Re: systemic transformative e-governance

Do any of those tiny little safes have ears on each side ?
It's amazing how many PhD's, MD's, Nobel Prizes, Shakespeare's, Languages and Cultures you can stuff in that kind!  They almost never run out of room.  Any eGovernment would love to have them***.


--Gannon


***Hereafter known as the "Intellectual Property of the Refugee Paradox" 



________________________________
 From: Brian D. Handspicker <bd@handspicker.net>
To: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com> 
Cc: "paoladimaio10@googlemail.com" <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>; Tomasz Janowski <tj@iist.unu.edu>; "Holm, Jeanne M (1760)" <jeanne.m.holm@jpl.nasa.gov>; Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>; "public-egov-ig@w3.org" <public-egov-ig@w3.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: systemic transformative e-governance
 
Gannon,

Thank you for the ever so entertaining metaphors! Make sure there is
nothing blocking the central shaft of your staircase. I'm down in the
basement stuffing bits of sensitive data in tiny little safes and then
attaching them to helium balloons. ;^)

bd

> I have two comments:
>
> 1.  "transformative" - It is a fact, however inconvenient, that
> Organizations (and Governments) and People speak different sets of
> languages, even when they imagine they understand each other completely. 
> Librarians say so, and I believe them:  There is a set for Terminology[1]
> and a set for Bibliography[2].  A US Law terminology is English (en), and
> it governs people speaking English (eng) and 110+ other bibliographic
> languages according to the US Census.  This is an instance of a problem
> common of sovereigns.  Every sovereign is a melting pot, and the "fix" for
> a melting pot is a governance recipe for genocide.  There is no sovereign
> [instance of Rule of Law] has too small nor too large a jurisdiction to
> fail a localized collection of its citizens.  This is a permanent feature
> of any eGovernment Model and cannot be added on at some later date when
> the technology advances, the weather is better, the kids move out, the
> dog's been fed, etc.. 
>  That said, eGovernment need not worry about correcting past mistakes,
> although certainly that is the duty of sovereigns in the domain of
> Economics and Civil Law.  Personally, I think that is a fool's errand
> (Royalties to Columbus or Reparations to Amerindians ?),  but I like that
> it is not our (the IG's)fool's errand going forward.
>
> 2.   "systemic" - eGovernment R&D is Archeology not Exploration.  This is
> Time Zero, for you differential equation fans; we have Governance goals
> and we know (some of) what the Web can do.  We are not digging a random
> hole with data (we think) at the bottom.  We are excavating a staircase
> built who knows when with data (we think) at the bottom.  As we dig, the
> Rule of Law follows us down close behind.  Some excel at digging, but
> somebody has to sweep the staircase too since the Rule of Law needs to
> climb out.   The economic motivation to dig never stands alone.  The
> maintenance job has no economic motivation.  It is motivated by respect
> for the Rule of Law within the domain (hole).  A cosmopolitan (person) or
> a penniless refugee (person) are the same abstraction, entities unstable
> outside of the system, but at all times located in a unique domain.  There
> is no freedom to not be where you are[3].  While SKOS describes "knowledge
> organization
>  systems", I think it would be desirable to enunciate an analog - SGOV or
> as I call it Artificial Bureaucracy, to describe common features
> (including service names) of Governments.  1) The motivation to organize
> knowledge is to develop more knowledge.  Good governance has the same
> motivation. 2) The inseparable economic motive does mischief to both. 3)
> Every sovereign wants to be skos:TopConcept.  If you grant them that, you
> will stop them from spoiling reality TV. 4) The terminology of SKOS is
> slanted toward IT with an academic orientation.  The orientation is
> correct, but the slant toward IT is an unnecessary complication.  A
> governance fork in SKOS would contribute to transparency.  To be
> practical about it ... a description of people who live along the Danube
> would include (among others) residents of Vienna, Austria and Budapest,
> Hungary[4].
>
> --Gannon
>
>
> [1] http://www.rustprivacy.org/2012/urn/lang/display/
>
> [2] http://www.rustprivacy.org/2012/urn/lang/person/
>
> [3]   A four year old of my acquaintance thought that a birthday party was
> a good idea, but a birth month of parties even better.  I had to remind
> her that her birth year of parties, sadly, was already over.  She
> counter-offered a birth week of parties, of course, because the word
> "fortnight" was unfamiliar.
> [4] http://www.rustprivacy.org/2012/urn-lex/danube.html
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio@gmail.com>
> To: Tomasz Janowski <tj@iist.unu.edu>
> Cc: paoladimaio10@googlemail.com; "Holm, Jeanne M (1760)"
> <jeanne.m.holm@jpl.nasa.gov>; Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>;
> "public-egov-ig@w3.org" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 9:20 AM
> Subject: Re: systemic transformative e-governance
>
>
> Thank you Tomasz for clarification and the additional useful link
>
> it may help to create a shared resource where all these useful references
> ad background knowledge  and ideas shared on list can be stored
>
> Some additional structure needed for the wiki  help to capture the essence
> of these interesting exchanges perhaps?
>
> - proposed IG governance - goals, process (and tools!!!!)
> - absolutely critical issues that need to be discussed about IG governance
> process and tools (not just during meetings, but also on list?)
> - bibliography/links to references
> - list existing egov definitions
> - W3C egov definition? (use the tools?)
>
> then active members can start filling out some pages
>
> and btw- I do not have anything against lurkers, 
> its just that the world today needs the lurkers to
> come out from lurking mode and take a stand.....
>
> if we dont make a change here today, then probably nobody ever will
>
> P
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Tomasz Janowski <tj@iist.unu.edu> wrote:
>
> Paola,
>>
>>Just a short clarification:
>>
>>
>>> Planning
>>> Design
>>> Implementation
>>> Operation
>>> Sustainability
>>
>>are typical stages in the EGOV development process, not structural
>>elements on the resulting solutions. In theory, the stages are
>>sequential but in practice, they overlap. In any way, the stages are
>>discrete, they interact by virtue of their position in the policy
>>cycle (earlier stages enabling later stages) and they do work as a
>>whole. This policy cycle can facilitate EGOV development towards any
>>set of policy objectives, including your transformation of traditional
>>to participatory governance, and other objectives like job creation,
>>sustainable development (see the seminar on 21 February), etc.
>>
>>By the way, a good reference for an important distinction between
>>e-government and e-governance is:
>>
>>Riley, T. B. (2004). E-Governance vs . E-Government (pp. 8-16).
>>Retrieved from http://www.i4donline.net/issue/nov03/egovernance.htm
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Tomasz
>>
>>
>>> Tomasz
>>
>>> Let me share a thought on your plan below under a separate thread.  I
>>> research e-governance in relation to 'systemic solutions', and I am
>>> glad
>>> the issues /themes have been identified as you write below.
>>
>>> However
>>
>>> If we agree that  e-governance  (participatory practice) should
>>> transform
>>> traditional governance (elite vs everyone else), and not just parrot
>>> and
>>> reinforce the classical weaknesses of traditional governance (self
>>> serving,
>>> corruption prone, unsustainable)
>>
>>> then
>>> we need to work on how all these dimensions
>>> that you tend to 'separate', as a whole.
>>
>>> From a systemic transformative solution viewpoint, it is important to
>>> actually capture  the interplay of these separate dimensions, how they
>>> influence and interact with each other
>>
>>> Planning
>>> Design
>>> Implementation
>>> Operation
>>> Sustainability
>>
>>> need to be tackled in relation to each other,  and applied to
>>> the governance of our institutions and working organisations
>>> (universities, governments etc)
>>
>>> otherwise
>>> they may continue to remain dysfunctional, disconnected
>>> areas of speculative theory
>>
>>> how do we do that?
>>
>>
>>> P
>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. EGOV Planning - law and regulations, strategy development, strategy
>>>> alignment, funding arrangements, readiness assessment, policy
>>>> development, action plans, partner management, stakeholder,
>>>> leadership, coordination, etc.
>>>>
>>>> 2. EGOV Design - interoperability, enterprise architecture, standards
>>>> and best practices, agency collaboration, information-sharing,
>>>> one-stop government, connected governance, agile government,
>>>> multi-channel delivery, innovation systems, etc.
>>>>
>>>> 3. EGOV Implementation - acquisition, procurement, technical
>>>> infrastructure, electronic public services, service middleware,
>>>> services and applications, negotiation and contracts, new technology
>>>> adoption, project management, program management, organizational
>>>> change, etc.
>>>>
>>>> 4. EGOV Operation - Service agreements, monitoring, software
>>>> maintenance, adoption and scale-up, access and accessibility, digital
>>>> content, digital rights, digital divide, benefit management, risk
>>>> management, performance management, etc.
>>>>
>>>> 5. EGOV Sustainability - measurement, monitoring and evaluation,
>>>> knowledge management, capacity building, institutionalization, etc.
>>>>
>>>> We also discussed the principle of separating the issue of EGOV
>>>> mechanics (HOW), covered by the policy cycle, from the EGOV value
>>>> proposition (WHY). While the mechanics is more amendable to
>>>> standardization and packaging into best practices and (perhaps?) more
>>>> stable, the value proposition has to be generally worked out and owned
>>>> locally, and subject to continued policy alignment. So, following the
>>>> policy cycle, the discussion could focus on the value proposition and
>>>> what benefits different countries can actually achieve through EGOV,
>>>> against their policy objectives, and what they can learn from each
>>>> other as they pursue their policy objectives through EGOV.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, the discussion could focus on the nature, definition and
>>>> conceptualization of EGOV - the WHAT dimension. I would rather deal
>>>> with fundamental questions after dealing with the mechanics (HOW) and
>>>> value proposition (WHY); we should be then in a better position to do
>>>> so rather than putting definitions and conceptualizations up-front.
>>>>
>>>> As a concrete implementation of these ideas, we could devote each
>>>> monthly meeting to one stage in the policy cycle, before moving on to
>>>> country experiences in different regions of the world, before finally
>>>> tackling the fundamental questions. It would be also good to see how
>>>> this discussion could lead to the publication of technical notes to
>>>> document the progress made, including updates to the document
>>>> "Improving Access to Government through Better Use of the Web"
>>>> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-egov-improving-20090512/). A year
>>>> worth of productive discussions :-)!
>>>>
>>>> I welcome your comments and feedback on these ideas.
>>>>
>>>> Many regards,
>>>>
>>>> Tomasz
>>>>
>>>> ------------
>>>> Dr. Tomasz Janowski
>>>> Senior Research Fellow, UNU-IIST
>>>> Head, UNU-IIST Center for Electronic Governance
>>>> Associate Editor, Government Information Quarterly
>>>> Co-Chair, e-Government Interest Group, World Wide Web Consortium
>>>> Coordinator, ICEGOV Conference Series
>>>> www:   http://unu.edu/faculty/tomasz-janowski
>>>> email: tj@iist.unu.edu | phone: +853 66652305 | skype: tomaszjanowski
>>>>
>>>> > Paola--
>>>>
>>>> > Thanks for your contributions!
>>>>
>>>> > We did have a series of calls and IRC chats late last year and a
>>>> > face to face meeting at the W3C TPAC.  Virtual attendance was also
>>>> > provided at that meeting.  It was there that we, as a group, came up
>>>> > with the ideas around the outline you saw at the beginning of the
>>>> > year.  The group came up with topics that they wanted to discuss in
>>>> > more detail, and from which we might develop some tasks and
>>>> activities.
>>>>
>>>> > Content contributions can be brought in many ways: attending the
>>>> > meetings (virtual or face to face), responding during the IRC,
>>>> > sending messages to the list serve, contributing to the wiki at
>>>> > http://www.w3.org/egov/wiki/Main_Page  We also have a LinkedIn group
>>>> > for convenience, where people can also post ideas (W3C eGovernment
>>>> > Interest Group at
>>>> > http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1800648&trk=anet_ug_hm )
>>>>
>>>> > With Tomasz just being announced as co-chair, it's probably a great
>>>> > time to be sure we are still in synch with the group.  Welcome to
>>>> hearing your ideas!
>>>>
>>>> > --Jeanne
>>>>
>>>> > **********************************************************
>>>> > Jeanne Holm
>>>> > Evangelist, Data.gov
>>>> > U.S. General Services Administration
>>>> > Cell: (818) 434-5037
>>>> > Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn: JeanneHolm
>>>> > **********************************************************
>>>>
>>>> > From: Paola Di Maio
>>>> > <paola.dimaio@gmail.com<mailto:paola.dimaio@gmail.com>>
>>>> > Reply-To:
>>>> > <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com<mailto:paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>>
>>>> > Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:19:12 +0100
>>>> > To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org<mailto:phila@w3.org>>
>>>> > Cc: <public-egov-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-egov-ig@w3.org>>
>>>> > Subject: Re: whats the plan then?
>>>> > Resent-From: <public-egov-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-egov-ig@w3.org>>
>>>> > Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:19:43 +0000
>>>>
>>>> > Phil
>>>>
>>>> > thanks for reply
>>>>
>>>> > I may not have welcomed/ congratulateD Tomasz on joining the team,
>>>> > let me take the opportunity. (welcome Tomasz)
>>>>
>>>> > However I 'd to understand (urgently) , if this workgroup adopts a
>>>> participatory practice, or not
>>>>
>>>> > if it does, it is not up to you nor to Tomasz to
>>>> > make the roadmap, but up to each list member
>>>> > If a list member does not contribute their ideas /opinions, or have
>>>> > really nothing to say ever, I wonder why they have joined.
>>>>
>>>> > If the governance of this workgroup is by selected committee
>>>> > (another elite?), then maybe this - at this stage -  is not  yet a
>>>> > community of  self directed leaders I am hoping for :-)
>>>>
>>>> > I would like each member to contribute to the roadmap, and to hear
>>>> > everybody's voice and opinion on every single issue, because now we
>>>> > have the technology to do so.  Members who do not have anything to
>>>> > say ever on anything are lurkers, not members,(imho)
>>>>
>>>> >  That's the e-governance I have in mind and I am interested in
>>>> helping
>>>> co-create......
>>>>
>>>> > Let me know if I should put my energies elsewhere :-)
>>>>
>>>> > P
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Phil Archer
>>>> > <phila@w3.org<mailto:phila@w3.org>> wrote:
>>>> > Paola,
>>>>
>>>> > Thanks for this timely message. As I hope you will have seen, the
>>>> > group has a new co-chair, Tomasz Janowski, who will be working with
>>>> > Jeanne, Sandro and I on this group. We are all aware of the need to
>>>> > set out a rejuvenated roadmap - it's coming, and soon.
>>>>
>>>> > Phil.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On 24/04/2012 18:07, Paola Di Maio wrote:
>>>> > Greetings, E-Gov SIG
>>>>
>>>> > I am reviewing my ability to make useful contributions to various
>>>> > communities
>>>> > for the next semester, as I am travelling a lot, I find it difficult
>>>> > to attend conference calls . Apologies for not being more active.
>>>> >  (pulling own ears)
>>>>
>>>> > I remain however interested in the topic, and realise I am not
>>>> > sure who is on this group, and what are the goals of the memebers,
>>>> > involvement with e-gov
>>>> > and what can we learn from each other
>>>>
>>>> > Apologies if I have missed out on something
>>>>
>>>> > Can someone remind  please
>>>>
>>>> > where is the wiki where people can enter their
>>>> contributions/suggestions
>>>> > for talks/projects, our shared -participative agenda so to speak?
>>>>
>>>> > would it be a good idea if each group member (willing to do so) to
>>>> > give a short talk  in forthcoming months (also just a few
>>>> asynchronous
>>>> > slides) to introduce themselves
>>>> > what do they do and what do they would like to achieve with the
>>>> > participation
>>>> > in this community, so that we share some knowledge and learn from
>>>> each
>>>> > other?
>>>>
>>>> > I am working on distributed decision making processes for governance
>>>> and
>>>> > policy
>>>> > and would be glad to know if there is anyone around with similar
>>>> interests,
>>>> > for example
>>>> > s
>>>>
>>>> > Cheers
>>>>
>>>> > PDM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Phil Archer
>>>> > W3C eGovernment
>>>> > http://www.w3.org/egov/
>>>>
>>>> > http://philarcher.org
>>>> > +44 (0)7887 767755<tel:%2B44%20%280%297887%20767755>
>>>> > @philarcher1
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>


-- 
Brian D. Handspicker
Managing Partner
PracticalMarkets, LLC
www.practicalmarkets.net

Email: bd@handspicker.net
Website: bd.handspicker.net
Weblog: bd.handspicker.net/blog
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/bdhandspicker

Albany Regional Office:
1-413-652-5029
243 Union Street, Suite 209
North Adams, MA 01247 US

Boston Regional Office:
1-978-456-5129
215 Ayer Road, Suite 233
Harvard MA 01451 US

This is a private correspondence from Brian D. Handspicker. Some of my
messages are sent using mailing lists. If the "to" field in this message
is blank or displays "undisclosed recipients" I sent this messages using a
mailing list. CLICK HERE<mailto:bd@handspicker.net?subject=REMOVE> if you
wish to be removed from my mailing list.