WORLD SUMMIT ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY
Finalists for World Summit Awards Published
E-GOVERNMENT FOR ALL CONFERENCE, DAY 6
Partnerships for Success: How Government, the Private Sector and
Civil Society Can Work Together
E-Democracy and Civic Participation
Public Use of E-Government: Citizen Perspectives
"Open Space" Discussion Forums
Note: During the 10 days of the E-Government for All conference (November
3-14), the Headlines team will include highlights from the ongoing
conference sessions, along with our usual headlines. We hope you find the
additional summaries useful. For more information on the conference, please
visit http://www.egov4all.org.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WORLD SUMMIT ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY
FINALISTS FOR WORLD SUMMIT AWARDS PUBLISHED
Organizers of the World Summit Award, an international competition
celebrating creative digital content products from around the world, have
published the awards finalists on their website. Over 800 products from more
than 130 countries were nominated for the award, which were reviewed by an
international jury in Dubai last month. For each of the eight categories
(e-learning, e-culture, e-government, e-entertainment, e-science, e-health,
e-business and e-inclusion), jurors selected five finalists, totaling 40
projects in all. The finalists will be showcased at a special event at the
World Summit on the Information Society in Geneva. Among the projects
selected: the Splendid Chinese Culture portal (http://chiculture.net),
Tropical America (http://www.tropicalamerica.com), Public Library of Science
(http://www.plos.org), Romania's e-government portal
(http://www.e-guvernare.ro), Living Heritage
(http://www.livingheritage.org.nz), WougNet (http://www.wougnet.org) and
Time to Market (http://www.manobi.net). Additionally, other nominees will be
selected to participate in a showcase in which digital content is organized
by geographic region.
SOURCE: World Summit Award
http://www.europrix.org/wsis-award/nominees/index.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Government for All:
November 3-14, 2003
Over 1100 participants from 78 countries
Information and registration: http://www.egov4all.org/
CONFERENCE SUMMARY, DAY 5
Partnerships for Success: How Government, the Private Sector and Civil
Society Can Work Together
Kenan Jarboe of Athena Alliance, moderator of the panel, kicked off the
session with a brief introduction of his organization and his hopes for the
discussion. Kenan introduced the concept of the "no net loss of access to
information or services" principle for e-government equity, which was
developed at a previous Athena Alliance conference. "No services or
information should be removed or dramatically cut back from traditional
means of dissemination in favor of electronic dissemination until and unless
all members of the community have access to that electronic means as easily
as they have to the traditional means," he explained.
"For me, the purpose of this session is to look at how partnerships can work
to foster utilization of e-government and how those partnerships can succeed
or fail," he said. "Cases of failure are just as important as success
stories -- as they illustrate both generally how easy it is to get it wrong
and violate the no-net-loss principle and specific traps that we should
avoid."
Panelist Lisa Hamler-Podolski briefly described her work at the Ohio
Association of Second Harvest Foodbanks (OASHF), the largest charitable food
assistance network in Ohio and one of the largest in the US. "OASHF's
interest in e-government is to ensure that low-income populations have
access to e-gov services and technology," she said. "As more public
assistance benefit delivery systems are operated through the use of
technology, access to and participation in these benefits are often
difficult for these individuals." The state of Ohio, she noted, is in the
process of shutting down its offline food stamp assistance program in the
hopes of launching an electronic benefits transfer program. "As more
government services are moved to on-line systems, it's important to
recognize that not all people have the knowledge base, access to the
internet, equipment and/or ability to read and fully understand how these
systems operate," she said. "Thus there will always be a need to operate
parallel service delivery systems to accommodate and provide access to such
information, services, and programs."
Becky Stawiski, Executive Director of the San Diego Futures Foundation,
discussed how the County of San Diego is developing creative ways of
engaging local underserved populations as it embraces e-government. " The
county decided in 1999 to outsource all of its information technology work
to private contractors. "[T]he county required all competing contractors to
submit an 'added value' proposal for how they might support the community
and the county's e-government vision. The result was that a nonprofit
foundation, called the San Diego Futures Foundation, was formed to provide
computers and technical training and support to San Diego County's
underserved populations, thus helping to ensure that those constituents who
need access to the county's new online services would have that access."
" In less than four years, the San Diego Futures Foundation has delivered
5,000 computers and 10,000 hours of technical support and training to San
Diego's underserved populations," she continued. "Additionally, the Futures
Foundation has built a portal that provides community members with an
interactive capability to get involved in their communities, provides them
with information on local community services, and supports e-government
through direct links to local, state, and federal government online
resources.... The Futures Foundation, in conjunction with other local
organizations, are supporting E-government initiatives that include
installing computer centers to facilitate application for earned income tax
credits for low-income constituents. To bring technology directly to San
Diego's underserved populations, the County and Union Bank sponsor the eBus,
a 20 station mobile computing lab with Internet connectivity. To support
computer ownership, we are working with the Urban League, the Casey
Foundation, Operation Homefront, and San Diego State University Foundation
to get computers to individual low-income families." Stawiski then presented
a slide show offering further details about the initiative.
Ken Jarboe then asked panelists what they saw as the greatest obstacle for
creating partnerships and ensuring these partnerships achieve e-government
for all. " In the case of San Diego County, the public private partnership
came from the need of the County to update their entire information
technology (IT) infrastructure," Stawiski replied. "The solution called for
outsourcing the IT to high technology companies that have IT as their core
competency and it meant that the County would not have to raise the cash
needed for this massive change since the cost could be spread over the life
of the contract. In this case, there were no obstacles. The partnership was
brought together through a public sector need and a private sector solution.
In fact, this partnership exemplifies what makes most successful
partnerships work: mutual need."
"A very big challenge for San Diego and other communities is ensuring that
all constituents have access to e-government services," she continued. "As
you are all well aware, there are a range of issues that accompany that
access: access to computers and the Internet, training, and language and
physical barriers. Through the San Diego Futures Foundation, the county is
addressing some of those issues, specifically in the area of computer and
Internet access and basic computer training."
E-Democracy and Civic Participation
Alan Rosenblatt, Ph.D., Director of Training Programs for e-advocates, LLC,
opened the session by welcoming participants to the E-Democracy and Civic
Participation panel. Alan gave some background on Citizen-to-Government
Electronic Communications and then posed four questions we should ask as we
immerse ourselves in the "digital agora." As technology makes it easier to
communicate with government, the temptation to automate too much of this
process and eliminate the human interaction will be great. But "efforts must
be made to use technology to ease government officials' ability to respond
to citizens, not to dump citizens into the digital abyss," said Alan. He
offered an example of the White House, which recently switched from a public
email address to a Web form that requires 25 mouse clicks across nine Web
pages before the message can be sent. "This type of interface, whether
intended or not, WILL deter people from emailing the President. If the goal
is to facilitate constituent-to-government communication, this is clearly
not the solution," he concluded.
Anu Mundkur, a doctoral student at Syracuse University, shared a quote from
Jane Fountain, Harvard professor of public policy: "The culture, history,
mental models and standard practices of a policy domain or agency will
affect technology enactment -- that is whether and how an agency uses the
Internet." Anu suggested that an understanding of inter-organizational,
formal and informal government networks is important if we want to create
efficient and sustainable e-governance practices. "In terms of
citizen-government interaction, what this means I think is that there have
to be structural changes in governments themselves if access to
technology-enabled government is to be successful," said Anu. Belinda
Spinosi mentioned the Direct Democracy movement, which envisions elected
officials with stratified websites to directly address every issue to every
constituent. "Citizens would each have a mechanism that votes and input
would be tallied and that would be the direction that elected officials
would vote ... close to e-voting," she explained.
Ella Smith, from the International Teledemocracy Centre in Scotland,
expressed concern with this idea. She thought that the direct democracy idea
misses out on some of the fundamentals of communication and understanding
necessary for e-democracy, specifically deliberation among citizens. "I
think we really need to be wary about push-button democracy -- asking
citizens to give instant opinions," Ella warned. "Instead, if we can
facilitate meaningful (and informed) dialogue between citizens, they may
come to a better understanding of issues -- especially the way they affect
other citizens -- and hopefully this would lead to useful compromises and
governments introducing policies which have a better chance of success." In
response, Belinda Spinosi agreed that deliberation -- like what is going on
in this virtual conference -- could be a very exciting complement to every
piece of legislation, in addition to the direct democracy.
Andy Carvin commented that one of the complaints he often hears from
congressional staffers is that email isn't seen as a reliable way to collect
personalized citizen input. For example, it's possible to organize email
campaigns that will mass-mail (some might say "spam") members of Congress
with form-letter emails. "So technically, they feel, it's very easy for
these campaigners to 'abuse' the convenience of email to overwhelm
congressional offices," he explained. "I'm not saying I totally agree with
this," he continued. "It's frustrating how too many politicians don't
recognize the power of the Internet to interact with their constituents --
but I can see their frustration with the medium as well." Andy provided an
example of the FCC's use of the Internet to collect citizen input on the
recent media ownership policy debate. The FCC chairman said he took public
e-comments seriously, but a recent study of previous FCC policy rulemaking
and the citizen input received via email suggested otherwise. Kenan Jarboe
gave some ideas about how congressional offices could cope with floods of
email, such as creating mailing lists, capturing citizen input on issues and
responding to it.
Ryan Turner expressed frustration with elected officials and policymakers
who use technology to filter or screen out messages from non-constituents or
messages that express disagreement with their position. "[I]f someone takes
the time to convey their thoughts, regardless of the medium or quality of
the message, that's a signal that even if you don't 'represent' them, there
is still something that someone felt important to devote time and attention
to," he said. "Is there really a tradeoff between marshalling greater
citizen input and streamlining and codifying the means of communication?"
Working on the Congress Online Project
(http://www.congressonlineproject.org), Kathy Goldschmidt has found that
there's a lot more to Congress effectively integrating electronic
communications than just building a system and training staff to use it,
including: personnel and IT resources, communications volumes, quality of
communication, and "astroturf vs. grassroots" campaigns. "Some activist
groups have been using electronic communications for 'astroturf' campaigns,
which are designed to simulate volume and gravity, but, upon investigation,
have misleading numbers or lack of commitment from the senders," she
explained. "The harder it becomes for congressional staff to manage the
volumes -- and the more it appears that communications campaigns are
'astroturf,' rather than grassroots (real numbers, real gravity) -- the less
trusting congressional staff are going to be of electronic communications,
in general."
Alan J. Rosenblatt responded to issues raised thus far in the discussion. He
said he does not entirely favor Direct Democracy. "I see the technology as a
tool to facilitate better human interfacing between the public and the
government," he explained. For example, using email forms enables Congress
members to automate mail sorting and delivery, as well as data entry to
track who is writing in. Software can also be configured to automatically
retrieve pre-approved paragraphs from the letter database. "Freeing up time
and personnel to focus on creating substantive replies to constituent
communication leads to better engagement ... and strong
constituent/policymaker relations," Alan said.
"The concern for push-button democracy is extremely important," he
continued. "Our political process was designed to be deliberative ... thus,
the focus should be on educating citizens and policymakers about the issues,
engaging in constructive debate, and formulating policy based on this
deliberation."
Peter Ladd of Group Jazz then asked Dr. Rosenblatt to comment on Web logs,
or "blogs," which have received much media attention in the 2004
presidential primary campaigns in the United States. "What role do you see
of "blogs' in future campaigns and civic networks?" he asked. Alan said that
the advent of free, web-based software to manage and post blogs has been a
reason for their recent surge in popularity. Howard Dean has been using this
tool to create a more personal level of communication with his supporters.
"I think the blog will remain a vital part of campaigns, though I do not see
them as an 'amazing technological breakthrough.' They are just a new way to
deliver an old concept," said Alan. "That being said, blogs need to be used
strategically. Do not write things that insult your supporters. In other
words, if you are going to use a blog ... get a good editor."
In terms of "spamming" Congress, Dr. Rosenblatt noted that email to
policymakers is not commercial; it is protected free speech. He identified
two emerging practices that have been considered spamming Congress. The
first qualifies as spam, the second does not. "If you send an email to every
member of Congress, you are spamming Congress," he explained. "Even though
you have a right to send political opinions to lawmakers via email, sending
those opinions to members who do not represent your district is spam." This
is true regardless of the method of message delivery: phone, postal mail, or
even walking in the door. "If you are not their constituent, the member is
under no obligation to reply, or even read your message," he reiterated. In
order to get around this impasse, Dr. Rosenblatt's firm suggests to clients
that they use campaigns that get people to ask their own representatives and
senators to apply pressure to the committee members. This way you get your
message to someone who cares about your needs and is in a position to exert
influence over committee members.
The second practice, sending mass emails to particular members of Congress,
is not really spam. "If 10,000 citizens of Virginia choose to send the same
email to both Senators Warner and Allen, they have the right to do so," he
said. "Just because these people send a pre-written letter at the request of
an interest group does not mean the individuals sending the email are
disinterested robots.... A lawmaker would be foolish to dismiss
communications from so many constituents. Elected officials that
systematically ignore constituents like this will ultimately pay at the
polls."
As for constituent fraud, it has always been an issue, but in recent times
those attempting to run these "astroturf" campaigns have been getting caught
... potentially causing a major scandal when exposed. "Not a wise strategy
to take, especially in a world where your opponent interest groups have an
incentive to discover these deceptions," added Alan.
Alan ended his remarks with the idea that technology can allow candidates to
represent issues, rather than places, and that voters could choose which
issue rep they wanted to vote for, rather than being locked into one
district due to where they lived. The relevance of this observation to the
current discussion is this: if we want to be creative about changing the
relationship between policymakers and constituents, the technology allows us
to do so. "But, given our current political system and processes, there are
real constraints on what we can do without changing the rules. The rules, as
they stand now, make where you live the determining factor in who represents
you and how those representatives will respond to you," he concluded.
Public Use of E-Government: Citizens Perspectives
The first day of the session began with a welcome from session moderator
Garry Mendez, senior Web designer for One Economy Corporation
(http://www.theBeehive.org). Mendez introduced Latonya Brown, from Shaw
Family Support Collaborative; Jessica Alvarez, coordinator of Digital
Community of Columbia Heights and Shaw; and Shireen Mitchell from
organization Digital Sisters (http://www.digital-sistas.org).
Mitchell began by offering questions to fuel the discussion. She asked, "How
will families access vital information and services if they do not have a
computer at home?" She says public access may be questionable as a solution
because having to access e-government in public environments could
potentially infringe on individual privacy. "How will this impact households
with single mothers working several jobs to care for their families?" she
asked.
"I think that it is critical that local, regional, state and federal
government organizations take a major lead and responsibility for helping
low-income residents and workers to make better use of computer and the
internet," said Ben Jacobs from LRDA. "Developing 21st century computer and
Internet technology skills and knowledge is most important to being
competitive in the global economy."
"From my experience, legislators who support these ideas will run with a
white paper and proof that all existing resources have been exhausted,"
Belinda Spinosi said in agreement. "Has there been coordination of existing
mechanisms that provide support to get Internet access to all?"
"Ben is correct, the Internet is the 'greatest resource' government
organizations have to reach their constituents," Garry Mendez noted. "Which
government organizations do folks think have the best chance for success
right now, local, state, or federal?" Mendez said on one hand the federal
government has made strides in giving people access to services and
information online, but what drives the Internet is the user's ability to
chose and search for information for their specific needs. He wondered
whether governments will have an easier time reaching constituents online
because of their specificity. "What level of government has the best
greatest chance for success reaching all of its constituents? What are some
good examples," he asked.
"My take on it is that federal would have to have the best chance of success
if e-government is to permeate the United States (outside the U.S., such
tiered systems may vary or not exist)," said Taran Rampersad in Trinidad and
Tobago. He says federal governments are key in the effectiveness of
e-government, but cooperation between the various tiers of government is
also essential. Rampersad then brought up the issue of geography. "What
roles will geographically-based government tiers have in the future, in a
society less based on geography?"
In response to Mendez's question about what level of government has the
greatest potential to reach all constituents, Gail Watt said, "This really
depends on the country you are talking about and even which constituency you
are talking about.... I would argue that most democratic countries' 'tier'
system was built just for the theoretical reason of being better able to
reach its constituents."
"OPEN SPACE" DISCUSSION FORUMS
Tim Erickson started a discussion about the role of third party
organizations as mediators between government and citizens. "It seems to me
that when it comes to managing online consultation events, in which citizens
are using Internet forums to comment on or provide input on government
programs, that government management of these events suggests a conflict of
interest," Tim said. He mentioned that E-Democracy (the organization -
http://www.e-democracy.org) attempts to provide neutral, non-partisan spaces
for citizens to interact with government officials online. Tim asked how
others feel about the credibility of government when providing online
e-democracy services -- in particular, services or forums designed to gather
input on public policy. "What is the role of grassroots organizations or
third party non-profits in managing and facilitating important online spaces
for e-democracy?" he asked.
Andy Carvin responded by posting an article summary concerning a new
BBC-sponsored e-democracy portal. "Some critics are concerned that the site
will not serve its purpose well given the BBC's sponsorship by the British
government," wrote Andy. Next Gail Watt responded, "Very much a cultural
question as well as a political history one, I think. With USA type history
where nearly all government is in suspect by the people, I can understand
that it can be an issue."
"It is a nice idea to have neutral mediators, but as online events increase
I think their organization will inevitably become more commercial," Rosemary
Gunn suggested. "Ethical standards are needed both to encourage organizers
to work towards non-partisanship and to suggest questions that participants
might want to ask." However, she wondered if "neutrality" is a reasonable
goal. "Maybe it would make more sense to set things up as the California
Legislative Analyst does for ballot propositions - a careful effort to make
available statements by both (or multiple) sides on issues."
Rik Panganiban added, "I'm not sure it really matters that much who
organizes the consultation or forum as long as it's an open process that
anyone can participate in." Of course, a government may have something to
gain from sponsoring a forum, such as seeking legitimacy for its policies.
"But there's something chaotic and unpredictable and wonderful about online
forums," he continued. "Getting citizens to start talking to each other, to
start really debating important policy issues, that in itself is a very
worthwhile goal."
Tim then raised the question of facilitating participation "To really get
everyone involved, a facilitator may need to make extra efforts to draw some
people into the discussion and prevent others from dominating the event," he
said. "I think that a government agency is less credible in their ability to
facilitate this discussion without accusations of 'censorship' or
manipulation of the results." He asked for input on the question: "When it
comes to getting public input online, does 'E-Gov 4 All' include those too
shy and/or timid to participate without some extra encouragement?"
On the question of neutrality, Tim commented, "I don't think that it is
necessary for a moderator/mediator to be neutral as much as it is important
that they not be perceived as having a conflict of interest. There is a
common perception among citizens that government agencies primarily use
public input processes to justify their already made decisions." In
response, Bob Carlitz said that governmental efforts at online public
participation cannot be credible unless there is an overall commitment to
transparency. "If people can see the whole course of a governmental decision
-- and if they have opportunities for input at each stage of the process --
they are less likely to feel that they are being presented with a done
deal," he explained. He suggested that agencies make an effort to inform
citizens at all stages of the rule-making process, not just allowing for
comments once a rule is proposed. "Right now http://www.regulations.gov
offers an opportunity for comment on a proposed rule. But a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (which sets off the public comment process) is typically
preceded by years of work at the agency. What's needed is a continuous
electronic record of this process -- from initial issue scoping through
ultimate enforcement actions," he explained.
Soraj Hongladarom, based at Chulalongkorn University in Thailand, continued
the discussion about The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). "I
am currently involved in a research project that focuses on the ethical
aspects of the digital divide. My advice to the attendees of the WSIS would
be, firstly, that e-government should also extend to local governments,
too." The new constitution of Thailand mandates devolving power to local
administration; however, the current government is perceived to be reversing
that trend. "There should be more studies on how to promote local efficiency
in e-governance. And that certainly requires a lot of thinking on the
digital divide," Soraj said. Because of the shortage of capable manpower,
especially in the countryside, Soraj suggested that governments should focus
more on education.
Krishan agreed with Soraj that "if e-Governance is to take roots and
establish itself, decentralization and devolution of authority to states,
districts and local administration is a must." "Instead of top-down, it
should be a bottom-up approach," he added. He cited the example of EXNORA in
Tamil Nadu State, India, a successful voluntary movement for extending civic
service. "The government has recognized and is now associating them in
decision making," said Krishnan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------