BROADCASTING
FCC Planning New Giveaway to Networks and Broadcasters Worth
Billions
SPECTRUM
Wireless Networks Gain Spectrum
IN MEMORIAM
Final Tribute to Sharon Capeling-Alakija
EVENTS
International Education Week
E-GOVERMENT FOR ALL CONFERENCE, DAY 9
Partnerships for Success: How Government, the Private Sector and
Civil Society Can Work Together
E-Democracy and Civic Participation
Public Use of E-Government: Citizen Perspectives
Closing Plenary: Bringing It All Together
"Open Space" Discussion Forums
Note: During the 10 days of the E-Government for All conference (November
3-14), the Headlines team will include highlights from the ongoing
conference sessions, along with our usual headlines. We hope you find the
additional summaries useful. For more information on the conference, please
visit http://www.egov4all.org.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BROADCASTING
FCC PLANNING NEW GIVEAWAY TO NETWORKS AND BROADCASTERS WORTH BILLIONS
The FCC may soon approve a policy that would benefit the four major
broadcast networks by allowing each TV station to broadcast multiple
interactive channels over cable systems. But the commission has thus far
refused to require that broadcasters commit to a public interest "quid pro
quo " in return. Known as digital multicasting must-carry, the plan is being
debated behind closed doors by some of the country's most powerful media
giants. "Before the FCC decides on any new must-carry rules, it must first
finish a proceeding on public interest obligations for digital
broadcasting," said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for
Digital Democracy (CDD). "The public deserves a meaningful dividend in terms
of measurable services, such as free time for civic discourse, increased
public affairs and children's informational programming," he added. The CDD
is unconvinced by both the television and cable industries' sides of the
argument. "It should not be a question of whether the FCC caves in to one
special interest or another -- in this case broadcasters versus cable. The
FCC --at least this time -- should act as if the public interest really
mattered," said Chester. The CDD has launched a campaign to generate
messages to the FCC about this policy.
SOURCE: U.S. Newswire; AUTHOR: Jeff Chester
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=142-11122003
The campaign website:
http://www.democraticmedia.org/getinvolved/mustCarryAction2.html
SPECTRUM
WIRELESS NETWORKS GAIN SPECTRUM
Yesterday, the FCC decided to set aside some airways for wireless Internet
users, which the agency said would encourage the spread of high-speed data
access in underserved areas. This action is the latest strategy of the FCC
to free up high-frequency spectrum for devices that access the Internet via
wireless connection, often referred to as WiFi networks. Critics say the
decision is not well suited for delivering a robust, high-speed data stream
to a wide area. "The problem is that the combination of the high frequency
and the low power limits mean the stuff won't go far enough," said Harold
Feld, associate director of the Media Access Project, a Washington-based
public interest law firm. "[M]aking more spectrum available for this
important application will foster facilities-based competition and
significantly advance the public interest," says Michael Powell, FCC
chairman.
SOURCE: Washington Post; AUTHOR: Christopher Stern
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38286-2003Nov13.html
IN MEMORIAM
FINAL TRIBUTE TO SHARON CAPELING-ALAKIJA
The United Nations pays their final respects to the late Sharon
Capeling-Alakija (1944 -2003), UN Volunteers Executive Coordinator, at a
memorial service in Bonn, Germany. "During the ceremony Ms. Capeling-Alakija
was eulogized as a "powerful woman" with "profound commitment", said the UN
press release. "Today, we celebrate a woman of courage, a woman of vision, a
strategic planner, a team-builder, a fighter, a fund-raiser, a manager and a
leader. But what we most celebrate is the wonderful person Sharon was -- one
of a kind," said Mark Malloch Brown, Administrator of the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP). United Nations staff plans to plant a red
maple tree in Capeling-Alakija memory. Ms. Capeling-Alakija, 59, passed away
on Nov. 4, in Bonn, Germany, after a long battle with cancer.
SOURCE: UN Volunteers; AUTHOR: Caroline Stiebler, Contact
http://www.unvolunteers.org/infobase/news_releases/2003/03_11_11DEU_sca.htm
EVENTS
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION WEEK
November 17-21 is International Education Week, sponsored by the US
Departments of State and Education, to draw attention to the importance on
international education in schools in the United States. To launch the
week's activities, a video conference will take place from Cardozo High
School in Washington, DC, linking the US Secretary of Education Rod Paige
and students at Cardozo with Education Ministry officials and students in
Mexico, Egypt and South Africa. The event will take place Monday, November
17th from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. EST and will be webcast live at
http://w.on24.com/r.htm?e=3818&s=1&k=D6BECAC188A3CE5C10EC55E5F57B8237.
SOURCE: Global Nomads Group; CONTACT: Jonathan Giesen
http://www.FriendshipThroughEducation.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Government for All:
November 3-14, 2003
Over 1200 participants from 80 countries
Information and registration: http://www.egov4all.org/
CONFERENCE SUMMARY, DAY 8
Public/Private Partnerships for Success
Erik Baekkeskov began the day by asking, "What bodies are in place inside
the government you deal with to monitor the performance of your
organization, its compliance with contract terms, to handle disputes, and to
specify contractual terms when the document is unspecific?"
Becky Stawiski responded, "Although the San Diego Futures Foundation was
'born' out of the San Diego County outsourcing contract, we are a separate
501(c)3 organization with a board of directors that makes decisions about
what we do." She thought Erik's question was more related to the outsourcing
contract between the Pennant Alliance companies and offered to put him in
contact with the correct people.
Next Kenan Jarboe followed up on Benjamin's and Erik's comments. "How do we
measure success with these project?" he asked. "I realize that the San Diego
Futures Foundation is too new to have gone through a formal evaluation --
but what are your internal metrics of success? We heard about a failure case
with the Ohio food stamp program. Were there some measures or early warning
signs that could have been put in place before the program got too big and
came crashing down?" He asked others to join in with examples from their own
projects.
Benjamin DeLanty responded to Ken's question about program evaluation.
"Measures of success often take shape through a balance of quantitative and
qualitative measures," he explained. In his work, he tailors an engagement
to meet specific needs of organizations. "For instance, the San Diego
Foundation should view their e-bus as successful, first through the number
of computer users they reach ... After an initial measure, it is possible to
determine if it is as high as possible."
In addition, there are unanticipated outcomes that are also quite valuable
measures. For instance, perhaps they want to take a look at the number of
computer users trained by the e-bus -- informally and formally -- along with
the number of times these users have accessed services from or via the
e-bus. "[M]easures of success are, more than not, functions of anticipated
and unanticipated outcomes. This is the modeling that should come through a
good evaluation. At the appropriate point in time, a formal report should
translate all of this through a solid statistical analysis," wrote Benjamin.
His final point emphasized the importance of solid research and evaluation
in all work, especially given that most funders require an evaluation
component in contracts and awards. "It should not be something that's
dreaded, and rather looked at as an empowering, informative opportunity," he
said." Partnering with an experienced, well-respected research and
evaluation firm is essential. Organizations almost always have the chance to
improve quality in both services and service delivery."
Rosemary Gunn suggested that the starting point in evaluation should be the
goals and objectives of the project. An example is the number and
demographics of participants, which would help to indicate whether the
program is reaching the people the program is intended to serve. "It may be
that this project is in an environment such that an external consultant
would be better able to deal with the political realities. It is certainly
true that it is better to design an evaluation, including measurable goals
and objectives, at the start," she said. She also thought that evaluation,
perhaps self-evaluation, could be built into any project and that it does
not have to be terrifically expensive to be worthwhile.
J. Ramon Gil-Garcia pointed out a research project related to this topic:
"New Models of collaboration for Delivering Government Services"
(www.ctg.albany.edu/projects/cefrio). The objective is to enhance our
understanding of multi-organizational collaborations engaged in the delivery
of government services to citizens and businesses. The concept of
"collaboration" includes not only public-private partnerships, but also
encompasses situations involving multiple government organizations, and
government working with nonprofit organizations. It involves comparative
analyses of successful collaborations in North America and Europe through
case studies developed by an international network of field researchers.
E-Democracy and Civic Participation
Day 4 of the "E-Democracy and Civic Participation" forum began with Belinda
Spinosi addressing Alan J. Rosenblatt on the issue of voting records.
"Voting records are kept by household, registered if anyone voted, how many
voted, what party affiliation you voted ... that is why parties buy them and
use them as tools to target households."
Spinosi asked Ella Smith and Taran Rampersad to elaborate on how to take the
debate and information and create votes that push elected official to policy
changes.
"Belinda, do you mean voter registration data? That is different from
records of how people voted," asked Rosemary Gunn.
"I really think the key -- the underlying spirit necessary -- is to not view
technology as a tool, but to rather focus on the problems faced without the
confines of the dreaded box," commented Rampersad. He continued, "Someone
needs to look at how representatives do what they do presently and more
importantly -- why they do things the way they do. If the why goes away with
the advancements in technology and online society, then the how needs to be
re-evaluated before it is implemented."
Spinosi responded to Gunn's question by clarifying what she meant by voting
records. "I mean campaigns buy and use precinct 'maps' and data output by
addresses, by street address, by entire streets, as in 1 E Main Street up to
5000 E Main Street." She said that in Ohio you can buy this data on disc and
in paper form from the precinct.
"Could we also find a way for representatives to put all the citizen debates
online by issue?" Spinosi asked. She said that way citizens want
representatives to vote would be itemized and could be kept in a succinct
and permanent record.
Rampersad responded that the system he spoke of earlier would do what
Spinosi was asking. It would need to use traditional media to disseminate
how to use it and point to a weblog with the instructions, he says. "The
first topic should be a moderate-high interest topic to allow for 'training'
of the eCitizenry. The technology involved would take less than an hour to
set up," he added.
"Alan, I like your phrase 'the Sword of Digicles.' There was an old saying
we used back in the days when technology assessment was still considered a
worthwhile activity: 'technology is neither good nor bad ... nor is it
neutral.' ICT has the potential for both opening up and constraining the
political process," commented Kenan Jarboe of Athena Alliance.
Jarboe said he fears that online participation will be perceived as
sufficient and will undercut efforts to reach those offline. "Those left out
will be even more left out -- and we will have fig-leaf participation," he
said.
Public Use of E-Government: Citizen Perspectives
Shireen Mitchell noted that Taran covered a lot of territory in addressing
personal security concerns. The most important is education, she said.
E-government funding should include at least twice the amount of money spent
on the technology for initiatives to educate the citizens and
community-based organizations that will provide services to citizens. "All
strategies should include ample technology education," she said.
Taran expanded on what he meant by "geographic borders digressing." With the
Internet, the distance of communication for people has decreased
significantly. "If someone had told me that as a child I would be able to
attend a conference where peoples from around the world congregated while
staying within their own countries, I probably would have laughed," he said,
but here we are. "Yet we're all subject to different issues based on social,
economic, legal and resource driven issues within our geographic locale. So
when I say that the geographic borders are digressing, what I mean is that
the issue of geography is becoming less important -- it *has* become less
important. And these social, economic, legal and resource driven issues have
risen to the fore," he explained. "I sincerely believe that the next
advancements in society, including eGovernment, will have to be based on the
social, economic, legal and resource driven issues. This means a shift in
how we look at things," Taran concluded.
Closing Plenary: Bringing It All Together
Moderator Andy Carvin welcome everyone to the closing plenary of the
E-Government for All conference. He explained that the goal during the
plenary is to identify the major themes that have emerged out of the
conference, including:
- Principles that can be applied to achieving e-gov for all;
- Resources and tools for achieving e-gov for all;
- Next steps that can be taken by us as a group or individually.
He said that the Benton Foundation plans to publish a report that highlights
the major themes from the conference and pinpoints specific principles and
actions that can be embraced for achieving e-government for all.
Moderator Greg Benson, Executive Director of the NYS Forum, also welcomed
participants to the plenary. Greg shared some of his observations of what's
taken place within the "virtual walls" of this conference since November 3rd
as input for the development of some guiding principles that we might
integrate into a "call for action" that all who are interested might pursue
beyond the confines of this one event. He said that this Plenary Session
will be instrumental in forging that important outcome of this conference.
One striking feature of this event for Greg has been the number and
diversity of persons and organizations that have participated -- nearly
1,300 persons from over 80 countries are registered participants. "The fact
that so many have turned out and offered ideas and best practices, raised
issues and potential policy solutions, underscores what many of us had hoped
... that there is a genuine and widespread interest in and commitment to
seeing that e-government is truly developed 'for all,'" said Greg.
Greg said he was also struck with the quality and quantity of the "best
practice" examples offered by participants at all levels. "This alone made
staying 'tuned in to' this conference a rewarding experience, rich with new
and effective ideas," he said.
It also became evident that the progress toward achieving egov for all is
very often imbedded in political will. "At one end of the spectrum this was
evidenced in discussion of the selection of which languages were
'acceptable' as alternates to the native language," said Greg. At a less
politically complex level, discussions focused on e-gov at the "micro" or
agency level in typical "stovepipe fashion" - that is, redundant, isolated
and likely far more costly efforts often pursued by state government
organizations. "I seem to recall seeing that unfortunate approach being
evidenced at all levels of government (local, county, state and national)
throughout the conference discussions," Greg commented.
There were suggestions for clear standards and guidelines "so all of us
might better know our destination as we plot our respective routes to
compliance and inclusion." Another issue raised was that many initial and
continuing e-gov efforts are being driven by achieving cost reductions and
government efficiency, or even by the perceived need to simply "keep up"
and/or "be on the web." "Those motives have often resulted in diminished
citizen access to information and services as the migration 'to the web' has
given rise to the faulty assumptions inherent to the idea that simply being
on the web can supplant traditional government service delivery channels,"
Greg suggested.
Greg closed by thanking the Benton Foundation and Group Jazz, the other
co-sponsors, our keynote, the panelists and all who contributed to the rich
and rewarding experience.
Donald Straus noted that only a fraction of the thousand plus conference
"participants" actually participated. With this in mind, he offered several
questions/suggestions. To get the most out of such a large group and an
equally large and complex subject, he thought that more vigorous
facilitation would be helpful. The facilitation team should include
recorders to segregate and integrate different ideas as they are introduced,
while there could of course be room for brainstorming of ideas -- as it
seems was the pattern for what we have just gone through.
Andy Carvin responded to Don, saying that this is generally how online
discussions work. "For example, I run a discussion group with 3,200 members,
but in general probably 300 people regularly participate over the course of
a given year. Most others tend to 'lurk' -- ie, read messages and follow the
discussion," he explained. "If all 1,200 people participating in the
conference also posted messages, we'd have an overload of content flowing at
a rate no one could keep up with," he added.
Andy also explained some of the difficulties with facilitating the
conference, such as finding volunteers to manage each session 24/7. "Since
this conference ran 24 hours a day, people could post messages when the
facilitator was offline, so discussions often went in other directions
because of it," he said. There will be an online survey for participants so
they can critique the event and make comments like this.
Bob Carlitz wrote that in a forum of this type, it's always very important
for the group to be able to converge on some common purpose. He suggested
that one productive outcome for this discussion would be to found an
international program for participatory e-government. He identified several
dimensions to such a program. These include:
*People. "I think that the most valuable thing I've gotten out of the
present forum has been the chance to meet people around the world whose
interests parallel ones that I've had for several years and whose experience
goes far beyond the things I've personally encountered," Bob said. "We could
build on the present forum in several ways - with ongoing online
discussions, a space for collaborative projects, a registry of people
working in this field, etc."
*Projects. "[It] would be invaluable to have a place to record best
practices from around the world. I would favor an interactive Web site
coupled to a print journal and e-mail newsletter. This is likely to be a big
effort, but it should have a major pay-off," he suggested.
*Tools. "To the extent that these tools are built on Open Source platforms
or are based on published principles and models, they can readily be
replicated and used elsewhere ... Repositories currently exist at many
different sites, but there is no overall coordination, focus or attempt at
quality control (at least as far as I know). All of these would be helpful
assets."
*Principles. Bob used transparency as an example, which should guide the
architecture of systems of e-government. "There are also principles borrowed
from computer science, including modularity, data standards and
interoperability, without which systems will never scale to broad adoption.
And there are also ethical principles, such as impartiality, that must
underlie systems that will expect to gain broad public support," he added.
Andy Carvin responded that Benton has been considering creating digital
space for an "E-Government for All" community center in which participants
could share resources, create new partnerships and discuss the issue
further, perhaps even plotting outreach campaigns targeting both
policymakers (to raise awareness of the importance of accessibility, equity,
understanding their e-gov audiences, etc) and citizens (to raise awareness
of what e-gov resources exist in their country/community and how to take
advantage of them).
"We still have a lot of work ahead of us in terms of planning and
fundraising, solidifying editorial partners, etc but hosting an E-Gov center
on the site might give us some extra leverage during [the re-launch of our
digital divide network site]," Andy suggested.
Taran Rampersad thanked the conference organizers and said that the
international perspectives were of most personal interest to him, since it's
an area of learning for many of us. "This was reflected in the flexible
positions and free thought I saw flowing in discussion. Many seemingly
unrelated topics became related, many countries shared valuable information
and learned from each other," he noted.
Taran thanked the other participants for open discussion and for giving him
a better perspective on problems with implementing eGovernment. He thought
the only thing missing from the conference was the coffee. "I hope that we
can keep these channels open. It seems to me that everyone will benefit if
we do so," he concluded.
Peter Ladd of Group Jazz responded by offering some virtual treats for the
virtual conference.
In terms of next steps, Donald Straus suggested that a potential use of
e-gov might be facilitated citizen discussions, possibly via public
television and the new interactive digital technology, during the month of
October before a November election day. Andy said this sounded similar to
the ideas addressed in the e-democracy session.
Belinda Spinosi commented that it was nice to have the opportunity for
anyone to pick a discussion topic or direct a discussion. "Though I grant
you representatives will more than likely ask us opinions on items that go
before them (let us hope they do), there will be items that never come up on
the radar of representatives because of the ciphering ... or as we say
gatekeeping of information to elected officials," she suggested. "At least
one option for citizens to bring issues to the forefront and tallied, that
may not have any other way, would be highly recommended," she concluded.
Todd M. La Porte, a faculty member at George Mason University in Washington,
DC, joined in to let the group know about the results of a multi-year
research project investigating how governments' use of networked information
technologies relates to overall government performance.
"In the process, we've created and used a new political variable: openness
in bureaucracies or administrative organizations, which is a concept akin to
democracy in politics. We find that at most the openness of government
agencies is only modestly associated political democracy," Todd explained.
He offered to share with anyone interested in working with real data down to
the organization level, and up to the global level.
The project's latest paper concludes that:
* Web presence in national ministries incorporating high levels of
transparency, interactivity and openness appears to motivate agencies to
operate more effectively.
* Organizational web operations appear to be creating a virtuous cycle of
opportunities, demands and expectations, and administrative responses, in
contradiction to earlier findings about computerization of governments,
which were that organization leaders managed to reinforce their authority
with computers, resulting in few changes.
* Even poorly run agencies can develop a high-quality online presence once
they have experience with the Internet, which bodes well for the prospects
for e-government leading to significant improvements in administrative
effectiveness and overall government performance. This puts the focus on
those closely connected to web operations such as webmasters as
organizational designers and change agents, rather than only senior leaders
or political overseers.
* As noted above, there is only a modest relationship between transparency,
interactivity and openness in government and political democracy. This
relationship requires further study, which we are planning to do in the next
phase of our work.
"In my view, government, governance and participation are distinct, but
beginning more and more to blur and intermingle, due largely to the
emergence of technological, organizational and social networks," said Todd.
He concluded that the data are encouraging -- that implementation of good
design in e-government can lead to real improvements in performance.
Lisa Kimball of Group Jazz commented on the role of facilitation in online
activities. She proposed that there is a bigger problem than the
information gaps and access issues defined as the digital divide. "Too few
people have the perspective and know-how they need to PRODUCE information
and distribute it via the Internet. Not enough people are able to use the
Internet to tell their stories, share their experience, or provide us with
their language to help us understand the world from their point of view,"
she explained. "If the Internet is going to fulfill its promise to support
and enhance the quality of Civil Society and support our efforts to
collaborate to make a better world, then we need to focus more on the social
computing capacities of the Internet and less on its information processing
capacity," she continued. The first implication of this perspective is to
see the Internet as a place for groups of people to interact in social
spaces - not just a place for individuals to access canned information. That
will require a lot of facilitation, training, etc.
Next Lisa suggested expanding our concept of "participation" beyond the
limited view that it's just about posting comments. "Just as is true in a
face-to-face meeting, many people are able to get significant value by
listening. Some listen to what happens and have valuable one-on-one
conversations with other participants in the hall," she explained. "The most
telling indicator of the value of a meeting is not how many people speak --
but how many people are able to take something of value from the meeting and
use it in the course of their own work," she added. The most important
things that happen related to a virtual conference sometimes happen AFTER
people log off. As a next step, "How can we find more ways to connect with
what people do with what's offered online OUTSIDE the online context? " she
asked.
Rosemary Gunn asked Todd to define transparency, interactivity, openness in
government and political democracy as used in the study. "Seems to me that a
low positive correlation between governments' scores on a scale of political
democracy and scores on "transparency" (etc.) might or might not be
surprising, depending on the definitions and the countries involved," she
said. "[W]hat some of us are suggesting is that transparency is needed to
level the playing field between citizens and government, not that there is a
statistical relationship of any sort," she added.
Rosemary wondered if the "next steps" might include thinking of ways to
interrelate the many facets that need to come together for the type of
e-government we have been envisioning -- including research and practice, as
well as IT, program and process.
"Open Space" Forums
In the "Core issues preventing implementation" forum, Vrajlal Sapvadia of
NICM, India said, "In any e-governance project humane approach should be the
core point to remember and no technology can replace a human being." He said
specific efforts should cater toward those affected by disabilities.
In response to Rosemary Gunn's question about e-Consultations in Canada,
Jennifer Murray said, "The Government of Ontario, Canada, has made a
commitment to ensure citizens have access to a wide range of tools and
information that will enable them to participate more fully in the
democratic process." She continued, "As a result, the government has
included creating electronic channels for citizen participation as one of
the four components of the Ontario e-Government Strategy. The current
governing party has pledged to renew democracy in Ontario, including making
online voting an option and providing new ways to make citizens' voices
heard."
In the "Just wanted to note this interface is great" discussion, Taran
Rampersad said, "It was apparent to me that this website
[http://egov4all.gjhost.org/] was well designed when I first got here - but
after a few weeks of use, I'm still exploring the features and functionality
it offers while allowing intuitive use and handling dynamic data." He said
that as an instructor and developer of web design, he could appreciate the
egov4all architects. Gail Watt and Ella Smith also applauded the web site.
"Is anyone using this who's not taken part in an online discussion before?
If so, what do you think?" Smith questioned. Spinosi commented on the
"playing field" being pretty level and asked if these discussions can
continue.
Andy Carvin responded to Spinosi, asking her to visit the Closing Plenary
session. "We're very interested in creating a permanent home for this topic
and creating a discussion space to continue the conversation," said Carvin.
"In addition to the human interface to an online discussion forum, it's
interesting to think about possible machine interfaces to the information,"
said Bob Carlitz of Information Renaissance. He turned the discussion
toward the question of interoperability. "Is it easy for researchers to
obtain a 'dump' of the entire discussion archive," he asked. He said this
would allow various analyses of the dialogue. "One of the weaknesses of the
many proprietary systems that have sprung up to host discussion forums is
the lack of a common data exchange mechanism," Carlitz offered. As a result,
data in these forums is hard for researchers to access and to amalgamate the
distributed discussions, he said.
Vrajlal Sapovadia opened the topic of "E-Governance means to combat
corruption and increase efficiency and effectiveness." Sapovadia said,
"E-Governance provides environment free from corruption, a major issue for
good governance." He concluded that the combination of technology, law and
general management principles provide effective results. He further pointed
out that in lower literate countries, this type infrastructure is needed.
Rampersad responded that this type of infrastructure minimizes bribes, but
does not eliminate them. "However, the sword has two sides. The people that
e-government is entrusted to must also be uncorrupted," he said.
"The US has Sunshine laws that basically state that if the peoples' business
is out in the sunshine ... it cannot be corrupted," said Belinda Spinosi.
She continued, "Same thing happens online ... if it is there where all can
be seen, it will not be corrupted."
In the "Can government and Internet governing bodies be trusted to implement
e-gov effectively?" forum, Andy Carvin commented, "E-Government can provide
both convenience for citizens and the possibility of better citizen
oversight and monitoring of government." He continued, "The latter, however,
is to some extent dependent on the degree to which government allows
transparency of its functioning over the Internet, and the extent to which
the Internet remains a relative open Information Highway."
Carvin then began asking some important questions about ownership and how it
relates to e-government. "What are the factors favoring and opposing this
openness?" he asked. "To what extent are ICANN and other Internet management
organizations being taken over or co-opted by corporate interests, and what
are the potential effects of this on e-government as an oversight and
monitoring tool?" pondered Carvin.
Continuing with questions, Carvin asked, "What has the US government done to
promote transparency, what has it done to oppose transparency, and to what
degree are citizens aware of either of these?" He said examples would
include the withdrawal of direct Web access to Congressional Research
Service reports, and the heavy censorship of the publicly available copy of
the Maryland state study on security of electronic voting machines. "What
could the government do that must be anticipated and guarded against?" he
questioned. He also prodded for an account of related international
experiences.
"There are many factors affecting openness, but I would have to say that the
most negative factor would be inertia due to reliance on traditional
methods," responded Rampersad. He continued, "The second most negative
factor is that 'new' methods being looked at may not be leaps forward, but
rather making what could be a simpler system more complex." He offered
education as one possible solution.
"The positive factors are technology and people, which are also negatives
given certain vectors," he offered. He said another positive is people, like
the ones attending this conference. He questioned whether we are interested
enough to spread the dialogue and learning to the grassroots community.
Rosemary Gunn commented on Carvin's question posed earlier on what has been
done to promote transparency within government. "Simply putting information
online (the GAO report cited below is an example) is an enormous advance:
transparency only helps when the available material is accessible." She
continued, "A set of examples is provided by those federal agencies that
have not only made it possible to comment online about rulemaking
(development of regulations), but also present background material and the
file of comments received." She said that eventually www.regulations.gov
would make this possible for all agencies. She also offered, "The E-gov Act
encourages participation and tells agencies to do more online (etc.). I
believe it will increase transparency, but so far it is vastly
under-funded."
Gunn said that increasing transparency is complex and requires first
defining what we mean by "transparency." She cited a new report
[http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03929.pdf], which demonstrates that more
information has been made public.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
