Posts
The European Union's annual egovernment awards are now accepting submissions (online only naturally) at www.epractice.eu/awards.
I find the various egovernment awards around the world a great source of inspiration as to different ways the online world can be used by governments to save money, improve access to services and information and involve citizens in the processes of government.
Incidentally the Australian e-government Awards (or e-awards) are holding their award ceremony tonight at CEBIT to announce the winner from 10 finalists.
Keep an eye on AGIMO's website tomorrow where I expect we will see the results.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
European egovernment awards open for submissions | Tweet |
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
The implications of the Ice TV High Court decision for government data | Tweet |
I've had a long time interest in Ice TV. In fact about five years ago I was considering investing in the company, or encouraging my then employer (ActewAGL/TransACT) to invest in it as an extension to their cableTV service.
For anyone unaware of the company, they sell electronic program guides (EPGs) for free-to-air channels for use in Digital Video Recorders (DVRs).
The EPGs are used by DVR systems to allow people to 'set and forget' record their favourite shows for later viewing - such that the DVR records the shows every week, regardless of whether the TV channels move the timeslots around.
Ice TV didn't simply rip off TV guides from the newspaper however, they had people watch the TV channels and record program names and times - then filled the gaps with information from existing program guides.
Ice TV has been involved in a several year legal battle with Channel 9, who claimed they held copyright over their program guide and even the small bits that Ice TV was using to fill gaps was a breach of their copyright over the literary work that was their program guide.
After years of litigation, the High Court has ruled that Channel 9 did not own copyright over program guides - because the information could realistically only be presented in one way... The time, then the program name.
Whilst not a legal expert, I foresee that this may have major implications for many pieces of information government in Australia creates. For instance copyright protection may be void for rail, bus and ferry timetables, tables of basic data (such as this electorate list on the CSA website) and most, if not all, of the data released by the ABS online (which is largely under Creative Commons licenses anyway).
Taking the High Court ruling, as this government data can realistically only be portrayed in one way (Name, Data), it is no longer protected under Australian copyright laws.
This counterdicts the actions by NSW RailCorp to prevent republishing of rail timetables in mobile applications (which the NSW government has already forced them to back down on), and probably some similar activities elsewhere in Australia.
This also impacts the business sector - data in annual reports, tidal charts, exchange rates, and much more are now, under the High Court ruling, probably not covered under our copyright laws.
I'm interesting to see how this will be used by free data advocates - and what the legal responses will be.
The transcript of the Radio National discussion this High Court judgement is at The Law Report - Ice TV.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Can we use crowdsourcing to reshape democracy? | Tweet |
Beth Noveck, director of President Obama’s open government initiative, said in a recent essay,
Our institutions of governance are characterized by a longstanding culture of professionalism in which bureaucrats – not citizens – are the experts. Until recently, we have viewed this arrangement as legitimate because we have not practically been able to argue otherwise. Now we have a chance to do government differently. We have the know-how to create "civic software" that will help us form groups and communities who, working together, can be more effective at informing decision-making than individuals working alone.(Quote from P&P, Beth Noveck: Wiki-Government | Democracy)
The internet is reshaping the relationship between government and citizens.
For example, the practice of 'crowdsourcing' involves using online technologies to ask a distinct group, or an entire population, to answer questions, provide insights on issues or develop solutions.
The approach is being used in increasing numbers of ways by governments to better hear their citizens, formulate more effective, consensus-based solutions, manage expectations and drive innovation.
One crowdsourcing exercise that I've previously mentioned is the New Zealand Police Act wiki, where an NZ Act of Parliament was developed by placing a seed version on the web using a wiki and allowing the public to edit and comment the Act directly for a period of time. The Act was passed by New Zealand Parliament and from all accounts it appears to have been as effective as any legislation developed by a small group of policy experts.
Similarly the US President has made use of crowd sourcing as a suggestion and prioritisation approach. Prior to his administration taking power it created an idea-sourcing site that allowed the public to suggest priorities for the new government and vote on previous suggestions in an online Citizen Briefing Book. This resulted in tens of thousands of suggestions prioritised by 70,000 participants.
President Obama's Virtual Town Hall has continued this approach, this time attracting over 90,000 participants asking and casting 1.7 million votes on 103,000 questions.
The impact of crowdsourcing isn't simply as a feedback mechanism. It offers the ability to reshape the entire governance process.
A range of local governments in Australia, New Zealand, in UK, across Europe and South America are beginning to actively engage their populations in crowdsourced discussions regarding civic priorities and improvements. For example the state capital city of Belo Horizonte in Brazil (2.3 million inhabitants) has used participatory voting since 1993 for determining civic priorities and in 2006 shifted to a digital participation model to broaden the level of involvement, with 10% of voters participating compared to 1.5% in the previous offline model.
Another example is the Future Melbourne consultation, which attracted over 30,000 comments by 7,000 visitors (and not one instance of spam, off-topic or offensive content).
One possibility for crowdsourcing would be for every piece of legislation currently on Australian books (Federal, state or local) to be placed onto wikis or similar tools to allow Australians to publicly review, comment, suggest edits and plain english translations.
This step could also be taken with all proposed legislation. President Obama has already committed to making all US Federal legislation available for the public to comment on for a few days prior to it going to the house for approval. The next step is employ a co-creation process online.
Naturally this would need to be done in a staged approach - there's simply too much legislation and different groups would be interested in different pieces (and some pieces would have little or no interest).
It relies on changing the copyright approach taken by government. From all rights reserved to some rights reserved (handled admirably by Creative Commons licensing which is already in use by the QLD government and the ABS).
It also relies on the public being able to understand some of the complex legalities of legislation. However if the public cannot understand a piece of legislation, isn't it probably too obtuse anyway?
Of course some might say that the public simply isn't interested in reviewing and commenting on legislation, or that it would be distorted by interest groups or individuals with axes to grind.
However those doing so have not yet tried the experiment and have no evidence on which to base these claims.
I'd love to see any government in Australia - at local, state or federal level, commit to starting this process with a pilot program. Make a few pieces of high profile legislation available online in a wiki-based format. Support comments and edits from any individual, restricting it to those who register with a valid email address.
Moderate the wiki to ensure that no-one misuses their privilege of participation in the democratic process under a clear set of guidelines, and then take on board the suggestions and edits of the public in the final drafting of the legislation.
This approach would lead to the democratisation of policy development and increasing participation by the public in the democratic process.
It may also lead to better policy, and therefore better outcomes for Australians.
Here are some examples of crowdsourcing in action, and here is a slightly contrarian view arguing that Government Needs Smart-sourcing, Not Crowdsourcing.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Redesigning the APH website | Tweet |
The APH website team are currently holding a survey seeking views on how they should redesign their site to better meet the needs of users.
As reported in Senator Kate Lundy's blog, Redesign of the APH website - your thoughts,
The website for Parliament of Australia – www.aph.gov.au is about to be redesigned. The first step of this exciting project is to consult with internal and external users of this website to gather their expectations and requirements.
From 21 April we will have an online survey available on the front page of the aph website and we would appreciate your participation in this short survey. I am sure that you have thoughts that you would like to share with us. The survey will close on 29 May 2009.
Incidentally the Child Support Agency (whose website I manage) is also currently holding a website User Satisfaction survey (available as a pop-up) from www.csa.gov.au.
All users of the site are welcome to provide their feedback.
Liveblog of PublicSphere #1 - high broadband for Australia | Tweet |
Below is my liveblog of the PublicSphere event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
