[CivicAccess-discuss] Open Government and musings

[Tracey P. Lauriault]

 The Beneficiaries of Gov 2.0
http://blogs.adobe.com/adobeingovernment/2010/02/the_beneficiaries_of_gov_20.html

I liked that this author asked that the citizen/end user of open government
/ government data be considered in the equation and not just the goverati
calling the shots to meet their particularist needs.  Just like the sale of
radarsat meant nothing to most Canadians when it was framed in
technolpolitical or scientific parlance but got traction when it got framed
as a sovereighty issue.  That also told me something about how we do not
really know how to think or talk about science and technology, but that is
another matter.  I am also appreciating the critical reflections on the open
data cases to date.  It helps us/me think them through and to temper /
question rhetoric and utopias.

Open data / open government, if framed in the language of deliberative /
participatory democracry and/or information equalization could result in the
discourse being about information/data the government creates as being
a public good which should be in the public domain.  Particularly since we
have already invested in it as citizens.  It means stating that
when citizens have access to those data / information they can participate /
act in the process and not just be the recipients of policy.  It can become
a dialogical process.  As Darin Barney states it, it is about doing
citizenship.  But this takes time.

A conversation about what we believe our democracy is about, what our roles
and responsibilities are, and how access to public data / information fit
into that equation is a good place to start.

At the moment the debate is mired in crown copyright, budgets, licenses,
business cases, formats, open source, transparency, cost recovery, the
information officer, cool applications, statistics canada, etc.  These
are operational, implementation and technological issues.  These are often
tautological arguments and are not tied into why we are doing this in the
first place.  They are not even considered as part of the higher order
principle open government / open data as being a key part of the democratic
process.   That is where we/I should start.  We each know something about a
or some tree/s but we/I do not see the splendour of the forest let alone the
magnificience of the global ecosystem.

I just read a paper by Mueller, Mathiason and Klein (2007). *The Internet
and Global Governance: Principles and Norms for a New Regime*.  I read it
right after attenting 2 Digital Economy Round Tables on Parliament Hill
yesterday.  One on *The Modern Digital Infrastructure and Foreign
Ownership*and the other
*Copyright, Intellectual Property Protection and the Future of Broadcasting
in the Internet Age* moderated by Modérateurs: Marc Garneau & Pablo
Rodriguez.  Partisan tones, all panelists were men, overepresentation of
cultural industries and no sciece & engineering representation and very much
'a society du spectacle' type of event, but nonetheless it was a good
discussion between and among a select group of key big players that have
opposing views.

The paper described the elements of what a regime is: "implicit or explicit
principles, norms, rules and decision making procedures around which actors
'expectations converge in a given area of international relations."  How
does one go about that:

1. Principles are agreed upon - Open Government is ..... the principles of
open data are...
2. Agreement about norms, which tie into principles - what are the standards
and obligations of the parties involed in open government...
3. Then come rules, prescriptions and proscriptions for action -
legislation, acts, directives, regulation, Treasury Board of Canada rules
4. Finally decision making procedures and the organizations through which
the rules are implemented, established and institutionalized - finances,
budgets, who, mechanisms, formats, etc.

The last two are developed in alignement with the principles and the norms.

When I think of the round table discussions which were mostly particularists
desires and not what is good for Canadians; whininig about the mechanics of
the current process; proscriptions without principles, tangled in the
technicalities of implementation or operations.  I also learned that Bill
C-61 included specifics about technologies, which surprised me, as I would
expect a bill on copyright to not be discussing video tapes but
reproduction.  Apparently, Bill C-60 did not.  Also, reflecting upon a
conversatation I had with Michael Lenczner about higher order thinking in
relation to open data combined with my general observations about our
political process, the conversations I have had with public officials in the
past few months and, yikes, thoughts about our society in general, I thik we
all seem to be muddled in the bits, rules, problems, issues, fiscal
constraints, fears, operations and so and we have no frame of reference
about how this fits into Canadian society, economy and culture.

Our open government / open data discussions are about applications,
catalogues, user licenses, formats, code, data types, and while we are doing
that, and unthinkingly self referencing ourselves (e.g. just copying
Vancouver Open Data terms of use or catalogue) we are not providing our
governers in both the bureacracy and government with a principled frame of
reference for them to implement this work.  We are also not really talking
to the public, but just talking to ourselves.

I really want to start thinking about the big picture, the principles &
norms and then hashing out the parts.  Work has been done in the US, but it
has not really been done here yet.


-- 
Tracey P. Lauriault
613-234-2805
https://gcrc.carleton.ca/confluence/display/GCRCWEB/Lauriault
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pwd.ca/pipermail/civicaccess-discuss/attachments/20100212/d6c6ebfc/attachment.html>