- From: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
- Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 11:40:09 -0500
- To: "'eGov IG'" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
John, in my view, this is a very important topic that warrants impassioned debate. (I subscribe to Michael Schrage's assertion that good manners should not be allowed to stand in the way of a good argument.) My short response to your rhetorical question is a question for you: Who "owns" the Web and the Internet? In my view, the notion that we must bow down to others and agree to allow them to assume ownership of *our* information is what Jean Lipman-Blumen calls a "control myth". (I am drafting a paper based upon her book entitled "The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians - and How We Can Survive Them" for inclusion in my collection at http://ambur.net/index.html#recordkeeping) In the U.S., 17 USC 105 expressly provides that " Copyright protection . is not available for any work of the United States Government ..." http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#312 & http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105 BTW, I care much less about open source *software* than I do about open and easy access to public records. Owen Ambur Co-Chair Emeritus, xmlCoP Co-Chair, AIIM StratML Committee Member, AIIM iECM Committee Invited Expert, W3C eGov IG Membership Director, FIRM Board Former Project Manager, ET.gov -----Original Message----- From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sheridan, John Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 7:38 AM To: eGov IG Subject: RE: position paper: Social Media in eGovernment Owen, Thanks for your comments - and yes we should absolutely debate these questions - which are designedly provocative, and aim to put the issues into an e-Government context. There was one part I do have a little trouble with: > With reference to the first question, I would make a plea for use of the > word "stewardship" rather than "ownership" -- at least as far as public > information is concerned. (The notion that someone ... anyone ... could > "own" a social network is also anathema to me.) See the section entitled > "Culture" at the bottom of page 10 (PDF page 16) of the document at > http://www.defenselink.mil/cio-nii/docs/InfoSharingStrategy.pdf -- whose > four enumerated goals are available in StratML format at > http://xml.gov/stratml/DoDISS.xml To my mind, we can't just pretend that copyright and other intellectual property rights don't exist - there absolutely is *ownership* in social networks, with the nature of that ownership depending on their terms of use (e.g. many services allow me to retain ownership of *my* data, but grant extensive permission to the service provider). We may like to live in a world of stewardship, but we actually live in a world of ownership - of intellectual property rights, copyright, and (in Europe) database rights. It is precisely because these networks have such value, that we should discuss who owns them - and ownership is absolutely the right word to use - because ownership inescapably exists and is important. A rhetorical question: is there a major social networking service that doesn't address intellectual property rights, one way or another, in their terms of use? That social networks are owned (somehow), is a fact. That they are (or should be) stewarded, is a point of view (and not necessarily one I disagree with by the way!). If you like, "stewardship" is an answer to the "ownership" question. John. -----Original Message----- From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jose M. Alonso Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 6:03 PM To: eGov IG Cc: John Sheridan; Kevin Novak Subject: position paper: Social Media in eGovernment Dear Group participants, As discussed at the F2F, John drafted a position paper for the upcoming W3C workshop on the Future of Social Networking [1] that Kevin and I reviewed. Paper is available at [2] and has just been sent to the programme committee. I'm very sorry that due to time constraints we were not able to share it with the Group ahead of time to get more comments from you. We'll update the Group at a future call or by email once we get more information from the PC. This closes ACTION-30. Best, Jose. [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/msnws/ [2] http://www.w3.org/2008/12/egov-social-ws -- Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org> W3C/CTIC eGovernment Lead http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/ ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- National Archives Disclaimer This email message (and attachments) may contain information that is confidential to The National Archives. If you are not the intended recipient you cannot use, distribute or copy the message or attachments. In such a case, please notify the sender by return email immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message and attachments that do not relate to the official business of The National Archives are neither given nor endorsed by it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2008 16:52:15 UTC