[p2p-research] openness in asia: request for comments

[Michel Bauwens]

*

dEEEES, ACCESS, AND GOVERNANCE IN ASIAN 'NETWORK SOCIETIES':
Dear friends,


Al Alegre would appeciate any comments on preparing this workshop on
openness in Asia, you can request the full original pdf version from him,
but here is the essential content,

Michel



Developing an 'Open Governance Index' in Information, Communication and
Knowledge

A CONCEPT NOTE

Foundation for Media Alternatives

(ver. 3/November 2008)

I. BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE

Politics, Governance, and Development*. It cannot be denied that a country’s
system of politics and

governance is a key driver of development. The quality of a nation's
political and governance

mechanisms is often a powerful indicator of its potential for continuing
progress in a complex global

environment. On one hand, it is the realm of politics and governance that
seeks to address the needs and

aspirations of its citizens; on the other, it allows a nation to integrate
itself in a relevant way within the

global community. The domain of politics and governance often drives reform
and innovation in all other

spheres of society—the economic, social and cultural realms. Hence the
expression, “everything is

political”, applies, particularly in nation-states aspiring to achieve
higher levels of development in a

complex global environment.
*

Information, Communications and Democracy. *In a globalizing world enabled
by advances in

information and communications systems and technologies, various shifts in
the objective and subjective

conditions that underpin societies have served to challenge traditional
notions of politics and governance

in ever-increasing ways. Concepts of sovereignty, representation,
participation and even the nature of

government and citizenship itself are evolving rapidly as technology enables
new arenas of public

administration and political mobilization.

The capacities of national communities and nation-states to adjust to these
shifting realities now play a

large part in how government become more relevant to its various
constituencies. In so-called “network

societies” that are emerging from such shifts, nation-states have been
forced to rethink and even reinvent

traditional governance paradigms. Governments are discovering that there is
much value in enabling the

environment in which information and communications—through their
infrastructure, systems,

applications, content—can best be leveraged to achieve development goals.
Parallel to this, states have

been similarly challenged by how ICTs have had an impact on the democratic
equation.
*

Openness in Governance. *It is in this sphere of politics and governance
where a growing discourse on

aspects of *“open government” *and the broader *“open governance” *is
emerging. The value of

“openness”, though not a new concept, is now increasingly emerging as a
political value by which states--

as well as non-state actors--seek to extend traditional notions of democracy
and visions of development.

In a very real sense within the realm of “realpolitik”, such a measure of
open governance would be

especially useful in the context of policy advocacy. Policy stakeholders may
use such measurements to

1

audit their governments according to certain norms and standards that are
fast gaining acceptance.

Certain governments particularly sensitive to international audits could be
pressured to adopt policies and

programmes which would address perceived “deficits”. In addition, a
comparative approach—i.e.,in

applying the measure between and among different states—could also be
helpful as both a

benchmarking exercise, and also as a knowledge-sharing tool between
administrations.

But how does one measure “openness” in governance in emergent, ever evolving
“network societies”?

· Traditionally *“open government” *has referred to the discourse on
*transparency
in government*, where

citizens have free and unhampered access to important information; after
all, open, transparent and

accountable decision-making is considered to be the essence of any
democratic system. With the

continuing development of enabling technologies (i.e., ICTs and the
Internet), the demand for this

has only increased, both in domestic and international contexts.

· On another level, *freedom of expression and human rights *advocates have
for a long time linked

openness with democratic practice by states in relation to their citizens’
rights, which often extends to

media rights (e.g., press freedom). They have challenged re-emerging
“national security” paradigms

which have, at times, curtailed basic communication rights, and have
resisted various forms of state

secrecy or intervention (e.g., content filtering and surveillance) by the
state on its citizens.

But concepts of “*openness*” in government/governance are evolving (and not
all notions of openness in

governance are considered positive1). As the ecosystem in which information
and knowledge circulates

and thrives becomes more apparent, and the enabling systems (technical and
political) are more

transparent to public scrutiny, public interest concerns now extend to
non-traditional areas of governance,

which relate directly to how ICTs and the internet are impacting politics
and society. States then now

enter into the realm of ICT and internet policy and governance (e.g., the
annual Internet Governance

Forum, as a successor to the World Summit on the Information Society). With
paradigms referring to the

Internet as a “global public good” for example, new realms of “openness” are
now considered public

interest concerns

· The quality of a *government's web presence and web strategy *often
determines how ICTs can be

leveraged to disseminate government information, as well as enhance public
participation. The socalled

Web 2.0 generation of applications only extends this further. In addition to
this, particular

implications of strategic ICT use for traditionally disadvantaged sectors
are significant in bringing

them to more active political participation. (Access by specific segments of
the population—e.g.,

persons with disabilities—has also come to the fore with developments in new
technologies.)

· Openness could be taken further here as a natural consequence of the
participation dividend referred

to above, and this would bring us into the realm of *openness in the area of
decision making
*

1 Many civil society organizations for example would take exception to
notions of openness in the economic sphere, where

paradigms of ‘open’ economies (i.e., free trade) associated with
neo-liberalism would have a negative connotation.

2
*

processes to citizen/civil society input*. Following more progressive
notions of eGovernance – it is this

openness that could ultimately impact the political process .

· *Open technical and digital standards*, especially in how government
collects, stores and shares

information, is becoming a growing concern as proprietary systems and
technologies are now seen to

limit or even compromise development objectives (i.e., government
interoperability; universal access).

· Related to the previous point is the phenomenon of *Free/Open Source
Software (FOSS) *and its

perceived (and real) advantages to governments, as public administrations
(local and national) have

found public benefit it opting for non-proprietary applications in software
choices.

· *“Access to Knowledge” *discourses, mostly referring to flexibilities
within and alternatives to existing

“intellectual property rights” (IPR) regimes have also pointed out how a
vibrant public domain and

“global commons” of information and knowledge must be protected and
extended, and *“open content”
*

initiatives are multiplying with increasing encouragement from governments.
Types of knowledge and

information which are seen to be of great use when publicly accessible and
not subject to private

enclosures include: publicly-funded research and different levels of
academic content; important

research in health-related sciences; traditional knowledge, etc.

· *Open access *models have also evolved to in key aspects of the
information info- and infra-structure,

as public administrations experiment with initiatives based on regarding
access to the Internet as a

public good necessitating public investment and should be allowed to
flourish under less restrictive

policy environments.

The challenge therefore is *to document and seek to codify the traditional
and emergent notions of

“open government/open governance”*. It is important to *further extend the
notion of “openness”
*

within public administrations; in so doing, there is value in documenting
and supporting successful

initiatives in this area, while *providing governments with basic standards
*in which to base efforts in

these emerging spheres.

Information (and knowledge) has indeed been referred to as the currency of
democracy. Promoting the

open sharing of this information and knowledge has thus been framed as a
public good, in a global

environment which has proclaimed ICTs and the internet as positive social
forces for democracy and

development.
*

II. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
*

1. To *develop a new concept/new notions of “Open Government/Open
Governance” *towards

the advancement of a *conceptual framework *that builds on previous
discourses and integrates

new aspects of openness enabled by ICTs and the emergent “network society”.

3

2. To *develop measurable indicators/metrics for the various domains *of
“Open

Government/Open Governance”, as practical application of the conceptual
framework above, and

to compile these into an assessment tool (i.e., an “Open Governance Index”?)
to assess public

administrations and their policy/regulatory environments, as well as
relevant non-State actors.

3. To *conduct an assessment *of four (4) pilot countries in Asia using the
abovementioned

measures, to pilot test its use and validate its utility.
*

III. METHODOLOGY: AREAS OF INQUIRY AND RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

A. AREAS OF INQUIRY
*

Listed below are six (6) proposed areas of inquiry (including two sub-areas)
representing domains in

which the “Openness” discourse can be located and investigated.
*

DOMAIN OF ADMINISTRATION

AREA ONE:

Open Government Online: State and Quality of e-government/ government web
presence
*

In the Internet age, it is now unthinkable for governments not to have a
public website or web portal for its

citizens to access various spheres of public information (although there is
still much unevenness across

governments). With the ubiquity of the World Wide Web, state agencies have
the essential duty to

provide important information to its citizens via online channels. This area
assesses the quality of web

presence of national (and local?) public administrations as online channels
for disseminating important

government information, and as emergent venues for
e-participation/electronic representation. Particular

concerns pertaining to localization and language accessibility could also be
examined.
*

Sub-Area 1-A: Universal Design and Accessibility
*

A particular area in the access to government information sphere pertains to
the specific needs of persons with

disabilities. “Universal Design and Accessibility” refers to specific web
strategies to ensure this segment of

population is not disadvantaged in accessing online content.

This area assesses policies instituted (if any) and practical applications
of universal accessibility in government

websites, portals and other digital content.

4
*

AREA TWO:

Open Digital and Technological Standards and Government Interoperability
Frameworks
*

Interoperable, open (web) standards have benefited governments around the
world in the past several

years (e.g., in the areas of XML, semantic web, accessibility,
internationalization, and mobile access).

These standards make it possible for people with diverse capabilities, using
various devices, to access

information. Open standards also make it more likely that data will remain
available long into the future,

increasing the value of investments in the creation and gathering of data.
Open standards also ensure

interoperability within a particular state’s information infrastructure.

This area assesses the policy framework of the government (if any exists) on
Open Standards and

interoperability frameworks, its practical adoption of international
standards, and the existing practice by

public administrations to adopt in promoting Open Standards in local
government-to-government and

government-to-citizen transactions. Public procurement policies in ICTs are
a relevant area of inquiry.
*

Sub-Area 2-A: Open Source Software in Government
*

Numerous studies cite the benefits of Free/Open Source software (FOSS) in
government, and many public

administrations have instituted policies, which either put FOSS applications
on equal footing with proprietary

systems, or even favor FOSS applications for general or specific government
use.

This area assesses the policy framework of the government (if any exists)
and the existing practice by public

administrations in the use of FOSS by the state, including enabling support
services (e.g., information

dissemination and promotions, research and development centers, financing
schemes and fiscal policies, e.g. tax

incentives, etc.). As with the previous area, procurement policies could be
an important aspect of study.
*

AREA THREE:

Universal Access via Open Spectrum Alternatives
*

“Universal Access” to information and communication infrastructures is a
whole discourse unto itself,

encompassing traditional metrics such as teledensity and the presence of
access points (including

community access centers). But this area seeks to focus on a particular
public resource (i.e., radio

spectrum), which is increasingly seen as an important enabler of
communication and information

exchange, as developments in telecommunication and broadband technologies
have driven ubiquity and

mobile access to the Internet.

This area assesses particular legal, policy and regulatory regimes which
nation-states have chosen to

adopt in relation to the radio frequency spectrum. With the growth of
wireless wifi, GSM, GPRS, and

WiMax technologies, spectrum management policies are increasingly seen as
strategic enablers of

access for more and more citizens and communities. Providing for more
unlicensed spectrum using a

“commons” model--is a useful gauge of governments' commitment to universal
access.

5
*

DOMAIN OF POLITICS

AREA FOUR:

Citizen's Access to Information/Freedom of Information
*

This refers to the traditional notion of “open government” as previously
outlined, where transparency and

accountability of the state to its citizens rests on the unhampered access
to government information. This

refers to various mechanisms for disclosure of government information, and
for citizens’ access to such.

This area assesses the state of the legal and policy environment for such
disclosure and access, and the

actual practice of government agencies in implementing this basic area of
open governance. Areas of

inquiry could include the presence of Right to Information and related laws,
and the actual practice of

government in facilitating (or restricting) citizens’ access to public
information.
*

Special Conceptual Area: Privacy Rights in the “Information Society”
*

The growing concern for privacy rights in the “information society” is a
conceptual flipside of the openness

discourse, and must be delineated or integrated into the analytical
framework. As governments collect more and

more personal information about their citizens and also adopt laws for
freedom of information, conflicts have

emerged in many countries between the right of access to information and the
right of privacy.

As David Banisar of Privacy International writes: *“The two rights are
frequently described as ‘two sides of the same

coin’. It is perhaps more accurate to describe them rather as overlapping
rights that are simultaneously

complementary and conflicting. The two rights can conflict when there is a
request to access personal information

about an individual that is held by a government body. They are also both
used to allow individuals to access their

own records and to promote government accountability.“
**

AREA FIVE:

Communication Rights as Human Rights: Freedom of Expression and Media
Freedom
*

This refers to another level of freedom—from freedom of information in the
previous area, to freedom of

expression—as best outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
numerous constitutional

guarantees of particular nation-states. This is traditionally a most
controversial area given the diversity of

government regimes in the region, particularly when censorship/content
filtering and surveillance are

practiced both on individuals and institutions (e.g., mass media outlets and
the working press).

This area will assess the state of law, policy, and regulation, as well as
the actual practices by

governments in safeguarding such rights, and plus the existence of citizen’s
redress to actual and

perceived violations. A particular area of interest here is the on media
policy and the presence of a free

and autonomous press.

6
*

AREA SIX:

Access to Knowledge via Open Content/Open Data
*

In another much-contested terrain lies the debate on “intellectual
property”—specifically copyrights and

patents regimes—and its critics. However, it cannot be denied that various
forms of “open content”—

content that is free-to-use, reuse, and redistribute without legal, social
or technological restriction—levels

the playing field increasingly fenced in by restrictions on the sharing and
use of information and

knowledge. “Access to Knowledge” has been the overarching discourse to refer
to various alternatives,

particularly in information/data/content.

There is a range of policy and regulatory alternatives that are available
for public administrations to adopt

—from the protection and extension of the public domain and “fair use”
policy, to encouraging open

access business models in publishing and academia, to the recognition of
alternative licensing

arrangements (e.g., GPL, Creative Commons) and to taking advantage of
limitations/exemptions to trade

agreements. This area seeks to investigate these as they relate to open
access to relevant content.
*

B. RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

1. PHASE ONE: “Open Government/Open Governance” Concept Development
*

· *Knowledge-Sharing: Engagement of Research Consultants.
*

- Experts/resource persons in: (1) the field of *open government*, and/or
(2) on conducting

social audits of public institutions;2 they will be engaged to review the
current literature and

ongoing discourse on the subject and draft a discussion paper outlining the
conceptual and

methodological issues that will provide the overall project framework.

- Experts/resource persons for each of the six areas will also be engaged to
survey particular

fields of inquiry outlined above. Issue papers will be produced and will be
the basis of

roundtable discussions that will finalize methodologies and metrics for each
area.

· *Inception Workshop on Frameworks and Methodologies*: *interrogating the
concept of

“open governance/open government”*. A multi-stakeholder regional workshop
will be

convened. The purpose of this workshop is to investigate the theoretical and
philosophical

assumptions of “openness” in governance. It will seek to build strong
consensus on a normative

framework of “openness” in governance, validate the various areas for
inquiry outlined above,

and problematize the question of assessment frameworks and appropriate
metrics.

· *Area-specific Regional Roundtable Discussions: standards, assessment
methodologies

and metrics. *Roundtable discussions (RTDs) will be organized for particular
areas of inquiry,

2 The latest version of this proposal has a smaller budget so the project
may choose only one of the two suggested consultants.

7

convening ten to fifteen (10-15) area experts and practitioners to further
discuss area-specific

implications. With the inception workshop providing the general framework,
the RTDs will aim to

develop assessment criteria and evaluation metrics for each area, under the
leadership of the

area resource persons. These RTDs will also serve as area-specific
stakeholder validation

workshops to achieve consensus with other resource persons, theoreticians
and known

“communities of practice” in each area (where such exist, e.g., Open Source
networks etc.).

· *Interdisciplinary Convergence and Planning Conference on “Open
Governance”. *After the

area RTDs, a regional workshop to be attended by all the engaged
consultants, plus selected key

stakeholders and representatives from each area, will be convened. The
objective of this activity

is to revisit the conceptual frameworks formulated in the inception
workshop, in order to

standardize all the metrics for evaluation for each area. The whole notion
of an Open

Governance/Open Government “Index” will be discussed, and should this be an
appropriate tool,

appropriate weights for the area assessments will be finalized collectively.

Common research methodologies and national data-gathering strategies will
also be discussed

(as hopefully all the national research consultants will have been recruited
and can be present).

This workshop will be an opportunity to anticipate the outputs of the pilot
country assessments,

and to discuss and formulate an appropriate Communication Plans (i.e.,
communication-forinfluence

strategies) for disseminating project outputs.

An important discussion in the Concept Building phase is of how much of the
“index” (if such is the

appropriate tool) will--or can--be quantified, how it will be quantified and
what aspects will possibly remain

qualitative.

As part of this exploration, a special discussion on *gender aspects of Open
Governance *will be

mainstreamed. A specific consultant on gender will be contracted to bring
relevant questions in the

framework-building activity, guide the other consultants on possible
mainstreaming of gender questions in

their particular areas, and help design an evaluation tool that does
includes gender in the audit. A

synthetic paper on Gender and Open Governance may be produced on the
dynamics of this process.

For sure, gender need not be the only axis of differentiation the project
will look at, as general notions of

“social inclusion” shall underpin the project.


-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Think thank:
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100306/49d55e76/attachment.html>