Next up on my reading list is (Gore’s latest book) The Assault on Reason.
Gore has taken on the most important issues of the day: the environment, the politics of media, public life. These are grounded in the big questions of living together on this planet. His tone is measured. Had the Supreme Court handled the 2000 elections other than they did, would Gore be the Statesman he is now?
Last weekend at the 3rd (now self-admittedly International) Summit for Community Wireless Networks (IS4CWN) the evidence was clear… (based on a plethora of conversations): Community Wireless Networking is not dead, and while (for those in the movement) it may seem to have been eclipsed in the media eye, it hasn’t really had much mainstream attention yet.
It’s the pseudo-muni model that has failed.
The tragedy of the past few years has been a penchant for political leadership to buy what network carriers have been selling. The term Municipal in Muni-Wireless and Muni-Broadband has been co-opted by the sellers of networks to mean coverage of a city rather a more proper sense of Municipal Ownership. Terms are easily diluted in that way, but what is more serious for the various Municipalities and their residents is the dilution of the contracts and hence the vision that drove their initiatives in the first place.
I’ve heard reports from both Houston and Phily that the network footprint won’t be as extensive as originally envisioned. Once you get a contract the city is bought in enough that successive renegotiations can easily be achieved, reducing risk and cost to the vendor, and increasing cost, decreasing scope (which is an aspect of quality) of service, and maybe you can get the city to buy in as an anchor tenant after all.
Cities struggle with their budgets, we know. When you don’t have confidence (which translates into political will) in the potential of these networks you aren’t likely to put your money where your mouth is. It’s foolish model of accounting for costs that can’t simply aggregate the demand of the community and suggest that it will be cheaper to the tax-payers or rate-payers if the Municipality does the network itself… or better yet if the model rolls out as Boston plans: structural separation for a wholesale model with any number of service providers having access to the network infrastructure on the same terms and with very low barrier to entry. (Oddly Chicago completely rejected the possibility of non-profit ownership in the formulation of their request for proposal (RFP) despite a fair amount of testimony.)
So, the leading US cities haven’t put their money where their mouth is - and now the vendors are doing likewise. They win the contract for citywide service and then pull back from delivery.
How much investment is required to make this work? What model of ownership makes the most sense? What sort of business model works? What technology choices should we make? What are the purposes of the network? It’s the answers to network purpose that should drive your business/ownership and technology model, not the reverse. That requires commitment to the purposes of the network as opposed to just the idea of “let’s have a network because others have one”.
So, in the cities where the footprints of their pseudo-muni wireless networks are ever-shrinking… how will we cover the gap? It’s time for public attention to turn to community driven models., and it’s time for us to spread the word, spread the model and dispel the FUD.
Andy writes that wiki may be used in a policy writing experiment on Ed Tech.
What’s critical here? Openness, yes, and sincere attention of Legislative staff or Legislators themselves.
Lars found this excellent statement by Marvin Minsky (The Society of Mind).
Common sense is not a simple thing. Instead, it is an immense society of hard-earned practical ideas - of multitudes of life-learned rules and exceptions, dispositions and tendencies, balances and checks.
We’re still re-learning how to work according to our values.Â
This is as it should be.
Following is the project description for Sourcetree Commons, as posted at the Net2 challenge 2007.
Sourcetree Commons: Geeking our way to a better world
To develop better social software, we must use these very tools in the communities that are building them. We leverage social software to amplify the creative power of geeks and provide increased resources, efficiency, feedback and support.
Project Vision Statement & Potential Social Impact:
Our goal is to leverage social software to amplify the creative power of geeks.
Geeks are a force to be reckoned with. They are creating the tools to strengthen communities, share ideas and shape information flow in an information age. Yet we still struggle with old ways of competing, collaborating and decision making. If we are to develop better social software, we must incorporate the very principles of collaboration and collective intelligence into the communities that are building them.
Internet Policy matters. Regulation of “Top Level Domains” (TLDs) is but one aspect of Internet Policy. Oversight of the “market” in domains falls to ICANN and to each of the entities sponsoring and operating their respective TLDs. In the case of .ORG it is the Public Interest Registry (PIR.org).
.ORG needs to go further in differentiating itself.
This is a big topic… as one of the early TLDs .ORG did not establish any strict requirements for registration of a .ORG domain (like .COM and .NET). Consequently, it is understood that new requirements or restrictions will not be added (and domains cannot be taken back). I don’t accept that this must necessarily follow, but I won’t argue that case here. As is obviously the intent for the .ORG TLD the space is decidedly non commercial and non-governmental as is clear in the name “Public Interest Registry”. While recognized status as a non-profit or a community group/voluntary association is not a requirement for a .org domain, my concern is for the interests of such entities.
There is another dimension to this: what is done as standard business practice in the servicing and managing of domains is an important aspect of the policy regime. Our choices as registrants are constrained by the business logic and interests of the registrars.
The business of domain registrars is business. These are the entities you go to for the purchase and renewal of rights to use your domain. Which registrar do you use and why? Does the climate and culture of this field line up with your values or those of your organization? Do you question the ethics of this field? What meaningful choice do you have?
If the Registry (as operator of the TLD) won’t (or can’t) take actions to differentiate itself, perhaps a Registrar can be established with principles of service and ethical standards appropriate to the public sector. While performing a transactional function it need not fall under the framework of a commercially oriented entity.
Aside from those registrars handling ccTLD (cc = country code) and therefore operating in a non-profit or public interest manner are there any registrars organized with a not-for-profit status? Here’s a list of ICANN-Accredited Registrars.
I’m sure that many in the Voluntary and Not-for-Profit sector would prefer to do business with an entity that reflects their commitment to civil society.
Who is ready to take up the banner and establish a non-profit domain registrar for .org? If there is no shining knight ready to save the day, what can we do for ourselves?
Can we not establish a Trust whose purpose is to serve NPOs domain needs?
From my good friend Fran:
Dear Colleagues,
Your Illinois libraries are concerned re this filtering legislation. You are probably aware that
internet filters are notorious for not being “smart”. They typically block health and other vital
information, We as librarians believe that filtering is a decision that should be made by a local
school, library, or community, not mandated by the state.Please join us in unity on May 14th. Let your legislators and all who support free and open
access to the internet and local control know that you oppose this bill.Thank you all for your support!
Monday, 14 May 2007 Is a Day of Unity for the Illinois Library Community to Demonstrate Our Opposition to House Bill 1727
Public Policy Committee’s Action Plan Regarding Proposed Mandatory Internet Filter Legislation
In response to the Illinois House of Representatives passing House Bill 1727, the Illinois Library Association’s Public Policy Committee met yesterday to determine the library community’s response. ILA requests that libraries communicate and/or demonstrate the negative effects of this legislation. Because the association is a strong promoter of local control, we are recommending that local libraries determine the most appropriate action for their community and act accordingly. The committee did, however, declare:
Monday, 14 May 2007 is a day of unity for the Illinois library community to demonstrate our opposition to House Bill 1727, the mandatory public and school library Internet filter legislation.