antarctic, it's got a lot of the sort of scientific civil interests that are similar to space, while also what changed a lot was the commercial capability in the area. With lobster fisheries, what I found interesting was the, I don't want to say tension, but sort of the pull between the sort of commercial self-governed entities, the people with boats who were interested in just, you know, in their industry, but also in the larger maintenance of the environment. Oh no. Can you still hear me? I think our power has gone out here. No, I can still hear you. Yeah, you're fine. Okay, great. Then I think our wifi's still on, so we're good. But the larger, the pull between the commercial action and the necessity of the environment and the maintenance of the environment to stay, to continue the commercial activity, that balance seems sort of reminiscent of space for sure. With environmental management, I think it was more the, what I found is interesting parallel anyway, was more the idea of the, sorry, the different, again, the sustainability, the necessity of sustaining the environment for, you know, to be able to continue to use the water from rivers and so on.  That's not quite so much a physical domain, but there are a lot more parallels, I think, in the fluidity of it, you know? And also that, I think, a lot more of the kind of idea of technology outpacing governance definitely happens in the internet. And the same thing, artificial intelligence, it's a lot more, sorry, we're trying to figure out why the power has gone out. Artificial intelligence is a lot newer. It's a lot more recent. So almost with space, almost not almost space, definitely is, has a longer history, space governance. But I find the idea of the, the advocation for self-governance in artificial intelligence, I think you do see parallels with the advocation for strictly, you know, companies should govern themselves. The free market will take care of it. I think both of those ideas have become prevalent in the conversations for good or not, but. Thank you. Yeah, of course. No, thank you for the question. All right, let me, moving on. So with, with all of these understandings was a good kind of breadth of research, but I was looking to pull them all together. And I love a framework as I think most people in public policy do. And I wanted a way to really understand, you know, with all of these different levels, how can we best use them?  So looking at this, I first, excuse me, I first went, I first started to consider what I believed are, what I believe are two of the most important kind of criteria to consider. Obviously, very simplified, there are a million different criteria, but these two, I think really capture two of the most important things of any kind of space incident, which would be the barrier to entry. I don't know that it matters too much if no one has access to the technology yet. If there's a high barrier to entry, then there are, okay, power's back. If there's a high barrier to entry, then there are fewer actors, it's less of a collective action problem. And then the other side is the risk to operations. If there's a low risk to operations, then it's a little bit easier to allow less oversight, to allow more self-governance because the consequences are less high. So that is kind of how this framework began was just thinking about the criteria. And of course, it's just, I think foundational still, looking to sort of set the idea of how to start to set different systems and different levels. And finally, I wanted to test this framework and I looked at three different case studies in the paper, looking at space traffic management, looking at kind of the Artemis lunar landing sites and how eventually those will be used kind of more, ideally more economic, for more economic purposes. And those two were interesting because, and sort of what I expect to find was that with space traffic management, it's kind of a mix of different levels, a mid and low level if you can. And with the lunar landing sites, it would start higher. Obviously there's a very high barrier to entry, but as that barrier to entry lowers, governance could be pushed lower to the commercial entities that are interested or to the different associations or different kind of more local governance. The case study that I found the most interesting, however, was the ASAT ban, which was enacted at a high level and I believe should be enacted at a high level, looking at the idea of anti-satellite tests and the harm that they could cause to the environment, along with the barrier to entry of direct descent ASATs is also relatively high. It just, it fell onto the highest level of governance of that, the framework. And it was interesting because I think most of the literature on polycentricity, it does lean a lot towards self-government, advocating for self-governance or as much self-governance as possible. But I think the ASAT test ban really does show that that is good where possible. Being able to have a more flexible, responsive governance system does require having a lot of kind of lower level governance, but the ASAT ban or things like ASAT tests and direct descent ASATs are still definitely proof that high levels of governance, international bodies and national bodies are very necessary. So thank you for bearing with me through just a little bit of chaos, but if there are any questions, I'd be happy to take them and thank you again. All right, thank you for that overview. And I think that's like a very good advertisement for folks to download and read the full report. You know, I'm looking at some of these questions of, so if you wanna do security related matters, that's, and we look at it from a polycentric lens, we may be getting a different answer as to where to take security issues as opposed to other norms that we need to be setting. So is there some type of like rubric for where we should be guiding our polycentric efforts depending on like the subject matter at hand, the challenge at hand, the space sustainability challenge? That I think, if I had more time, I think I'd like to develop a criteria and look for more of a way to have a more in-depth rubric because it is, I think generally speaking, security issues because of the risk to operations, whether that be the risk to the environment or the risk to like country operations. Generally speaking, that would push it up higher, there's higher risk, but there are things like there was a project actually here at UVA where a student for a Capstone project was looking at different kinds of space situational awareness and data sharing and how those things could be, how the commercial applications could kind of effectively be used. It was a really interesting question and that's I think something that I've seen and anyway, the DOD kind of grapples with regardless, the government kind of grapples with regardless is how to effectively leverage commercial capabilities and things that have some sensitive components. There's definitely a problem of classification that would actually push things up to a higher level as well. So yeah, I don't have too many more criteria at the moment, but I'd love to think about them and do some more research about it for sure. Excellent, thank you for that. So there's a number of questions. Some of them are pretty detailed. I'm gonna look at Sean's first. Are there any existing examples of formal or informal bodies which help either coordinate or adjudicate disputes and feel free to answer that and go in any direction you want though? Yeah, love that. Thank you for the question. I think that there are at a higher level some of the more formal bodies, larger bodies like at the UN that I think are expected to help adjudicate disputes but what I think is missing and what might be useful to be able to push is lower levels. So I guess I don't know of any like commercial associations that might help disputes in between commercial actors but if there are levels, one of the benefits to a polycentric system or an effectively managed polycentric system is that there's multiple levels for conflict resolution, which it's multiple bodies for dialogue. I don't know of any off the top of my head but that is definitely one of the benefits. Excellent, thank you. All right, so the next question, let's see, I'm gonna read the second part of the question. Is it, or is maritime internet environment a pretty good model to use as governance is developed? And the first part of her question was, do you think it'd be useful to consider less parallel domains for ideas on governance since space can be so different? So yeah, kind of complex that one. Yeah, no, it's a great question. And I think that there's the usefulness, I think the utility of looking at analogous domains are that there are specific parallels to be drawn with lessons learned. It's just sort of an easier tool to kind of understand how situations might arise but I definitely think that there are, I mean, I think there are lessons to be learned from pretty much any environment but especially I think for kind of more, kind of one-off, like I'm trying to think of a case and I can't really, but things that are very specific to space, there may be less parallel domains that they have one specific parallel that would be very useful. I think that, again, I really can't think of any off the top of my head, but I know that that would be a really good thing to study. Again, something I'd love to do, so thank you. So all right, a related question was from Cynthia Harris. She writes, on comparing to environmental management, any lessons learned, why the good or bad promised her otherwise, from environmental review processes involving multiple agencies, jurisdictional levels, non-governmental stakeholders. So any lessons learned from other areas? Yeah, yeah, again, this is kind of big things that I'm not great at thinking off the top of my head about. But there were a few, not so much the environmental review. Unfortunately, I can't think of any of those, but I'm sure there are some. But I saw more in sort of environmental incentives, things like if there were, one example was there were laws, there was federal legislation passed. Those, as federal legislation tends to be relatively broad about having more incentives for building more environmentally friendly homes. Those got filtered down into the state level, which were again, relatively broad, but then at the sort of the city municipality level, there were directives about different kinds of credits to have, different kinds of things for solar panels, things for more environmentally friendly appliances. And so having, and then getting down to the, getting down to the, I'm sorry, I can't think of the word for the provider, like electricity provider, they had very specific, we have the $100 rebate for this kind of solar panel or things like that that were very specific incentives. I think that was a useful parallel, a useful lesson to be able to show that the utility of the system, being able to have the broad goals at the highest level and then be able to filter them down so that they're useful specifically for the small locality. I hope I answered the question. All right, so last question, and honestly, this is a question we get pretty continually. Anytime we talk about polycentric governance or international law, so if you haven't faced it before, may as well face it now. Sure. Why should anyone care about attempts at polycentric governance when there's most likely going to be bad actors who have, and rogue states align with them, have historically bowed out any effective international governance which went against their interests when they could? In other words, if it's going to be the wild west anyway, why should space actors invest resources into setting up governance as opposed to self-defense? So the common question we always get in international law, there's always gonna be law breakers why I have laws at all. You may as well take it, and I'll also say that this is something that because that we face it so often in talking about international space sustainability, it is ripe for actual further research as a space sustainability fellow. But let's see how you handle that the common question, there's always gonna be bad actors. Sure, I love the nihilism there for sure. But it is, I think potentially more important to care about polycentric polycentricity and differing levels of governance when you're concerned about bad actors and when you're concerned that the international level may fail because then looking at the different levels of governance, you can see kind of where, where if international bodies fail, lower levels of governance might succeed. I sort of think about, my mind always goes to commercial, okay, maybe internationally, actors don't wanna comply with norm set or with test fans, but if there's pressure, enough pressure from an association or from important commercial actors, then maybe it doesn't matter that they don't wanna comply as much, it doesn't matter as much that they don't wanna comply with the international norm because companies on the ground are saying, we're gonna lose a lot of money if you screw this up for us. So I think in that case, polycentric government and different levels may be a good kind of fail-safe, almost. All right, pretty good. I mean, I usually say we write down the law and we create laws even knowing that there's gonna be criminals so that when criminals commit bad actions, we can point, we can all, and we've all agreed this is what the law is. And it's better to have something written down than to have something which is a loose understanding of how people are supposed to behave. All right, so with that, you're off the hook. Your sentence is finished, you've done your work. But I think that your scholarship in this field is something which is going to be useful and referenced in the future. And we hope to see your scholarship in this area continue. And I hope that you've created some fresh ideas for the folks who are tuning in or are gonna be looking at your full report. With that, thank you so much. We're now gonna move on to our next sustainability fellow. I will reshare the screen and make an introduction of Daniel Patton. So Daniel, if you can turn your camera on, welcome. Daniel is an environmental specialist in Huntsville. Originally from Virginia, Daniel worked for the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality before starting in his current position. Daniel has a bachelor's in environmental sciences from the University of Virginia and a master's in natural resources from Virginia Tech. So I'm going to give the remote control over to you so you can advance your slides. And with that, Daniel, thank you for your full report which we're going to put a link in the chat. Thank you for the executive summary and the floor is yours. Thanks, Chris. I'm gonna start just by thanking Secure World and Chris especially for facilitating this research. The questions for the fellowship document is here on the right side of the screen. There's a lot of complex questions here and we're not gonna be able to get into a lot of depth in all of these, but we're gonna try to give sort of a high level overview of space as a commons. So we'll talk about what a commons is. And we'll talk about why we're asking these questions. We'll also describe and sort of qualify the space domain and then we'll look at our analogous domains. Some of the same stuff that Claire was talking about, Antarctica, the atmosphere, the oceans. And then we'll do sort of an analysis of the existing space policy and we'll discuss some potential management strategies. Let's see, there we go. So what is a commons? The term commons stems from the tragedy of the commons. This is often attributed to William Foster Lloyd, sort of a metaphor for describing how resources can be depleted by overuse. Basically a commons, a town commons was a shared green space in a town used for the grazing of livestock, not owned by any individual, but shared by the participants. And at a certain point, the number of livestock grazing on that land depletes the resource fast and the grass grows back. And you have this tragedy where there are more livestock on the land than the land can support. And the way this happens is there are individuals who have an incentive to add additional animals because they experience the benefit of that in terms of increased wool production or milk production or sale of those animals. But the costs of the extra animal in terms of resource depletion is shared by all participants equally. So this describes a situation where the benefit is individual, but the cost is shared. So that's what the tragedy of the commons was originally illustrating it. Lloyd used it to sort of describe overpopulation and the risks of that. The idea was sort of expanded by Garrett Hardin to illustrate climate degradation. And he applied it to sort of global commons. The idea that the oceans or the atmosphere is sort of a town commons shared by the whole world. So when we talk about a commons, the economic criteria for a commons are two things. It's a rivalry and non-excludability. We'll get into that in a second. But I do wanna make the distinction here between a commons and common pool resource. A commons is the domain, the space, and the common pool resource is the actual resource within it. So in our classic commons example, the commons is the commons, of course, and the grass or whatever is growing there is the resource. That's the thing that's depleted or excluded. That distinction is important when we talk about this. That line is sort of blurred when we talk about space because in a lot of situations in space, the domain is the resource. There's nothing in Earth orbit that's being consumed by satellites. It's the position. The position is the resource. So that line is sort of blurred, but that's an important distinction that we wanna make sure we're aware of. So the importance of commons determination, proper management of any domain, but especially outer space is critical for the continued use of that domain. And there are risks in the space domain. There's risks of Kessler syndrome. This is the situation where satellites colliding create debris that collides with more satellites that creates more debris. And you get this sort of cascading collision effects such that there's so much debris in orbit it becomes very difficult to launch anything outside of Earth's atmosphere. That's Kessler syndrome. That's one risk. Another risk is resource monopolies. Something that a lot of space actors are talking about now is in situ resource utilization, whether it's on the moon or Mars or even asteroids. The early actors, the early arrivers to the moon or to Mars, they're limited resources there and they could monopolize those resources if they're the first ones there and they're not abundant resources. So that's another risk. So there's risks for this space domain and proper management protects us from those risks. A consistent space utilization policy also protects from spoilage and exploitation of resources and deciding if space is a commons or deciding it's not a commons determines how stakeholders operate within the domain. One of the challenges with space is that states and leaders have expressed contradicting views on whether space is a commons or not. So this consensus is important for how we operate within domain but we don't really have consensus on whether space is a commons. If you work or research in the space economics or space law or space policy world you probably have an opinion on whether space is a commons and I doubt that everybody on this call has the exact same opinion. There's a lot of contradicting views and I wanted to explore why we have those contradicting views. So as I mentioned before, the criteria for commons determination is rivalry and excludability. So when we say something's rivalrous we mean that a resource is finite that it's use or occupation by one person reduces its availability for another person. And excludable, we say commons are non-excludable. If something's excludable means that you can control access or use of that resource. So like a fish stock, that's something that's rivalrous because if I take more fish there's less available for the people and it's not really excludable because you can't just put a wall or net around all the fish in the sea, right? Something like radio stations would be like a non-rivalrous, non-excludable. If I listen to the radio my neighbor doesn't have less availability to that radio station and it's not really excludable and that you can't limit it. I mean, there's ways to limit radio stations I guess if you can encode or encrypt a radio frequency but just a regular radio station we consider that non-excludable. So the traditional understanding of this commons criteria is sort of, these are binary attributes, right? There's excludable and there's non-excludable. There's rivalrous and there's non-rivalrous and something has to fit in one of those four areas. It has to fit in one of those four categories. That's the traditional understanding. Modern researchers sort of understand now that these are not necessarily binary attributes. There's a continuum. There's two things that are both rivalrous. One is probably more rivalrous than the other and the same thing goes for excludability. So one of the first steps in understanding a common determination is to understand rivalry and excludability not as binary attributes but as this continuum and using that we can sort of chart or graph the status of various domains. So we've sort of done that here, radio stations and roads. They're both sort of public goods but radio stations are probably less excludable than a roadway is or you say that fish stocks or the oceans are non-excludable and Antarctica is also maybe non-excludable but it's definitely a more excludable because it's territory and we do that all the time. You see where I'm going with this. These things don't fit in these neat categories. We have sort of a range here which explains why there's so much confusion and so much disagreement about whether something is a commons or not, especially when it comes to space. The fact that there's a range here, different people draw that line for what's low and high excludability or what's low or high rivalry. They draw that line at different places which means that their categories for where things fall are probably different. So that sort of explains why there's a little bit of confusion about this and you see here the rivalry excludability continuum for various terrestrial domains but I want to do the same thing for space domains. One of the things I realized when I'm doing this research is that we talk about space as this uniform domain. Space is one thing. It's really not one thing, it's a collection of things and the various parts of space are used very differently. Something like Earth orbit is very different from celestial bodies in terms of how it's used and its availability, its access and especially in terms of those criteria we were talking about for the commons. You know, the atmosphere or the Earth orbit rather is far less excludable than something like a particular part of the moon. So seeing these differences by dividing space into these subcategories, we see that they differ in terms of their rivalry and excludability not just from terrestrial domains but from each other as well. And as such, we need to consider them separately. Consider whether they're commons each individually not as one uniform domain but as a subdomain. So that's what I did here. I put the space domains in the same rivalry excludability continuum and in doing this we can see pretty clearly that, you know some domains seem to fit in the common pool resource or the commons section pretty well like low earth orbit, geostationary orbit. Other things like the moon might be considered private goods if you're looking at just rivalry and excludability obviously they're not owned and we've agreed that you can't make territorial claims on the moon but it's technically more excludable than low earth orbit. So we put them in different places here and now we see why it's so difficult to regulate and talk about space as a commons. Now it's important to note that just because something is not definitionally a commons economically speaking it doesn't mean it can't be regulated as a commons. We look at Antarctica. Antarctica is excludable to some extent, right? You could defend that territory it could be claimed and defended and we'll get into the Antarctic treaty in a moment but just because something does not fit neatly in that common pool resource category doesn't mean it can't be managed as a commons and that seems to be what has been expressed by various stakeholders. The desire to manage resources based domains as commons whether or not they fall in that category. So I wanna talk about analogous domains. This is a helpful framework for how we talk about space domains and help shaping policy. One, Antarctica, we just talked about that. Notably the Antarctic treaty doesn't require nations to renounce their previously asserted rights or claims although it does require them to act as those as though those claims don't exist it requires certain technology and information sharing and but it does require that states can't make additional claims or expand claims. Antarctica is sort of this strange thing that we call a commons and manages a commons but like I said doesn't sort of fit neatly in that category like some other domains do. The oceans, it's another classic commons we've talked about this is probably the longest history of commons management as the ocean and there's a long list of agreements including the LLC that was mentioned previously I think in one of the questions but that's not exhaustive at all. Of course, there's things like fisheries agreements fish stocks agreement, the international convention on the regulation of whaling things like this. There's a whole list of oceans management agreements on the international level and of course on the national and local level as well. One of the interesting things about the ocean domain is that there are different resource use categories. There's biological resources like fish and whales and seaweed. There's territorial resources, there's coastal waters and then of course there's like the energy and mining resources, oil, deep sea bed minerals and metals, those types of things. And interestingly, those are managed separately. They're not all managed under one agreement. They're managed with separate agreements. We have fisheries agreements and we have the law of the sea. We have the international sea bed regime that we'll talk about in a moment which is something important to keep in mind when we talk about space domains, the ability or the opportunity to manage different categories of resource use separately. I wanted to mention especially the international sea bed authority which was formed parallel to the convention on the law of the sea. The ISA works with private and state sponsored mining organizations to distribute both technology resources and mining sites to assure equitable access to deep sea bed mineral resources. This is a really interesting way to approach this domain and there's possibilities of applying a similar strategy to in situ resource utilization on celestial bodies like the moon or Mars. The atmosphere is the third category that I talked about in the paper. Obviously atmospheric regulation is primarily focused on pollution but similar to the ocean domain, there's not just a single agreement. There are multiple agreements targeted at specific pollutants. There's a couple listed here that create the Kyoto protocol, Paris agreement, Montreal protocol. Montreal protocol specifically targets CFCs and it's been broadly successful. The ozone layer researchers estimate it could return to pre-1980 levels by 2050. I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that that level of success might not have been achieved if this was lumped in with other pollutants like greenhouse gases. There's an advantage to managing sections of a domain individually, whether it's resources, pollutants or subsections of those domains. So I wanna talk about some of the existing existing space policy. Of course the main one is the outer space treaty. Here's a couple sections of the treaty mentioned here and these are just a couple that I pulled out that seem to reinforce this common status. The exploration for the shall be for the province of all mankind, right? The outer space will be free for exploration by use of all states, not subject to national appropriation similar to Antarctica like we talked about astronauts on voice of mankind. These types of boards, they seem to reinforce this perspective of space as a commons. Although it doesn't ever really come out and say space is a commons in those exact words. There's a whole collection of other agreements. The rescue agreement liability convention and registration convention are probably the three main ones. Rescue agreement protects space flight crews by committing to rescue and warning of hazards. Wide building conventions, nations are liable for damages caused by their spacecrafts. Registration convention is designed to track positions and purposes of space objects. Important to note is that while we have these agreements they're not necessarily universally successful. The cosmos 954 accident in 1977 saw the failure of four tons of your reconnaissance satellite. The nuclear reactor core was destroyed in this failure and scattered nuclear debris across Northern Canada. The Canadian government spent I think over $6 million cleaning up this debris and under liability convention then the Soviet Union would have been responsible for reimbursing that cost. I think less than half of that amount was ever reimbursed. So while we have these agreements they're not universally successful in managing the domain even when they are targeted at something like liability specifically. Two other agreements or declarations that I wanted to mention the moon agreement. Moon agreement is one that's been sort of less successful than some of these other agreements with only 11 signatories. The moon agreement sort of applies a structure for operating on the moon but has had less adoption. One reason for that might be the last sentence of this quote here. All space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations on the moon shall be open to other states parties. Many saw that as sort of a step too far especially considering how valuable and closely held some of the space technology is and allowing access to other states parties was seen by some as sort of an overreach. Bogota Declaration, this is I think seven equatorial countries got together and declared that these segments of geostationary orbit above the territory were part of that country's national sovereignty. Of course, this was rejected by most non-equatorial countries, if it wasn't then they wouldn't really be able to operate in that domain. And that also sort of reinforces that common's perspective. If we saw geostationary orbit as a private good then there would be national sovereignty. You could claim national sovereignty but it seems that actors do not want to agree to that. So we've talked about some of the existing space management mechanisms, some of these treaties and policies. We can now analyze them. Eleanor Ostrom, who Claire mentioned in her presentation in her book governing the common she identifies eight sign principles for effective commons management. She looked at commons all around the world and pulled out these eight design principles to the things that are required for successful management of a domain. Stuff like clearly defined boundaries, monitoring of the situation, graduated sanctions, conflict resolution mechanisms, nested enterprises, that sort of gets that polycentricity thing that Claire was talking about there. So using Ostrom's institutional analysis we can apply this to the space domains and evaluate these subdomains of space. We can evaluate earth orbit, celestial bodies and interplanetary space. We can evaluate them based on this institutional analysis to see how they perform or how they're likely to perform in a more crowded space economy. So that's what I've done here and this is explained in more depth in the actual paper but some of the takeaways from this are that earth orbit is a pretty fragile performance in terms of this institutional analysis. Celestial bodies and interplanetary space are even worse. They're likely to fail based on these criteria that Ostrom has presented. The main gaps are sanctions, conflict resolution mechanisms and nested units. There's the main gaps and celestial bodies are probably at the highest risk here of resource failure. That's because while interplanetary space and celestial bodies are both likely to fail the demand and potential use of celestial bodies and the limited access to them means they're much more likely to fail. They're gonna experience more traffic, more activity than something like interplanetary space which is far vaster and less competitive in that sense. So potential management strategies first thing a potential strategy would be to address the common pool resources separately as is done with the oceans and the atmosphere. There are separate policies for space domains the liability convention, registration convention but they work on the space domain as a whole. They don't work on specific sections whether it's celestial bodies or earth orbit or interplanetary space. The next is to institute graduated sanctions, conflict resolution mechanisms and nested units. If the goal is for a more robust performance then these have been identified as the gaps in that performance and opportunities for additional policy management. The third is examine existing terrestrial policy and use that to shape similar outer space management, outer space resource management. We talked about this deep sea bed mineral management and how that might be applied to a resource utilization outer space using these terrestrial policies that are working at least to some extent on earth they can be used to shape space policy. Now that's not to say that we can copy these things over obviously space is a unique domain. There are unique challenges in terms of access, in terms of resource types, in terms of the use of space for economic and research purposes. Space is not exactly like the moon or spaces rather is not exactly like the oceans or the atmosphere, it's unique. And therefore any sort of terrestrial policy has to be shaped and changed to fit the space domain. And the last thing is we can explore novel governance concepts. There's a lot of great research here. I mentioned some of it in the paper. I'm not gonna get into a lot of it here. But novel governance is there's an opportunity there to look at new governance concepts as a way to implement those into space management. So in conclusion, we see that space, it's not uniform, right? We have these sub-domains that are not all identical. And while some are definitionally of commons by economic criteria, others are not. And if they are not, they still may be managed as a commons if stakeholders express a desire and agree to treat them as a commons. They can be managed as a commons whether they meet those exact criteria or not. Current management strategies, they don't appear to be robust enough to withstand the expected changes in the use of outer space and the space economy. That's what that institutional analysis from Ostrom shows us. But terrestrial domains, they can be a helpful guide but for shaping commons management. Although not without changes and evolution of those strategies to make them fit into the unique attributes of the space domain. So with that, I'll hand it back to Chris and we'll open it to some questions, I think. All right, thank you so much. I'm gonna first go back to one of your slides, this one about space domain continuum because I wanna have a concrete answer on this. Let's say you hear it asserted that space is a commons or that space is not a commons. What is your response if you were at a symposia or some type of diplomatic conference and someone says, well, we all agree that space is not a commons.  Yeah, well, if we say space is not a commons, I think we can, while not maybe dismiss that view, we can see that evidence clearly says that certain parts of space are definitionally commons. They are non-excludable and they are rivalrous. They meet those categories. So yes, space is a commons whether you think it is or not, but other parts of space are not. To say all of space is a commons, that might be a step too far. That might be saying too much. It can be true, we can manage all of space as a commons if we agree on that, but that agreement doesn't appear to be present right now. And if it does become present, then there are additional policies that need to be changed and shaped in order to effectively manage them as such. What areas of space are not commons? Well, you might say, you can make the argument that the moon is not a commons. If you're looking at just this rivalry, excludability, continuum, or these categories, the moon, technically excludable, you could put something, some sort of, you could take a section of the moon and say, this is mine, you could put a fence around it and defend it as sovereign territory feasibly, although we've agreed not to do that, right? You could, economically speaking, it could be claimed as sovereign territory. It's not impossible to do that. So in that sense, the moon or Mars or an asteroid, you could say that it doesn't meet those criteria exactly. So that's sort of where I go with that. Something like interplanetary space, some people might say that's not a commons because it's not really rival rest. If I'm in one section of interplanetary space, there's plenty of other interplanetary space for someone else to occupy. People might make that argument, but there are certain parts that you really can't say, it's not rival rest or it's excludable, low earth orbit, geostationary orbit, that really fits in that category pretty well. And there's others, there can be some disagreement there. So that's how I'd answer that. All right, great, I'm gonna stop sharing, but I have a couple more questions on that. First is, the analysis that you've done, is this a legal analysis? Is this an economics or social sciences analysis? Is this a political analysis? Like what type of, how would you characterize this research and discussions about space as a commons? Yeah, I think that's a great point. And I get into this a little more in the actual paper, but when we talk about what's the commons, we have to say, well, what kind of commons are we talking about? Economic commons is what I mostly addressed in this presentation, but when we talk about illegal commons, that's sort of a different question. Or political commons, the criteria for those are slightly different. We focus mostly on economic commons in this paper because it's probably the easiest to define, but that's another reason why there's a lot of confusion over this question is because we're using different operational definitions of commons when we talk about it. All right, and I see a whole bunch of really interesting questions, but first I wanna ask, let's see here. So if the economic analysis is a space of the commons, then why do people's opinions on this matter? If it like is the, why are you, in other words, are we having a debate about the facts or a philosophical debate about how to govern these domains? I expect it's both. I imagine there are some who would say that no spaces are commons because there are motivations to not manage it as such. They're the earliest people, earliest groups to access a domain, whether it fits in that commons category or not, have an advantage in terms of the use of that resource. So there are certainly motivations to describe spaces as not a commons. So to one extent there is some conversation about the facts here, but there's also a lot about policy. Once we establish these facts, there's still this whole other discussion about how we manage it and what we want policy to look like. All right, thank you. I mean, and that idea about whether we're having an economics discussion or a social science discussion or a legal discussion, that's where I have a differing view about what the law says and what the law doesn't say and whether it comes to a conclusion or whether it's silent. And I should make it clear, I'm only speaking on behalf of my personal capacity, not an organization, you are not speaking on behalf of any organization. This is only your scholarship and your finding meant to be impartial. So let's see, I'm trying to look at those questions that we have and see, is there any order that they could be structured? But I was immediately interested in this question from a kill regarding nested units. Would that be the first one? Actually, no, I think I want to go to Sean's question. A lot of good questions today, Sean. What are your thoughts, if any, on space being declared a commons for a limited time, such as 50 years? I suspect part of the hesitance with the idea of a commons is how much things could change long-term. Any responses? Yeah, I mean, that's certainly a policy and it's probably better than nothing in terms of coming to an agreement. You know, one of the things we see in commons management in terrestrial domains is that they're not static. There are always changes to these policies. You look at the atmosphere for the ocean. The ocean has this long history of management and some of it's very recent, some of it it's not. And, you know, you can do things temporarily, but I expect either way, the way we manage space is going to change. That would sort of be my prediction. Does that answer that question? I believe so. All right. If not, Sean, submit another question or send us something offline. There's two questions about nested units. The first one is from Professor Rao. Regarding nested units, do you have a sense from the literature of what an appropriate or useful nesting would be for orbital space? Yeah, I mean, I think the first thing, there are sort of nested units and how we talk about these sub-domains, right? You know, we have space as one domain and then we can manage these earth orbit and, you know, interplanetary space and celestial bodies as, you know, we can have that sort of nested units, but there's also in terms of use, you know, you can talk about, you can have nested units for the application of space, you know, research or economic or defense. You know, there's lots of different ways to do it. I didn't focus a lot on the literature for how things are nested. That's a whole other discussion and there's a lot to dig into there. I didn't get into a lot of that, but there's certainly lots of different ways to do it. Okay, further question on nested units. It was from Marie Frank. How exactly did you come to the conclusion that the design principle of nested enterprises is not met in the earth orbits? Not sure I understand that question. So you can't see, how exactly did you come to the conclusion that the design principle of nested enterprises is not met? So I was looking at both what's in the actual, what's in the language of space agreements, but also in how they have been, how effective those have been. So, you know, I sort of looked at both of those. You know, this was sort of the way I scored this. It was, you know, sort of just me looking at this. You know, obviously we, you know, worked with some of the folks at Secure World as well, but you know, this is sort of my analysis. I would welcome any evidence to oppose or correct some of my judgments there on that. You know, I'm just looking at what the policy says and how it seems to operate. But it's possible that, you know, I categorize something as weak in it. It's stronger than I'm saying it is. So I certainly wouldn't say that my determination on any of those design principles is definitive. Okay. In the Q and A, have a look at the last question also by Marie Frank, kind of a longer detailed question that you might have to think about for a little bit. What is the difference between a commons and a CPR according to Ostrom? And yeah, go ahead and read it. Okay. Yeah. What's the difference between a commons and a comical resource according to Ostrom? In your paper, you write global commons are commons containing CPRs, Ostrom defined CPR as resource system. Emphasis is on system. This system provides resource units. How would you apply this to low earth orbit? Okay. This is a great question. And I like where this is going. A lot of my discussion between or distinction between CPRs, comical resources and commons is a simplification of this process. There's a lot of like Ostrom defines it as a system as a resource system. Others might define a comical resources, just the resource within the comments. I'm trying to sort of simplify it here. I'm not just mapping Ostrom's definition. That being said, there can be some confusion, which is why I made that distinction in the paper. But if we're using Ostrom's definition of a CPR, then we would need to look at low earth orbit slightly differently, I think. All right. And up at the top, this question by Matt, which stakeholders are you referring to that are in favor of a global commons approach? You might need to ask Claire, not one also. Yeah, Claire, you want to come back to this question for me? Well, so I would say they're definitely certain. Like when we look at the outer space treaty or the moon agreement or, there seems to be language and existing policy that supports the commonest designation. Although, as I said before, it doesn't come out and say it exactly. There are statements from various agencies that seem to support this. There is not a lot of, like very clear language that says this is a commons or this is not.  I think there was a statement for a declaration from President Trump a couple of years ago that said space is not a commons. Use that language exactly. It seemed to contradict some language from the Obama administration. And I think there are some various other states have made comments that seem to support or seem not to support. So it's not exactly clear. I hope that answers that question. All right, I'm going to take this last question from Caroline Wittenberg. If you take a look at that, how can a legal framework either internationally or nationally work in potential management strategies? That she then asks, how can a legal framework be incorporated in either space as a commons or not? So any responses to that? I don't know. This, the legal framework section, this probably falls beyond the scope of the research here. Chris, this probably falls more squarely in your territory in terms of your expertise. Certainly, we talk about policy centricity for this. There's international and national, there's things work in partnership, not necessarily we have to address it one or the other. How can a legal framework be incorporated in either space as a commons or not? I guess that comes down to how you shape policy. There's a lot of scholarship on that. I think something I just barely dip my toes into in this research is some of the institutional grammar and how we shape policy in that way. I think that can be a helpful tool as well. Okay. All right, I said last question, but then I saw this one from Alfonso, which is also very good. So I have to ask you, would self-regulation be compatible with the management of other celestial bodies as a commons? So self-regulation. I guess that depends on who you ask. Some people would say self-management is the way to go. And it seems that that's less successful based on history and self-management generally doesn't work when there are competing motivations. That's the whole reason why the tragedy of the commons exists because the benefit is experienced by the individual, but the cost is shared by all of the users. Self-regulation, users are incentivized to act in their own interest. That's the basis for the tragedy of the commons. So self-regulation, there's times it has worked and but for something as broad as space, I think generally that's seen as less successful. I don't know, Christy, anything to add there? Well, I mean, it made me think of this slide that you had about institutional performance. And so you're looking at these, on the right-hand side, institutional performance, either fragile or likely to fail. Although it's kind of tied to what you were just talking about, although as you look across those rows, conflict resolution mechanisms, graduated sanctions, you have a very dim view of whether there'll be sustainability and rule of law and governance of some of these common places like celestial bodies. So it kind of ties it to that. Is that tied to why you think self-regulation made, bodes ill? Yeah, I mean, that's part of it. I think we can also just look at the existing domain management, commons domains on earth as sort of, we can look at history and how self-regulation has worked in those. I can't see the future. And you say it's a bit of a dim view here. I think that's probably true. I'm probably taking, this is not beyond criticism, but I think history can indicate the likelihood of the success of self-regulation. All right, thank you so much, Daniel. We really put you through the ringer with these questions. I was a lightning round of very challenging stuff. I'm thankful for all the attendees who put in those questions. We didn't get to all of them, but listen, this is just the beginning of a conversation or the continuing conversation that's been going on for decades. We hope that, since you called in and all those folks who are attendees, you care about these concepts, you care about these issues. We encourage you and your institutions and your home organizations to continue on with these discussions. We hope that our report and the executive summary and the scholarship from Daniel and Claire have contributed to the discourse and brought to the fore some things which are often too all too often alluded to or there's assumptions about or conclusory opinions without much deeper thought. So we wanted to contribute to some of that deeper thought and we hope that and we're certain that these conversations are going to continue in the future. You have our reports to download, you have the slides to find this video recording is going to be placed on likely YouTube and maybe YouTube and also our website. So that's gonna be it for this year's fellowship. I want to mention two things. First, brief plug for our summit for space sustainability this summer in New York, June 13 and 14, you can learn more at SWFsummit.org where we're going to be having related discussions. And I hope that the work that we have done in the sustainability fellows will contribute and form some of the discussions that we're going to have there. And this research that we're doing at Secure World on these persistent underlying questions in space sustainability is going to continue. This was the first cohort of sustainability fellows, Daniel and Claire with the questions that we posed to them. In 2023, we are going to continue to work on these underlying questions. Likely it is going to focus on what is happening at the UN with the discussions on responsible behavior in space and therefore irresponsible behavior. The anti-satellite, anti-ASET work and bans and prohibitions and unilateral declarations being made, looking at how to foster that and how if we can do research which informs those debates and those discussions and deliberations. If there are persistent assumptions that happen in those debates about unilateral declarations or the worth of unilateral declarations, et cetera, et cetera. What can we as civil society, as one actor in civil society, contribute to those discussions and make them worthwhile? So stay tuned for what we're going to do, continue to do here at Secure World. Find those reports. I hope our scholarship has been useful and the footnotes to it also will lead you in other directions. And we look forward to further scholarship from Daniel and Claire and from many of the attendees that have joined us. So with that, I'm going to thank everyone for attending and end this meeting. Thank you so much everyone and I'll see you in the future.


The Hyperelectric Global Forum is an annual event that convenes developers, maintainers, enterprises, anybody that's interested in the technology. We have a ton of fun at these events, from trivia nights to evening cocktails and dinner in interesting locations, being in cool cities and cool places. There's an incredible amount of thought and planning that goes into the experience. Paired with that, I have grown to expect an incredibly high quality event with incredibly cool people and great conversations and so far that's exactly what's been happening. There's nothing that can replicate a face-to-face interaction where great ideas are being generated. The tone of the conference is probably one of its real strengths.  There's a recognition that we're all here together to drive forward the productive development of this technology and its productive use. If you are serious about blockchain technology, I really don't know how you can't be here. It is four days of rich content, great networking and an ability to really see the future. Don't miss out. This is the place you need to be.


The bell of the city of Bruges in Flanders, the voice of the city, the voice of the people. For what is the city but people? Today, not only in Bruges, but all over Flanders, bells are ringing, and the voice of the people speaks out after a long silence. That is why we tell this story of another time in Flanders, a time more than six centuries ago, when the bell of Bruges rang and the people spoke, spoke for the first time. NBC University of the Air presents We Came This Way, a new historical series for our listeners at home and overseas. With John W. Vander Cook as the narrator, we present Chapter 3, a story of freedom in Flanders in We Came This Way. It was at the turn of the 14th century. After Grenada and the reopening of the Mediterranean to Western trade, Europe saw a boom, a boom in cities. Traders with the smell of the world above them and peddlers spreading out their packs at the great fairs became the first promoters of cities, boasting of the places they had been, the things they had seen. In the city of Bruges, I have seen cloth woven out of golden thread, cloth of gold, and in the cities of the Moselle, I've tasted wine such as we could never make under this cold and misty sky. I've seen in Venice silks the ship. Surfs who followed their lords to war on the Crusades returned to whisper in the ears of other surfs who would remain behind in landlocked villages. It is a fact. I have been there and seen it. In cities, all men are free men. They have a saying, the air of the city is free air. Once a man has lived for a year and a day in the city, surf or slave, though he was before, he is a free man under the law and his master cannot reap. Little wonder that by the thousands, men began breaking their feudal chains and flocking to the cities. And in those days, no cities drew greater numbers than those of the low countries where the two streams of European traffic met, industry flourished, and men's strength and skill were in demand. Runaway surfs and men who had fell cramped in the narrow confines of the medieval village swelled the cities of Bruges, Gants, Liège, Ypres, Dinant and Antwerp. They learned trades, became the makers of cloth that was worn all the courts of Europe, the makers of coin that supplanted the old bottle system of the feudal world, the makers of stone baptismal fonts found today in the villages of England, the makers of shoes and the makers of bread. And more than any of these things, the new men of the new cities became the makers of the democratic idea, the makers of social progress. It is Anders. I was one of the new men you have spoken of, but I knew nothing of social progress. I never even heard the word democracy. I was a weaver in a village in Flanders. I fell in love with the daughter of a peasant, and when I wished to marry her and take her off the manor, her lord refused. He said that way he would lose... lose her litter. So Joanna and I ran away, stole away in the dark of the night like thieves. We wanted to get to the city where we could be free to get to Bruges. Ask that old man, Anders. The roads in Flanders go no place, stranger. They stand still. It is the people of Flanders who go places. I see you make sport of me because of my country dress and manner. I meant no harm. What I said is true. Are not you and your young woman a walking proof that the people of Flanders do go places? You come from a way off, stranger. No, Anders, no. Tell him nothing. Oh, you have nothing to fear from me, my pretty one. If you have chosen to shake the dust of the manor from your feet, that is your own business. I am a poor man like yourselves, and poor men tell no tales. But you will tell us the way to Bruges, eh, grandfather? Half a leak, straight ahead. Listen, you can hear the bell. You'd better hurry if you want to get there before they close the gates at sundown. Hurry, Anders. Do hurry. I won't feel safe until we're inside Bruges. You're right, Joanna. For people like us, only the air of the city is free air. So Joanna and I sought the free air of the city. The year was 1300. You won't find our names in the history books. You won't even find much about the master weaver whom I went to work for, though he made history in Bruges during the next few years. He was a one-eyed man with a habit of saying what he thought. His name was Peter Koenig, and he was Dean of the Weavers Guild in Bruges. I learned much about weaving from Peter Koenig, and I learned much else, too. As our feet worked the treadles and our shuttles flew back and forth, we used to talk. So you're coming to the city to be free, eh, Anders? Yes, Master Koenig. I want to be my own man. Then open your eyes, boy. How can a man be free who has no voice in his government? Who do you think makes the laws here in Bruges? Why, the men of the city council? And who is that council? A few families of cloth merchants and exporters calling themselves patricians. Call yourself free if you like, but try to get a seat on the council. Is it a law that I can't? Ha! It's written in gold on parchment that no weaver, fuller, shearer, carpenter, or any who works with the oil, or any dyer who has blue nails, wool-beater or tinker who cries through the streets, cheese monger, beer cellar, dealer in salt and bread, worker in lamb skin. I had no idea there were so many of us plain people. None of these or any who sells by the pound can become a member of the council. That is, unless he renounces craft and give a mark of gold, or as much more or shall be thought good by the councilman. Beat that if you can, Anders. But if there are so many of us, there are so many more than there are of them. Hey, go ahead, say it. Then why shouldn't we have some say-so about things, about the wages we get, the taxes we pay? Why, indeed. Men have asked that before you. Three years ago, our guilds rose up and questioned the power of the council. We had the count of Flanders on our side, too. So what happened? The patricians appealed to the king of France and he sent an army against us. Well, what did he have to do with it? Was France just waiting for a sign of weakness in Flanders to assert authority over us? You see, the count had renounced his allegiance to France and made an alliance with England. Had promised his daughter, Philippine, to the Prince of Wales and marriage. And the king of France didn't like that. Like it? He decoyed the count's daughter to Paris and strangled her. I see. I remember now we heard in the village about the fighting in the cities. So that's what the fighting was about. And it came to nothing. The French soon won. The count and his sons were taken to Paris to jail. That's why the banner of the lily now flies from the bell tower of Rue. And that's why the king and queen of France are coming here on a visit. Exactly. This very cloth we're working on is for a cloak that the merchant Van Gelder and the other councilmen will present to the king. For the favor he did them in putting down weavers like us. How do you like that, Anders? Every merchant's wife in Bruges had a silk dress for the king's coming. And when they bowed low before his royal majesty Philip called the fair and his queen Isabel, there was a great rustling sound. But when the king and queen stood on the balcony with the councilmen and were presented to the people, there was no sound at all. Fools. Fools, why don't they cheer? Why do they just stand there like oxen? What does majesty think? Perhaps he will think Van Gelder's that though we merchants were able to force a king upon the people, we cannot force them to like him. And they'll like even less what is to follow. I thought I'd find you still a chalume. I got the money from Van Gelder's for the cloth. Here are your wages. To tell the truth, I was waiting for my wages, sir. Joanna put the last of our flower in this morning's dough cake. Thank you, sir. Don't thank me. Weaver earns every penny he gets and more, and it's little enough. I tell you, Anders, you'll see men falling dead of hunger in the streets when the new levee is put through. Levee, Master Connick. I had it from Van Gelder's. The people are going to pay for the king's visit. The whining and dining and the banners and the music. Even that croak they gave him, we'll pay for in the end. But it's unfair we didn't ask him here. We didn't want him. We ate none of the roast capon and we'll pay for them, too. The council has decided. Master Connick, my wages now barely pay for the hobble we live in and buy us food. And Joanna's with child. I can't meet the levee. I know. I know. You're not the only one. Then what are we to do? Pay it and starve like sheep? You're the dean of the Weavers Guild. You tell me. Anders, alone, the Weavers can do nothing. But there are 51 other guilds in Bruges. If we all stand together... What would our stand be? I must have time to think it through. Wait. I'll call a meeting of all the guilds at the marketplace tomorrow. Be there as the bell is rung for sundown. Many of Bruges, I say to you that the new levee the council is ramming down our throats is outrageous and must not be stomached. If you are men, you will not take food out of the mouths of your children to pay for the pleasuring of a foreign king. If you are men, you will not let one growth of your meagre wages go to the support of a municipality in which you have no voice. I forbid you to speak further. A municipality which cares no more for us than for the sheep that grow the wool we weave.  Our rightful ruler is the Count of Flanders. And the Count of Flanders is where the people live. Silence! Silence, all of you! Sergeant, arrest this man, Peter Konink.  There shall be no more public meetings. Our new governor, his majesty's lieutenant, Jacques de Chatillon, will arrive in Bruges within the week. He will see that we have order.  The council was shrewd. It's dangerous to make martyrs of men. So though in days gone by weavers who had set themselves against authority had been drawn and quartered or broken on the wheel, Master Konink's sentence was to be banished forever from the city of Bruges. Five thousand of us would have gone with him, but he would not have it. He left alone except for myself who walked with him to the city gates. We're coming to the gates now, Anders. Say the word and I go with you, sir. No, Anders. Your work is here. I have lost my master. You work not for good alone now, Anders, but for justice. Justice is a dangerous trade, sir. I have a child on the way to think of... You work for him, too. Better he be, still born Anders, than come into the world to be as voiceless and driven as the weavers of Bruges are today. What is it you want me to do? Stand with the other artisans. John Bidell of the Butcher's Guild will take my place. He will tell you what to do. Listen, drums. It's Chatillon with the French garrison riding into the city. What can we do against that? They say, Master Peter, that Chatillon is bringing rope with him to hang any who resists his rule, even women and children. I think that instead of hanging women and children, Jacques de Chatillon will hang himself with his rope. Hang himself? Like every tyrant swollen with power, he will go too far, and then the people will rise up and slay. But we have no leader. Without a leader, we're nothing but a mob pulled this way and that way. Any hour comes and the people are sick of Jacques de Chatillon. They will send for Peter the weaver. Then I will come back.  God keep Bruges. Jacques de Chatillon rode into Bruges on horseback, surrounded by his knights, and Peter the weaver walked out, alone. But in the days that followed, the weaver we listened to, not Chatillon, we listened to him, though he was many miles away in the city of Dom. He sent messages to John Bridel, and John Bridel told us what to do. Stand together. Resist the council. Refuse to pay the levee. Every guildman must stand with the others. We stood together and resisted, and Chatillon forced collections with his soldiers. Children died of hunger and men cursed, but I remembered what Master Koenig had said, and I waited and watched Chatillon draw the rope tighter and tighter around his own neck. Chatillon has said the people will be punished for refusing to pay. He has ordered the levee raised. The deans and second deans of the guilds must make a public apology for inciting the people to resist.  And last of all, the bell of Bruges to be silenced from this day forth. Have you heard our bell? The bell of Bruges to be silenced. Yes, Joanna. I'm glad. You're away so much. Every night it's lonely. I miss the bell striking the hour. Oh, Anders, I'm afraid sometimes. Perhaps we should not have come to Bruges. Perhaps we should go back.  No, Anders, no. Then never talk of going back. It's hard this waiting. But it will end soon. You mean the child will soon be born? The child, yes. And something more. Joanna, the men of Bruges have sent for Peter Koenig. Give a penny for the poor and the blessing of St. Francis. Arms for the poor. Here, old friend, I'll give you a penny. Though who is poorer than a weaver of Bruges, I'd... Master Koenig.  Why do you think I've gone to the trouble of disguising myself? The market is full of people. And not a one of them would lay hands on Peter the weaver. It's like you said. The people only wait for a signal from you to rise. Listen, Anders, one week from tonight on Friday the 13th, the moon will be down. That is the night. The smiths and carpenters have sent boar spears and plowshares in long clubs as you sent word for them to do. And there is one for every artisan? Every artisan in Bruges will be armed. I'll give you a song, brother, that we, friars, sings at matins. They pour sweet potentes de se de, et exaltar vitum. I know no Latin, old friend. Then you shall have it in the language of the people. He will put down the mighty from their seats, and he will exalt the humble. What will be the signal for the rising? The ringing of the bell. It's forbidden. There's a guard at the bell tower. You will go to the tower at midnight, kill the guard and ring the bell. I am to kill a man? I am to give the signal for men to rise up and kill other men? Killing is bad, Anders. But there are other things that are worse. There is no other way. Blood must be spilled before Bruges free. If I had a son, if you were that son, I would say the same. This is what you must do. I'll ring the bell, Master Koenig. Loud and strong. We'll be waiting. I must go now, Anders, and see Brydell and the others. One last thing. What is the watchword for the night? Buckler and friend. And woe betide any man who says it with a French accent. Arms for the poor, arms for the poor. It's time for me to go, Joanna. You must go. Yes, Joanna. I must go. Anders. Yes? When you ring the bell, our men will rise up again, Chateaune's men, and men will die. Yes, men will die. On both sides? Yes, Joanna. Anders, I must say this to you. We plain people seldom speak of things like this. We have so little time for it. The words come hard, but... Anders, I have loved you so very much. I love you too, Joanna. Oh, Anders, must you leave me? I must. I wish it were a time, Joanna, when men could stay at home by their own hearts, when men could sit and watch the firelight on their wives' faces. It was black as pitch in the streets. I stole along the shadows, and once when I heard the watch coming, I pressed myself against the doorway, and I was afraid he would hear my heart. It beat so loud. It was May, and the night was chilly, but my jerkin was wet with sweat. At the bell tower, the guard was half asleep, and I sprang on him like a cat and killed him. And I searched him, found the key, unlocked the iron gate to the belfry, and felt my way up the narrow twisting steps. The bell rope was heavy, and I pulled and pulled, and not a sound came, and then I thought of Master Koenig and the others waiting, and I pulled harder, and the bell began to ring, fade anyway. I heard screams in the streets below, and men running. I heard a little sound, a creak on the stairs, and I shouted the password, Buckler and friend! I knew by the accent it was one of Shuddy's men, so I let go the rope, and ran at him with a boar spear, which was the only weapon I had. I killed him before he had time to cry out, and then I joined our men in the streets, and after that I don't remember how many men I killed. It was over very quick by dawn. The dawn looked very real and natural, and the bodies in the streets were like a nightmare. I remember I stumbled over one that was my friend, Derek, and another. But there were more of them than of us. We had won! What was left of Shuddy's men had fled the city with him. I was too tired that day for rejoicing. The rejoicing came later. There were parades and music, and the banner of the lily came down, and the lion of Flanders went up in its place, and Master Koenig spoke to us in the square below the bell. Men of Rouge, we have fought, and we have won. But we fought for justice, not for vengeance. Besides, vengeance will not go long on revenge. Let us bury our hates with the dead. Let us not live in civil strife. Let us not exchange a tyranny of patricians for a tyranny of weavers. I say to you, let us have a government of the people. Some of us listened to Master Koenig, and some would not. It was only human that men who had been kept down so long would want to use the power that had been used against them. The old magistrates were thrown out, and our captains appointed to rule instead. Yes, we made mistakes, for we had no pattern, but had to cut our government out of whole cloth. But for all its faults and weaknesses, it was more a government of the people than any Rouge had ever seen before. The town's eep and dam and coutret and eventually gang all followed our lead, and all over Flanders, the people ruled, and the air of the cities was in truth free air. Then, then the king of France, angry at what we'd done, began to raise an army to send against us. Robert of Artois was at its head, and following him was all the chivalry of France and the knights from Spain and Italy. The army wore golden spurs that glinted in the sun, and the number of chariots and horsemen was so great they hid the ground they passed over. By July they'd passed Lee, and word came to us that they had left a trail of blood and destruction behind them. So we put up our looms and our jewels, and with pikes and halberts went out on foot to meet them. At our heads were Peter the Weaver and Peter the Butcher, and the Count of Flanders' sons, who had escaped from jail in Paris and come back to help us. At Quattré, Robert of Artois halted, pitched his silk content, and heard the reports of his scouts. The Highness, the enemy has spread out in a single phalanx on the plain. How are they armed? They have no arms except pikes and halberts. Some even carry their artisans' tools.  Rabble, we'll cut them to pieces. We've had indigestion from the horrid food ever since we came. Your Highness, I'm afraid the enemy is well situated. On the west they are protected by the entrenchments of Quattré, and on the south they need... Do you dare tell me that this rabble army can stand against the chivalry of Europe? Give the order to attack at once. And as the army of the king marched against us, every man took up a handful of Flemish earth and pressed it to his lips. And the priests who had followed us to battle held the host high above our heads and gave us a last blessing. In nominee patrice et thilly et spiritus sancti. Amen. And that was the way we went into battle. The Weaver Anders fell in the first onrush of France's army. So the rest of our story we must get from history books. It is written that Robert of Artois's men never once broke through the close array opposing them. The solid wall of men, of ragged, barefoot men whose only weapons were their pikes and halberds. By nightfall Robert of Artois and Chatillon were dead, along with 75 nobles, a thousand knights, 3,000 squires, and 20,000 men. The victory was a people's victory. 700 golden spurs were gathered from the field of battle and hung up in the church of Saint Mary's at Quattré. Peter the Weaver and John Breidel the butcher were knighted on the field of battle and beneath the shadow of the belfry of Bruges a statue was erected to these two who had made the people rule in Flanders. After the battle the plain people marched home again to their plain jobs and there was much joy in all the cities. In Bruges the Weaver Anders wife Joanna pale and shaking from her lying in took her newborn son to the public square and held him up to hear the bell of Bruges rung in triumph. Today not only the bell of Bruges but bells all over Flanders ring and the voice of the people speaks out again after a long silence. The NBC University of the Air has brought you chapter three of the new historical series We Came This Way. Next week We Came This Way will present the story of Andreas with Katina Paxenou a handbook containing background information with suggestions for further reading is now in publication. We shall be happy to send you at cost of mailing this valuable We Came This Way Handbook especially written for the current series. Send 25 cents to cover the cost of printing and mailing to We Came This Way Post Office 30, Station J New York 27, New York. Tonight's script was written by Frank Wells and directed by Ira Avery. The music was conducted by Milton Catons. Members of the cast were James Monks, Joe DeSantis, Mary Patton, Bernard Lenro, Lamport Hill, Walter Appler. John W. Vander Cook was the narrator. This is the National Broadcasting Company.


Doodle is a time management tool that will make it easy to coordinate and schedule your meetings and events. Rod here and welcome to Burn to Learn. Let's start using Doodle now.  This app is available in both Android and iOS. Search for the words Doodle Easy Scheduling. Find the icon with the capital letter D. Here you will see some screenshots and other information about the app. Click on Get or Install. Wait to install properly, then open it. The app will show how it works. Click on Get Started. You will need to sign up or log in with an email account. Enter your email account and password. You're almost there. You will receive a confirmation email. Click on the link that was sent to you. Now you are there. Now when you have an event or meeting coming up, you can start creating polls and asking your participants what time is better for them. There's more, so subscribe and watch our next video about Doodle.


Good afternoon everyone. I'm Hans, Hans Zucker from Music Knowledge, one of the smaller wholesalers in Australia. Many classical music publications I'm selling, amongst them Henle Musikverlag publications from Germany as well. For example, there is quite a bit of a choice for the music lovers here. Any editions which are published by Henle appeal to me if you are looking at the paper quality. Look at any music publications you can think of and compare it with Henle. The paper is of a slightly opaque nature. Think about your own poor eyes. If you're only looking at white paper, after some time it may be stressing for your eyes. If you're only looking at white paper, this paper is eye-friendly, as we are saying. Also, and very short and precise and to the point, it appeals to me that Henle publications are not just for the music lover, who can play the instrument very well, they are also for people who are interested in history. What I didn't know before that Edward Elger was actually entitling his famous composition in Saludamur Liebes Gruß auf Deutsch in German. However, a publisher who was printing it initially thought this is much more commercial if we are calling it Saludamur. All these little things which are being written in the prefaces of Henle are important for music lovers to get background information on publication, not just that they are capable of playing from an exquisite publication, but also, especially for examinations, that they are able to say a little bit about a composition. People in Australia who have to sit for a music exam, they will also have to say a few words about a composition. Why am I playing this piece? What is so special about it? Now, Henle is making it very easy for people to acquire the appropriate knowledge. Also, knowledge in a way which is easy to understand. There may be scientific publications on Edward Elger, on Voryshek, naming an unknown composer or on Beethoven. You will get your information and you get a quality publication, switching to a composer of whom you have heard no doubt, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Only very recently has it come to light that the famous A major sonata with Rondo alla Turca has been, how shall I say, rediscovered. What has been discovered is that some particular bars are more up-to-date or more authentic than you would have thought that they would be. The Henle edition is telling you what the differences are compared to any other publication, not just telling you, but the new musical logical evidence has been incorporated in this Henle publication. So you will be faring very well by using the Henle publications for your musical activities, for pleasure and also for professional performances as it will be in an edition for life. Thank you very much for your attention.


Welcome to my lightning talk about experiments. We run with services. And a very quick, very short story of what we can do with services beyond contributing to open source projects. So I want to share a story about creating services in a world of software as a service. And what does it mean for open source tooling? Today, I'm going to be talking about Paribolos on Operate First, which is something we are trying to shape and build as something called open service. So what exactly does that mean to have an open service? When you think of a current ecosystem in open source, people contribute to tools, to software code bases, and all these bits and pieces that make up successful application. But when you want to contribute beyond that and see how applications are actually run and executed and the lifecycle is taken care of, there's not much ways to contribute to that. So we're trying to change that through experiments like this one. This is a story of Paribolos. Exactly three years ago on KubeCon 2019, there was this talk called Paribolos, how Kubernetes uses GitOps to manage GitHub communities at scale. This is a, then it was a brand new tool called Paribolos. Now it's part of the Kubernetes community tooling through Pro and through other CI means. And it allows you to manage GitHub organizations as a code. We thought this is a very neat idea. So how does that work? You get a config file that you can do changes to. It's a declarative way to describe your GitHub organization, right? So you can add members. You can add create repositories. You can create teams. And what's more important, people can do that. You are basically crowdsourcing the GitHub organization management. So you don't need to hunt down your GitHub organization admin just to add a member to it. They can create a pull request. You can review it. And once merged, it gets applied to GitHub. So we thought that this is a neat idea and that we want to use that in our organization. So how would you do that? Traditionally, normally, you would start with taking the tool, taking either a binary version of it or a container as the version of it, pull it into your CI, and let the CI run on your repository where you have version controlled this configuration file. This is a normal workflow that probably most of us would use. Well, that at some point becomes a problem when you're managing multiple organizations. You need to set this thing up for every organization. You need to maintain and upgrade these parables applications across all these organizations, maybe in the same configuration, and so on and so on. And then it becomes a challenge. And then it becomes a challenge that you need to take care of lifecycle of all those CI pipelines and manage it all similarly, hopefully the same. But every organization is a bit different. And usually, these code bases diverge. So how to solve that? Well, nowadays, a trendy thing to do, let's make it a service, right? That's what everybody does with everything currently in the SaaS ecosystem. Let's create a service that is managing all of these organizations together. We thought, OK, let's do that. So we created this GitHub application that you can sign up for, install into an organization, and let it manage your organization through your configuration file inside your organization, which is a normal thing that modern application would use, create a service out of your tools, out of things that you use in a decentralized fashion, and unify it into a service. But we thought, can we make more out of it? How can we get more value out of a service? So we decided to make it open, make it a collaborative way. Let's challenge. We decided to challenge ourselves and collaboratively manage this service as a community. So we found a community where we can do so for various services, not just for our little, tiny, marginal application that takes care of a single use case. So we joined this Operate First community, which is a community supported by Red Hat. And its focus is exactly this. Find a common ground, find a place, a meeting spot where we can talk about how ops should be done, how SRE work should be done, how to handle services collaboratively, and how to transparently contribute to something which is running as a managed offering. So we joined this community. And we used it to share best practices, define best practices for managed services. And to also host our workload because Operate First community has a community cloud offering that is publicly available for anybody to join and use. And it's basically free hardware that you can jump in and use and deploy your workloads onto. So we decided that this is the best place where we can run our service. And by that, I'm going to conclude this short story. You can join us in Operate First. You can join us in the Privilege application. We would welcome any contributions to either of those things, collaborative cloud management, Privilege is an application. Install it, use it. Thank you very much.