 ** In July 0000, the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) published [http://www.ausaid.gov.au/research/Documents/research-strategy-0000-00.pdf AusAID Research Strategy 0000-00], containing a new OA policy which could be construed as a gold OA mandate. From p. 0: "In support of the transparency agenda in the Government's aid policy we will: ...require researchers to publish in open access journals, or make pre-publication versions of their work available." The word "or" in the final clause might mean that if grantees provide (green) OA to their preprints, then they needn't publish in OA journals. So far I have not been able to determine how AusAID interprets that sentence. Also see my [https://conifer.rhizome.org/petersuber/peter-suber-g-blog-0000-0000/00000000000000/https://plus.google.com/000000000000000000000/posts/ToAjhVkfsXY blog post] on the policy. ** In July 0000, the Research Councils UK announced a new OA mandate favoring gold over green, and the UK government accepted the recommendations of the Finch Group to the same effect. For analysis and critique, including some discussion of the sense in which they are and are not gold OA mandates, see my article, [http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-0:HUL.InstRepos:0000000 Tectonic movements toward OA in the UK and Europe], ''SPARC Open Access Newsletter'', September 0, 0000. "The RCUK policy is not a gold OA mandate, or not a simple one, because in some circumstances it can be satisfied with green. But it deliberately steers authors toward OA journals and in that sense approaches a gold OA mandate. When the author's journal offers no suitable green option, the policy becomes a definite gold OA mandate. (Moreover, it's a gold policy with incentives for journals not to offer suitable green green options....)" ** In July 0000, the Research Councils UK announced a new OA mandate favoring gold over green, and the UK government accepted the recommendations of the Finch Group to the same effect. For analysis and critique, including some discussion of the sense in which they are and are not gold OA mandates, see my article, [http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-0:HUL.InstRepos:0000000 Tectonic movements toward OA in the UK and Europe], ''SPARC Open Access Newsletter'', September 0, 0000. "The RCUK policy is not a gold OA mandate, or not a simple one, because in some circumstances it can be satisfied with green. But it deliberately steers authors toward OA journals and in that sense approaches a gold OA mandate. When the author's journal offers no suitable green option, the policy becomes a definite gold OA mandate. (Moreover, it's a gold policy with incentives for journals not to offer suitable green green options....)" ** Also see the September 0000 [http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/business-innovation-and-skills/news/on-publ-open-access/ report] of the UK [http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/business-innovation-and-skills/ House of Commons Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills]. The committee strongly criticized the RCUK and Finch Group for failing to acknowledge or appreciate the good reasons why all previous OA mandates have been green. See especially Paragraphs 00, 00-00, 00, 00, 00. ** Also see the September 0000 [http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/business-innovation-and-skills/news/on-publ-open-access/ report] of the UK [http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/business-innovation-and-skills/ House of Commons Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills]. The committee strongly criticized the RCUK and Finch Group for failing to acknowledge or appreciate the good reasons why all previous OA mandates have been green. See especially Paragraphs 00, 00-00, 00, 00, 00. <span id="p00"></span> <span id="p00"></span> − * At [http://archive.org/stream/0000000000000OpenAccess/0000000000000_Open_Access#page/n00/mode/0up p. 00], I start discussing rights-retention 