Comments for Consultation

Comment on ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT) by Don McIntosh

Don McIntosh — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:54:58 +0000

This is good to see. However, I would note that simply anonymising data by stripping names, addresses etc, is insufficient in many cases. Without the use of some privacy protection techniques (of which there are plenty), I suggest that a very significant portion of PSI, such as statistics based on customer records, would be classified as exempt. Having clear guidance on what constitutes an acceptable exemption, as well as how privacy protection methods (aka disclosure control) can be used to create “safe” output will be important.

Comment on ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT) by Craig Thomler

Craig Thomler — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:52:47 +0000

A factor often forgotten is that the community also creates information that should come into government and be used as government uses PSI.

Too much of the open data focus is outbound (data from gov to community). We also need to open up channels for community to get data to gov.

Comment on ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT) by Craig Thomler

Craig Thomler — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:49:50 +0000

Note that Gov 2.0 can accelerate traditional policy development purposes by super-charging stakeholder engagement.

However, moving forward, we need to consider new models for policy development that step beyond simply updating existing models.

These new models may provide highly effective ways to deliver better policy outcomes.

Without experimenting with new approaches, we will remain trapped in 20th Century thinking.

Comment on ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT) by Craig Thomler

Craig Thomler — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:46:28 +0000

We need to see a ‘how to run a mash-up competition’ guide come out of this event to aid departments in running future successful events.

Comment on ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT) by Craig Thomler

Craig Thomler — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:43:03 +0000

How can states be encouraged to follow the Federal lead? Where federal data is open, but states keep it restricted we have a highly unstable situation – particularly politically.

State and local government generate a great deal of government data, particularly geospatial. They will need to align with a federal open data position for Australia to realise the full economic benefits.

Comment on ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT) by Craig Thomler

Craig Thomler — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:39:33 +0000

Support for Info-philanthropy would be fantastic. There is a lot of time and money invested into Gov 2.0 outside of Government and whilst this remains unsupported as philanthropy donation supported initiatives are impossible.

Comment on ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT) by Craig Thomler

Craig Thomler — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:35:36 +0000

Who will manage this central portal?

The Office of the Information Commissioner?
ABS?
Geosciences?

A recommendation should be made in the report.

Comment on ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT) by Craig Thomler

Craig Thomler — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:26:28 +0000

This would be a major step forward. However there may be some Crown Copyright works which should not be automatically re-licensed as Creative Commons BY.

There needs to be a mechanism for Departments to request that publications, on an individual basis, not be reclassified.

Comment on ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT) by Craig Thomler

Craig Thomler — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:22:26 +0000

Might be best to model this as a wiki rather than a ‘forum’. Forums are for discussion, wikis are for information organisation and retention.

Comment on ENGAGE: GETTING ON WITH GOVERNMENT 2.0 (DRAFT) by Craig Thomler

Craig Thomler — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:21:16 +0000

Regularly should be defined – annually would be an appropriate timeframe given the speed of online change.