As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

The Google-Verizon recognition of the Open Internet opened the door to fundamental policy clarity at the FCC.

Defenders of the Open Internet, Network Neutrality and even Common Carriage can stand firm together in support of a principle of Network Clarity: the Open Internet is not a Service. It is a general purpose open communications framework independent of the various technologies and infrastructure that compose it. As a communications framework and must remain open as speech must remain free.

The regime of service-oriented policy now ends.

For a more nuanced exegesis of the significance of the policy ramifications, see Dr. David Reed’s post.

We believe that a new way of working together is emerging and that our message to our communities is more pertinent than ever, and that we are stronger when we establish resources in common and share solutions freely across the network.

This is not a relaunch. It is something more profound. We honor the heritage of our field by finding a way forward, one suited to our present situation, one that builds upon what we have learned.

We have much experience in this community, and we are clearly ready to refactor, rebuild and reboot the movement and the network. We will determine the functions, services and capacities we need and desire for the field, and we will coordinate efforts to bring them online in a manner that serves the field as a whole, building upon capacities already under development when possible and operating from a perspective of shared, open stewardship.

We’re looking to grow our field, and to demonstrate it’s relevance to every facet of community and civic life. Many are engaged in the work and have not found us, their peer-community. We’re looking to establish a way for them to find us as we found each other, and for all to find a way to take up a meaningful share of the work.

We would love for all who wish to come to be there. This is an open call to everyone serving our field. You are invited to join the working meeting on October 30, or to step up in any way that may support this effort. (All are likewise invited to attend the Digital Excellence Conference, October 29: http://dexcon2010.eventbrite.com/)

Many have already expressed support for this endeavor, but not all are able to attend. For some, the obstacle is scheduling, for others there are fiscal constraints. Perhaps we can find creative ways to address the latter.

There will be several channels for involvement leading up to and following the meeting. First among them is a discussion list: http://groups.google.com/group/rebuild-reboot All who wish to attend or otherwise support the work should subscribe and participate. Please signify on that list whether you plan to join us for the meeting or if you can support this effort in some other way.

Please also spread the word on this meeting and the conference. Tell us who you think should be there. Better yet, tell them.

Michael Maranda
Rebuild-Reboot Committee

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, community media and community network concerns, we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)!

Also, please share this call to action with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event announcement. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources that transform the information-action ecology.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

Open Stewardship is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this.

In the afternoon I’ll be co-facilitating an Open Stewardship Session.

Chip highlights Brendel’s “Four P’s of Pragmatism” – offering an useful explication of the terms and their relevance to Pragmatism:

The first p, practical, emphasizes pragmatism’s insistence on considering the consequences of any concept, to steer away from abstractions and idealizations that have no conceivable effects in our ordinary experience. The second p, pluralistic, reflects the fact that pragmatism is not so much one method or theory, but rather, an approach that considers any tools that may increase understanding, thereby achieving better practical consequences. It also reflects the assumption that interesting phenomena are unlikely to be captured within a simple category or single way of viewing. The third p, participatory, follows from the second in that multiple perspectives, Peirce’s community of inquiry, are needed to accommodate a pluralistic understanding. And the fourth p, provisional (cf. fallibilism), acknowledges that in a complex and ever-changing world, any understanding is subject to change as we learn more or as events occur.

Pragmatism is a major influence on my thought, and a strong influence on my community work. The four P’s work well for me, and are very appropriate to both the kind of science and the kind of civic life we need.

• Pursue agility and resilience (not predictability)
• Consciously learn from daily experience
• Allow solutions to emerge
• Pull don’t push (or, invite don’t force)
• Seek diversity
• Rely on vision and boundaries rather than control
• Appreciate messiness
• Expect non-linear progress (ups and downs)
• Cooperate (rather than compete) to create abundance
• Promote grassroots initiative
• Create fully human spaces

remake fields with tools and provisioned spaces;
open the path to a more fluid, functional and open society;
design tools and services that integrate the field
- making us visible to each other in value and success.

However, the best way to fight is for communities to deploy their own networks and to interconnect them.