- From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:35:16 +0200
- To: "Novak, Kevin" <KevinNovak@aia.org>
- Cc: <TGupta@worldbank.org>, <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
El 22/04/2009, a las 16:07, Novak, Kevin escribió: > Tanya, > > Thank you for your wonderful and thoughtful comments. Your thoughts > and issues are well noted. I will review the front end of the > document with your comments in mind and adjust accordingly and as > appropriate and see what the group thinks. Jose will add to the > tracker as well. Yup, and thanks again Tanya. On eGov definition, intro and more rewriting and high level missing bits. I'm attaching this one to ISSUE-10 and ISSUE-24. Kevin, if you think I should open a new different one just let me know. -- Jose > Great points. > > Kevin Novak > Vice President, Integrated Web Strategy and Technology > The American Institute of Architects > 1735 New York Avenue, NW > Washington, DC 20006 > > Voice: 202-626-7303 > Cell: 202-731-0037 > Fax: 202-639-7606 > Email: kevinnovak@aia.org > Website: www.aia.org > > > AIA NAMED BEST ASSOCIATIONS WEBSITE FOR THE 12th ANNUAL WEBBY AWARDS! > > America's Favorite Architecture Tops the Shortlist for International > Honor for the Web > > The American Institute of Architects is the voice of the > architectural profession and the resource for its members in service > to society. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org > ] On Behalf Of TGupta@worldbank.org > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:56 AM > To: public-egov-ig@w3.org > Subject: Re: Group Note -- content and sections outline [forwarding > note to DL on request from Jose] > > > Thanks for the chance to make some comments on the W3C e-government > document. > > Abstract > The definition of e-government is a bit narrow I think. It is more > than " the use of the Web or other information technologies by > governing bodies (local, state, federal, multi-national) to interact > with their citizenry, between departments and divisions, and between > governments themselves". Sure, in short form it is the use of > technology by governments. However if we are attempting a formal > definition of e-government it needs to be broader. This view leaves > out the transformative philosophy of e-government, which is to re- > envision the role of the government from being a bureaucratic/ > autocratic black box to helping put the citizen at the center of > government, not just for services, but also in terms of > participation - helping in some cases bring about a more > participative democracy. I've thought a lot about this issue - as I > find definitions are important as they actually end up driving the > nature of the work we do. Pages > 26-27 of the document below may offer some ideas as well > > Introduction > Regarding "The idea of government use of the Web and related > technologies was born in the late 1990's and culminated in early > 2000 as an extension of everything ?e?. > I don't know if I agree. I am attaching a paper that Roberto and I > worked on that describes some of the history of e-government (CLAD > conference) and may be helpful (page 12) (See attached file: The > Role of E-9-26-08.doc) > > I don't think the governance/public sector angle has come through > completely. > For instance transparency, participation and accountability, are, > from the governance angle, key advantages to using technology in > government. You have covered transparency through the section on > open government data. The section on transparency could be explored > more broadly, as the issue is broader than just open data. > Participation is covered in the section on participation and > engagement. This section is a lot richer than the transparency > section which only covers open government data. However here you > could also talk about some "success" stories such as participatory > budgeting in various countries..A section on accountability would > also be relevant and useful. > > E-government issues > This sections brings up a number of important issues that have not > been highlighted before. One important fact that has been hinted at > but not explicitly discussed is the emergence or convergence of > several new actors in the e-government arena as a result of > globalization. You have several supra-national, national and > subnational entities from the public sector, private sector or some > hybrid (such as associations, government agencies, transnational > public-private partnerships, heads of state, businesses and business > associations, NGOs, civil society, international agencies, and > policy-based organizations) around a major issue or several very > specific issues. To a large extent, these bodies are working > without any explicit governance framework and interact on an ad-hoc > basis, thus limiting effectiveness and progress on policy issues. > Web 2.0 and integrative technologies could help address this > problem. Other issues that come to mind include the importance of > technology-informed legal and judicial reform (the Myspace > suicide) , and the lack of a service culture or technology > education in the public sector, > > These are, but some of the issues that come to mind on a quick > reading of the document, and am sending it now in response to your > request to send comments before the Apr 26 deadline if possible. > Trust this is helpful. > > Best > Tanya >
Received on Wednesday, 22 April 2009 14:36:13 UTC