W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > April 2012

Re: what do you mean, e-gov?

From: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:28:38 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMXe=Sq88drYD-6xas5Y9Ufz_KLUzOeGps93rHiJiY1wqYitPA@mail.gmail.com>
To: rzt@pipeline.com
Cc: Mark Montgomery <markm@kyield.com>, Debmacp <debmacp@gmail.com>, "eGov IG (Public)" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Thank you very much for the thoughtful responses all, nice to see noses
surfacing from the deep pond.

Glad that there is some agreement we should have at a minimum some
definitions.

There are many definitions already, just search for e-governance and lots
comes up. Would it be worth having some pointers on our wiki page to 'prior
art'saying this is what people say is e-gov,,(a list of other definitions)
then a pointer to our page that says 'this is what we think e-gov is'. (I
do not expect to reach consensus anytime soon, but I do hope for some
interesting and constructive discussions in the process?)

I like the idea of having 'perspectives' on definitions

I suggest we should also aim to agree on some 'principles' perhaps, to
underpin whatever definition we come up with, should abide to such
principles

But then we need a* process* (indeed, that would be a governance process
for the e-governance IG), at the moment, I do not think it is clear how
decisions pertaining to the group are made.
A governance process should be open, transparent, shared, documented,
accountable.
Do we have a consensus process for decision making of this IG? (i havent
seen it)


The we need the *platform/technology*
*i*s the wiki enough? should the roadmap be a visual or a list of bullet
points/table? (a la gantt)  should the roadmap be interactive so that
members can enter their edits, then perhaps
have a final 'freeze' once agreed.  do we need a polling system (I think
there is one in place) to enable the group to make decisions/vote on issues
that they think are important?

Do we need *rules*?  Such as (for example): each member is allowed to
participate in this IG only with minimum commitment (contribute a
definition, to vote/express opinions and preferences, to write an essay, to
give a talk once a year, or undertake one community development task, or
something)

What do we want members to contribute? What do we want to get out of this
group? Should, at a minimum, each member make a statement of interest
declaring what do they bring to the community, and what they would like to
get out of it?

Should these questions and requirements for the group activity be discussed
at the future meetings/calls?

What's the best way to start hour shared e-gov vocabulary?

How can we, citizens of the world and on list, engage with our local
government/institutions to advance e-governance issues in our
geographical/phisical proximities, leveraging the participation in this IG.


Please note, I do not  expect IG facilitators to answer these questions
:-), but perhaps to instigate members to address these issues, and probe
inputs along these lines, and provide the means of exchange and
documentation of such exchanges within the community.

I can volunteer to support one or two of the ideas above /some of this, but
currently pretty much on the road with mobile connection so I cannot make
data intensive calls, but I can participate /contribute on list/via wiki.

Let us know how should we go about self organising and defining our own
future, here on this list, and hopefully everywhere else in the real world


P







On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Zachary Tumin <rzt@pipeline.com> wrote:

> At Harvard Kennedy School we are using these working definitions to
> distinguish different domains of teaching and research:****
>
> ** **
>
> *E-delivery* consists of efforts to improve the production and
> distribution of public goods and services. Issues within the e-delivery
> domain include e-services, use of digital technologies to improve
> organizational management in government and non-government institutions,
> performance measurement, innovation in government processes generally
> (including budgeting and planning), government transparency, and
> cybersecurity.****
>
> ** **
>
> *E-democracy* encompasses digitally intermediated activities in which
> citizens and organizations discuss public issues, organize, mobilize,
> advocate, and communicate with one another and with government. Areas of
> teaching and research in this domain include the impact and use of media
> and social media; digital campaigning; electronic mechanisms for public
> participation; and the effect of adoption of communications media on
> citizen empowerment, economic growth, and innovation.****
>
> ** **
>
> Hope this helps.****
>
> ** **
>
> Zach Tumin****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------****
>
> Zachary Tumin****
>
> Special Assistant to the Director and Faculty Chair****
>
> Program in Science, Technology and Public Policy<http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/project/44/science_technology_and_public_policy.html>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs****
>
> John F. Kennedy School of Government | Harvard University
> 79 John F. Kennedy Street | Cambridge, MA | 02138
> voice: 617-495-1960 | email: zachary_tumin@harvard.edu | twitter:@zachtumin
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Mark Montgomery [mailto:markm@kyield.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 24, 2012 8:59 PM
> *To:* Debmacp
> *Cc:* eGov IG (Public)
>
> *Subject:* Re: what do you mean, e-gov?****
>
> ** **
>
> Good point****
>
>  ****
>
> By inclusion in the definition, intended to mean simply that if the goal
> is a universal definition then it should acknowledge that it is indeed an
> attempt at universality, and that sovereign local governments define to
> specific mission. Did not intend including thousands of local laws embedded
> in the definition, or reference to any other than perhaps governing
> international law.****
>
>  ****
>
> Several reasons come to mind, including****
>
>  ****
>
> 1) Legal jurisdiction trumps any definition from any voluntary standards
> body anyway****
>
>  ****
>
> 2) The good will extended in such an effort may (hope springs eternal)
> encourage participation and collaboration****
>
>  ****
>
> In hindsight it 'might' also be prudent to at least encourage regional
> sub-definitions, if not in the definition itself then in supporting
> communications and behavior. It can be a good process for strategic clarity
> and growth,****
>
>  ****
>
> In the case of eGov this is somewhat different than other attempts at
> universal definitions in global networks as it would be (perhaps a bit)
> proactive towards adaptive computing within the neural network economy,
> which at least a few of us futuristic leaning students consider to be
> essential towards economic sustainability, and to the best of my awareness
> anyway- in a general sense would be well aligned with individual
> sovereignty.****
>
>  ****
>
> .02--MM****
>
> ----- Original Message ----- ****
>
> *From:* Debmacp <debmacp@gmail.com> ****
>
> *To:* Mark Montgomery <markm@kyield.com> ****
>
> *Cc:* eGov IG (Public) <public-egov-ig@w3.org> ****
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 24, 2012 6:09 PM****
>
> *Subject:* Re: what do you mean, e-gov?****
>
> ** **
>
> Include or reference in?****
>
> Things like laws...****
>
> External standards or reference architectures?****
>
> ** **
>
> Deborah MacPherson****
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone****
>
>
> On Apr 24, 2012, at 5:35 PM, "Mark Montgomery" <markm@kyield.com> wrote:**
> **
>
> One common irony with new disciplines and new technologies has been that
> we have thought leaders in many disciplines coming together to work toward
> the obvious benefit for the whole, yet are quite often very late to the
> game of defining our own role and mission. Too often has been the case when
> definitions are left to those with conflicts simply for lack of timely
> response from those in the trenches, and/or inability to form a consensus.
> A good rule of thumb seems to be that if you don't define it someone else
> will sooner than later.****
>
>  ****
>
> For many it is very difficult to consider any work credible that requires
> resources but has not been defined by the champions, aka sales
> people. Proper governance, use of public money, public trust, and fiduciary
> responsibility require no less than a definition-- in many local governance
> schemes expending resources requires a definition by rule of law.****
>
>  ****
>
> Of course that does not mean to suggest that orgs, agencies, local gov't
> should wait for anyone to play around with definitions for years (or
> decades)-- I did that with standards and therefore cannot recommend it for
> anyone other than the super wealthy and/or super spiritual living in a
> mountaintop monastery somewhere (humor folks). If efficiencies are obvious,
> as they often are, then of course any leader should grab the low hanging
> fruit and define it for their own use -- especially given the fiscal
> situations in most of the developed world. To not do so is irresponsible in
> a world of massive needs and finite resources (dwindling, far from
> sustainable at this point--at least there is some consensus on that).
> However, that's also precisely how the world wound up with massive data
> silos. So it's surprising that no definition has been created and released
> by either this group or some other working the problem. ****
>
>  ****
>
> I do have brief suggestions -- ****
>
>  ****
>
> 1) Of course definitions should include the rule of law as sovereign
> governments determine, within guidelines of international law, treaties,
> etc. Otherwise it would presumably be illegal in those jurisdictions
> anyway. However as many here have long considered looking to future
> functionality, universal compatibility will presumably be included.****
>
>  ****
>
> 2) Do not allow any special interest group or ideology to influence the
> definition (even if social herding/majority--perhaps especially then), or
> lack thereof (including government unions and corporations that often take
> an activist role), as we've seen in other cases. ****
>
>  ****
>
> In this case this would seem particularly important due to the potential
> economic efficiencies involved with the common usage of the term itself
> within the broader context in the world we live in, and in the era in which
> we live in it. That is to say that proper governance would require
> evidence-based stewardship, which at the moment the best evidence strongly
> points towards the need for a definition that includes economic and
> ecological sustainability. ****
>
> Of course that well intentioned inclusion alone threatens enormous
> powerful interests-- any progress does at this point. I am not suggesting
> inviting controversy, just that e-government and the standards employed
> should be based on the best evidence available on the solid ground of
> unbiased truth seekers; not the institutions or sponsors or guilds that
> employ them. May seem obvious but requires constant vigilance still. ****
>
>  ****
>
> 3) Make an exceptional effort to be aware and understand one's own bias--
> not restricted to conflict (academia, religion, industry, corporation,
> government), but bias in the specific discipline,
> culture (sector, geography, etc.) and even general philosophy. Advocacy has
> proven often to be a double edged sword in this regard with some seemingly
> not aware that they even have two edges, while others have proven
> remarkably skillful in the application of both edges while claiming
> ignorance that a weapon even exists. ****
>
>  ****
>
> Please allow me to pass on a warning given to me by one of the most
> prominent and respected IT industry/academic leaders a few years ago when
> in discussing adoption of semantics one on one in one of the most
> influential orgs (paraphrase) -- "expect arrows in the back, for they will
> surely fly if you are doing anything worthwhile in the modern era--it only
> demonstrates that you are in the lead".****
>
>  ****
>
> Of all the advice I have received in my career, this has proven to be the
> most wise and accurate, particularly surrounding technical standards.****
>
>  ****
>
> So good luck with the definition.****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> Mark Montgomery
> Founder & CEO - Kyield
> web: http://www.kyield.com
> blog: http://kyield.wordpress.com
> email: markm@kyield.com
> Twitter: @kyield****
>
> ----- Original Message ----- ****
>
> *From:* Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com> ****
>
> *To:* paoladimaio10@googlemail.com ; eGov IG (Public)<public-egov-ig@w3.org>
> ****
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 24, 2012 2:03 PM****
>
> *Subject:* Re: what do you mean, e-gov?****
>
> ** **
>
> It may seem like a bit dodgy, but for me egov is knowing what everybody
> else thinks egov is, in the abstract.  I think the UN gets it (UN/LOCODES),
> not much of a surprise, but oddly, the US CIA gets it too (World Factbook),
> then again, Silicon Valley does not ("playing dumb" when it comes to local
> customs and laws).****
>
> ** **
>
> For example, this strange, and nowhere near complete book ...
> http://www.rustprivacy..org/2012/urn/egov/<http://www.rustprivacy.org/2012/urn/egov/>
> ****
>
> The "technical truth" is nearly unrecognizable http://www.zooknic.com/ ;-)
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --Gannon****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
> *To:* eGov IG (Public) <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 24, 2012 2:09 PM
> *Subject:* what do you mean, e-gov?****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> For those who have been around the last twenty years or any****
>
> subset thereof, the question is not new. We each seem to****
>
> use the same word with different meanings (anyone else laughing
> hysterically at this point?)****
>
> ** **
>
> I was recently giving a talk and providing my own definition(s), and would
> have liked****
>
> to point to the W3C definition of egov. But I could not remember whether
> we agreed on one, and where it can be accessed.  Admittedly I have been
> away a lot lately.****
>
> ** **
>
> For example,  for me egovernance applies to both****
>
> the governance of civil society institutions (presumably the governance
> democratic institutions that are ruled by first principles, and the
> universal declaration of human rights, although in reality there may not be
> many governments that do so), as well as the governance of online
> communities, whereby the information and decisions are mediated by online
> technologies, or something like that. But not sure if this has been
> discussed****
>
> I do not remember any such discussions on list. Is it my memory failing me
> again?****
>
> ** **
>
> Any threads/uri's someone could kindly repost if these questions have
> already been asked?****
>
> ** **
>
> if not, i would invite the IG Chairs to start off with some proposed
> definitions, either on list or on wiki page possibly one for each term in
> our shared vocabulary, (wiki? url......), then  members (other than pure
> lurkers) could introduce themseles and get their active participation in the
> ****
>
> group going by entering their own definitions/variations, with possibly a
> link to their profile****
>
> so that we can start getting to know each other meaningfully?:-)****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> sincerely****
>
> ** **
>
> PDM****
>
> ** **
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 10:29:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 10:29:10 GMT