y m Proper ond maen Chwylwyr, ydw i'n gallu'n pobl yn ffrwydo, mae sydd i'r dros y ddechrau i chi i'r ddelibiradau o frydy'r suffn iawn. Mae 10 diwrnod oed yn sydd eisiau fy ngosu, mae sydd yn cael ei ddiogelio'n citio amser neu oeddelio chyfnod oed yn tuolio, hi ddechrau'r ysgol yn yr blodau llun oedd,ал – some of the things that we discussed at our Summit were timeless in the sense that they belong to all times and some topical in that they belong especially to our own times. I will read to you the economic communique first, because we are primarily an economic Summit, but then I will report to you briefly on the other matters that we discussed. The economic communique, the primary purpose of these meetings is to enable heads of state or government to come together to discuss economic problems, prospects and opportunities for our countries and for the world. We've been able to achieve not only closer understanding of each other's positions and views, but also a large measure of agreement on the basic objectives of our respective policies. At our last meeting in Williamsburg in 1983 we were already able to detect clear signs of recovery from world recession. That recovery can now be seen to be established in our countries. It is more soundly based than previous recoveries in that it results from the firm efforts made in the summit countries and elsewhere over recent years to reduce inflation, but its continuation requires unremitting efforts. We have to make the most of the opportunities with which we are now presented to reinforce the basis for enduring growth and the creation of new jobs. We need to spread the benefits of recovery widely, both within the industrialised countries and also in the developing countries, especially the poorer countries, who stand to gain more than any from a sustainable growth of the world economy. High interest rates and failure to reduce inflation further and damp down inflationary expectations could put recovery at risk. Prudent monetary and budgetary policies of the kind that have brought us so far will have to be sustained and were necessary strengthened. We reaffirm the commitment of our governments to those objectives and policies. Not the least of our concerns is a growing strain of public expenditure in all our countries. Public expenditure has to be kept within the limits of what our national economies can afford. We welcome the increasing attention being given to these problems by national governments and in such international bodies as the organisation for economic cooperation and development. As unemployment in our countries remains high, we emphasise the need for sustained growth and creation of new jobs. We must make sure that the industrial economies adapt and develop in response to demand and to technological change. We must encourage active job training policies and removal of rigidities in the labour market and bring about the conditions in which new jobs will be created on a lasting basis, especially for young people. We need to foster and expand the international trading system and liberalise capital markets. We are mindful of the concerns expressed by the developing countries and of the political and economic difficulties which many of them face. In our discussion of each of the issues before us, we have recognised the economic independence of the interdependence of the industrialised and developing countries. We reaffirm our willingness to conduct our relations with them in a spirit of goodwill and cooperation. To this end, we have asked ministers of finance to consider the scope for intensified discussion of international financial issues, of particular concern to developing countries, in the IBRD Development Committee, an appropriate and broadly representative forum for this purpose. One of our problems are debt burdens. In our strategy for dealing with the debt burdens of many developing countries, a key role has been played by the International Monetary Fund, whose resources have been strengthened for that purpose. Debtor countries have been increasingly ready to accept the need to adjust their economic policies, despite the painful and courageous efforts it requires. In a climate of world recovery and growing world trade, this strategy should continue to enable the international financial system to manage the problems that may still arise. But continuously high or even further growing levels of international interest rates could both exacerbate the problems of the debtor countries and make it more difficult to sustain the strategy. This underlines the importance of policies which will be conducive to lower interest rates and which take account of the impact of our policies on other countries. Those are our objectives and our strategy. May I now set out to you the things that we have agreed? We have therefore agreed first to continue with and where necessary strengthen policies to reduce inflation and interest rates, to control monetary growth, and where necessary reduce monetary deficits. Second to seek to reduce obstacles to the creation of new jobs by encouraging the development of industries and services in response to demand and technological change, including in innovative small and medium-sized businesses, by encouraging the efficient working of the labour market, by encouraging the improvement and extension of job training, flexibility in the patterns of working time, and by discouraging measures to preserve obsolescent production and technology. We agree third to support and strengthen work in the appropriate international organisations on increasing understanding of the sources and patterns of economic change and on improving economic efficiency and promoting growth, in particular by encouraging innovation and working for a more widespread acceptance of technological change, harmonising standards and facilitating the mobility of labour and capital. Fourth, we have agreed to maintain and wherever possible increased flows of resources to the developing countries, and particularly to the poorest countries, to work with the developing countries to encourage more openness towards private investment flows, to encourage practical measures in those countries to conserve resources and enhance indigenous food and energy production. Some of us also wish to activate the common fund for commodities. Fifth, in a spirit of cooperation with the countries concerned, we confirm the strategy on debt and continue to implement and develop it flexibly, case by case. We have reviewed progress and we attach particular importance to helping debtor countries to make necessary economic and financial policy changes, particular importance to encouraging the IMF in its central role in this process, to encouraging closer cooperation between the IMF and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and strengthening the role of the IBRD in fostering development over the medium and long term, and in cases where debtor countries are themselves making successful efforts to improve their position by encouraging more extended multi-year rescheduling of commercial debts, and also by encouraging the flow of long term direct investment, and encouraging the substitution of more stable long term finance for direct and portfolio for short term bank lending. We agree to invite finance ministers to carry forward in an urgent and thorough manner that current work on ways to improve the operation of the international monetary system, including exchange rates, surveillance, a creation control and distribution of international liquidity and the role of the IMF, and to complete the present phase of their work in the first half of 1985 with a view to discussion at an early meeting of the IMF interim committee. The question of a further allocation of special drawing rights is to be reconsidered by the IMF interim committee in September 1984. We have agreed to carry forward the procedures agreed at Versailles, under present Metron, and at Williamsburg, under present Dragon, for multilateral monitoring and surveillance of convergence of economic performance toward lower inflation and higher growth. We have agreed to seek to improve the operation and stability of the international financial system by means of prudent policies among the major countries, by providing an adequate flow of funding to the international financial institutions, and by improving international access to capital markets in industrialised countries. We have also agreed to urge all trading countries, industrialised and developing alike, to resist protectionist pressures, to reduce barriers to trade, and to make renewed efforts to liberalise and expand international trade in manufacturers, commodities and services. And we have agreed to accelerate the completion of current trade liberalisation programmes, particularly the 1982 GATT work programme, and to press forward with the work on trade in services in the international organisations. And building on the 1982 GATT work programme, to consult partners in the GATT with a view to decisions at an early date on the possible objectives, arrangements and timing for a new negotiating round. We are also greatly concerned about the acute problems of poverty and drought in parts of Africa. We attach major importance to the special action programme for Africa, which is being prepared by the World Bank, and should provide renewed impetus to the joint efforts of the international community to help. We have considered another very important topical matter, the possible implications of a further deterioration of the situation in the Gulf for the supply of oil. And we are satisfied that, given the stocks of oil presently available in the world, the availability of other sources of energy and the scope for conservation and the use of energy, adequate supplies could be maintained for a substantial period of time by international cooperation and mutually supportive action and will continue to act together to that end. We note with approval the continuing consensus on the security and other implications of economic relations with eastern countries and on the need to continue work on this subject in the appropriate organisations. We also welcome the further report of the working group on technology, growth and employment created by the Versailles Economic Summit and the progress made in the 18 areas of cooperation. We also welcome the invitation of the Italian government to an international conference to be held in Italy in 1985 on the theme of technological innovation and the creation of new jobs. We also recognise the international dimension of environmental problems and the role of environmental factors in economic development. We have invited ministers responsible for environmental policies to identify areas for continuing cooperation in this field. And in addition, we have decided to invite the working group on technology to consider what has been done so far and to identify specific areas for further research. In the meantime, we welcome the invitation from the government of the Federal Republic of Germany to certain summit countries to an international conference on the environment in Munich in June later this year. We thank the Prime Minister of Japan for his report on the Hakone Conference of Life Sciences in Mankind, organised by the Japan Foundation in March 1984. We welcome the intention of the French government to sponsor a second conference in 1985. We believe that manned space stations are the kind of programme that provides a stimulus for technological development, leading to strengthened economies and improved quality of life. Such stations are being studied in some of our countries with a view to their being launched in the framework of national or international programmes. In that context, each of our countries will consider carefully the generous and thoughtful invitation received from the President of the United States to other summit countries to participate in the development of such a station by the United States. We welcome the intention of the United States to report to the next summit on international participation in that programme. We also consider the venue for the 11th summit and we have agreed to meet again next year and have accepted the Federal Chancellor of Germany's invitation to meet in the Federal Republic of Germany. So you see on economic matters we have not been idle over the last two days and I hope that that will give you a great deal of food for thought to write about this weekend and for many days to come. That was not the sum total of our deliberations although it was the centre of them and together with our foreign ministers and finance ministers we considered other things, we considered east-west relations, I believe you've already had a statement issued, it had two messages, the unity and firmness of western democracies and the active wish for better relationships with the eastern countries and the wish that there should be a resumption of nuclear arms control talks. We also issued a statement on the war between Iran and Iraq of our support for all efforts to bring war and human suffering to an end. We meanwhile, we wish that the conflict will not spread and we wish obviously freedom of navigation to continue and as I've indicated in the economic communique for the foreseeable future we think that the oil supply problems are manageable. We also issued a statement on terrorism, you will of course recall the previous summits have issued other statements on terrorism according to the particular problems of their time which are either hijacking or diplomatic hostages and at our initiative we have issued a statement for two recent variants of terrorism, state sponsored terrorism and the abuse of diplomatic immunity and we issued the first statement by the seven countries of the values which provide the lifeblood of western democracy, we tend to take them for granted but they are nonetheless important, they are one of the many vital links between western europe, north america and japan and it is worth remembering how few countries could honestly sign that declaration for too many peoples those are rights to which they can only aspire, we feel it is highly appropriate that this declaration is made in britain the mother of parliaments finally i would like to thank the heads of state heads of government and ministers who've come to london it is a great honor to have them here for the 10th economic summit we hope you will be pleased with our deliberations we believe it was the most interesting and valuable summit and may i thank them for their visit to london and for their work here


Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome. We have our all-star lineup here, retired judge Sandra Sims, very unretired attorney and one of the leading women professionals in Hawaii, Louise Ng, research consultant, and Hawaiian studies expert, Radine Keahi Olalo, and Bill Harrison, our lead criminal defense attorney, civil rights, and many other areas of expertise. So, Louise, you came up with something that might help point us in a positive community aligning direction. You want to share that with us? Sure, Chuck, I'd be happy to because it takes my attention away from the national news, which is just makes me despair sometimes about whether we will be able to overcome our divisions, although I hope we will in the next four years. But as I had mentioned the other week, I think maybe where we look to first to try to set a good example and make some progresses in our community. And I shared with you some thoughts that I had heard last week, because the board I'm on, Hawaii State Bar Foundation, we had a reception, and we invited Micah Kane, the head of Hawaii Community Foundation, to say a few words and put what we do in the context of the community. And I was very struck with the three opportunities he listed for creating alignment in our community and maybe one day our nation. And what he said is that, first of all, this is one I really like, we need to focus on the 80% that we agree on and parking lot the 20% that we don't. And work together on the 80% so that we can build trust and get to know each other and build working relationships. And maybe that will ease us into the 20%. The second point he made is that we need to be very intentional about our actions and be transparent and at the same time be comfortable with being uncomfortable and having a greater degree of vulnerability. And I think that's a, and I think the way it was said another time was that we need to realize that not everybody, people may be trying to get to the same end but we have competing ways to do it. And you have to get used to the idea that not everybody is going to think that your way is the noble one, if you think it. So I like that, be uncomfortable, be comfortable with being uncomfortable. And lastly, and something maybe we should have done more on in the past four years is lean on data to take the emotion out of decisions and the conversation. And one of the sources that he pointed out for Hawaii data is that we do have a Hawaii data collective and a website called HawaiiData.org that has a lot of information from which we can look at what, you know, help pinpoint the issues in our community and how to work on them and how to track them. So that's my three cents. Thanks to Micah. Bill, Sandra, Rene. You know that the first comment you made, Louise, about focusing on the 80% where everybody agrees. I think it's a perfect way to start any conversation. And as Chuck knows, being a mediator, you get together and the points you can agree on, you start from that. That's your foundation and you work your way through that and you grow from there. So I think that's a perfect way to start this healing process is that there are some things that we all agree upon. There's a lot of things we don't agree upon, but let's start watering and cultivating the parts that we agree upon. And I think that that would, number one, swatch some of the problems and some of the difficulties we have and continue us in the right direction as growing together and not apart. So how do we convince the resistant people that it's 80, 20, agree, disagree versus 20, 80? You know, I heard Micah on the NPR this morning. He was on the conversation. And he talked about some of those same, some of the same points that he raised at the Bar Foundation. And the portion that I was listening and drawn to was where he talked about leaning on the data and not so much the emotions and talking about the fact that we are so terribly polarized at this point. Hardly anyone is listening to data where people are generally responding to their, to their perceived outrage or anger or you're not thinking like me. There's that response first, as opposed to looking at what really is taking place. I mean, we see that clearly in the whole debate about coronavirus and what to do about that. So much of that is steeped in emotion. And if we can come to a place where, and I'm not totally sure how to get there, but totally come to a place where we can again, begin to focus on understanding data, which is what each of us has always done in our practice and profession is starting from that. We certainly have feelings and emotions, but as a judge, as an attorney, as a mediator, as a research person, you're looking at data first and you're putting that forth first. And that's how you really draw your conclusions. And I'm not, we have to get to a point where this polarization on every single issue can't continue to occur. Because if it does, then you're right, that 2080 is gonna be reversed. But I agree that there is an 80, there is that much we can agree on. And it is important to start there, but I think we have to really in that, emphasize again the getting away, not getting away from emotion, but understanding that decisions and thoughts and practices don't always need to be grounded in that emotion that says, I've got to just pick one side or the other. Is there another question underlying this so, Sandra? And that's that, okay, let's say that as the new administration comes in, they've got a very heavily science, data-weighted set of teams in climate change and education and all of those areas. So let's say that they give the decision makers the data and the decision makers evaluate, decide, and announce their decisions based on that data. Isn't there right now though, in the division, another question that people are just rejecting those decision makers data or no data and therefore rejecting the data because they reject the person they come from. Classic reactive devaluation. Yes. It comes from the other side, it can't be true. I mean, that's exactly where we are and that's unfortunately that's exactly what's happening. I contrast that with a time at which the data and the science were key drivers in our society and key drivers in our political community. If we kind of look at, and hardly anyone's paying attention to it, it feels like, but if we look at what's happening with NASA, there was this time where what NASA was doing in terms of developing space programs and developing science and technology was a focal point. And it was sort of the thing that people aspired toward. I think, again, back to me being old enough to know these, some of these things. But I mean, even in the decision to go to the moon or to work and develop, even in the STEM programs that we're focusing on in many other places now, that focus on education and data is out there, but it's just being pushed down so much. And I think there is the place for that and it is happening, but I feel like the people who are ascribing to it and the people who are most involved in it are not in the forefront anymore. Yeah, and I have a question. I mean, you've got, and again, it's gonna probably go back to me and the young people because STEM programs are getting really, really a lot of attention in some of our schools anyway. And that's sort of been a focus for many of our young folks, but those who are in that place of being heard, which is where those are the people who are being listened to or being heard and whose views are being expressed on this daily basis are those who are debunking it. And that's, I mean, we used to be the nation that ascribed and strived to be, you know, in the forefront of these issues. And it feels like, I'm hesitant to say it's not, but it feels like we're not even trying. See, and that segues right into the question about exactly the generation you identify. So, Radine, as our spokesperson for that generation and those right behind you, is what it's going to take. I mean, what has meaning and value to your generation? What's it gonna take for your generation to take the lead in that more database, more objective, we're behind this, we're going to carry this on into the future. Is there a generational gap that needs to shift? That's a hard question for me to answer. I think I was listening to what you folks were saying in the context of being a researcher. And I think there's been an evolution of how we collect data and how we analyze it. And honestly, I think for me, it boils down to trusting the data more than it does the data itself. And, you know, with social media, we have sound lights and snapshots and, you know, people are questioning the source of the data. And, you know, I think for me, not so much my generation, but even with my nieces who are nine and 11 and they watch the news and they're like, they just shake their head. Like, what is going on? Like, this is absolutely crazy. And for them, I think for them, they just want to know that what they see is what they get. And I think we've moved so far away from that that it's, I think a lot to a large degree, a lot of the division that we see today is because people are not willing to sit down and have a real intelligent conversation. Like you were saying earlier, a lot of it is based on emotion. I've had conversations with people who are definitely not in agreement with me. And I've tried to bring forth data and I've been told, well, you're just, you're just taking the liberal approach to data. So what are you gonna say at that point? So for me, it's always defaulting back to the 80%. I mean, my default is to really listen and figure out where this person is coming from before I even engage in a conversation with them because otherwise it'll end up in a full blown argument. And to some degree, some of those conversations cannot continue because the emotions are too high. And that's fine too. But at least I think for a lot of people in my generation, we're looking at it as, how do we actually reconcile humanity at this point? No, and that's a great question because how do we bring people around? If we look at exactly what you folks are talking about, the data, the data shows us beyond dispute that in 2016, while the elections were mostly done in person and stuff like that, there weren't major problems with them, but nobody paid much attention to whether there were screw ups or things like that. In 2020, because Trump and the GOP signaled from the beginning, we're gonna challenge it. We can't lose unless it's rigged. There's going to be voter fraud. There's going to be mail-in ballot errors. The election people knew exactly where the challenges were gonna come from. And as the head of the intelligence community announced after a complete study of all 50 states, this was the most secure election in US history. That's what the data tells us. And yet we have from polls 60, 70% of people saying, we don't think so. I would like to enter, Jack, I know this is kind of off topic, but just from a logical standpoint, does that mean then that the Democrats won the House and the Senate? It's not logical.  Yeah, exactly. So what do we do with the rest of those?  It doesn't, yeah. But you don't see the Democrats challenging the results in losing 12 House seats. Exactly. And maybe not getting back control of the Senate. There is not a single democratic lawsuit or challenge to any of those. So it's all coming from, and it's one group of people supporting the schoolyard bully. Yeah, it is that, it's again, it's back to that notion of the 20% and the 20% and the emotion driven way of, I don't know, I don't know what the answer is. You know, as I... It's frightening to be honest. It's actually kind of frightening right now. Cause I would have thought that by now, two weeks out, we would just say, okay, that's what's gonna happen. Go on up into the sunset and we'll proceed with the way things are supposed to go. Yeah. The people have spoken, we move forward. Now there's still the lawsuits and I was looking at some of the proceedings that Giuliani has been involved in and I... You would be embarrassing. He would never make it onto law and order.  You know, this conversation really points, I think to me, to two things. And that's faith and trust. Okay, I think it boils down to those two words. And it reminds me of the conversation of a 104-year-old woman talking to a 10-year-old and the 104-year-old woman said, you know, I was around when they showed us pictures on TV of men standing on the moon and turned to the 10-year-old and said, do you believe that? The 10-year-old says, absolutely, it's part of history. And the 104-year-old woman said, were you there? How do you know that this person stepped on the moon? No one that I know was there, okay? They put it on this thing on this box called a television and how can we trust that? And so that whole concept is what we're dealing with now and what has been used by people to create this distrust, okay? And basically that's what we're dealing with now, what we're dealing with this huge distrust in every part and every part of our society. And that's flamed by people who want to continue that distrust to their ends and their means. So the real question is how do we get back to a point where we have faith and we have trust? I think that's what we really have to deal with. Well, let me ask Louise, is there a connection between that faith and trust and the data-based 80-20 realignment, reunification principles you're talking about? Do we just have to adopt it and stick with it and stick with it and eventually over time? Well, you know, not quite on the topic maybe, but I think that maybe one way we can think about what's going on now, which is, to me, it's very upsetting on the national scene is, I mean, part of it is just a huge distraction. It's what they want to do is what Trump has been doing for four years. It distracts us with his hot air stuff. In the meantime, government is working behind the scenes, yet Stephen Miller in there doing his damage to the federal agencies. And I've been reading, Biden has his transition team in place. They are moving forward. And I think maybe part of it is maybe having ultimate faith in the system, yes, and in facts and data, that there are going to be people. If we have people who are systematically moving forward to get transition in place, then maybe we can put up, we can't fix these crazy people creating all of this drama on the national scene, but we just need people behind them getting it done, getting things done. So let me ask this question. Is part of what might be the solution what got Barack Obama elected? Connecting the true grassroots, the community levels, and the strengths there with the leadership. Because that's been broken, that connection has been gone. That's the one, I'm sensing that you and Bill and Radine and Sandra are really talking about is we really need to reconnect the people with the leadership and the faith and the objective data-based understandings in both maybe a big part of the way to do it. How do we get there? I suspect much like Louise, that some of that is already happening, is the people behind the scenes that are still getting things done. I mean, even if you look at what the community foundation is doing and the work that is taking place within our own community, we don't hear everything about it, but if you look at the organizations that are part of that, the organizations that are having to address the needs in a community, those things are taking place. Those things are actually, there are people doing those things. Despite all the noise and distraction, they are still getting those basic kind of things done. I mean, it's kind of an odd example, but kind of take a look at what happened with the food bank situation. It was unfortunate the way it turned out, but at the same time, there was some attention brought, considerable attention brought to the work of the food bank, which has clearly had some benefit in increasing attention to its work, increasing attention to the work of organizations addressing the needs of the homeless and organizations addressing the needs of those with mental illness and organizations and agencies addressing the injustice in our, the addressing issues in our justice system. Those things are still taking place.  Lawyers and agencies and commissions are looking at those issues and working to get those things done. So when we talk about where is this faith and trust, it's there. I guess faith you can't see anyway. So, you know, but I look around at the work that's being done in these kind of quiet places and it's happening.  I'm with the Bar Foundation, with the Women's Legal Foundation.  Oh, it's fine. I think that's a great point, Sandra, and the many, they're people doing there, way more than I am, but I think we just need to focus on putting our heads down, get people to put their heads down and work on what we can work on, which is our community. And, you know, sort of raising, well, raising kids, right? So it's showing, you know, raising them by the right example, educating them, making sure they, you know, they know civics and issues, and we're preparing them for leadership so that we won't have this horrible aberration, again, or what we have a lot of critically, critical thinking people who are going to be focused on doing the right thing, doing things right for their community. The more lives we can touch and make better, you know, and then maybe that also helps us make it better on the national scene. I mean, think of all those people, you know, many of the Trump supporters that you've heard who say, oh, well, he made our life better. We'll put up a lot of BS as long as he made our life better. And, you know, that's what we can work on. Make our lives better. What's really brilliant about those insights, Sandra and Louise, is that exactly what you're talking about. It is going to be the youth. It is going to be the next generation. And role models are critical to that. Can any of us remember a point in time when the International Food Bank won the Nobel Peace Prize? When the business leader of the year award was given to the head of the nonprofit who is completely devoted to community support and service? What does that mean for us? Does that help take us in that direction that you folks are talking about? I hope so. Yeah, yeah. Maybe it gives us something to believe in and something being honored. That helps us feel good about ourselves and each other. The first step there is to open that up is the belief in some kind of hope, you know? And the way to get there is listening. I think that's the first step when people believe that you're listening to them. Okay, that gives them hope. And that begins the process. And I think that what happened with the Alaska administration was they did that. Exactly, they capitalized on that. They said, let's walk away. Let's not listen to these politicians anymore. Okay, they're not listening to you. Let's listen to someone who is not a politician to give you that hope. And that's what a lot of these folks did. They said, we have hope now that this individual is not gonna be like the last administration for the last 40 or 50 years. And we're in this position where we're at because of that, all right? So I think that's really an important step is to make people understand that they are being heard. That's first and foremost. And that then triggers the hope and we could start the healing and we could start working together to reach these goals we wanna reach clearly. So I think that's, to me, one of the most important steps.  We know that a big part of the division is between rural, less populated, less formally educated sectors of the country and city people who are thrown in on each other who have very, very different living conditions, perspectives and sometimes values. But there are common core values. Hey, maybe if we can start to focus on sharing the data and the information to help each of those divided sectors, understand the other better and understand the shared core values and beliefs better. Maybe that's part of it too. So maybe what we're hearing here is that the healing and the reunification are not likely going to be political or even economic or even socioeconomic, but they're going to be faith-based, they're going to be spiritual. They're going to be in people and shared between and among people. In our last minute or two, any last thoughts, Radine, Sandra, Louise, Bill? I think one of the key entities that's gonna have a role in that is also going to be in the arts. I think you gotta see, because that's where more people can kind of come together and talk as you know, whether it's in the music or in the films or in the stories or in the writing, that may be a starting place. I was kind of following some of the things that are taking place with the International Film Festival, with IF. And they're just covering an incredible range of subject areas through all kinds of media. And that is where people can come and talk sometimes. Maybe not the politics, but let's just look at our culture, our civilization, our music, our arts. Where did that come from? Where did those things come from? What do we have in common? What do we share and start from there? So the arts has a big role. That's kind of one of my other things. But yeah. It's a brilliant insight, because the arts are not only a safe place to come and share thoughts and feelings. It's a place of joy and inspiration. It's a safe place, exactly. It not only brings us together, it lifts us up. And on that line of thought, I just throw a plug-in for a hip film. It's on George Jared Helm. It's a short film. And then please go see that. When is, that's in the hip. That's in hip, yes. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah, that's where the joy is. And that's also a really important point, because if you look at what brought us together and what lifted us up in the 60s and 70s, music and the arts were at the heart of that. And that's been missing. And we need to revitalize that and make it part of the heart of our connection with each other. So on that, any last words, folks? Otherwise, we'll see you all in two weeks. Thank you for joining us. Thank you. Thank you. Take good care.


Oh, it's a really decent, sorry. Oh, great, thank you. When you start screen sharing, it moves all the windows. Yeah. People aren't adding themselves, we have 16 participants and almost 16 there. And Lorenzo, thank you. Now that we have scribes, we will have check-ins. So this is where, if anybody's new, we just go around and we check in and we say who we are, what we do, what's happening with security in our week or you can feel free to share something personal, if you like. And just anything that the group would, it doesn't have to be things security has done. It could be some article you read about security, a conference where you went to, we welcome kind of cross-fertilization because we can't all do all the things. So I'm Sarah Allen. I'm one of the co-chairs of SIG Security and most of what I've been doing in the last week is covered in the agenda. I've been doing a lot of meetings and report wrangling. So we'll get to that when we get to it. Jonathan. Thanks. So spend a lot of time this week updating some of the security tests and having a look at kind. This is all based on the threat model that we have. So yeah, just getting into some deep, kind automation at the minute. Can you say who we is in the threat model we have? It's JP Morgan. Excellent. Thanks, Jonathan. Daniel. Hi, my name is Daniel Zirov. I'm a security engineer out of the Winter. And past weeks, I didn't do anything with containers, unfortunately. Yeah, that's it. Excellent. And thanks for sharing your video. I've heard from people who don't have great audio connections or aren't native English speakers that seeing people talk, if you're willing to turn on your video when you're speaking is helpful to people here. Lutz. Hi, my name is Lutz Binker. I work for Figo, which is a fintech in Germany. My doings in security this week was mainly getting devs to do more tests in preparation for something like in total in the future long term. Thank you, Nadir. Hi, I'm a field engineer at VMware. So this week I've been talking upstream in Kubernetes and CYCLUS lifecycle. We're going through a security sprint in Kuwaitia. It's one of the beach travels of Kubernetes. Great. Justin Kappos. Oh, yeah, I presented. So am I unmuted? Yes, we can hear you now. Right, sorry, there was some visual problem with the UI. Yeah, so I'm, this week I've been doing, presented to the TOC as I think we're going to be talking about in a little bit. And also, of course, doing a lot with being Toto and related things like that. Craig. Hey, I'm Craig. I work at Heroku. I'm also part of the Kubernetes Security Auto Working Group. So this week we are actually pretty close to, I think next week having that audit and all the white paper threat model and the security assessment release except for a couple of issues that are going to be under embargo with the product security, the PSC for Kubernetes for a little bit of time and get those issues fixed. So it's an exciting news for that project. Right, yeah, and that would, I think that that might be something that we, if you're interested in coming back and presenting it, maybe we could have a little brainstorm about presentations we might like from different people in the group who are involved in different activities when it wraps up and you feel ready to. That might be neat. Yeah, that's great. Mark Underwood, maybe you're muted. Hey, did you call me? Sorry, trying to have a little duplex. Hey everybody. So Mark Underwood, I apologize for the background noise. We're trying to wrap up standards and ontologies in one meeting. It's not going to happen. No news from me. I'm at synchrony working in cybersecurity. We're still trying to build knowledge graphs around cybersecurity. So people interested in that ping me. Otherwise, no progress. All right, thanks Mark. Leonardo. Hello everyone, I'm Leo Di Donato. I'm one of the maintainer of Falco Continuative Security Runtime. This week, basically, we worked with me and Lorenzo with Curf53 for the internal audit of Falco and we are not there. Basically, in the soon, the audits will be published in a public way. And so this is what we've done about the security topic. Excellent. Congratulations. Yeah, please share it out on Slack as soon as it's published. I'm sure everybody, everybody loves your security audits in this group. Lorenzo. I'm Lorenzo Fontana. I work on Falco with Leonardo. My update is basically the same as Leonardo, but I also want to add that on the Falco side, we have been doing a lot of improvements in the stability of the project, basically. And we think that that will also improve the overall security of the project itself. It's just little things that make the project more maintainable and easier to spot the bad parts of it. So I'm very proud of that. And I hope that by doing this, we also fix all of the things found in the security audits. Great. Brandon. Hi, I'm Brandon. I'm from IBM Research. So I guess what happened recently was we were at Q-Point China. There was some interest in the group. I think I got some feedback on, some folks were interested in the idea of if we were able to give certain recommendations on security configurations and equipment at these clusters and things like that.  I think I met a few people in the class and then I met Tupang and Kaita from Falco. We ran out for dinner. So that was fun. More recently, during the past week, I'm moving apartments so nothing much fun. So I'm through my boxes to go. Great, thanks Brandon. Good luck with that. Amy. Yeah, I'm the CNCF program manager. Last week was KubeCon Shanghai. My real role today is coming in and chatting about logo. But that's later in the agenda, so. Thanks Amy. Ash. Hi, I'm Ash. I work on the open policy agent. This week I've just been working on OPA and how we can integrate with the PISTO. So that's pretty much what I'm doing this week. Nothing much, thanks. Emily. Emily Fox from the National Security Agency in the United States. Just got off the call about doing more program planning for the security day that is coming up. We'll talk more about that during the agenda. Erin. Hi there, I'm Erin with the MEFG Union Bank. Security engineer, this is my first one of these meetings so I don't have anything unique to report. Broadly speaking, data activity monitoring and open policy agent are some things that I have on my plate, though I have not done anything specific with them in the past week or two. Great, welcome. Peter. Hey, this is Peter here. I'm a software engineer with a background in security working at Teradata and I've been working to solve for software supply chain in our environment. So integrating open policy agent and evaluating a few other CNTF projects to help us achieve secure software supply chain. Great, that has been Peter. Christian, I've been trying to highlight people so that I'm aware of you. Hi, I'm Christian. I work on the Google Cloud Security team. We have been thinking a lot about how to express policy composition. So policies on policies, how meta, some people call it meta policy. This is in the context of how we can enable what we call the platform engineer, I think, right? We decided that might be another persona. So I'm still interested in having that discussion at some point. Oh yeah, that's great. Did you write an issue for it? I think I did. Yes, I think I did. Yeah, if you add it, I'll find it. I'm gonna write a note. Yeah. Thank you. Carlos. Hey, I'm Carlos Vicente. I'm working for Intel as a security researcher. I was working in some PRs about the logo on this community and also selecting two projects that will review it on the security assessment. That's pretty much it. All right, excellent. So I'm going to skip down to... I'm gonna put this actually below. Emily, are you online? Can you add the issue link to it before we get there on the agenda? I wanted to just do a couple of highlights on PRs and issues that need input. So we've been doing some wrangling of trying to get so that we don't have as much in progress. And so one of the things that we co-chairs talked about is... And we've talked about informally in the groups, but we were formalizing it, which is we did these draft landscape categories earlier this calendar year. It was an effort that was started in 2018. And there's been a bunch of feedback that I'm actually working on making sure it's all written up as issues. But we've realized that having more contextual material when we're finalizing these categories is important. So we have a while back, we started the white paper, we put it on pause. JJ is going to spearhead picking it up again, but we decided that we would formally pause this and put a stake in the sand that we would revisit after we have a draft of the white paper. So I just want to let people know that we... We added another item to our checklist of how we're going to get to a landscape. And then we're kind of queuing that up for a little later in our road... In our to be figured out roadmap. And the process that we're following, that we're still in the midst of, is we are actually echoing our process in GitHub. So for those of you who are new, we have a proposal process. If you're looking governance, anybody in the group can propose something that the group would work on. If you actually want to do work on it, then you can make it a proposal. If you just have an idea, but you're not sure you want to work on it, then it's a suggestion. So proposals carry a little more weight because we know somebody is actually volunteering to work on it. And then that's brought to group discussion at some point. And then if we all decide that we are going to do it and we have bandwidth, then we make it a project. And so we are now... Brendan did a lot of triage on the issue wrangling and Howard is working on doing that on the policy side in a different time zone. And then Justin Kappos is wrangling all the security audits. And so we're trying to get everything tracked in GitHub. So then we will have a number of issues that are projects and we will queue them up in a this. If we don't change anything, this is what we're actually doing. And then we can have a discussion about whether that's the right priority. So that's what we're working on right now. And if you're interested in kind of getting into the weeds and making sure that all of the stuff's written down that we're working on, join the triage channel on Slack. So other issues that need input, Amy, do you wanna talk about the logo? Sure thing. Yeah, so we've got a final call out for being able to say, if there's any feedback that you would like to be able to put in for the logo, please do so. We're about to go back to our designer at CNCF and probably come back with roughly four options to be able to say, here's where you can move from there. So if you can get that done, I know we've got this July 4th holiday coming up if you can get it in by the end of Friday, I will be able to come back with more directions for us. So, and what I'd like to ask people to do is so we captured notes from the last, we went around the last time and sort of people had ideas about imagery, they thought of. This was actually done, this ideation was done before that. So our designer got all excited and based on some ideation that was at KubeCon came up with these things and out of their own heck of head. And so different people have pulled out different things and made a comment on them. If you agree with it, use your emojis. You can just kind of emoji like different ones. And then I did for an example here, my voice carries, it doesn't carry any more weight than anybody else's. Saying why you like it really helps the designer. And so I just pulled out two that captured what I liked, what one of the group members said about having something iconic in a logo. So that's an example of something that would be helpful. Like if you see one of the things in this set that hasn't been commented on that you really like, pull it out, add it to the comment, say what you like about it, what you think it evokes. And if you don't like something, you can just leave it aside unless you want to vigorously say let's not do something for reasons that other people have said that they would like to do for other reasons. And you can see a discussion about visual representation that maybe we shouldn't use. So please chime in on the issue if you have thoughts. And particularly welcome any reasons you have those thoughts but any feedback is definitely valued. And then also wanted to, this is a relatively minor thing but it's very hard to write up the what we do, right? And Emily gave some great feedback on like there's been a discussion of we have a bunch of new roles relatively new in the last few months that are written up now. And there was this phrase that was difficult to capture which is what I'm trying to say is if you take on a role in the group it's your job to figure out what the right thing to do is and how to conform to be like having, we have a lot of ideas that are somewhat written down that we like to be to respect each other and be friendly and we value each other's opinions and all sorts of good collaboration things that we try to do and we try to be inclusive so that if just because one person is working on something doesn't mean that they're dictating that to the rest of the group. And so we have like a bunch of words that are trying to express the good collaborative communal feel we have but it isn't really well captured. So if you have, you know this just needs a little help to try to write this down in some way. So if you've been in the group for a while or you've been in groups like this if you kind of know what I'm talking about and you have some idea of how to capture that in words and you're willing to wade through our governance docs everybody should wade by the way because lots of people work hard on them then that really could do some input. Although it's not particularly urgent we should probably get to it some point. Six security day, Emily. You wanna start talking while I bring up the issue? Yes, I can start talking now that I've unmuted. So we had a call earlier today to talk through some of the planning in the 209 issue that got started. So Michael updated the ticket content with the proposed format and layout. So we had some good discussion essentially boiled down to we're really happy with the proposed format but now the question is whether or not we go with something that's considered a more formal day at the conference or if it's more informal. So next week what we're gonna end up doing is having somebody present about un-conference so we can learn a little bit more about that style. There seems to be a lot of various ways that you can do an open kind of space feel at a conference. We're not necessarily looking to do a mix of both because we feel logistically that would be a little bit difficult to manage but if it's formal we're running short on time for some of those things. If it's informal we have plenty of time however it's a little bit more legwork to source presentations. So if you have any feelings on anything about it feel free to read through the comment it's posted in the notes for the update of what our last meeting was and if you have a feel one way or the other for more formal or informal certainly post that will take it into consideration as we work through in trying to figure out what's gonna work best for what we're trying to accomplish. So as a reminder the whole point of Security Day is to bring like minds together passionate people about security in a cloud native environment so they can discuss and work together on either identifying solutions sharing lessons learned anything associated with that. We're not looking to generate a standards or a body associated with the conflict of security day but more make available any presentations that are put together or any notes that are taken if we do lightning talks or the open spaces environment. So feel free to provide comments on the tickets we'll certainly add them we'll certainly review them and when we meet next week again to learn more about on-conference hopefully we'll have a decision by then to share our CNCS so they can begin marketing and promotions of the Security Day. And we have a Slack channel. Yes. Security events. So this is we decided that it would be for any live event. So right now we're focused on this Security Day but then this is an ongoing channel for things like this. So feel free to join that channel if you're interested. And then JJ is going to take over as the SIG chair sponsoring this initiative so and because it'll happen mostly organizing will happen outside at the working group meetings. Any questions? Thank you, Emily first for getting this and Michael who is I think in another time zone and on vacation this week. What's that? Michael is not here is on vacation back anyway. Yeah. Yes. But he's been doing a lot of work behind the scenes and we appreciate that. So report from the CNCF TOC. Justin can you talk a little bit about the presentation you gave and I will dig up slides while you do that and link to them and a bit about the discussion that was had. So basically we just had a conversation about the security assessment process why we're doing it what it's used for what both the end users in the community are expected to get out of it and what the TOC is supposed to get out of it. Most of the feedback there was that related actually security assessments was fairly minor a few clarifying questions about things but we had a much more spirited discussion which I think we're going to talk about in a little bit here. So I will I do want to say a couple actually a couple quick things. So in total assessment which is a software supply chain security project is going to be presented next Tuesday at the TOC meeting. So this is going to be the TOC's first chance to really look at a completed assessment and give us feedback. So it is actually a good opportunity for people to see what the TOC thinks about this and would be a good meeting for people in general here in sick security to make because of this. It's very interesting security assessments. And the other thing is that I'm going to be pushing people a little bit to actually formally completely complete the OPA assessment. So Ash, I'll be prodding you a bit and I'll also be prodding people from our side to finish up the very small number of very, very minor things so we can actually get a PR in. Did you want to do the, do you feel like we've addressed, we kind of had a shorter than planned presentation and Q and A session. Do you feel like that's been addressed to Async or do you think that we should allocate some time for part two of that presentation? Because that was right before KubeCon and then it got interrupted by KubeCon EU and vacations and things. I, okay. So I'll leave it open to other people on the call who read over the OPA assessment and OPA documents. Were there questions that you felt like you wanted to ask in that context? Well, maybe we can just, I wanted to put it out there. I don't think we have to decide right now, but like I wanted to let Ash know and you know and the folks on the call who are reviewing that that if it would be helpful to take it to a close to have a discussion, we can set aside time for that. Yeah, and I'd like to say also that we definitely don't want, the part of my worry about doing this is making this too open-ended of a process. We want to have a definite sort of finish point for this and he came and presented and maybe we didn't allocate our time very well for that meeting, but the, you know, in general, we should be able to find a way to carve off something like 45 minutes of time for an assessment in the meeting itself. And, but we shouldn't be dragging people back multiple times except for, you know, I guess while we're still figuring out the process which we sort of kind of are. So hopefully poor Santiago is the only one really, you know, the process should be smoother after certainly hopefully the OPA one works out all the rest of the kingdom. Yeah, I think that what my lesson learned from the last one is just that, I think that having the person's leading the assessment facilitate the meeting to make sure that the pacing is getting the results that we want, I think, well, is a nice little process improvement there. So in terms of the other thing that, oh, any questions on the security assessment presentation to the TOC and kind of where the next steps is really... Would be nice if you could get access to this because it seems it's locked. Oh, that was not intentional. Share. Share is related, Sarah. What's that? I have a question that's probably related, but I don't know. May I go ahead? Go ahead. So I'm trying to understand because now for the sandbox exit, there's a technical due diligence to do. I'm just trying to understand what are the actors involved? We should perform the due diligence. Is like the CIG or the TOC? Well, the TOC can add its option delegate to the CIG. So that's one of the things that we're trying to figure out with CIG security. If it's a security project and due diligence needs to be done, then we would participate in that. Historically, it's been done by a TOC contributor. Like the TOC says, hey, anybody can volunteer as a contributor. That means that you're saying, hey, if you need help, I will corral myself or people at my company to help. And so that's how the TOC started to kind of expand its footprint. And then the idea is that the CIGs kind of cover the span of all the projects. And so the TOC hasn't quite figured out. One of the things that came up in the TOC meeting was actually having kind of like a workflow diagram would really help everybody instead of it being as ad hoc as it is. Like, you know, the TOC doesn't always speak with a single voice, you know?  Now, as of a few months ago, we have TOC liaisons for each CIG. So if it's like a storage product, then the TOC would likely ask CIG storage to do diligence on a move from sandbox to incubation or incubation to graduation. However, they may also ask CIG security about it if it's an open question in some way. And so that's where we're kind of security cuts across a bunch of, you know, other projects as well that might have security implications but aren't for security. And so some of that is kind of where in that realm and a lot of it, because the TOC doesn't always have bandwidth to figure this stuff out in the timeframe that we need to know it, we've taken the approach of taking the initiative on like, hey, what do we think is important? How are we gonna approach this? So we have to the extent that we have bandwidth if the TOC doesn't ask for help, but we're like, hey, we kind of wanna weigh in on this project, this particular project transitioning from one thing to another, we can prioritize that participating in that and anybody can come to the TOC meetings and chime in or chime in on the issues. Thanks for the very detailed answer, it's more clear now. Great. And so one of the things that came up that I just, I definitely like, I wanna discuss amongst ourselves and we'll get TOC input in as well is that Joe Beta, who's actually one of our TOC liaisons like brought up this, how do we prioritize the assessments where are they always CNCF projects? We had talked about that we would prioritize CNCF projects, we might not even have bandwidth to do all the CNCF projects and we would also prioritize the ones that are specifically delivering security, except that we will also wanna do in this first five, do something that is not itself for security. So we kind of get a sense of what that kind of security assessment is like. And so Justin Capos, if you wanna just chime in a little bit about how we came up with this list, like this list that, and your thoughts about prioritization to kick off the discussion, that'd be great. Yeah, sure. So some of this was provided to us because we were provided with a set of projects that the TOC thought were security projects and we took a few of those and omitted them from that, from the review, at least felt they were a lower priority. For instance, I had just prior to this done, Autistic Inspire, which is mentioned down at the bottom of the screen there. And so because I had just sort of done of actually a more rigorous audit process or assessment process than what we're doing in our assessments, it seemed less important for us to do that right away. The same was sort of true of, yeah, perfect. So looking at that list, on that list, the things that we clearly wanted to audit were Falco and OPA, because those were on the list of things proposed by the TOC. InTodo had also been mentioned because InTodo was, which is a software supply chain project, brought up by the TOC that they would like to have it go through this process. So InTodo project, which I'm involved with, went through, I did not participate in the assessment from an assessor standpoint, but we did the OPA assessment in the meantime in terms of the other things on the list there. Those are projects that were largely people mentioned to us as either the developer saying, hey, we would like to be a part of this or we think this would be good to have this assessment or someone else said, hey, this is a project you should look at. And in terms of the actual order, we've mostly tried to take projects when they say they're ready to go. We haven't really pushed anyone to do this when they weren't ready. I do think... Okay, the last part of the question she's asking about was prioritization. I would like to see ideally even two projects that are not security projects listed here in the first five or at least the first five or six however many we decided to go to before we kind of reassess the process. But I think having some of those projects is also important because I believe we should do this process for every project that wants to be considered for graduation. And I think there's an argument to be made we should also at least every few years do this for every project in the CNCF. But those are just my personal opinions and don't represent anyone else's. Didn't we have a ticket open to discuss like the frequency at which these audits are supposed to be performed and at what stages and membership with the CNCF the projects are supposed to be reviewed? I feel like almost Asia view that we've started to have that conversation at some point. I don't remember what's the ticket number. Yeah, so there's a ticket. So it has been decided. I think we should write it all up and review it but it was proposed to us by the TOC that the assessments should be valid for a year and we should re-review them annually. And so there's, I wrote up an issue that that should be written down. What the annual review is, is TBD. We thought we would wait until a year goes by on one of these before we worry about exactly the content of that annual review. And we thought that for a lot of projects that might just be a like, hey project has anything changed and some kind of quickie thing. So I think that that's, I think the thing that we haven't talked about at the other half of that is how do these assessments relate to sandbox, incubation and graduation? Yeah, and I know that we had, I know, well, I remember commenting on a particular ticket where we had discussed that. So I'm happy that CNTF has come forward and said like, we'll do it annually but we get to define what the scope of that annual review is supposed to be. But I know that we talked about it in at least one of the tickets and for the life of me, I cannot find it right now. But we had, we tried to figure it out, like what should the model look like? Should it be before they graduate completely? Should it be just that each, in order for them to like move from the sandbox, incubation, whichever phase that they're currently in or trying to get into, that's when an initial review is done. Should it be like a lightweight to, for anybody that's being proposed into CNTF? How, at what time frequencies or what life cycle stages should SIG security get involved? And whether or not there is a requirement for somebody to graduate, like Cooper Denny's has graduated, that they have a full audit complete head to toes done for that effort. And I just can't find the- So I've got it up on the screen here. Which is just this, the thing, this is just that there is an annual review process documenting that and Robert's volunteered to get it into our docs. I think that I want to pause on the, we should write up separately and maybe we can have a chat or on Slack to find whether there actually is an issue that is the other thing, which is the graduation processes. They like the incubation sandbox and so forth. The more substantive thing that I wanted to have discussed is whatever we decide to do for quite a while there will be a large backlog of projects, right? CNTF has dozens of projects. There are many, many things that need to be, that would benefit from a security assessment.  Do we want, like, what are the things? Like, do we want to do that? Do we want to just be like, oh, well, first come, first serve? Or how do we want to think about reviewing it? And I want to, in light of the, let me find a, I want to just remind everybody of why we're doing this, which is that I'll actually go to our charter and governance, that our mission is to reduce risk that cloud native applications expose end user data or allow other unauthorized access. And our charter is like, so generally we're doing this to reduce risk to the whole ecosystem and the security assessments themselves, I'm not going to go through this in detail, but just point out that it's here, have that kind of elaborated that we believe that one is the assessments themselves will reduce risks and that the data that's provided and the exercise will itself accelerate adoption of cloud native technologies, which is the mission of the CNCF. So in that light, how should we think about using our time and queuing up these assessments? People have thoughts. I don't know if we start approaching projects, we will be able to keep up with the scale, but for sure approaching projects that are, I don't know, super popular, we can define what is super popular later, what benefit like for in general the cloud adoption, let's call it. Does anybody else have any thoughts about like, I got really curious, I thought about like, there's some projects that aren't CNCF projects that are very widely used, right? And then there are ones that are CNCF projects that are less widely used, right? And how should we think about like, what level of use presents more risk people have? I mean, given that the security is from the CNCF, I would tend to focus scope on CNCF specific projects and that if there is an effort outside of CNCF that is widely used, that perhaps it should be looked at bringing brought into the fold for inclusion within the CNCF and review by security, I worry that the landscape is so large that just saying, cause there's a large project out there that everybody's already using, can you guys take a look when we've already committed to a bunch of other things might stretch current resources too thin. So kind of re-scoping it to focus more on CNCF and then maybe evaluating at a later date if there is something that's no kidding part of the ecosystem and so widely used and adopted like almost to the scale of how Kubernetes is, maybe those ones should be the exception to that role and they have to have, I don't know, some quorum of agreement for review. My suggestion, and yeah, a point taken, my thinking about this is, it's the degree of dependency and this kind of begs the questions of Justin's supply chain project, what counts as the highly dependent ones but the ones that are widely employed in the DevOps space but that are not CNCF but are part of the tools pipeline should be at least addressed even if we address the fact that we really don't take a deep dive into them. But we should also not forget that we rely on participation of the project, right? So if there is a project that is not part of CNCF and could be hostile to the CNCF for whatever reason, they are probably less likely to participate in something like that but we do rely on having some good will from the project owners. Yeah, I think that's a good point. I mean, we have just to tell everybody what we've been, we have for practical reasons favored projects who are excited to participate. And I like that idea because we have really, I think, been successful in making this a collaborative approach so far. Yeah, my think on this is that I mean, I feel a lot of the security stuff came before, the stuff that came before currently like the key measurements and stuff like that. I think it's important to consider it within the landscape but I'm not sure whether really having a security assessment of it is really necessary since I think a lot of these projects are usually very well established or have been there and they are kind of being looked at that other users of security besides cognitive as well. Yeah, that's a good point. I think that the person who first brought up widely used was it's not clear how we would define that. And so if it's so widely used that everybody understand its security profile or there's something, there's somewhere, I think that there's widely used as a proxy for need. So I think that's a good point, Brandon. Yeah, things like the Linux kernel where I'm not sure that they have actually established enough of a security baseline and a lot of people are working to make sure that the kernel is secure but I'm not sure that Linus cares. But that's what SELinux kind of does. I mean, there's already other efforts involved in that and the Linux foundation itself and OpenStack also have security groups. So I worry about expanding the scope of this group into other areas that have their own respective security teams so we're not stepping on everybody's toes. That's a really good point and I think for the people who are new we have two things that are filters for what we work on and one of them is it actually has to be cloud native. So Linux is often used in the cloud but it isn't really particularly, like it's also used outside of the cloud. We talked about like spam filters for email, right? Like it doesn't require the cloud. It is not specific to cloud. So we really wanna focus our efforts on things that are really different because of cloud and cloud native to whatever we think that means. And then the other thing is we try to, if there is a group already doing a thing and we try to reach out and invite that person to tell us about it or learn about it. And I think CII best practices is a good example of that that we've kind of like folded into our process a little bit and then we brought in experts from NIST and from Kubernetes groups. And so I think so far we've done a pretty good job about that. So Emily really good point that we wanna continue to do that. Other thoughts on how to figure out priorities of our assessments? But one of the things that might be interesting is what priority should the recertification get, right? So if we still have a backlog of projects that we have never looked at, is it really useful to look at a project again to make sure that they didn't fall out of whatever compliance standards we have? I really think at least for the time being we can solve all this by just having the TSC tell us. Just tell them what bandwidth we have and then they pick. We can make suggestions, but I think, I mean, Christian, you're absolutely right. But I feel like we're, I don't know, the TSC is supposed to guide us in this area. So doing what's most useful for them probably makes us the most useful SIG. Yeah, I think what I was saying is that we have so far gotten, we're gonna talk to Liz and Joe about this and in an upcoming, hopefully our first meeting with them together. And I wanted to make sure that if we had strong feelings in the membership group, but we brought that to them too, because I think we sometimes, I mean, we're lucky now because we have people who actually know a lot about security on the TSC. Whereas last year it was, there were very few people on the TSC who were as knowledgeable about security as Joe and Liz are. So we kind of, in that void, had to, like we were bringing to them what we thought was, and they were looking to us to say what, what are the things that could be safe? We're supposed to validate if they're missing something, right? We wanna raise it. Any other thoughts or shall we? I think just maybe one, final one on that one. Some members may have already done security assessments or liked security assessments or similar products anyway. And I think, if people are willing to share that sort of information, at least as an initial stage, that might be useful contribution back to the group. Not to sway the prioritization, specifically I kind of agree with Justin on that one. But look, if you already implemented half of it, I'll bring it to the table and assist that way. Actually, that's a really good point because we do that with the audits where, you know, like we had this vision that like the assessment would inform an audit, but if audits have already happened, we read them as part of the assessment and just pulling together that. And I think you're absolutely right that there's a lot of the member companies that would be happy to share audits that they've done that cover the open source projects if they happen to have them. So that's, I think that's a way that we can use the CNCF and the end user community and figure out how to communicate to them. Would that be beneficial to include not necessarily in the projects area, but in a separate area of, here's one that security hasn't personally looked at, but here's what we already know about them. So if we're trying to encourage people to come to us to understand what it is that we've done, security status of a particular project or effort looks like, they also have that as a resource to dive into. I think that's a great idea. I think we have an issue open for like some kind of an index. So that would be a great thing to have. The assessments is listing one. I just commented on it. Thanks. What NIST does in this space to deal with this problem is to have conformance levels and expect that you're not going to audit everybody. And some people that you don't reach that are not purely cloud native can self certify or at least disclose what level of conformance that they have to this. And if you go in that direction, it's the declarations and process around the audit that's more important than the audit itself in the long run. But you have to establish the value by doing good audit. So it's not either or. That's a good point. Lorenzo says, I have a cardboard with priorities on it. Yeah, on your right, on the other side. Oh, behind you. Oh, I do. Oh, I have priority mail. How topical. Fabulous. Oh, and then I also wanted to call on Justin Cormack because you've been involved in, you were involved in this as a TOC contributor with Justin Kappos before we became a SIG. And if you had any thoughts too, whether there've been, you know, you've been involved in discussions about how those activities got prioritized in the past or thoughts? Yeah, I don't think, I don't have any inside information. I wasn't directly involved in discussions with the TOC. So I did get the impression from the meeting yesterday that some people had strong opinions about prioritization and that we're slightly, the discussion over that seems to take quite a long time. So I think that we should just listen to them. Yes. So I think one of the things. You know, you can't force people to prioritize things they didn't want to do and these are volunteers. And I think that if people want to do work that we all agree is important, then we shouldn't stop people doing it either. Yeah, I think one of the things that I'm trying to increase is transparency because there was some question about why we did in TODO first before they're a CNCF project. But in fact, we did in TODO because we were asked to buy the prior TOC. So we need to do a better job of communicating, hey, TOC, you asked for these things and we are doing them. Yeah. So you members, this is what we're doing, right? And so I think Amy is going to actually help us get into like a heartbeat of communication with the TOC so that as new members come in, there's some continuity. Yeah, and I think they seem to recognize that they need a more structured onboarding process for new projects because it is very ad hoc. So maybe they will formally ask us to do assessments for some or all of the projects that are coming in, which would definitely make sense. Well, I think... But obviously, I mean, looking at the current backlog, there are a huge number of projects potentially coming in as sandbox or maybe not an old sandbox. I don't know, so they need to make that more clear. Yeah, and part of it was, I think, before there was such a backlog, when in the era of like Q4 last year, they asked us to look at in TODO as a way to pre-filter in TODO before they gave a presentation and that they said, well, whether anybody says they want to give a presentation to the TOC, why don't you do a security assessment if they're a security-related project, right? Which is why we're queued up key club. So it's a process. And I think that what I was referring to is actually, I think there needs to be a onboarding of TOC members that maybe we should think about when there's a new TOC elected next year that we invite them to tell them what SIG security does or we have like us, or maybe Amy could have a all new TOC members. This is what all the SIGs do. So that there's a little more continuity for the TOC because we treat them as if they're one body, but they're actually different people every year. Well, there will be more overlap in future. It was only historical reasons there was so much change. I think it'll be 50, 50, not almost 100% next time. In terms of, because I think the seats are now now staggered more. Yeah. Great. And so in all the prioritization thing, it's not ready for discussion, but I just wanted to let you know this process that I referred to before of like making things labeled as projects. So the triage team and the chairs are working to catalog the things that we're actually working on. And I'm experimenting with this board so that we can see, oh, look, here are some things in progress. We haven't captured everything in progress. And the idea is that these are, there's a lot of little things in progress where one person is working on a PR to clarify something. And so this is supposed to capture the things that a group of people are doing together that require coordination and attention. And we probably don't want too many of these things at once because some of them might need extra help. And let's make sure that we finish something before starting a new thing. So I just wanted to give you an idea that this is like what we're working towards. And then once we collect all of these things, we'll get insights from Joe and Liz and we'll also review it with the whole group so we can get everybody's feedback on how we're prioritizing things. Because we wanna have all of the various proposals and different things. And we might even get to the point where we have requests for proposals because we have things that are on our written mode roadmap that we haven't gotten to. So just to let newcomers know, we have a roadmap here, which is very broad, right? And we're kind of in the process of doing this kind of, how do we describe what is cloud native security? And there's a lot of enthusiasm for, wait, I know that this thing is missing, let's do it. Let's take care of this thing. And we are doing a fairly long, slow process of, but I think we were getting to the end of it, which is this is what we, this group think of as cloud native security and having that written down, which is we've got a number of the artifacts written down already. And then we can actually dive in more into filling those gaps. And so, and then we started to catalog the things that we've done. And so we envision that this will evolve into a things that are a set of proposals, projects, requests for proposals. So that people, there's more transparency about what do all these words mean and how do I scrub in and help and participate. So more on that later. I just, you know, if people wanna add notes to issues, the sort of triage work of like, what is this thing? Can we just take care of it with a PR or do we actually have a discussion? Is it something that we need multiple people for or we can just take care of with some async discussion? All of that we're trying to sort of clear the decks. So to whatever extent people have time and inclination to dive in to help us resolve some of the smaller detailed things that would help a lot. And then we'll raise it in a future meeting. And I think that ends our meeting for today. Thanks, everybody. Cool, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. Thanks. Happy 4th if it applies. Oh yes, for the Americans. Happy Independence Day tomorrow. Brexit 1776, apparently. Yes, right. Being out ahead on that one. Far great thinking. Hi, everybody.


You may recall the basic rule of the Law of Treaties, Pacta sun servanda. As article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties reads, every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith. Observance of the treaty is owed by its parties from the moment it enters into force for each of them. You know that. It is not owed before that moment. However, it is possible that the parties to the treaty agree to apply the treaty or some of its provisions provisionally pending its entry into force. And this is because the ratifications procedures in every state may be a very lengthy process. Article 25 of the Vienna Convention provides for such possibility, a possibility which actually is quite common in practice, notably for treaties concluded by the European Union and its member states on the one hand with other states on the other hand. Of course the provisional application of a treaty with respect to a party is terminated if that party notifies the other parties that it does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Let me now recall another basic rule of international law that you know already. A state may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform the treaty. As article 27 of the Vienna Convention also recalls, the only exception to that basic rule is article 46. That is a defect of consent consisting in the manifest breach of a domestic law provision relating to the competence to conclude treaties. You may remember that. Let me turn now to the temporal spatial and personal scopes of treaties. From a temporal point of view it is quite elementary in every legal system that as a matter of principle new rules only apply for the future and not to the past. And this is true also of the law of treaties and article 28 of the Vienna Convention provides for the principle of non-retroactivity of their provisions. A treaty does not bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before the entry into force of the treaty for that party. Of course states may provide otherwise but this will remain exceptional and it must be made clear in the treaty. The rule on non-retroactivity also governs the temporal application of customary rules and of other sources of international law. From a spatial point of view now and as article 29 of the Vienna Convention puts it, I quote, a treaty is binding upon each party in respect of its entire territory. In other words the territorial sovereignty of states defines the scope of application of their respective treaties. And again this principle is not absolute and a different intention may appear from the treaty. For instance a treaty relating to the construction of a dam on an international watercourse may be applicable only to the section of the river where the dam must be built. Now from a personal or racioné-personé point of view the basic principle of Pactas und Cervanda explains that because any treaty must be performed in good faith by the parties to it, a contrario, a treaty does not create any right or any obligation for states or for international organizations that are not party to it. And this is made clear by article 34 of the Vienna Convention and this principle is called the relative effect of treaties which in domestic law would correspond to what is called the privity of contracts. But of course it is entirely possible if a non-party consents that a treaty confers to it a right or imposed on it an obligation. According to article 35 the third state must expressly accept the obligation in writing for such obligation to arise under a treaty to which it is not party. And in practice this is really really exceptional that states accept obligations imposed upon them by treaties to which they are not parties. According to article 36 the consent of the third state is presumed if the treaty confers a right to it but the treaty may nevertheless require express consent. And in exercising the right conferred to it under the treaty the third state must comply with the conditions for its exercise. The conditions for the exercise of the right are somehow obligations on the third state. Such conditions for the exercise of the right must extended to the third party can be provided for under the treaty or under other instruments deriving from it. And this is more frequent in practice and for instance the right of passage through the Suez Canal has been extended to the ships of all states under the Convention of Constantinople of 1888 which was however only concluded between eight European powers at the time and the Ottoman Empire. Of course and as we have already seen during the second week of this course when speaking about the borders of new states, state succession to border treaties is an exception to the rule according to which treaties are not binding on third states. And furthermore one should not forget that some treaty provisions may have a double nature. Any treaty provision is of course binding on the parties as a matter of treaty law but if the treaty provision also reflects a customary rule of international law its normative content will be binding on the third states as custom. An article 38 of the Vienna Convention recalls that. And if at some point in time the treaty terminates but the customary rule reflected in one of its provision continues to exist then all states including the parties to the terminated treaty all states will continue to be bound by that customary rule. And if the customary rule is well phrased well expressed by the treaty provision there is no reason not to continue to refer to it as a matter of convenience knowing of course that the words and sentences are those of a customary rule of international law not of a treaty.


Hey guys, how you doing? This is Rich here on behalf of Rich TV Live. We are 33 days 15 hours 10 minutes and 15 seconds away from history Recreational cannabis will be legalized in Canada and as you can see we have all the winners right here KALY and Juju the big winners today also till right up 10% KHRN up 7% those are the big winners today on a day where we are mostly red Everything is consolidating after the big wins and if you want to get all the news and all the details of everything That's happening in the market. Just go to rich TV live calm hover over stocks all the tools you need are right there Absolutely free you want to contact us you want to follow us on all of our social media all of our social media platforms are Right there everything you need to know about us is right here You want to learn my trading strategies scroll down on the home screen and bam right there the rich system Everything you need to know is right there. So the big news is Namaste so yesterday I want to clear the air so yesterday one of our members went to The pledge party in Montreal with Snoop Dogg and they had a huge announcement They announced that they received their sales license at this event now a lot of people are like rich This is not true. They didn't get their license. This is the news that is broken Now, I don't know because nothing has been confirmed yet if the license they were talking about was a license for Canada This is discussing a license for the UK. Let's just go over this news. Okay first Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Namaste technologies and in Canada and Xttf in America is pleased to announce that the company's wholly owned subsidiary Namaste Bahamas Inc Has signed a binding term sheet to acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares of a UK based AF trading limited Access fulfillment operates a 30,000 square feet distribution facility in the UK and holds a wholesale distribution authorization human license issued by the Medicines and health care products regulatory agency the MH RA which allows access fulfillment to Pharmaceutical products throughout the UK the acquisition of access fulfillment is the first step in Namaste developing its future medical cannabis distribution platform in the UK which represents a much larger customer base than that of the Canadian operations The company intends to launch a platform similar to its Canadian holy home subsidiary can mark ink within the UK market to help monetize on its database of over 500,000 customers prior to July 2018 the UK prohibited the use of medical cannabis Since that time the UK home security has announced that licensed clinic Clinicians will now be able to legally Prescribe cannabis-derived medicines to patients as an alternative to prescription drugs as medical cannabis legalization in the UK Progresses Namaste believes this acquisition will provide the company with the first mover advantage in the UK market Which will enable them to implement a fully integrated platform and sales funnel based on Namaste's Current can mark business model Namaste is focused on creating the largest global platform for everything cannabis and is developing innovative technology the acquisition of access fulfillment and its license with MH RA Provides Namaste with the nearest necessary Infrastructure to capitalize on the market where it maintains a strong market presence the key terms Namaste will acquire all issue-notes standing shares of access fulfillment for US $5 million payment to access fulfillment will be 50% in cash 50% in Namaste common stock shares no capital raise will be required Access fulfillment management will sign consulting agreements for operations and business development Access fulfillment management will sign non-compete agreements Access fulfillment will operate as Namaste's exclusive distribution center for CBD and cannabis products in the UK The acquisition of access fulfillment will be subject to approval by the Toronto Venture Exchange Both parties will have 30 days to complete signed definitive documents required to complete the transaction. This is big news Here it is right here Further to the announcement related to the term sheet Namaste would like to announce the success of its shareholder pledge party the pledge party which brought together over 800 investors and 200 media influencers at new city gas in Montreal last night on Wednesday, September 12 2018 the event which was for company shareholders who participated in a Voluntary 90-day pledge to hold their shares was an incredible success The pledge party was the first party of its kind and featured celebrity performances and Namaste's very strategic Partners who sponsored the event Namaste would like to thank the opera take the opportunity to thank its sponsors and Reinforce its position with each partner who had the opportunity to speak to shareholders and the media as Outlined below. So then it goes and it breaks down all of their partners Pineapple Express Blisco cannabis I and old life R&D These are all partners Why? PB group Shadows orizer Famous brands Inc. Here's the one. I want to read famous brands represent several celebrity brands of smoking products Including Cheech and Chong up in smoke trailer park boys Jay and silent Bob and Snoop dogs exclusive glass line Snoop Pounds Namaste maintains a strong relationship with famous brands as it offers its unique offering of high-quality smoking accessory strong brands and collaborations are at the core of famous brands business its founders have over 20 years of experience in the Smoking accessories industry and have come together to deliver the strongest most well-known brands to the market Working with top celebrities and film studios Famous brands offers the largest array of mainstream smoking products so you can go and learn more about Namaste technologies and Get all the information right here. You can go to their website which is namaste technologies calm and We are only 33 days 15 hours 3 minutes away from legalizing recreational cannabis in Canada Namaste signs a binding agreement to be a major player in the UK This is breaking news. They had a pledge party to announce this yesterday where Snoop Dogg was in attendance It's true. This is the big news. If there's any other news that breaks your boy rich will break it first Now I had a member yesterday at this pledge party Contact us within our group and break the news that they got their license I announced it publicly that they received their license Remember rich TV live is strictly for education entertainment purposes. Nothing had been confirmed. I broke the news I dropped the video. This is the news that they are announcing now. There may be more news to follow Keep us updated Stay tuned. This is your boy rich if you're not winning. You're not watching. I think Namaste is a big winner I put it in full alert. I think that they will explode And I think this is just the start. I really do. Let's take a look at what bar chart thinks It's a 96% buy on bar chart. The trend strength is maximum What do you think about Namaste technologies? If you like the video smash the like button Please comment down below and share the video everywhere Remember I win and you win. We all win. It's true 33 days 15 hours one minute and 22 seconds away from history Namaste signs binding term sheet to acquire UK based license pharmaceutical distribution company AF trading limited I'm out Peace