Public Sphere #2 – Government 2.0: Policy and Practice

117 Comments

Reply | Subscribe

1. Sally Rose
   Posted May 29, 2009 at 1:31 pm | Permalink | Reply

   Hi

   Sounds like a great event. I’d love to come along and would also like to request a speaking spot.

   From 19 May – 26 June Open Forum is hosting an online discussion forum for the National Human Rights Committee. This project is the third in a series of government online consultation trials conducted in partnership with the Australian Government Information Management Office (the first 2 being the DBCDE Digital Economy Blog & the Parliamentary Secretary Maxine McKew’s childcare forum).

   By the 22nd there should be some interesting stuff to report on how this has worked.

   Please check it out before then and get involved before then at http://www.openforum.com.au/NHROC

   Cheers
   Sal

2. Matthew Landauer
   Posted May 29, 2009 at 2:34 pm | Permalink | Reply

   There will be definitely be people from OpenAustralia, including Katherine Szuminska and myself, attending the event. We’re really looking forward to it!

   We’d like to present something on open access to government data, open source software in government and http://www.openaustralia.org.

   There is heaps of ground to cover. We can hone the focus of our talks on the interests of the attendees and so that it complements the material in other talks.

3. Matthew Crozier
   Posted May 29, 2009 at 3:11 pm | Permalink | Reply

   Hi

   This sounds like a great event and I would very much like to attend and to speak if that’s possible.

   I am one of the founders of Bang the Table which is a company dedicated to helping government and non government organisations to engage more of their community using web technologies.

   We currently have clients in Australia, New Zealand and Canada and I would love to share some of our experience. We blog at http://www.onlinecommunityconsultation.com

   Cheers

   Matt

4. Tom Worthington
   Posted May 30, 2009 at 9:10 am | Permalink | Reply

   Internet and web technology can help with open government and reduce the cost of government at the same time.

   As an example I suggested to the 1998 Constitutional Convention that the Federal Parliment could be partly run online. As well as providing better access for the citizens, this would also reduce the financial cost and environmental impact of Parliament.

   MPs and Senators could do part of their business online and so spend more time in their electorate, rather than in Parliament House.

   Since 1998 there has been a rapid uptake of ICT to improve business productivity and even the public service has been required to provide “productivity bonuses”. It is time for parliamentarians to change their work practices, increase their productivity and lower costs.

   http://www.tomw.net.au/twcl97c.htm#parliment

5. Steve Jenkin
   Posted May 30, 2009 at 12:14 pm | Permalink | Reply

   I get a dead link on ” Open Government: policy and practice for Australia” http://www.katelundy.com.au/category/campaigns/publicsphere/open-government/

6. James Purser
   Posted May 30, 2009 at 12:52 pm | Permalink | Reply

   I’ve just stuck up a blog post about OOOG and I thought it might form the basis of a good short talk.

   http://collaborynth.com.au/blog/OOOG

7. Stephen Collins
   Posted May 31, 2009 at 7:40 am | Permalink | Reply

   I’d obviously like to contribute. I could add something on a number of topics, including:

   - Government 2.0 generally (hardly a 10 minute topic, though)
   - culture change required for Open Government
   - empowering staff to be your voice in open government
   - moving to open data – DigitalNZ and Data.gov
   - social media is not something to be afraid of
   - rethinking copyright models to “some rights reserved” rather than Crown Copyright

   Things I’d like specifically to hear from others:

   - FOI reform – why we need a rethink that available and open is the default
   - APSC Circular 2008/8 – an explanation why it hasn’t been made available for review (it has some obvious problems) and why knowledge of it is so rare

   There’s a >em>lot more I’d like to hear explained and justified, but this forum isn’t the place.

8. Stephen Collins
   Posted May 31, 2009 at 7:54 am | Permalink | Reply

   And another idea – one that might fit into a 10 minute talk as an overview.

   The four flavours of Government 2.0:

   - the public doing for themselves where government cannot, should not or will not
   - public-to-government for improved consultation
   - inter- and intra-government engagement
   - government-to-public for improved service delivery

9. Craig Thomler
   Posted May 31, 2009 at 3:04 pm | Permalink | Reply

   Hi,

   This should be a fantastic event. I’d be interesting in speaking personally on the topic of ‘identifying and managing the political and operational risks of open government’.

   Cheers,

   Craig

10. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)
    Posted May 31, 2009 at 3:30 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Mentioned in an earlier tweet, the 35th International ICANN meeting will be held on Sydney 21-26 June see http://syd.icann.org/ so unfortunately I won’t be attending on person, as Monday 20th June is our main Opening Day and general sessions I’ll be audience based not Chair of Meetings occupied at least in the a.m. so I should be able to be involved online until the afternoon sessions when as Chair of a Board Advisory Council (ALAC)see http://www.atlarge.icann.org/... I’ll be well and truly occupied in our joint session.

11. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)
    Posted May 31, 2009 at 3:31 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Error correction the date I should have typed is Monday 22nd June *sigh* coffee required obviously *sigh again*

12. James Dellow
    Posted May 31, 2009 at 8:07 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I’m interested on speaking about the following:

    If it isn’t broken, why fix it?

    I wouldn’t be surprised if people have a ridiculous vision of Open Government and Government 2.0 as being something a little like Australian Idol. But despite the popularity of reality TV today, I doubt very much that the Australian people want ‘reality government’.

    But the thought of it raises a serious question – are we simply getting ourselves caught up in the excitement of this ‘social media’ fad? After all, Australia already has a progressive and stable democratic form of government so aren’t we just tinkering at the edges – for example, should we get rid of voting booths and replace them with an iPhone app so we can exercise our democratic rights over a cappuccino?

    I would like to use my session to respond to those concerns by exploring the opportunities that technology will provide government (and the community) to meet what would be previously considered as being difficult or impossible to meet needs.

    This is intended to be a helicopter view of some of the new ‘patterns’ and ‘use cases’ that the Web and other related technologies are going to support in the longer term. It is not a technical presentation.

13. Peter J Cooper
    Posted June 1, 2009 at 10:06 am | Permalink | Reply

    Hi Kate (Pia),

    Have been watching this initiative closely here, on Silicon Beach and of course on Twitter.

    My background is large scale retail financial technology and I am a serial entrepreneur with substantial international experience.

    These days I am an angel and advisor. http://www.peterjcooper.com

    I’d certainly like to attend and speak with a focus on -
    - differentiating between the mechanism and the outcomes and having the right focus on these distinct needs
    - clearer public-to-govt communication
    - innovation in other markets we should be aware of and ‘fad vs fact’
    - keeping ahead through a forum that improves the mechanism as the web evolves

    Cheers, Peter. (@pc0)

14. Dr Owen Kyle Cameron
    Posted June 1, 2009 at 11:28 am | Permalink | Reply

    Good morning,

    I’d be very interested in talking at the event. In my current role, I’m travelling around Australia talking to primary industry producers trying to translate policy documents into actions and issues they can relate to, in the context of climate change and eco-efficiency.

    In combination with my work on water and shareholder communications, I would like to use this work on climate communication to talk about:

    “New media and NRM policy consultation – meeting, listening and hearing to enhance service delivery”.

    My background is Government, Business and Research. I’m currently working on a national collaborative initiative around climate change, and have previously held Director roles in State Government on water policy, urban planning. The water work included some of the most contentious (and interesting) water infrastructure initiatives of recent years.

    Prior to that I worked on communications with Asian Governments around the Kyoto Convention, and then went into the private sector where I worked on building ICT systems, and then ran a small consultancy focusing on corporate governance and shareholder engagement for company boards (notably looking at how ICT could help or constraint a company’ attempt to get its message to shareholders and staff – and how government regulatory frameworks could make consistent communication very difficult).

    But, to summarise, I have noted how often consultation is a process rather than a priority, and how this is a major barrier to effective Government project delivery. And new technologies are being used to both engender real consultation and enhance open Government, as well as to shut it down.

    Lastly some of the language being used in policy circles is now less accessible than the radical eco-feminist literature I had to study as part of the cross cultural elements of my Ph.D (environmental management policy in Japan). This is a truly shocking state of affairs and the need for policy discourse to become simple and accessible is even more critical in the NRM space. New technology (and use of old technology) is one way to address this. The other is appropriate management behaviour. My money is on new technologies.

    Dr. Owen Cameron.
    Program Manager, CCRSPI (Climate Change Research Strategy for Primary Industry)
    Coordinator, Primary Industry Adaptation Research Network.

15. Tom Worthington
    Posted June 1, 2009 at 6:26 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Would be worth linking up with Steven L. Clift’s Democracies Online Project.

    * Steven Clift: http://stevenclift.com/?page_id=172
    * Democracy Online: http://dowire.org/

    Steven has been consistently working in this area for more than a decade. I hosted drinks for him in Canberra in 1997: http://www.tomw.net.au/irc/irc14.html

16. Martin Stewart-Weeks
    Posted June 2, 2009 at 9:38 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Would love to come and be involved in the discussion, especially the morning session on 22/6. Happy to speak – “New models of public governance in The Connected Republic”. Bit of a mash of themes – government ‘at the edge’, the impact of social innovation and the discovery of new spaces and conversations for the “public purpose” sector. Have a look at http://www.theconnectedrepublic.org – copies of white papers and an open forum discussing public sector reform and renewal and this section on Government 2.0 http://theconnectedrepublic.org/tags/Government%202.0

17. Des Walsh
    Posted June 3, 2009 at 11:07 am | Permalink | Reply

    This is an exciting initiative. Major hat tip to Senator Lundy, Pia Waugh and anyone else driving/supporting.

    As a former APS and NSW public servant (including a stint in ACT administration)and in the intervening time having done policy & program consulting work for Federal and State agencies, I have a particular interest – shared with Steve Collins (see above) in the culture change aspect as it affects public servants.

    I believe there is plenty to learn from the private sector, including the Australian private sector although the social media takeup has been/is slow and tentative, to put it mildly. One of the key lessons is about people.

    At a conference Steve and I attended earlier this year in Sydney on Enterprise 2.0 a recurring theme was that achieving success in employing/engaging with social media in the enterprise is more about people-within-the-enterprise issues and cultural change than about technology. That theme was particularly strong in the keynote streamed from the UK.

    How are all those social media management/opportunity/risk/guidelines/codes/cultural environment issues faced in the private sector regarding staff and social media (on/for business and in private lives)to be realistically and productively addressed, sorted, tested and refined in a public sector environment?

    So I’m interested in discussion about the opportunities, constraints, fears, guidelines in terms of how those will play out from the point of view of public servants. And not just those in Canberra (funny how living in ruralandregionalAustralia these days has changed my view on some things – like broadband as a basic necessity, for instance).

    I’m really looking forward to attending on the day and I trust we’ll be wifi-enabled for our Twitter and Coveritlive streams.

    I’m committed to doing what I can to get some input from the Social Media Club network (there are now 5 in Australia) including overseas colleagues in the SMC network and other networks.

    I’d be pleased to speak on the day. Maybe I can say some of the things the public servants might like to have said but would prefer someone else said them. I’m not looking for promotion any more.

18. Roxanne Missingham
    Posted June 3, 2009 at 11:40 am | Permalink | Reply

    The Parliamentary Library is very interested in participating. At the moment we are working with the parliamentary departments on the http://www.aph.gov.au replacement. We are collecting feedback from the public and Senators and Members and parliamentary department staff. The public survey has just closed and 867 responses were received. In addition, the UK Hansard Society are holding focus groups with university students (and plan to seek input from other groups) on the needs for a Parliament in 2020.

    The interactivity delivered last year with ParlInfo Search includes alerts and rss feeds. Future developments of the Parliamentary web may be of interest in discussion at the sphere.

19. Marghanita da Cruz
    Posted June 3, 2009 at 1:37 pm | Permalink | Reply

    If there is a spare speaking slot, I would like to talk/initiate discussion on the scope/need for developing and implementing standards for the dissemination of Government information via the Internet.

    This would be with the objective of making information more accessible and enabling stakeholders to more effectively monitor and provide input to programs and projects.

    This is kind of the next level/step from the publication and international adoption of AS8015 The Australian Standard for Governance of ICT as ISO/IEC 38500.

    More on the standard for Governance of ICT at
    http://www.ramin.com.au/itgovernance/

    Marghanita

20. Tom Worthington
    Posted June 3, 2009 at 2:38 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Marghanita da Cruz Posted June 3, 2009 at 1:37 pm:

    > … standards for the dissemination of Government information via the Internet. …

    Yes, I think some work is needed on Web 1.0 for government, before we get on to Web 2. A recent example is the Auditor’s report on if government agencies are making reports to Parliament available online. 90% of the reports are online but most are hard to read because of the format used:

    http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2009/06/audit-of-online-government-documents-in.html

21. Tom Worthington
    Posted June 3, 2009 at 3:33 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Roxanne Missingham Posted June 3, 2009 at 11:40 am:

    >The Parliamentary Library is very interested in participating. …

    Perhaps the Parliament needs a civilian version of the Defence Department’s Intense Collaboration Space
    (ICS). This is a room full of networked gadgets for planning a war.

    I have been wondering if Google Wave might make such facilities affordable and easy enough to use for educators. So perhaps MPs could use them for running the country: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2009/06/meeting-spaces-for-education-and.html

22. John Haining
    Posted June 4, 2009 at 11:23 am | Permalink | Reply

    Hi Kate, Pia

    This sounds like a very interesting initiative and I’d like to contribute what I can from my experience having helped clients with government from both the policy and administrative.

    Areas of policy formulation, efficient and effective administration (including risk and audit, administrative law practices), transparency, real time data, open access to data, the appropriateness and extent of Crown copyrights and other government intellectual property rights, the role of government in research are among my many interests.

    Happy to speak if appropriate – I am going to try and track down the registration page now.

23. Pia Waugh
    Posted June 5, 2009 at 9:04 am | Permalink | Reply

    Hi everyone, thank you for your talk proposals and other information for this Public Sphere topic. Please keep them coming! We are carefully watching the comments, and are impressed with the high quality of suggestions being made.

    We anticipate having a first cut at the schedule by the 15th June, a week prior to the event.

24. Michael de Percy
    Posted June 6, 2009 at 4:30 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Hi Kate and Pia,

    Topic: Citizen Engagement & Policy Learning: Forming, storming, norming and performing

    I would like to speak about the correlation between citizen engagement and policy learning. Based on my observations of participatory new media sites, there are many issues which have arisen which will initially create barriers to informed participation in large-scale online policy development.

    Cheers,

    Michael.

25. Peter J Cooper
    Posted June 9, 2009 at 11:55 am | Permalink | Reply

    Sorry I can no longer attend, have a scheduling clash. Next time… Cheers, Peter.

26. Shoaib Burq
    Posted June 9, 2009 at 12:42 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I might be able to give some quick examples of Government 2.0 like initiatives are succeeding by opening of geographic data.
    Something along the lines of:
    http://www.spatialgov2009.com/abstract/37.asp

27. Mark Spain
    Posted June 9, 2009 at 12:51 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I would like to talk about my earning insights from hosting community face-to-face and online events that engage and sustain citizens in co-creating the future they want to see.

    The talk will be based around planning and running several enACT for the Future events in Canberra over the last 9 months and the next steps for the future. For more background see

    http://www.globallearning.com.au/enact/

    Warmly
    Mark

28. Matthew Hodgson
    Posted June 10, 2009 at 9:50 am | Permalink | Reply

    I’ve just finished some work with the ACT Chief Minister’s Department and am interested in representing my work at: http://magia3e.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/toward-government-2-0/

29. Damien Donnelly
    Posted June 10, 2009 at 10:52 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Hi Pia,
    I’d like to come and speak about ways of increasing civic engagement through Twitter. We’d like to talk about the plans we have for TweetMP and get feedback on the direction and opportunities we have for reducing barriers and costs of communication between MPs and everyday citizens.

30. Nerida Hart
    Posted June 12, 2009 at 4:00 am | Permalink | Reply

    Thanks for the prompt Pia
    I would like to present a case study on the Knowledge for Regional Natural Resource Management program which has, for the last 3 years, the overarching objective of facilitating better linkages between regional NRM bodies and knowledge (research) providers, and to assist regional NRM bodies to better manage their information and knowledge. The final report is now out at http://lwa.gov.au/products/pn30027
    Nerida

31. John Shanahan
    Posted June 12, 2009 at 10:48 am | Permalink | Reply

    Hello Kate and Pia
    Good to chat to you.
    Barack Obama is investing heavily in this area. He sees the potential to drastically improve the efficiency and transparency of government. There are similar opportunities here. See link.
    Part of the solution involves online communities. My organisation runs these communities for business and government clients. They are linking the citizens and customers into decision making in a totally new way. I am prepared to talk to this for 10 minutes if you wish.
    John Shanahan
    CEO Colmar Brunton

32. Kevin Cox
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 11:57 am | Permalink | Reply

    I would like to request a speaking slot to describe a privacy friendly identification system we are supplying to organisations throughout Australia including some of the big banks, large financial institutions and the online gaming industry. A reliable, trusted and private electronic identification system is a needed building block for Government 2.0. Technically our system is deployed using “cloud computing” which again is another technology that is an enabler for Government 2.0 and the deployment of such a system may be of interest to the group.

    Under pinning the system is the idea, from the privacy principles, that individuals have the right to access any information held about themselves. Governments can facilitate or hinder the expansion of the model through their attitude to allowing individuals to access their own records held in government files. Conceptually our system (and others like it) supply an individual with ways to access information about themselves in organisational databases. The individuals then identify themselves to new organisations by being able to prove that other organisations know about them – not what they know about them. This model puts the individual in control of their own on line identity and is a practical privacy friendly method of implementing identification for Web 2.0 applications.

    We wish to supply the system to social networking systems for no cost in return for assistance in working out the needs and uses of identification services in electronic social networking systems – Like Public Sphere. You can view the first commercial application of the technology at http://www.greenid.com.au

33. Michael de Percy
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 12:04 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I am very interested in Kevin Cox’s new system and I look forward to the presentation.

34. Pia Waugh
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 1:54 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Hi Kevin, we aren’t going to change technological horses for this Public Sphere, but willing to have a conversation. We are not having marketing talks or sales pitches at this event, however we are interested in Gov 2.0 case studies.

35. Pia Waugh
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 2:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Reposting comment from Pat Allan
    Posted on other Open Gov post.

    Here’s something that is related to the upcoming Public Sphere – an introduction from a paper on using technology to make governments more transparent: http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/government-data-and-invisible-hand

36. Tim Sherratt
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 4:00 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I wonder if anyone other than me is interested in developing a vocabulary/ontology for modelling the structure of government in Australia. My interests are mainly historical — I want a metadata structure that will help me improve access to the nation’s archival holdings — but obviously it would have much broader application. The National Archives’ CRS system registers government agencies, defines a number of relationships and maps functions, but I’d like something broader that links agencies to parliament and defines possible roles — prime minister, cabinet member, minister, departmental secretary etc. Perhaps there’s something already out there that I don’t know about?

37. Kevin Cox
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 4:58 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Pia,

    This will not be a pitch for a product but will use the product to illustrate important ideas and techniques critical to Government 2.0 and to show it can be done.

    If government is going to involve its citizens it has to know something about the citizens it is talking to – like is the person a citizen or is it the CIA or the Chinese secret police. Governments have spent tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars trying to create identification systems for its citizens starting way back with the Australia Card. Did you know that a large percentage of people on the electoral roll are enrolled at the wrong address? How much money do you think the government has spent trying to set up a health card and when do you think you will be able to get access to all your health records electronically? How embarrassing was it for the government to send cheques to dead people as part of its stimulus package? Why do you think we use the tax system every time the government wants to introduce any policy involving money?

    If government wants to implement services using the Internet it is going to have to learn how to implement systems the way we have implemented our identity system. We are one of the first successful Australian deployments of cloud computing technology and people will not get very far in implementing Government 2.0 without using technology the way we are pioneering.

    If you want to engage with your citizens you have to talk to them all including those who can suggest new and better ways to achieve our common goals.

    However, in a situation like this if you are serious about citizen involvement you should involve the other participants in deciding whether I should present? It is difficult to find this out isn’t it – but if you used the idea I will be presenting it will be easy and that is one of the things I want to discuss.

38. Kevin Cox
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 5:22 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Pia,

    The reference you have given http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/government-data-and-invisible-hand is a proposal on how to make the government more transparent.

    You might like to look at http://cscoxk.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/draft-submission-to-act-government-communit/ which is a submission I made to the ACT government on how to implement citizen centric governance which is similar in scope and ideas to the Felten’s paper. To make governments more transparent and to involve citizens a prerequisite is identification of people who want to access information held by governments but be able to do it in a privacy friendly way.

39. Stephen Collins
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 6:30 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Kevin, your response to Pia steps over the line of what’s acceptable. It approaches hectoring and harassment.

    The organisers of the event – Pia, me (who is not a public servant nor associated with any politician) and the others (a mix of public servants and private sector) – met today to build the schedule. Your subject matter sounds interesting, but as none of us had met you or heard you speak previously, nor knew of your product, we decided it was best to ask what your focus would be.

    We have made a very deliberate decision to allow no product pitches or product-focussed talks at all on the day. They are simply not what we want discussed. In fact, we will be asking any speaker that does pitch to leave the stage if they do start pitching their business or product.

    Talks need to demonstrate case studies not related to a particular product or raise issues of policy or program importance to be included. If your proposal is that, we are happy to have you speak.

    Perhaps a more temperate response next time might be wise?

40. Des Walsh
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 6:48 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Yeah, Kev,

    I doubt there’s any of us aren’t actually interested in the subject of how to access personal info about us in gov databases (just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean someone isn’t following me, kind of thing). We all know about passion for our own products but your opening message did read like a pitch to be able to use the event for a pitch – I had a bit of a “sauce bottle” moment when I read your follow up. Surely it’s in all our interests, yea even the nation’s interest (drumroll) for all of us to be *supporting* these beaut people who are putting this show together in their own time. I for one think what Pia and her helpers have achieved already is great.

41. James Dellow
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 10:00 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I’d be interested to hear about the issues hinted at in what Kevin proposed, but agree a product pitch isn’t welcome. However, IMHO the same goes for any other products, solutions or particular research programs people might want to promote – commercial or otherwise (yeah, alas even the academic sector is pretty commercial these days). This should be a chance to share ideas about Government 2.0 as something that is going to have a long term impact.

42. Roland Gesthuzien
    Posted June 14, 2009 at 11:14 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Sounds like a great idea. I am based in Melbourne and have a couple of friends who are curious how the public can help engage with Government 2.0

43. Kevin Cox
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 12:31 am | Permalink | Reply

    My apologies to Pia and others for any offense.

    In my defense I read the comment as saying that I was not going to be allowed a speaking spot because it was assumed that I was pitching a product and even if I was given a spot listeners would start with the assumption that I was pitching and so prejudge the information presented.

    Pitching a product was furthest from my mind as those who know me would realise. I am passionate about privacy and about individuals getting control over their own electronic presence. I have spent the last five years of my life doing something about it because the evidence was clear that bureaucracies in almost every country wanted to go the id number route (and most were succeeding). Id numbers do not permit individuals to have control over their own identities.

    It is our aim to build systems that give individuals “equal rights” to organisations when it comes to electronic communication. It has been my experience that this is difficult to do because organisations have an interest in keeping relationships unequal. Commercial organisations because they want to “own” their customers. Governments because they want to get their policies implemented and some bureaucracies think the way to do that is to tell people what to do.

    Identification and how it is done and what people can then do with their own information and when information becomes shared and what that then means is a debate that must be held and resolved before Government 2.0 can be a reality.

    To give a practical example related to these posts. I would like the right to withdraw my previous comment in the light of new information presented to me. I do not have that right and if I wanted to do it I would have to ask “the organisation” permission to do it.

    It turns out that it is technically and legally easy to implement a privacy friendly information system where all are “equal”. I want to show people how it can be done and what government has to do to make it happen for Government 2.0. A subdebate is what facilities are needed to bring equality, privacy with responsibility to social networks, like Facebook or EBay or this forum.

    Identification is one of those enabling technologies. Do it right and many things are possible. Do it wrong and things will not happen.

44. Claudia Boyles
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 8:39 am | Permalink | Reply

    Thanks for the prompt, Pia.

    I have some questions around knowledge sharing and Government websites.

    I am working for an Australian Government agency in knowledge adoption, and I have some fairly large .wmv files to share. I cannot put them on our own website because of size restrictions, and I hesitate to use youtube or slideshare because those sites are often blocked for use by my target audience (state and local government employees). I would like to be able to upload these files for viewing or listening, and although I know some people would download and watch/listen at home in their own time, it is important that government employees are able to view/use/discuss these files at work.

    Does the Australian Government have a site that government departments can use for large file sharing? One site with each department having its own administrator to upload for quality control/security and viewers could sign on and watch/listen and comment. Like youtube but for government only (with a .gov address that isn’t filtered).

    If anyone has any suggestions for me via this site, they would be most welcome.

45. Matthew Crozier
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 9:01 am | Permalink | Reply

    Hi all

    I agree that a session like this is not the place for a product pitch and to even try to make one would be completely counter productive.

    However, I find the squeamishness about discussing anything ‘product related’ rather strange. The nature of innovation on the web or anywhere else is that it will be driven by businesses. Many of the people posted here run businesses. Some like mine sell products others develop specific one off platforms and others advise on their implementation. It is a pity if experiences that relate to a particular platform cannot be discussed as this by default excludes a lot of collective experience. If you follow this route then those who are consultants shouldn’t be able to speak because they are clearly advertising themselves and programmers shouldnt be able to speak about anything that they have been paid to build – what nonsence!

    Google, Facebook, Twitter etc are all products of sorts and we discuss those freely enough. Why is there suddenly a problem with local or smaller businesses discussing their product related experiences? That’s not sales it’s sharing.

    Cheers

    Matt

46. Damien Donnelly
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 9:41 am | Permalink | Reply

    @Kevin Cox – I don’t think I agree at all that “To make governments more transparent and to involve citizens a prerequisite is identification of people who want to access information held by governments”

    Anonymously issued API keys work fine, and if there is no API an anonymous crawl of public data also works effectively.

47. Pia Waugh
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 9:43 am | Permalink | Reply

    Hi all,

    Again thanks to everyone for the excellent input to this Public Sphere, it will all be included in the briefing paper arising from this topic and event, so please know your contributions are valued and will get to the appropriate channels in government.

    Quick message to Kevin, my question to you was specifically to determine what your speech was about, in order to ensure your talk was not a marketing pitch. Your response both here and by email has demonstrated it isn’t a pitch, and as such will be included in the proceedings. It was simply a question, not an exclusion

    We are circulating a draft schedule later today to all the proposed speakers and will publish a first draft online probably tomorrow. We have an almost completely full schedule now, so I encourage interested parties to please contribute on the day through discussions, to contribute on this blog with opinions and links, and to contribute through writing your own blog posts on the topic and linking them here.

48. James Purser
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 9:47 am | Permalink | Reply

    Matt, Google, Facebook and twitter can easily be replaced by search, social media and microblogging. They are merely examples of the tech concepts that we rely upon to drive Gov2.0.

    Yes many of us run businesses, however we also recognise that there is a time and a place for everything. While bigger confs like CeBIT are the perfect place for promotion and marketing, Camp Spheres are really not. Instead they are about sharing the knowledge that you’ve gained.

    I don’t think anyone would complain if you came in and declared that you wanted to discuss your experience with online consultations and the running thereof. So long as it was done in a manner that matched the day.

    Anyway, that’s my deep and meaningful for this brisk monday morning, look forward to seeing the schedule when it comes out.

49. Des Walsh
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 9:59 am | Permalink | Reply

    What I like this Monday morning is that we seem to have a conversation emerging, now that we’ve got through the process of “please, pick me and my great ideas” (in which I acknowledge I was a participant ). Maybe I don’t get out enough but I’m really looking forward to next Monday in Canberra.

50. Matthew Crozier
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 10:01 am | Permalink | Reply

    James

    I think we are on the same page here.

    Matt

51. Kevin Cox
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 10:01 am | Permalink | Reply

    @Damien

    I agree on the need for anonymity but we want to know that the person who is using the anonymous key has authority to do so. You are correct – anonymous keys solve the access issue.

    They do not solve the rights issue. Some information access can be handled by anonymous keys on their own but it turns out many information requests and community interaction needs an authority and responsibility component.

    It is the issue with secret voting. We want who a person votes for to be secret but we as a society want to know that the person who voted was entitled to vote and only voted once. It is an issue with borrowing library books. We want the person who borrows to be responsible for returning the book but we do not want to know who borrowed it.

52. James Dellow
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 10:04 am | Permalink | Reply

    @Claudia I’m sure there are many of us reading your dilemma about sharing rich media content, but we probably shouldn’t fill up these blog comments with that discussion. Why don’t you join us on the Gov2.0Australia mailing list http://groups.google.com/group/gov20canberra/topics?hl=en (if you can access it) and we’ll see if we can help?

53. Tom Worthington
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 10:09 am | Permalink | Reply

    Claudia Boyles posted June 15, 2009 at 8:39 am:

    >… some fairly large .wmv files to share …
    >Does the Australian Government have a site …

    The Finance Department provides “GovDex” for collaboration between federal agencies, as well as with state and local government: https://www.govdex.gov.au

    I am not sure what their policy is on large video files. But my impression is that GovDex is underused and they may welcome some content to raise their profile.

    But I hope you are not just providing large video files. Are there smaller versions, emphasising audio?

    Are there text summaries for those who can get the video? Apart from the legal requirement to provide accessibility for the disabled, this will make the material much more visible to web search engines.

54. Claudia Boyles
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 10:54 am | Permalink | Reply

    Thanks for that Tom and James, I’ve posted to both places (govdex and Government 2.0) to see if anyone can help. And yes, we will be making the material available in as many formats as possible. Format = easy; Access = hard.

55. Marghanita da Cruz
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 11:18 am | Permalink | Reply

    Hi Pia,

    I would like to give a talk on Local Community Engagement 2.0 – drawing on Annandale on the Web, a community portal which was established in 1998.

    Marghanita

56. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)
    Posted June 15, 2009 at 12:29 pm | Permalink | Reply

    When you focus on Local Community Engagement (a natural nexus with Open Gov’t at all three levels in my totally biased opinion)… We should also look at what is happening throughout Australia within the Community Geographic Domain Names see http://www.aucd.org.au/... Each site/portal is built by local Community (either using technical talent, or the Site In The Box tool available for use)and each is designed specifically FOR Local Community use and needs yet also brings in a sharing of Regional and like minded community experiences (the perfect but tragic example of this is with the sites auCD has set up for all the Victorian Bushfire effected towns as well as where good ideas from one group are picked up by another and modified to fit local need… Perhaps at some future event we could focus on some of these case studies as an exploratory exercise to generate wider Public Sphere input and discussion… I’m happy to co-ordinate the General Manager of auCD Leonie Dunbar to attend any such event in the future, but she, like me will be involved in ICANN on the 22nd…

57. Kevin Cox
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 6:48 am | Permalink | Reply

    An interesting useful blog

    http://blog.ostp.gov/2009/06/10/transparency-access-to-information/

58. Reem Abdelaty
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 9:45 am | Permalink | Reply

    Diana Mounter and I would like to highlight the situation and limitations currently experienced in Local Government in NSW with regard to gov 2.0, community engagement and other aspects of government online. As opposed to Federal Government, Local government does not have (though formally it does) an overarching central authority to direct policy in this arena and so is left to it’s own devices, with very few resources and guidance in how to approach these issues.

59. Pia Waugh
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 10:13 am | Permalink | Reply

    We are taking no more talk proposals now, as the schedule is pretty much set. I’m just bouncing it around the speakers today, and then will put it online here first thing tomorrow. Thanks everyone for all the amazing talk proposals! It will be an incredible day!

60. Pia Waugh
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 11:27 am | Permalink | Reply

    Reposting another comment from Pat Allan
    Posted on other Open Gov post.

    “And here’s another link that’s also appropriate (I seem to be coming across the more and more lately). This one’s about the four pillars of an open civic system. Perhaps not entirely related to this Open Sphere, but worth a read nonetheless.” http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/06/the-four-pillars-of-an-open-ci.html

61. Matt Jones
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 2:36 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Hey Stephen and Pia,

    Great initiative! I am actually in Canberra as it turns out the weekend for our 20 year reunion of graduation from RMC…
    Can extend to Monday easily- please let me know if there is still capacity to participate.

    I am interested to speak on the role citizen based initiatives play on informing/influencing government and policy.
    I see the citizen based initiative as a megatrend, which has been responsible for massive shift when combined with other trends (for example: climate change, the stolen generation, workchoices, and so on).
    The emergence of ‘apolitical’ forces like GetUp! is clearly an indicator of the strength and interest this can generate.

    If this was to have an angle, I would be looking to draw upon the ethics of how citizen based initiatives and government 2.0 relate.
    In part, this draws upon my experience with the Vincent Fairfax Fellowship which I commenced earlier this year examining ethical deliberations in leadership.
    Having attended the Skoll Forum in Oxford each year for the last five years as well as many of the leading initiatives around social entrepreneurship through UK, USA, Canada and China, I believe I have an informed perspective to contribute.

    If there were an opportunity to participate and make this contribution, I would be delighted!

62. Matt Jones
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 2:40 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Hi Pia,

    Just saw your last message…sorry didn’t read it before I sent my earlier post.
    Appreciate there has been some great interest here, and sorry I came into the conversation late.
    Any opportunity to speak would be great.
    If not, please let me know if it would still be possible to attend and I can amend flights accordingly.

    Matt.

63. Stephen Collins
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 2:44 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Matt, I think you’ve missed on a speaker slot – we worked on it over the weekend and have tweaked the past couple of days. That said, please do come – register at http://publicsphere2.eventbrite.com (very few places left).

    There may well be the possibility to slot the odd additional speaker in for a short slot on the day – it depends on how time runs. Come ready.

64. Matt Jones
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 2:51 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Thanks Buddy- now registered and will stay in Canberra (armed with some considered thoughts to run on from the bench if I get a run-on late in the game!)…
    Might now be an opportunity to attend this years RMC Graduation on Tuesday as well…
    Thanks for the opportunity to participate.

    Matt.

65. Pia Waugh
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 3:30 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Hi all, the physical part of the event is now completely booked out! If you haven’t secured a spot but want to participate, please return to this page to click through for the video feed, liveblogging and Twitter chatter on the day (22nd June).

    If you are a speaker and haven’t registered, please contact me asap.

66. James Dellow
    Posted June 16, 2009 at 9:46 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Just a reminder for those in Sydney/NSW that can’t make this Public Sphere in person, there are a number of events taking place in Sydney soon after where you can join this ongoing Government 2.0 conversation:
    * BarCampSydney#5 will be also be a meet up for anyone interested in Gov 2.0 (the “#bcs5gov20 stream”).
    * A screening of the Us Now documentary movie
    * A ‘Conversation Cafe’ on Government 2.0′s relationship with Knowledge Management
    For more details start here: http://chieftech.blogspot.com/2009/06/taking-government-20-to-sydney.html
    Don’t be a stranger – if you are planning on attending any of the above events, please come and say hello or ping me online.

67. Sally Rose
    Posted June 17, 2009 at 11:15 am | Permalink | Reply

    Hi James & All

    I’m coming along to Us Now & the conversation cafe on Gov 2.0 & knowledge management as well as Public Sphere in Canberra so we’ll be seeing lots of one another – look forward to meeting you.

    Sal

68. Marghanita da Cruz
    Posted June 17, 2009 at 2:27 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Some useful insights from the US. The Whitehouse has identified some of the policy/legal areas which could need modification for government to embrace Web 2.0

    “Some of this naturally requires the adoption of new approaches and innovative technologies. But another big part of this is updating existing practices and how these tools can be used to break down barriers to communication and information.”

    Marghanita

69. simonfj
    Posted June 18, 2009 at 3:45 pm | Permalink | Reply

    This may be useful.
    http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-egov-improving-20090512/

    One noticeable thing at the moment is happening at
    http://www.australia.gov.au/about/whats-new
    Down the bottom, they point to a Single (federated)Sign On for citizens. Been trying to see if the technical guys would consider using a me.edu.au account as a default “lifelong learning” account. http://me.edu.au/b/Simonfj/entry/me_edu_au

    You’ll notice the link to a growing list, on a page for public consultations as well (so it’s likely to become a directory).

    The two may not seem to be related, but if we are beginning to see a cloud architecture replacing the old institutional centric client/server, then it’s a beginning.

70. Des Walsh
    Posted June 19, 2009 at 2:36 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Marghanita
    A very useful document from the US is Social Media and the Federal Government: Perceived and Real Barriers and Potential Solutions”, Dec 23, 2008, produced by members of the Federal Web Managers Council. Craig Thomler provides the download link and a neat summary of key points: or rather, he has done a teaser to encourage people to download the original (4 pages, succinct and juicy). http://egovau.blogspot.com/2009/02/social-media-and-federal-government.html Highly recommended.

71. Pia Waugh
    Posted June 20, 2009 at 8:21 am | Permalink | Reply

    Another great post by Craig Thomler http://egovau.blogspot.com/2009/06/how-white-houses-new-media-office-sizes.html about the launch of the “Office of New Media” in the US. “Bev Godwin of the White House’s new media office has provided her views of the challenges and opportunities for government in engaging online.” Should be a useful contribution to this briefing paper.

72. Pia Waugh
    Posted June 20, 2009 at 9:32 am | Permalink | Reply

    Some case study and community links for the briefing paper. I would encourage others to add more! Particularly case studies!

    Gov 2.0 cases studies (including Australia):

    - http://egovau.blogspot.com/2009/06/government-20-initiatives-in-australia_18.html
    - http://egovau.blogspot.com/2009/06/government-20-initiatives-in-australia.html

    Also found some other case studies:
    - Gov 2.0: A case study from Australia – http://civic.mit.edu/blog/audubon/government-20-a-case-study-from-australia
    - News story with a few examples – http://blogs.bnetau.com.au/aussierules/2009/06/03/government-20-btalk-australia/

    Some communities worth looking at and engaging with:
    - http://gov20australia.ning.com/
    - http://groups.google.com.au/group/gov20canberra
    - http://govloop.com (and Australian participants can be found at http://www.govloop.com/profiles/members/search?name=&gender=&country=AU&location=&q12=&q25=&q16=&q17=&q21=&q18=&q20= )

    Probably also worth adding the references to Web 2.0 in Terry Cutler’s report, the The Review of the National Innovation System Venturous Australia – keys points and a link are here: http://www.rialtas.net/blog/2008/09/16/australian-government-public-organisations-advised-to-adopt-web-20-technologies-to-enhance-information-sharing-and-accessibility/

    Web Publishing guide by AGIMO with Web 2.0 information:
    - http://webpublishing.agimo.gov.au/

73. Pia Waugh
    Posted June 20, 2009 at 10:47 am | Permalink | Reply

    Wanted to add Tim O’Reilly’s talk on Gov 2.0 – http://www.slideshare.net/timoreilly/government-as-platform

74. Pia Waugh
    Posted June 20, 2009 at 10:47 am | Permalink | Reply

    Speaker swap: Andrew Stott for William Perrin, Secretary of the Power of Information Taskforce, UK.

    William is Founder of Talk About Local – a project to empower hundreds of local communities to express themselves on the internet and former technology policy advisor to Tony Blair.

    William has a track record of innovation in public service using the web. He was responsible for the world’s first Government use of YouTube, the world’s first government/third sector mashup, and was one of the team behind the Downing Street e-petitions system the world’s biggest online government engagement system until the Obama adminsitration. William commissioned the Power of Information work in 2007. William is taking a sabbatical from the civil service to run Talk About Local an attempt to scale up his community activism on http://www.kingscrossenvironment.com to hundreds of communities.

75. Des Walsh
    Posted June 20, 2009 at 1:58 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Excellent talk, a bit over 17 mins, by Clay Shirky via TED: provides a readily shareable conceptual framework for what’s happening with social media – including some very interesting observations I hadn’t heard before on the Obama campaign and use of social media.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_cellphones_twitter_facebook_can_make_history.html

76. Stephen Collins
    Posted June 20, 2009 at 2:37 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Interestingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, my talk for Monday touches on several of the same issues Clay’s talk at TED@State does.

    On a side note, as a TED alumni, I could probably talk to the TED organisers and see if we couldn’t organise a TEDx for Canberra – seems like an idea whose time has come. What does everyone reckon?

77. Matt Jones
    Posted June 20, 2009 at 2:39 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Great idea about TEDx Stephen- how can I help? See you in Canberra. Matt.

78. Mark Spain
    Posted June 20, 2009 at 2:54 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Excellent to have TED in Canberra (or Australia) – I’m happy to help.

79. John Haining
    Posted June 20, 2009 at 3:15 pm | Permalink | Reply

    @Pia – your reference to Dr Terry Cutler’s report is timely. Here is a list I coordinated of persons who may be relevant to that particular recommendation: http://www.squidoo.com/venturous2

80. Des Walsh
    Posted June 20, 2009 at 5:11 pm | Permalink | Reply

    To add to the resources list, from a management point of view (and no doubt in relation to personal career protection/management), guidelines on participation in social media/social networking are very important. James Dellow has a beaut post at http://www.headshift.com/au/2009/05/zen-and-the-art-of-social-medi.php which in turn links to Laurel Papworth’s very handy list of 40 social media guideline sites. These include tha APSC circular 2008/08 interim protocols for online media participation http://www.apsc.gov.au/circulars/circular088.htm

81. Tom Worthington
    Posted June 20, 2009 at 5:57 pm | Permalink | Reply

    My draft talk “m-Government 2.0 – Making government accessible online on your phone” is at:

    * Notes: http://www.tomw.net.au/technology/it/mgovernment
    * Slides: http://www.tomw.net.au/technology/it/mgovernment/index.shtml?slides

    Comments welcome.

    As Roger Clarke would say, I am still “on message” suggesting: the government should use web pages which are accessible/mobile compatible and without copyright restrictions. Also I discuss some recent work in Cambodia and Canberra on combating flu pandemics using the web, mobile phones and Google maps. Lastly I talk about how from July the ANU is using the web to teach public servants how to communicate online and combat global warming.

82. Pia Waugh
    Posted June 20, 2009 at 6:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Of course the POIT report has many useful recommendations in this space:

    http://poit.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/poit/2009/02/introduction-to-the-taskforce-final/

83. Pia Waugh
    Posted June 21, 2009 at 8:53 am | Permalink | Reply

    Reply feature added to website, so please feel free to use this blog for threaded discussions on the topic.

84. Marghanita da Cruz
    Posted June 21, 2009 at 12:31 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Hi Pia,

    If you would like to add a link from the program,
    to an HTML version of the slides for my talk,
    Local Community Engagement 2.0,
    Insights from Annandale on the Web,
    the web version is available here:
    http://ramin.com.au/marg/local-community-engagement-2-0-public-sphere-2.shtml

    Marghanita

85. Pia Waugh
    Posted June 21, 2009 at 3:04 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Another informative resource for the briefing paper:

    While news from Iran streams to the world, Clay Shirky shows how Facebook, Twitter and TXTs help citizens in repressive regimes to report on real news, bypassing censors (however briefly). The end of top-down control of news is changing the nature of politics.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_cellphones_twitter_facebook_can_make_history.html

86. Peter McEvoy
    Posted June 21, 2009 at 9:19 pm | Permalink | Reply

    An outline – Old media/New media – tools for political engagement – discussing the opportunities that Q&A creates and uses to integrate the power of TV with new tools for connecting our TV and web users with information about our political process, to connect them with politicians and opinion makers and help users access digital tools to express and share their opinions with others and participate in the political process.

    ABC TV’s Q&A is looking to collaborate with more people with clever ideas on how to improve the tools for Australian citizenship.

87. Jeff Waugh
    Posted June 22, 2009 at 3:04 am | Permalink | Reply

    With many thanks to TrasACT, a live video stream will be available for viewing throughout the event today. Enjoy!

88. Tom Worthington
    Posted June 22, 2009 at 3:02 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Some analysis of Government 2.0 Taskforce and its web site at: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2009/06/government-20-taskforce.html

89. Tom Worthington
    Posted June 22, 2009 at 3:08 pm | Permalink | Reply

    The Australian Government started providing a bush fire mapping system in 2003 called Sentinel: http://sentinel.ga.gov.au/acres/sentinel/

    This system was released short before the Canberra bush fires and was not without problems: http://www.tomw.net.au/2003/enet.html

90. Tom Worthington
    Posted June 22, 2009 at 3:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Roxanne Missingham, from the Parliamentary Library mentioned the book “Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens” by Beth Simone Noveck. The book mentions a Melbourne City Council wiki used for their ten year plan (on page 162). This seems to be the Australian project mentioned: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2009/06/wiki-government.html

91. Kevin Cox
    Posted June 22, 2009 at 6:45 pm | Permalink | Reply

    A personal thanks to all involved in organising and running Government 2.0.

    The perspectives and the continual reference to the need to open up access to information held by government was an unmistakable message.

    The ideas I have been promoting on empowering individuals and organisations to be given” open access” to their own information held by government has obtained more exposure today in five minutes than five years of submissions and discussions through the regular channels.

    While most presentations concentrated on non personal information my presentation addressed the more contentious issue of access to personal information. To provide access to non personal information there are many cases where we need to keep anonymity with responsibility so that citizens will participate openly. One questioner suggested we need a whole public sphere day to address that issue. I of course agree:)

    Here is the five minute talk that gives the essentials of the idea we are promoting. http://tinyurl.com/l3yhwg . I would very much like to hear from those interested in privacy and citizen involvement as it is a critical part to ensure wide citizen involvement.

92. geoffl
    Posted June 22, 2009 at 8:26 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Make sure you blog your comment.

    government needs to exercise political will to deliver on openness. protestations of support does not make it happen and the Hollowmen is as close to the truth as Q&A.
    there is a subset of open government which involves the lobbying community. this community covers the not for profit sector, industry and business, large corporates and independent lobbying organisations. together they channel the interests of a very wide range of citizens and business interests in a professional and regulated way.
    with some exceptions, the attitude of Ministerial staff is defensive and unhelpful. and yet this is the first line of engagement with government for many stakeholders. in some cases, any reply even a NO or a reference to a Department is preferable to no answer at all but no answer is often the common response.
    ministerial offices are a good starting point for open government. departments and public servants will follow their lead.

93. Marghanita da Cruz
    Posted June 23, 2009 at 8:25 am | Permalink | Reply

    Congratulations Kate, Pia and your crew, for bringing together such a diverse group of speakers into such an innovative forum.

    There is a saying about never trying to perform with Children, Animals or Technology – but you pulled it off!

    I thought the 15 minutes worked well – though I would have preferred a 5 minute bell – which allowed/invited the speaker to stop and take questions. I felt the conversation was sacrificed in favour of the technology.

    I didn’t think the canned video worked – speakers at such an event, need to be in the room either in person or electronically to take questions, participate in the discussion.

    It is also worth noting, that the Internet provides everyone direct access to what is happening around the globe – it is this personal synthesis/viewpoint that is valuable.

    On the venue/facilities – being in parliament house was great, catering was good, perhaps the breakout area was a bit cramped.

    Publicsphere highlighted the shortcomings of the facilities in the committee room – no big screens. A desk/bench with power/internet for the bloggers and twitterers, at the side of the room, so that they could see/be seen by the audience.

    On the topic of Government 2.0, the potential of Web 2.0 is the possibility for Athenian style democracy – but for the entire population of 21 million people. Flexibility through ongoing consultation combined with fixed terms of government could be a good thing.

    I have received a couple of questions/comments relating to my talk (one from twitter) and have added the questions and answers to the web version of my talk here:

    thanks for the opportunity to participate,

    Marghanita

94. Marghanita da Cruz
    Posted June 23, 2009 at 8:30 am | Permalink | Reply

    Sorry the link for questions and answers about my talk should be
    http://ramin.com.au/marg/local-community-engagement-2-0-public-sphere-2.shtml#ques

    I like the idea of the blog then a wiki to develop the briefing paper…

95. Mark Spain
    Posted June 23, 2009 at 8:36 am | Permalink | Reply

    Yesterday in my presentation at Public Sphere #2 – Government 2.0: Policy and Practice gathering I referred to Otto Scharmer’s conceptual framework called Theory U. Here’s a reference: http://www.ottoscharmer.com/publications/summaries.php. Using his experience working with some of the world’s most accomplished leaders and innovators, he shows how groups and organisations can develop can create a future that would not otherwise be possible.

96. Des Walsh
    Posted June 23, 2009 at 10:03 am | Permalink | Reply

    Some interesting insights and succinct observations on US military use of social media, with broader application to Gov 2.0 – http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/washington/news.aspx?id=134973

97. Des Walsh
    Posted June 23, 2009 at 10:14 am | Permalink | Reply

    Congratulations Senator Lundy, Pia and all the team for yesterday’s event. A great coup to have the Ministers there, especially on a day when excuses could plausibly have been made for non-attendance. This is a good conversation to be part of.

    Much as I love having the floor for more extended periods, I don’t have a fundamental problem with the 15 minute framework. If we have more to say we can always point people to a blog post or podcast or video somewhere. I agree with Marghanita on a 5 minute bell. I would like to have given myself more time for questions.

    I was pleased that a couple of people responded positively to the Social Media Club motto – “if you get it, share it”. Some time in the next day or so I’m going to message my Federal MP – also a Minister – about TweetMP, the whole day, and what some of that might mean for her regional, semi-rural electorate considerations. It would be interesting to hear whether other attendees intend to follow up with their MPs and with what result.

98. James Purser
    Posted June 23, 2009 at 10:58 am | Permalink | Reply

    Hi all,

    Congratulations to everyone on yesterday, it did truly rock.

    I’ve stuck up my reaction to the day here if anyone wants to read it:

    http://collaborynth.com.au/blog/A_Public_Sphere_Summary

    and more here

    http://collaborynth.com.au/blog/Further_Musings_On_Public_Sphere_2

    James Purser

99. Matt Jones
    Posted June 23, 2009 at 11:48 am | Permalink | Reply

    Hear, Hear Des!

    I would like to add my thanks to Senator Lundy, Pia and the organising team for what is an ongoing great initiative.
    I agree the time for speakers was right, and the short breaks were much needed to stay fresh and allow informal conversation to occur as well.
    Keeping the ‘unconference’ nature was important for the event, not only to share, but to demonstrate that talking about a new Gov 2.0 also required openess to new practices.
    Great success which I am grateful to have had the opportunity to participate.
    Thanks,
    Matt.

100. Pia Waugh
     Posted June 23, 2009 at 12:19 pm | Permalink | Reply

     Great link to more ideas on Gov 2.0 from the UK:

     Three themes brainstormed by IDealGov community.

     - co-design with users
     - build a foundation of trust
     - quick win suggestions

     http://www.idealgovernment.com/index.php/blog/comments/1938/