Posts
Vanessa Paech has written a post on a topic I was considering writing about recently - online identity and what can happen when an organisation decides to force users to use their real identity online.
As Vanessa's post is so good, rather than trying to do the topic justice, I shall take the lazy way out and simply commend her post to you, Online community identity and choice: Blizzardgate.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Blizzardgate - the perils of taking away user choice in online engagement | Tweet |
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Vote for an Aussie in the Top 10 Who are changing the world of Internet and Politics in 2010 | Tweet |
PoliticsOnline and the World eDemocracy Forum have opened voting for the 11th Annual award for the Top 10 Who are changing the world of Internet and Politics in 2010.
I'm proud to have been nominated for a second year in a row, alongside Senator Kate Lundy. A third Australian has joined us in the nominations for 2010, Berge Der Sarkissian, the founder of the Senator Online political party.
To vote for one of the three Aussies, or for another of the fantastic nominees (such as Tim O'Reilly), go to the Top 10 Who are changing the world of Internet and Politics in 2010 page at Politics Online.
Senior executive learnings about social media | Tweet |
Marketing Daily has published an excellent article on the learnings of top executives about using and engaging via social media.
All of the realisations and strategies mentioned apply equally to the public sector.
You can read it at, Top Execs Dish About Social Media Strategies.
The legislative challenges of Gov 2.0 - such as enrolling to vote online | Tweet |
Government 2.0 has a number of challenges in Australia and around the world - developing the appropriate public sector culture, getting the right policies and technologies in place and, often overlooked, ensuring that our laws allow for the innovative use of online channels.
The latter challenge is being faced right in the ability for Australians to enrol online to vote.
Due to the Federal election the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has been inundated with people wanting to enrol at the last minute. The matter of online enrolment has been raised by GetUp!'s enrolment website which states "Enrol to vote: It should be easy!". Get Up! initially attempted to provide a web-based enrolment system, however this was disallowed by the AEC.
This was also discussed in a Sydney Morning Herald article, Hitch in plan to get voters on a roll a sign of the times.
This is a clear example of how our laws have not kept pace with technology. Australia's 1918 Commonwealth Electoral Act's section 101 (1) states that people must "fill in and sign a claim". The AEC has interpreted this as meaning that a physical signature is required to enrol to vote in Australian elections.
This makes it necessary for Australians enrolling to vote 'online' to print and hand sign their forms, either hand-delivering or posting them to an Electoral Office.
In one concession to modern technology, it is possible to scan a signed form and email it to the AEC - however a photograph of the form (which is for all intents and purposes a scan) emailed to the AEC is not acceptable.
There are likely to be many other areas where our laws are not designed for a digital society - with other clear examples being our copyright and defamation laws which are struggling to cope in a world where digital copies are cheap and fast to make and private comments are publicly visible online.
Based on these legal issues, beyond the work to adjust public sector culture or simplify online engagement, one of the real tests of many governments' commitment to Gov 2.0 will be in how they adapt their laws to suit a changing society.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Australian Government makes Open Government Declaration | Tweet |
In one of his final acts before retirement, Minister Lindsay Tanner has released the Open Government Declaration - one of the recommendations of the Gov 2.0 Taskforce's Final Report.
Released at the AGIMO blog, the Declaration states that the Australian Government is:
committed to open government based on a culture of engagement, built on better access to and use of government held information, and sustained by the innovative use of technology.
Three key principles were outlined,
- Informing: strengthening citizen’s rights of access to information, establishing a pro-disclosure culture across Australian Government agencies including through online innovation, and making government information more accessible and usable;
- Engaging: collaborating with citizens on policy and service delivery to enhance the processes of government and improve the outcomes sought; and
- Participating: making government more consultative and participative.
I'm very pleased to see this step, albeit released by a senior cabinet Minister rather than the Prime Minister.
However I am disappointed that Minister Tanner is leaving politics and will not be able to lead the ongoing implementation of the Open Government agenda.
With Minister Faulkner, who spearheaded the recent Freedom of Information reforms, also stepping down from a Ministerial role, there is a great deal of interest in understanding who will be advocating for and leading the Gov 2.0 agenda in the Australian Government.
While Senator Kate Lundy is a leader in the Gov 2.0 space, she does not currently hold a Ministerial position and it is unclear whether she would in a future Labor government.
If the Liberals win the upcoming election it is very unclear who would take the lead on Government 2.0
Significant cultural change is required across the public sector to embed Government 2.0 in standard practice and to carry out many of the other recommended reforms in the Australian Public Service.
Given it is very early days as yet, senior political leadership is required to drive the necessary reforms.
My question is who, after this Federal election, will provide the political leadership and support for these reforms (particularly those related to Gov 2.0)?
Or will they be placed on the backburner ahead of more immediate political issues, leaving the Australian Public Service progressively unable to deliver community services or factual, frank and fearless advice to its government masters?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
