The Public Internet

Concept Draft 1.0

by Steven Clift,

This is an edited except from my Information is Power? Envisioning the Minnesota Public Internet – Public service and community information and interaction in the public interest speech. You see a mix of global concepts mixed together with Minnesota comments.  Eventually I will pull together a completely generic concept piece.

I accept the notion that most of what is being done online will be done by existing institutions based on existing missions.  This includes private sector, government, educational, and non-profit/NGO institutions.  The question of “public interest” activity must not be limited to our current notion of public needs from the offline world.  Yes, it makes sense for those solving public problems to come “on” the Internet and use its tools in pursuit of their objectives.  However, it is absolutely essential that we define public interest goals, needs and solutions that are “of” the Internet.

The illustration below presents my estimation of who is doing what online in the areas of Infrastructure, Commerce, General Content, Community (Local) Content, Interaction, and Community Interaction (Geographic).  The yellow bits are the missing areas of activity from my personal perspective.

When it comes to infrastructure, commerce, and general content the private sector and public/non-profit sectors “as is” are generally successful, but when it comes to community content, interaction, and community interaction there are tremendous gaps.  We need to keep the rationale and models from public broadcasting and public access cable from clouding our options.  Defining the “Public Internet” is not about creating an alternative channel (they continue to have value based on existing or narrowly defined missions) but it is instead about partnerships among all players to fill in the gaps through the creation of shared mediating institutions and initiatives.

Two examples of efforts I am involved with that attack the gap in the interaction area are Open Groups for online community directory information and my efforts to promote the creation of local interactive online public commons spaces.  The second part of my original speech explores the interactive public policy civic gap with specific proposals for Minnesota which can be extended elsewhere.

At a minimum we need to develop the concept of the “Public Internet” and explore the concept much more deeply.  We should perhaps look to create a trusted, participatory all sector partnership-based organization called the Public Internet Consortium.  It could focus on promoting the use of open standards to solve public problems and be the host for a mix of Internet-based public interest applications/open standards which require a shared home to be legitimate or become established.  Just as you have hundreds of industry consortiums dealing with unique parts of e-commerce, we need similar efforts that are expressly public interest oriented.

Again, what can we do together that would not happen otherwise, but we want to exist?  Ultimately the more online access, content, and interaction support by the competitive private market place or integrated into existing government and non-profit missions the better.   Filling in the many-to-many interactive gap with dynamic and sustainable solutions is how our first digital generation will be judged. It will be my life work.

Public Portals – Directories for the Public Internet

Back in 1994 and 1995 I designed North Star, the Minnesota State Government’s home page or directory site (see also the North Star Development Center, and History and Future as viewed in 1997.) I secretly felt that I was designing the future interface through which most citizens would someday interact with their government.  When people would hear the word state government they would have an image of the state capitol building, the current Governor, and the main home page in their minds.  I strived to keep it non-political and worked to create a citizen-oriented foundation.  I figured that someone online should wake up each morning and ask the question – “what can I do for the citizens as a whole today” versus “what can I do to present my agency in a better light to its customers.”  I assumed that agencies would continue their silo service, but that we could add a user-friendly directory.  And over time standardized access to frequently requested information and a high volume service transaction layer.  We would move from a thin directory, hard silo system toward a “Yahoo” like directory as illustrated here.

Moving toward an integrated service delivery and multi-interface approach, I felt the growing directory should be based on a database and be led by those with a communications and library-oriented skill set and not just technologists.  In the winter of 1997 the Minnesota State Legislature passed legislation creating the best legal framework for integrated online government online in the country and put almost $1 million dollars toward the effort.

The vision should have moved us toward a subject index of state government information and services (which does not exist – only a big garbage in garbage out search tool), a dynamic framework for integration of all major state directory information products including the state telephone directory, state agency guidebook, directory information on all local governments and eventually all public services including those sponsored by non-profits.  (This reminds us that ideas are dangerous – because all existing organizations and missions will not survive, keeping ideas off the public agenda is the safest way to preserve organizational turf.)

I left state government to pursue my Democracies Online effort and independent consulting in late 1997.  Efforts with the “public portal” in Minnesota have slowed tremendously.  While agencies continue to develop better and better online efforts, a few collaborative agency efforts provide niche directories – the sum is less than the whole of the parts.

Developing a effective citizen interface to things “public” is ultimately it is about vision, power, and leadership.  I think we need this to come directly from the Governor’s Office with real targets to which we can hold the administration accountable. In the end it might make sense to privatize North Star into a state-supported non-profit that would take a holistic “public” information and interactive services perspective.  This could become the foundation for what I call the “Minnesota Public Internet.”

Through the use of open standards and systems the best public content should be aggregated for broad dissemination through multiple technologies.  While the web will be the most cost effective self-serve system, telephone based text to speech systems must provide access to the blind and those without two-way Internet access.  Any government or non-profit employee could use the same Minnesota Public Internet directory to send citizens in the right direction cutting through the bureaucracy.

Enhanced Digital Television – Broadcast the Public Internet

The real revolution with content aggregation and dissemination will be Digital Television.  Using yet to be defined enhanced service standards the “best of the Internet” will be broadcast.  Your remote will give you access to text, images, audio, and video that will be stored on your set-top box or in your television for a few hours or longer depending upon your settings.  The fundamental question with the “one-way Internet” (my name for digitial TV) is what public content is so important that everyone should have universal access to it?   Some examples that come to mind; weather alerts, traffic information, crime alerts, school lunch menus, missing children alerts, snow emergency information and other public safety notices.  Imagine this – you key your zip code into the set-top box and suddenly you have access to accurate, up-to-date local information from the city, your neighborhood organization, local museums, civic groups and the list goes on.  (This concept could be explored now at the local level if local governments dedicate all of the increased revenue from cable modem services to “public access” community new media content and service development.) Just like in Canada,
they have the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) is the central repository of criminal records and other relevant information in Canada. It is Canada’s only national law enforcement networking computer system ensuring officers all across the country can access the same information. People in Canada cannot just travel everywhere easily if they have criminal records, they have to process important matters first at https://nationalpardon.org/.

If you do happen to find yourself in a spot and inside a Winnipeg criminal court, then you need to educate yourself on the process you’ll be facing as well as know your rights so you don’t proceed with blinders on. Here are the things in Criminal Court, What You Need to Know — read this.

See my orignial Community Digital Broadcasting article for more information.

The lynch pin of this model is the development of a trusted content aggregator(s) and standards-based syndication systems.  While commercial stations could be encouraged to carry this digital side content, I think public television broadcasters are in the strongest leadership position.  Perhaps they just become the carriers as part of some broad government/non-profit partnership or they build this by default. I am not sure.

Let’s not count commercial carriers out completely.  It may be that the Minnesota Public Internet concept is actually made up of many partnerships organizing different chunks of content and services for “syndication” across not only Digital TV but through the larger commercial web sites with “eyeballs” or users.  You see this happening already with multiple commercial sites using and repackaging traffic information.  So in the future perhaps more people will interact online with their government and non-profit services through the StarTribune or PioneerPlanet and AOL’s My Government then through government and non-profit web sites directly?  Perhaps. I am not sure if I am fighting or promoting that concept, but in the end I just want more citizens to actually get access to the good stuff on their terms based on their own needs.

More resources:
Digital TV and public service in the Nordic countries – Article
PBS DTV
Sam’s DTV Report
DigitalTelevision.com – Monday Memo, Glossary
Federal Communications Commission – DTV
FCC Notice of Inquiry on DTV Public Interest Obligations
FCC’s Kennard on Interactive Personal TV

Comments on this draft?
clift@publicus.net

A Wired Agora
Minneapolis, Citizen Participation, the Internet and Squirrels

All presentation slides may be viewed on the web or downloaded in Power Point.

by Steven Clift,

Version 1.0 – Adapted from a presentation given by Steven Clift.

We hear a lot about the potential of the Internet to improve citizen participation in democracy, but no one seems to do much about it. Like the weather, everyone talks about it, but few people try to do anything about it. We’ll in Minneapolis, Minnesota we did something about our severe winter weather, we built “skyways” connecting the second floors of buildings downtown. We are also building online public spaces for democratic dialogue on the Internet within the context of a primarily commercial Internet.

The second part of this presentation includes examples from the dynamic Minneapolis Issues Forum, a project of Minnesota E-Democracy. First I want to share my perspective on the current crisis in politics and offer a few background comments.

In my “Democracy is Online” article in the March/April 1998 issue of the Internet Society’s OnTheInternet magazine I presented the following thesis – “The most democratizing aspect of the Internet is the ability for people organize and communicate in groups.” I am an online builder, speaker, and organizer. I practice democracy and the Internet everyday. I leave it academic researchers and theorists to prove me right or wrong or at least explain what we have done in Minnesota and what actually works according to their perspective.

Over the last few years I have had the honor of presenting in seventeen countries. While you can do plenty of research over the Internet, I have discovered the best stories in person. Over and over again the most compelling use of the Internet in politics center on the role of organizing groups and allowing them to communicate online. Whether online communication helps achieve a specific goal or promotes open public discussions among people with diverse political views, I want to foster a networked world where people, groups, geography, and democracy can come together.

From a basic perspective, many people look at the crisis in politics as a disconnect between the government and the citizens.

My view is that citizens are fundamentally disconnected from one another and hyper-connected through various special interest groups to government. Will the Internet make government more sensitive to well wired interest groups? What can be done online to fundamentally improve citizen input into representative democracy? Can the Internet be used to reconnect citizens within geographic areas based on the common interest?

Over the last five years governments, parliaments, politicians, political parties and just about every established political institution has become increasingly “wired.” They must to simply survive. Most information flows from the wired government to the passive citizen receiver of information.

The citizens remain disconnected from each other. How often do legislative or parliamentary web sites encourage you to interact with other visitors interested in the same content or draft legislation? While some citizens may e-mail their elected officials, e-mail without specific postal address information that proves you are a constituent is considered by many to be the least effective way to make your point with government officials. If it is viewed as too easy, it may be thought of as less authentic – I have found this to be particularly true at the statewide and national level in the United States. Not to be that down on the Internet, when are post cards and postal letters really all that effective anyway? There seems to be a fundamental break down in constituent communications regardless of the technology.

As Internet user, citizens are becoming more connected with online groups. This is often at the global level based on hobbies, life situations or within very private social and family networks. Rarely do citizens connected with each other online within the context of local democracy. The fact that city councils, state legislatures, and even national representatives represent geographic areas puts the nature of participation in democracy at odds with the technical ethos of the Internet. With so many people hoping to escape the “accident of geography,” how will those who want to use the Internet to “come home” become connected with each other for civic purposes? Speaking of accidents, if you have been hurt or lost a loved one in a car accident in Vancouver, you will have many questions about what to do next. You need to get help from an experienced Vancouver Car Accident Lawyers who will care about your future and fight for all compensation you are due.

Moving on. Let’s assume that we now have “wired citizens.” And in some parts of the world this is happening. Where home Internet access is affordable the consumer Internet is leading to exciting citizen Internet activities particularly in my home state of Minnesota.

Our “wired citizen” assumption is based on the combination of individual, government, non-profit, and commercial activities that make geography a viable and vibrant part of the Internet experience. With this citizens from the neighborhood level on up are starting to reconnect with each other through the Internet. Now at the corner coffee shop the discussion might go along the lines, “Ya know, I missed that neighborhood meeting on traffic calming the other day, but the e-mail discussion sure brought me up to date. You better believe I’ll make next in-person meeting when they take that vote.”

Even with out “wired government” and “wired citizens,” what is missing? What is missing from our analog democracy is an engaging and participatory governance system that involves citizens and helps elected officials and governments better represent of the needs and desires of the people. What can the Internet contribute to analog democracy? If democracy “as is” is going online what can we add along the way? From an online perspective we need a “wired democracy” with an important addition.

The wired democracy needs an online interactive public commons.

Or we could call it an Agora online… something that leverages the good work of all the sectors of democracy. The non-profit/voluntary/advocacy sector, the media, and the private sector are all crucial contributors to democracy online. These are highlighted in my Democracy is Online article and Democracies Online: Building Civic Life on the New Frontier presentation. They are both available online from <http://www.publicus.net>. From that presentation “democracy online” involves leveraging the good work of all the democracy sectors and plunking an open, interactive, online public commons in the middle that is sponsored by a non-partisan, trusted host or partnership.
Minneapolis, Citizen Participation, the Internet and Squirrels

They look innocent.

In 1994 a group of volunteers created Minnesota E-Democracy and the world’s first election-oriented web site. This effort put the position papers for U.S. Senate and Governor candidates online, hosted candidate E-Debates via e-mail, and launched the MN-POLITICS e-mail discussion list. In 1996 Minnesota E-Democracy became a tax-exempt 501.c3 non-profit organization and established its official mission to “improve participation in democracy in Minnesota through information networks.” With each statewide election the organization has evolved toward partnership efforts that cross promote and link comprehensively to the best election resources across Minnesota. The candidate E-Debates and discussion forums remain the central election time contribution of Minnesota E-Democracy to the broader democracy online community in the state.

The ongoing miracle of the 1994 experiment has been the sustained discussion on MN-POLITICS. This interactive online public commons provides the most important lessons for those hoping to us the Internet to improve citizen participation. If ninety-nine percent of political discussion on the Internet is junk and disconnected from anything real, then our discussions are half junk. The miracle is that any of our online political discussions have any value whatsoever.

Further analysis is available from Scott Aikens <http://www.aikens.org> whose Ph.D. thesis for the University of Cambridge explored happenings in Minnesota quite extensively. Despite continued development of the forum replication in other places remains limited. Ongoing academic research and analysis seems sparse particularly from a quantitative perspective. Of interest to some may be the recent division of the list into Announce and Discussion versions after a bumpy transition to a new list management scheme after four years of facilitation by Mick Souder, Minnesota E-Democracy’s Vice Chair. New rules and guidelines, representing five years of experience can be reviewed from <http://www.e-democracy.org/mn-politics/>.

Based on our experience with the statewide forum we decided to take our model local. In the summer of 1998 we launched the Minneapolis Issues Forum (MPLS-ISSUES). David Brauer, freelance journalist and former talk radio host, volunteered to facilitate the forum. Working with other Minnesota E-Democracy volunteers he developed a list of around 100 key Minneapolitians to invite to join the forum. We also encouraged them to help us promote the forum before we opened it with our 100^th member. This one-by-one recruitment is essential to building an online discussion forum in the heart of real politics.

The official purpose of the unmoderated MPLS-ISSUES e-mail list is:

MPLS-ISSUES is an e-mail announcement and discussion forum on public issues in Minneapolis. Discussions of a substantial and respectful nature are expected on this city-wide issue-based forum.Discussion topics include agenda items or issues that you feel should be addressed by the Minneapolis City Council, the Minneapolis School Board, Minneapolis related items before the Hennepin County Board, and items on the agenda of other publicly elected or appointed boards and councils in Minneapolis. Official bodies and civic organizations are highly encouraged to make meeting announcements, agendas, and information on new online resources available.

Minneapolis is the largest city in Minnesota with a population of 370,000 living with the city limits. The overall metropolitan area has 2.7 million of Minnesota’s 4.5 million residents. The city council has 13 single district members and a directly elected mayor.

MPLS-ISSUES is co-sponsored by Minnesota E-Democracy and the Minneapolis Telecommunications Network. MTN is the local public access cable entity and helps cement the notion of community media participation in interactive new media at the local level. The full charter, rules and a link to the web archive is available at <http://www.e-democracy.org/mpls-issues/>.

The 1998 race for Minnesota Governor resulted in the election of former pro-wrestler and radio talk show host Jesse Ventura. (The inside story on the Ventura campaign’s use of the Internet is available via the Democracies Online Newswire at <http://www.egroups.com/group/do-wire/107.html?>.) This dramatic event shifted most of the public’s attention to statewide politics. The MPLS-ISSUES list was very quiet.

About two weeks after the election I was walking down the street when I saw more squirrels in one glance than I had ever seen before. Inspired I scrambled back to my home office and thought I might spur some local issue discussions with the following post:

From: "Steven Clift" <clift@publicus.net>To: Multiple recipients of list <mpls-issues@mtn.org>

Subject: Squirrels Attack

It seems that about once a day a squirrel runs across my window screen in my home office. I have never experienced this nor seen so many squirrels in Minneapolis. Here is my public policy question - are squirrels in such density ever considered a public health risk?

Last winter one came down the chimney and we managed to shoo it down the stairs and out the door (once we got it out of the fireplace after three days!). Who should you contact with the city if this problem occurs this winter?

:-),

Steven Clift
CARAG Neighborhood

Obviously humorous, I imagined being surrounded by dozens of squirrels bearing their teeth. After the Gorbachev Foundation of North America conference in Boston where I first made this presentation, I returned home to another squirrel in my fireplace! It took almost week before we were able to coax it out and chase it outside. Since then I did my research and found SmartlyHeated, experts in fireplaces and heaters of all types, they suggested a chimney system that would greatly deter pests from entering.

So how does an e-mail list work? Where did my message go? The image below represents the explosive nature of public e-mail discussion lists. From an organizers perspective this works in direct contrast to the passive nature of web sites. With an e-mail list people subscribe once and make a commitment. With a web site citizens must decide to visit the site each time they log-on. For a small local organization it is extremely difficult to get people to come back to same web site on a regular basis. Building an online community requires the commitment of the participants. Hopefully only a few of the participants should be committed, but that is another presentation on how to facilitate online discussions with all kinds of people.

Through our strategic use of e-mail (with web archives) we have also brought publishing down to the lowest common denominator on the Internet – e-mail. E-mail is the most personal space controlled by users on their computer. People care about what comes in and craft the ways they deal with their messages. With web sites we are visitors on someone else’s property, with e-mail we are letting people into our homes as citizens.

Back to the example. Via the list server computer at MTN the “Squirrels Attack” message was e-mailed directly to more than 200 people and placed in the web archive at EGroups. Within hours people around City hall, the local media, and average citizens were talking about the message and the discussion exploded with postings. We have found that who reads the messages is often more important than the topic of discussion. Having people in the virtual audience “that matter” will do more to spark interesting and useful discussion than planting topics to attract active members of the community. Finally, squirrels were an issue that most citizens can related to and on which they can share their opinions and experiences. Everyone is an expert.

The following excerpts were selected by Martiga Lohn in her “Eavesdropping on the electronic neighborhood…” article in the local Southwest Journal newspaper:

Most days, mpls-issues is a substantive discussion of important public policy issues… However …here are a few excerpts from this burning issue:>Go to hardware store…buy trap…set track…kill squirrel. End of public policy question.

>Grab a trap and KILL the squirrel????????? Why must we destroy a living thing as a solution?

>Rocky and his friends are out of control. … If you want evidence, try to eat a sandwich on a bench in Loring Park.

>Quit telling people to move their nasty attack squirrels to wooded areas (i.e., Minneapolis parks) — we already have our fair share.

>I ran on an anti-squirrel platform for Student Legislature at Syracuse University in my freshman year in college. I promised to eradicate the nuisance squirrel population. It was my first election loss.

The author of the anti-squirrel platform post was now former Reform Party Councilmember Steve Minn. He was recently appointed the Commissioner of Public Service by Governor Ventura.

With Minnesota E-Democracy sponsored discussion lists we have two key rules. No one may post more than twice day. And all messages are to be signed with a person’s real name and city or neighborhood. Even with these rules over 30 messages were posted by a wide number of subscribers on the squirrel topic in a few days. The two post a day rule helps ensure that more people can participate in a discussion before it is driven into the ground. The tragedy of the online commons is when a two people go back and forth all day driving the audience away. On our forums you have the opportunity to be brilliant or a jerk only twice a day. This rule mediates the message volume while avoiding undesirable content censorship. The current average of 5-7 daily posts is a manageable number for most people.

The key for responsibility of Minnesota E-Democracy is to build and maintain audience while fostering as much list participant self-governance as possible. It is important to point out the Internet discussion are contrairian in nature. People tend to reply publicly to the points they disagree with or take specific points and expand upon them. I have rarely seen anything resembling a consensus develop online, I do however see the foundation of citizenship being built daily. The respect for each other’s right to express an opinion and a willingness to listen to others, particularly those with which you disagree. I have seen people shift their opinions over the course of months, but the immediacy of the online medium does not seem to lend itself to quick changes of view, it just gets more of the issue on the table for consideration which may facilitate improved decision-making.

The exciting Squirrel saga continues….

The media calls. Our discussion sparked media interest. The second largest newspaper in the state, the St. Paul Pioneer Press asks, “We understand you are an expert on squirrels. We are doing a story.” In this case and in many others, the MPLS-ISSUES discussions play an important agenda-setting role with community issues. Most of the quotes in the St. Paul article came from interviews of list members. By participating in an online discussion, new sources became available to local journalists. As it turns out the story uncovered the fact that yes, there are more squirrels in the city than ever before. A drought ten years ago brought rural squirrels into the city and the two warm winters in a row have kept them fat and happy.

Government calls. The City Animal Control Division asks, “We hear you are having a problem with squirrels.” When does the government call you? My assumption is that a city council member or staff person forwarded my e-mail and suggested that I be contacted.

For instance, emotional support animal California may be called upon to provide disability statements to insurers to help those unable to work to obtain compensation.

They provided some tips on what to do if it happens again – useful in my case. I guess this is what they call “responsive government.” In this example government service was influenced. I am often asked if the Internet is influencing government decision-making. This is extremely rare or at least difficult to prove particularly with our statewide MN-POLITICS forum. Most statewide posts are focused around agenda setting and the topic space is not granular enough to reach the core decision-makers in a specific legislative committee for example. Taking online interaction into the heart of policy development and citizen participation at the State Capitol may be our next big challenge.

However, the more local the discussion, the more relevant it is to a broader cross-section of the population. Therefore the more likely the Internet will influence actual government decision-making. There are dozens of exciting examples of discussions on MPLS-ISSUES entering what I think of as “real politics.” Within two days of opening the e-mail list, Councilmember Lisa Goodman read two posts about zoning for a discount store downtown at the in-person council meeting. A number of online efforts have tried to put elected officials on a virtual stage for interaction with the citizens. While this is sometimes useful, putting the success of a forum on the shoulders of an elected official often leads to a scripted and stale event. We invite our elected officials to participate as citizens with equal status to all participants. As political survivors they have learned when it makes sense to add their comments to an online discussion and when it might not be politically wise. Some politicians are too risk adverse and therefore are missing out on an opportunity to set the agenda and raise their public profile.

As I am editing this presentation, members are currently discussing the proposed tax levy by the Minneapolis Park Board. People are analyzing a recent article in the Minneapolis StarTribune and Councilmember Lisa McDonald has offered her thoughts on the Mayor’s veto and the need to coordinate tax proposals from a number of quasi-independent taxing jurisdictions in the city. I just replied with a query about whether any Park Board members are subscribed to MPLS-ISSUES and encouraged others to invite those they know to join our discussions.

Listed below are some examples of more serious or interesting topics on the MPLS-ISSUES list in the last year:

• Development (or non-development) of Block E downtown
• Shopping cart problems and policies
• Crocus crime control (boulevard gardening to reduce crime)
• Lack of cable modems and the information infrastructure in Minneapolis
• Saving the 612 area code for Minneapolis
• Minneapolis school board elections
• Candidate debate among Hennepin County Commissioner candidates
• Twins baseball stadium
• CODEFOR efforts of the Minneapolis police

(Visit the MPLS-ISSUES web archive via EGroups for current messages.)

These examples illustrate how useful discussions can be in both giving citizens a voice and educating the public on the complexity of local issues. I have personally learned more about Minneapolis in the last year through this e-mail list than I did living in the city the last six years.

A the next step for Minnesota E-Democracy to consider is the development of proposals for a Minnesota Communities Forum effort that with a number of partnering public/private/non-profit organizations could lead toward issue forums in local areas across the state. Access to technological resources and discussion facilitators are significant challenges. Our experiments with a St. Paul Issues Forum over the last six months have had marginal results. We are experimenting with the Twin Cities Free-Net’s Caucus web conferencing system that has a good e-mail gateway. Ultimately scaling their web system for up to 826 cities across the state is more feasible than creating up to 826 e-mail lists (even 50 e-mail lists for the largest cities) that have a much higher technical administration overhead. However, the simplicity of starting new threads in traditional e-mail lists may make it difficult for us to transfer our e-mail familiar audience to a web/e-mail system that is more complex. With complexity comes added features which in the end may be better for small group work and online special events of a time-limited nature.  (As of October 1999 the St. Paul Issues Forum was moved to an e-mail list at EGroups and a new Duluth Issues Forum was established.)

The recent availability of free e-mail list services through sites like EGroups and OneList have opened up new possibilities for individuals and organizations to start their own lists. We moved our MN-POLITICS lists to EGroups and we are pleased with the service. A number of new independent (non E-Democracy) e-mail lists have been created by individuals active on our forums. This is a great diffusing force that I personally welcome, but it challenges to our model that promotes the idea of a trusted and neutral host organization. Can individuals with strong personal agendas establish open forums that attract a broad sense of participation? Can those discussions function as open online public spaces? Will they successfully engage in the required recruitment and forum promotion? Will the forums last beyond the whims of an individual? Looking beyond Minnesota in places without an existing neutral host organization why should anyone take the time to build one just to start an online discussion that can be set-up in fifteen minutes?

We found our St. Paul effort sharing the same potential audience as with an individually sponsored St. Paul Politics e-mail list at EGroups that was also fairly inactive. That e-mail-based forum closed after we stated our position that we could not consider merging until we followed through on our commitment to make the Caucus system work through at least the summer. Like so many dead local web boards and newsgroups across the Internet, will the additional existence of failing local e-mail lists lead citizens to conclude that using the Internet for local interaction doesn’t work? Or will we instead combine the lessons of successful efforts around the world and start a non-partisan citizen movement to build and facilitate online political forums that work to fundamentally improve citizen participation in democracy.

While from a legal perspective our interactive spaces are owned by Minnesota E-Democracy, based on our mission and structure they function as valuable public spaces. It is our obligation to protect and develop these as real public spaces as well as to develop long-term strategies for the organization’s growth and legitimacy. Aside from the extremely open and free nature of newsgroups, the Internet is either individualized or institutionalized. Even most “publicly owned” government web sites only reflect the institution of government and do not have public spaces for citizen use. While existing civic and political organizations are getting “on” the Internet, we need to build community efforts that are “of” the Internet.

Building hundreds of non-profit, non-partisan organizations or broad-based partnerships like Minnesota E-Democracy as new mediating institutions to host online political interaction in democracies around the world is something I hope we can accomplish over the next twenty years. Efforts are now underway in Iowa, the state to the south of Minnesota, to establish a discussion forum about their first in the nation Presidential Caucuses and an Iowa Issues Forum modeled after our statewide discussion and announcement lists. This is a start. The key is to enable grass roots, bubble-up efforts around the world and connect these democracy online builders for resource and experience sharing.

At the national level in the United States, Web White & Blue, sponsored by the Markle Foundation, represents an important opportunity to network the democracy online community for partnership-based online public service efforts. As a consultant working with that project, I feel it should carefully promote easy citizen access to political information and deepen and sustain its private/non-profit/public partnership among election/political/media content community. There are important issues and competitive pressures to balance. Broad partnership efforts in other states may be the best route to promoting regional and local online interaction that matters in “real politics” without proscribing one model for hosting, promoting, or sponsoring discussions. An open question is whether a single general issue commons is viable or required as a center to spark meaningful interaction from across the political spectrum or whether discussions at a local and regional level will be diffused based on topic, interest group, or political positions. We started with the “commons” in Minnesota, but in most places local/regional online political communication travels through private e-mail networks and a limited number of public e-mail lists based on specific agendas.

In this presentation and based on five years of experience I must conclude that a shared general “interactive online public commons” is something we want in every democracy. Every community from your neighborhood up through cities, counties, states, and even countries should build an active and dynamic online public sphere for citizen-to-citizen and citizen-government discussions.

Democracy is Online

The cover article from the Internet Society’s March/April 1998 OnTheInternet magazine.

The Internet will save democracy. Or so the early 1990s technohype led many to believe. With each new communication medium comes a wide-eyed view about its potential. I’d like to suggest that just as the television saved democracy, so will the Internet.

Now that I’ve set a low expectation, anything we do incrementally to improve democracy through the Internet is something we can consider an accomplishment. On my speaking trips, I find that journalists in particular like to ask about voting online. I hear questions about the many commercial Web sites that offer instant polling for people to vent their opinions. In time, many countries will leverage electronic commerce to allow people to vote via their preferred technology. In one scenario, citizens will receive ballots in the mail if they have registered as at-home voters. They would then return the ballot through the mail, or use a Touch-Tone telephone leaving their voice signature, or use the unique information on their ballot to vote via the Internet-leaving their digital signature, of course.

Neither the voting technology nor online polling justifies either one’s official use by any government. Their technical existence will not bring about more frequent use of referenda or a more direct democracy. The decision to apply technology in official elections will be a difficult political choice. It will have more to do with how those in power feel it will influence voting outcomes than whether the public wants the option.

We all have different definitions and experiences of democracy. Focusing on the Internet and participatory democracy within the context of representative democracy uncovers some exciting developments. The reality is that our many-and quite different-democracies are changing because of the use of information technology and networks. We don’t know whether the changes will be for the better or the worse.

The fundamental question we must ask ourselves is, As democracy and the Internet converge, how must we be involved now in order to improve both? The challenge for us, as citizens, is to be engaged in this process of change. We will be engaged through our existing institutions, be they nonprofits, universities, the media, companies, or governments. We will be involved as individuals and through the creation of new, mediating citizen organizations that are of the Internet, not just on it. Focusing on the part of democracy that happens between election days, we are experiencing a convergence of democratic institutions and processes with the Internet. Democracy is online.

The primary democratic sectors that are flooding the Internet with political information are government, the media, and advocacy and political interest groups. The private sector and others in the information technology industry are developing information and communication tools that are used in this arena. Each sector is making a contribution to democracy online.

Government Online

Government online, as it is called, is making democratic information available like never before. Parliaments, legislatures, city councils, and even neighborhood councils are making available lots of laws and proposed laws, meeting agendas and minutes, elected-official contact information, and other reports. The many chapter authors of the G7 Government Online and Democracy White Paper, of which I serve as coeditor, is a sign that governments around the world are entering a new phase of analysis and action to improve their contribution to democracy online.

Even though systematizing user-friendly and deep access to government information is an important priority, a few interesting exceptions to the one-way model exist. The Moira Shire Council, in the state of Victoria in Australia, uses a public Web board to allow citizens to submit questions for the council to address during its official question time. The council then summarizes the meeting discussion for release online. In Murphysboro, Illinois, a local Internet service provider (ISP) has partnered with the city council to make live audio available, with a corresponding online chat for citizen-to-citizen interaction during council meetings. The government of Canada maintains an index of the online interactive consultations from a number of its agencies. As will be noted later, evolution toward interaction is essential for full realization of the potential of existing and future Internet tools to promote greater public participation in government. Governments, however, do have a special duty to ensure broad access to formal participatory events. So online interactive events geared toward the general public should complement corresponding opportunities that are available to all regardless of their knowledge of or access to the Internet.

Organizing government information-especially laws, rules, and regulations-into a combined pull-and-push system may represent the ultimate online contribution for participation in governance. Citizens could indicate interest in a certain topic area or a specific law and be actively notified whenever changes are proposed. This might work well with larger, more sophisticated legislative information systems. Many serious policy questions will arise: Should the government help those indicating interest in the same topics or proposals become aware of each other? To what extent should a democratic information system serve the interest of those who govern versus those who want to influence how they are governed? And how will the Internet public-access infrastructure in libraries, schools, and other locations be part of a democracy network for broader use that includes some training and assistance?

Media Online

Media efforts, especially those of online newspapers and magazines, have made the largest investment in making content available on the Internet-and it shows. It is likely that they receive most of the public Internet traffic from those seeking news and information on the issues and happenings in their democracies. The major scarcity online from a user perspective is time. From an online business perspective it is attention. With attention come the abilities to promote your content, attract banner advertisements, and create opportunities for commerce. In many places the major virtual navigation pathways are consolidating in major Web index, search sites, and more-local sites often tied to major media outlets. It is from these pathways that more and more of the public find the essential editorial service that allow the public to quickly digest political news and commentary.

The approaches and contributions of media and major commercial sites to democracy online are incredibly important. How they leverage their audience for their own as well as community partnership efforts puts them in a strong position. For example, the decision to link directly to the full government report within a story encourages deeper understanding, but also sends them away from the media outlet’s own site. Another contribution is hosting interaction through Web board discussions on stories and local topics in general. Depending on the resources put into hosting such discussions, some are quite successful and others have had great difficulty with sustained participation.

Since 1996, in places where the Internet is well established, most national elections since have seen major media efforts to make election-oriented news and basic candidate information available. In some sense, the amount of information-especially in more populous nations-is almost too much for the average citizen to wade through. With each election cycle, we will probably see more localization of content and additional media outlets with more niche content. As they say, all politics is local. Overall, it will be interesting to watch the role very local media outlets take as the sizes of local populations online make it commercially viable to place functions of the neighborhood or rural weekly newspaper online.

Advocacy Online

Many advocacy and political interest groups, including political parties, have an online presence. The early adopters rushed online with Web brochures, yet few are kept up-to-date. Some advocacy groups and political parties maintain extensive amounts of information; others take a minimalist public approach. The use of the Internet in organizing and advocating their positions to government and others is more notable. The use of e-mail and of the Internet’s many information resources is changing the way these kinds of groups function. Most advocacy applications usually are tied to an in-house champion or dedicated volunteer, and only a few have moved toward a strategic or coordinated approach by an organization as a whole.

From an advocacy perspective, a good Web hit is when someone finds the cause compelling enough to leave an e-mail address for future updates. Some advocacy examples include the Global Internet Liberty Campaign, which provides e-mail updates on a regular basis. Another is the California Voter Foundation, which provided lobbying advice on whom to contact in support of its successful effort to pass laws that would require electronic campaign finance filing and public access. And the Congressional Accountability Project is building support for legislation that would require online public release of U.S. Congressional Research Service via e-mail updates. Of course all of those efforts use the Web to provide ongoing access to important background information and archives of the information they distribute.

We are now seeing the next generation of advocacy efforts migrate from primarily Internet-related advocacy toward sustained general advocacy. One of the more interesting advocacy efforts supporting use of the Internet was Citizens for Local Democracy in Toronto, Canada. While hundreds met regularly in church basement meetings to organize opposition to the province-directed amalgamation of six cities into a larger Toronto, the online component used e-mail announcements and discussion lists to accelerate information sharing and strategy development.

Tracking those experiences lends support to my feeling that the Internet is an excellent tool for high-energy, short-term opposition efforts. The Internet is more difficult to use over the longer run, when the concerns of a vocal few get amplified to give a sense-perhaps mistaken-of reduced consensus. Overall, I have not experienced an online interactive space that has been successful in generating group consensus on a specific action to be taken. There needs to be a general consensus on positions from the start. I have experienced a number of times when a more detailed understanding of positions and options through online interaction has greatly enhanced and expedited decision making.

The Private Sector and Internet Tools

As I mentioned earlier, the private sector-in particular, the information technology and telecommunications industry and the academic research community-and individuals are developing information and communication tools that provide the infrastructure for democratic use of the Internet. The amazing pace of and competition in development of Internet-savvy applications are based on the business case that someone will pay for some mix of goods, services, experiences, and content. It may be through buy liquid ambien advertising that much of the content and online experiences are covered. When it comes to democracy online, a good portion of the activity may be sustained through commercial models. If commercial and government activity covers 85 percent of democracy online activity, the challenge will be to leverage those applications for the remainder by means of nonprofits, voluntary associations, and individual use. Acceleration of efforts that leverage electronic commerce and group communication tool developments for public use is an important priority.

In the area of Internet standards, it also is clear that commercial goals are driving the development process. Accepting that this is the engine for development, how might we integrate the needs of communities and democracies? In short, if we can engineer the best technical methods to facilitate electronic commerce, how can we best engineer the Internet to ensure that important aspects of democracy remains upheld and cherished?

With democracy based on the realism of geography, finding ways to tap more-global economic growth in the commercial areas of the Internet for support of local applications will be important. Whether through grants by corporate and other foundations, gifts from individuals, or commerce mechanisms to create electronic versions of bake sales, the opportunity to resource community interest applications presents itself.

Building Civic Life Online

As the sectors of democracy develop and deepen their content-oriented contributions to democracy online, we need to ask, What is missing?

Have you ever seen an elected official stop by an online newspaper’s Web board and say, I’ll check back once a week and find out what you, my constituents, want? Have you seen a local citizens organization become established based on discussions that started on a newsgroup? How about competing online media sites that both offer a URL to their related articles on the same e-mail discussion list?

In the last 10 countries I have spoken in, this is where I flip out my circle slides. Imagine, if you will, four slightly overlapping circles representing the positive contribution government, advocacy/political interests, media, and the private sector make to democracy online. Where do those institutions interact with each other online? They don’t. Where do citizens publicly interact with them? They don’t.

The one-way transfer of content to the Internet has been relatively easy and fairly successful. For the most part, existing democratic institutions use the Internet in their own interest. They must to survive. It is extremely rare for any group to build online efforts-at its own expense-that undermine its influence or to open itself up to greater public scrutiny. This does not mean existing organizations will not interact online-just not if the interactive host is perceived to hold a position counter to their goals or if an interactive online event’s success is placed totally on their shoulders. Attempting to host either organized or open, online interaction can be very resource intensive and risky.

Now overlay a fifth circle: the citizen participation center. The interactive center is a politically neutral forum for citizen-to-citizen interaction on important public issues. Such interactive forums, using multiple technologies, will help democracy online come alive around the world. Embracing geography as a vital component of the Internet, real communities using virtual tools will facilitate public communication on issues-starting in our neighborhoods and local communities and going up to regions and states as well as the national level and among people from many nations. Just as we have used the Internet to escape our geography through global forums based on specialized, narrow interests, we are now discovering we can use the same tools to come home to online forums in the common interest. What we need is a generation of online democracy and community home builders.

I work from broad definitions of politics and democracy. Some use the term community networking when referring to local interaction. As the population in any given jurisdiction shrinks, discussions become less ideological and the forum is of more interest to a broader cross section of the population. Online community conversations are more about having focused discussions-in a public commons, hopefully-not about transferring the often irrelevant and harsh style of global political newsgroups into local communities. In some cases, these conversations will influence government and the media, but more often they will influence the participants as citizens and effect how those citizens interact with the broader world.

A hybrid is emerging between the ideals of the global Internet and the corporate intranet: the application of a mix of e-mail lists, newsgroups, the Web, and chat in very public ways among those who are citizens or interested in the happenings of a specific place. The three democracy online interactive projects I am most familiar with are Minnesota E-Democracy, United Kingdom Citizens Online Democracy, and activities of Malaysia.Net. Active sharing of lessons, experiences, and networking through such projects as Democracies Online (see sidebar) provide a foundation for greater citizen participation in democracy through the Internet.

Minnesota E-Democracy: http://www.e-democracy.org

Minnesota E-Democracy was established by a dedicated group of volunteers in 1994 in order to promote participation in democracy through the use of information networks. It has received extensive infrastructure support from the Minnesota Regional Network (MRNet) and the Twin Cities Free-Net. I serve as board chair along with a core of up to 10 active volunteers.

In 1994 the project put most of the candidates for governor and U.S. Senate online via the world’s first election-oriented Web site; it held the first online debate via e-mail among candidates at that level; and it launched the MN-POLITICS e-mail discussion forum. Today the MN-POLITICS forum stands out as the public commons or citizen participation center. With a total of about 400 direct subscribers maintained over three years, the forum is now part of real politics in Minnesota.

For example, in the past six months the media has picked up a number of stories, the state treasurer announced the day before his press conference that he was not running, an official political action committee was conceived and registered by a group of list members who were against public financing of a baseball stadium, the wife of a candidate for governor in 1998 posted messages in support of that campaign, and the St. Paul City Council president used the list to distribute draft legislation and ask for input. Many of the discussions are fairly abstract, but the focus on Minnesota issues and a participant audience that includes citizens and reaches into most of the power circles in the state make the forum an important open public-opinion sphere.

As in 1996 in another U.S. Senate race, a series of e-debates is planned for the 1998 race for governor. These important events, cosponsored by online media sites and other organizations, position Minnesota E-Democracy as a trusted, neutral host that can increase the value of the democracy online contributions of all of the sectors.

United Kingdom Citizen Online Democracy: http://www.democracy.org.uk

UKCOD, an independent, nonpartisan effort, began work well before the national election in the spring of 1997. It hosted a number of topical events on such topics as European monetary union efforts and online delivery of government services, and it held an all-party debate during the election. It developed an online interface that uses e-mail lists as the engine behind a clean, Web-conferencing interface.

In December 1997, the UKCOD launched the world’s best example of a partnership involving a national government and online consultation right to the Cabinet Office. The Have Your Say site lets the public provide the government with feedback on the proposals within the Freedom of Information White Paper through February 1998. This project will have a profound impact on possibilities in the rest of Europe in general and throughout the Commonwealth countries in particular.

Malaysia.Net: http://www.malaysia.net

The SangKancil mailing list is named after a mythical underdog in Malaysia: a deer mouse that scares away a tiger. Hosted by an ISP owned by a Malaysian national in Sydney, Australia, it illustrates the power of an open forum in an environment with a culturally restrained media. A well-respected journalist-in the same generation as the leaders of the country and who is no longer published in print in Malaysia or Singapore-writes news stories for over 800 subscribers. They become talking points on the list. Indicating that the posting circulates widely in the government, Malaysia.Net has received messages containing clarifications from high-level officials. With an estimated 90 percent of subscribers in Malaysia, the fact that the servers are in Australia points to the complex cross-border impacts of the Internet.

Another nonpartisan project of note is the recently launched Nova Scotia Electronic Democracy Forum, starting with elections in the spring of 1998 in Nova Scotia, Canada. In addition, Project Vote Smart has provided extensive information on U.S. congressional candidates since 1994. And the Democracy Network based in Los Angeles provided extensive Los Angeles election information in the spring of 1997 and partnered with the League of Women Voters in Seattle and others for local elections there last fall. On recent public-speaking trips to Australia and New Zealand, I found considerable interest in creation of both local forums and national forums there. The University of Swinburne in Australia is working on public forums related to constitutional reform that complement the government’s official constitutional convention site quite well. And an Australian Electronic Democracy Project has been proposed, as has a project based in Barcelona, Spain.

Conclusion

Perhaps the most democratizing aspect of the Internet is the ability for people to organize and communicate in groups. It is within the context of electronic free assembly and association that citizens will gain new opportunities for participation and a voice in politics, governance, and society.

In the next decade, those active in developing the Internet and those involved with improving democracy have an opportunity to sow the seeds for democracy online in the next century. Like the founding of any modern nation, the choices made today, the ideals upheld, the rules adopted, and the expectations created will determine the opportunities for democratic engagement for generations to come.

Side Bar:

Democracies Online

The Democracy Online Newswire e-mail announcement list covers the topics covered in this article. Send a message to listserv@tc.umn.edu. In the body of the message, write subscribe do-wire Your Name (Place).

Democracies Online is a new initiative promoting development and sustainability of online civic participation and democracy efforts around the world through experience, outreach, and education. For more information, see http://www.e-democracy.org/do.

A to Z for E-Government and Democracy

The Continuum of Government Online Support for Democracy

(This was my outline for piece I had hoped to include in the G8 Government Online Services and Democracy Publication of which I was Co-Editor. Oh, well.  Here it is now.)

By Steven Clift
Copyright 1998

All points assume the availability of remote electronic information access through the Internet.

A. Access to basic contact information.

B. Access to basic purpose and function information.

C. Access to basic government information on voting and elections.

D. Access to directories of government organizations and services.

E. Ability to contact the government organization through multiple methods including e-mail.

F. Access to detailed information explaining the decision-making process, public participation opportunities, and functioning of a government organization.

G. Timely access to up-to-date schedules of all public meetings, hearings, and other events that make up the formal decision-making process.

H. Ability to communicate electronically directly with individuals or appropriate contacts points within government organization as a part of the participatory, decision-making, or formal complaint process.

I. Use of informal online comment forms, surveys, and other feedback tools.

J. Consistent and reliable access to all legally disclosable government information generated as a part of the official decision-making process (legislative, administrative rulemaking, official recommendations from councils and other appointed bodies).

K. Provision of searchable information locator tools to indices or full text of publicly available government documents and information.

L. Push distribution of timely information or pre-set preference determined decision-making information as it becomes available on government information access systems.

M. Use of interactive technology (video or audio conferencing) to allow remote public testimony or observation as well as member attendance and voting at in-person public meetings.

N. Special interactive online events are hosted by government organizations to complement in-person public participation or education programs on government activities and public issues.

O. Ongoing use of interactive online events and communication spaces.

P. Establishment of formal electronic information request mechanisms for government information that is not available publicly online, but is legally available upon request.

Q. Access and remote use of database tools for access to detailed government budget, spending, and other public accountability information.

R. Access and remote use of database tools for access to legally read more to their available campaign finance, spending, elected official expense information and lobbyist information.

S. Automated remote access to drafts, internal proposals, and other more politically sensitive, but legally public documents. (Many laws prohibit this deep of access while others allow specific requests for documents to be met under various conditions.)

T. Ability to legally register to vote or update citizen registry information online.

U. Ability to vote in elections or referendums through ones preferred secure method including those that use information technology.

… V. W. X. Y. Z. – The A-Z for GOL and Democracy!

Building Citizen-based Electronic Democracy Efforts

This paper was presented to the Internet and Politics: The Modernization of Democracy Through the Electronic Media conference sponsored by the Academy of the Third Millennium in Munich, Germany on Feb. 19-21, 1997.

The Power Point slides from this presentation are available: Building Citizen-based E-Democracy Efforts – HTML/JPEG Version or Text Slides or the actual Power Point file for Windows for downloading – be sure to save as.

By Steven L. Clift

Copyright 1997, Steven Clift – Non-commercial use of this document is encouraged. It may be photocopied and distributed or linked to for such purposes. Publication or electronic reproduction for public dissemination or general commercial use requires permission of the author.

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Organization and Mission
  • Leaders
  • Mission and Outline
  • Geographic Audience Focus
  • Neutral on Positions
  • Core Volunteer Group
  • Focus and Expectations
• Information Infrastructure
  • Donated Infrastructure and Collaboration
  • Electronic Conferencing for Core Group
  • Announcement E-mail Distribution List
  • World-Wide-Web Site
  • Citizens’ Open Discussion Forum
    • E-mail Lists
    • Newsgroups
    • WWW Conferencing
    • Minnesota E-Democracy’s Implementation
  • Public Access Points
• Participants
  • Building Audience One Person at a Time
  • Attract People with a Mix of Experience, Backgrounds and Opinions
  • Develop a Media Strategy
• Conclusion
• Recommended Further Reading and WWW Sites

Introduction

Over the last century we have witnessed a revolution in communications that has moved much of the public discourse and agenda-setting from the individual and community level to the mass level. As communication technologies and their use by people continues to evolve there are indications that this trend is now reversing with some notable globalization exceptions. With computer-meditated communications, people are reclaiming their communications power from mass institutions. This paper is a concise guide geared toward those who want to build citizen-based efforts that work to ensure that this shift toward many-to-many communication increases the capacity for citizen participation in democracy.

Just as individuals are using the Internet for their own personal interests, so to are traditional political, government, media, and other organizations. Most existing organizations will determine how to use the Internet and electronic communications to represent and further their own interests. Organizations that do not do so within the next few years may not exist a decade from now.

If most of the interests in society “get online,” does that mean that democracy will be improved? Will this by default improve citizen participation, public discourse and public problem-solving? In my general opinion, the answer is no, but it doesn’t have to be.

I work from the premise that technology is essentially neutral, but that strategic and organized use of information technology and networks by citizen-based efforts will make an important contribution to improved democracy at many levels. As a start, information networks hold the potential to raise awareness about elections and candidate positions, but the ultimate benefit will be a more democratic society. A society where more people are able to hear and listen to each other, have a public voice in agenda setting, and have an increased ability to contribute toward the resolution of public problems.

Citizen-based electronic democracy is about creating the online public spaces for interaction among citizens and organized interests (that are for the most part only focused on using electronic communication to further their own goals.) In a simple sense, we are creating an open and on-going town hall meeting where ideas, agendas, personalities, interests, and beliefs may mix dynamically. We are creating an arena for public expression, development of opinion, and accountability.

This paper presents a concise outline of steps one must take in the establishment and carrying out of a citizen-based online citizen participation project primarily from the Minnesota E-Democracy experience. In traditional terms, the is about creating an online combination of a debate society, voter participation organization, and a public policy group (that all happen to be meeting in the same corner coffee shop at the same time.) The three main sections of the paper are Organization and Mission, Information Infrastructure, and Participation. Much of what is covered will come across as “Organizing 101.” These lessons will help move us from individuals with heady goals toward a global association of individuals and organizations dedicated to building online citizen participation in our own communities, regions, and nations.

Organization and Mission

1. Leaders – An effort to establish a citizen-based organization requires leadership. In the few places around the world where citizen to citizen online political participation efforts have been established or are under development, someone took the initiative to publicly propose the idea. They found people who were interested and made the personal and public commitment to take the public interest and make the idea a reality. The first step is to determine if you are going to be the person to offer leadership where you would like to see a project established. If yes, then think about your strengths and your limits and then seek help by finding others who are interested. Perhaps your role as a leader is to simply propose the idea and gather those interested. If you don’t see yourself as a leader, then be ready to offer your help as an active volunteer once someone else publicly proposes an effort (but why wait?).

2. Mission and Outline – Develop a clear and concise mission. This mission should lead off a document with a more detailed outline of the project’s ideas, plans, and needs. The outline can then be used to build a base of public interest and awareness through wide distribution. The mission and outline will help develop the needed volunteer base and help others determine what they might bring to the project. Depending upon the reaction and number of interested individuals the effort should be flexible enough to revisit and improve the mission if needed to gain broader consensus and support. Also, while funding might help a project get started, most projects will be started with in-kind donations and support.

3. Geographic Audience Focus – Defining the geographic audience from the start is essential. While the Internet is often referred to as a “global community,” a project geared toward promoting citizen participation in “real” politics needs a geographic focus to become relevant to a broader cross-section of the population. Think of it as the “glocalization” of the Internet. Further, while the culture of a region does vary from place to place, the larger the population and area covered, the more difficult it is to build a sense of place and accountability. The ability to have online discussion participants meet for in-person events and the realization of publicness versus the (false) sense anonymity on global forums can help ensure a more relevant and civil exchange. From neighborhoods and townships to cities and regions to states and provinces to nations and international regions, the potential for projects exists. Over the next decade blocks of more local efforts will become the foundation for regional or national efforts, in other cases national or state-wide efforts will lead to local efforts.

4. Neutral on Positions – Key to a successful project is the broad participation of many individuals and organizations. a citizen-based effort requires a non-partisan approach and no formal political positions should be taken by the effort’s oversight structure. The main purpose of a citizen-based effort is to bring people together with diverse opinions and backgrounds for electronic interaction and discussion of public issues deemed to be important by the participants. Thousands of political, media, government and commercial organizations are now online. Our challenge is to create public spaces where they can interact. The disappointing application of the Internet in politics thus far has been the lack of adaption toward interactive communication among different organized interests. Current use has been focused on traditional message control and prompting of protest from their supporters to various level of representative government or general advocacy/candidate support. While there is nothing inherently wrong with using information technology to put pressure on elective representative bodies, if that is all we use advanced technology for we will simply freeze the process without prompting new avenues for public consensus development.

5. Core Volunteer Group – a core group of 5 to 15 volunteers, depending upon the scope and scale of activities, is all one needs to begin implementing a project. Minnesota E-Democracy, the project I launched in the summer of 1994, currently has around 8 dedicated volunteers with fairly well defined roles and responsibilities. Ensuring that volunteers receive public credit and thanks for their work is very important. Also, in some cases an effort like this might be led by a committee or sub-group of a community network. Involving people active from a mix of political parties, public policy organizations, government, media, non-profits and business sector in the core group will help ensure unbiased project development and increase its credibility. It is important to point out that the Minnesota experience shows the value of formal and informal connection to a variety of groups. As a citizen organization you will have more flexibility than larger institutions. However, you will not always have the resources of an newspaper or established public policy organization for example. If a mix of organizations can take the lead on a project activity as a part of your broader effort it should be seriously considered. I am currently of the opinion that in the end, comprehensive efforts like this require the establishment of new institutions that are “of the Internet” and not simply reconfigured or sub-projects of efforts born of other communication technologies.

6. Focus and Expectations – Keep the project focused on the agreed upon mission and project outline. Never over-hype the project – raised expectations will never be met. Based on the understanding that the technology for online citizen participation exists, the human implementation and use will take years, one should stretch expectations over the long-term. Only expand your efforts in areas where you have the volunteer support to maintain those efforts. Scan the online efforts of other groups in the target area and highlight their good work from your World-Wide-Web service. This will help bring these groups into your efforts and promote “links” back to your online efforts. Starting “small” with election information and discussions and moving into general citizen participation and public issue discussions has worked well for the Minnesota project. Elections provide a deadline for activity and help a project develop a sense of action and accomplishment.

Information Infrastructure

1. Donated Infrastructure and Collaboration – Work with community networks, educational networks, commercial online services (both content and Internet service providers), and others to develop the technical information infrastructure you need. Minnesota E-Democracy has its WWW pages on the community network called the Twin Cities Free-Net and its major public e-mail list, MN-POLITICS, is hosted by the non-profit, but commercial, Minnesota Regional Network. By clearly identifying your information infrastructure needs you will encourage a bit of “collaborative competition” among groups interested in supporting your effort. Minnesota E-Democracy has received its basic information infrastructure on an in-kind donation basis (for the most part our volunteers are responsible for general infrastructure administration – WWW pages, e-mail list administration, etc.). Now that we have started fundraising from foundations, we are contributing toward the community network for their excellent support. In the fall of 1996 we received WWW support in a crunch from Minnesota Regional Network that allowed us to “virtual host” with the permanent WWW address of: http://www.e-democracy.org – Virtual hosting is important because it allows you to move your WWW site if needed.

2. E-Mail and WWW Conferencing for the Core Group – The core volunteer group should be connected through a small working group e-mail address. This helps make our in person meetings much more effective and efficient. When anyone sends e-mail to our “e-democracy@freenet.msp.mn.us” address it actually sends a message to our board members. This allows the group to share in responding to questions and suggestions from others. It is primarily used as an internal project communication tool. The core group should also consider using newer WWW-based conferencing tools for organization and volunteer activities.

3. Announcement E-mail Distribution List – E-mail lists (listservs) are the “heartbeat” of the Minnesota E-Democracy effort. It is essential that a project have a one-way, low volume announcement list that interested people may subscribe their e-mail address to. The “MN-DEMOCRACY” list has over 1000 subscribers. This is a powerful tool for communication of important project updates and solicitation of new volunteers and content needed for the WWW site. Be sure to heavily promote subscriptions to this kind of list from your WWW site and in print materials.

4. World-Wide-Web Site – The primary place people who are online will discover your project is through the WWW. Your site should be well organized and kept up-to-date. Do not disappoint your audience by placing “under construction” signs everywhere, if you are going to use the orlando roofer roof top services try to do so during the weekend, so your sells still the same, and most importantly, your costumers stay happy. Use the WWW to provide access to the descriptions, subscription processes, and archives of your public e-mail lists. Use the WWW to present “community content” developed by volunteers. a number of your pages will be directory pages that point to other sites and information resources within your citizen participation, politics, and elections focus. Do this well and your site will generate increased traffic. Your project should be accessible to as many people as possible; therefore it is advised that you use standard HTML (3.2 or lower) for formatting your documents. This will help ensure access for the disabled and through text-only browsers like Lynx that many library systems use. While your “image” and use of graphics is important, use them carefully and be sensitive to the download time of users.

5. “Citizens’ Open Discussion Forum” – Electronic conferencing among participants in interactive forum(s) is very important. This ensures that your project moves from the publishing/broadcast mentality to one that builds online public spaces whose sense of ownership can be assumed by participants. There are three main Internet-based conferencing systems that allow for ongoing discussion – e-mail lists, newgroups, and WWW-based conferencing. Another system not described here, but worth exploring for special events, like a guest speaker in real time, is chat. Ultimately the user should be able to choose the platform they are most comfortable with, but practical differences in technological implementation lead to different interactive characteristics. Some general comments and reflections are below.

E-mail Lists – An e-mail list allows people to subscribe their e-mail address to a list server which then forwards them e-mail sent to a single e-mail address. Lists typically have descriptions or charters which limit the scope of discussions and some lists are moderated. They tend to work fairly well when well defined and guided, but have limitation when the membership rises over a certain point. (From my experience, open discussion lists with over 1000 (perhaps even 500) people tend to generate a volume of postings that drive people away or are difficult to manage from a technical perspective.) E-mail lists require the most commitment of participants and are “active” in that once you join a list you have to make the decision to unsubscribe in order to leave that “online public space.”

Newsgroups – Newsgroups are the backbone for global topical discussions and information exchange that work through a distributed server system. Newsgroups also exist at national and more local levels. It has been estimated that the per message distribution scale of news makes it the most technically efficient mechanism in terms of network traffic. There are more state and provincial level newsgroups on politics than there are e-mail lists, however, they tend to not be sponsored or promoted in the way that e-mail lists are. It is also less likely that rules and guidelines on posting volumes (unless the group is moderated, which takes extensive volunteer time of a person) exist or would be viewed as acceptable. The GovNews effort (http://www.govnews.org) effort may offer newsgroup space for local electronic democracy efforts and organizers to meet. Newsgroups, like WWW-conferencing require a user to go to a conference. Then is a sense newsgroups are “passive,” while the user must be active. Noting that e-mail is the most used buy zolpidem in uk online tool, moving strictly to newsgroups would limit your audience. From an organizers perspective “making the sell” once is a lot easier than having to do it every time someone decides to go online. One alternative is to gateway your e-mail lists to newsgroups, but make sure that your rules are available to newsgroup readers who are generally not used to posting limits. Also, the desire to create scores of topical or geographical based “community” or more generalist online discussion spaces will find the economics of news much more to their liking than e-mail lists. Overtime with gatewaying software, hybrid possibilities should be explored.

WWW-Conferencing – The WWW for conferencing is gaining in popularity and dozens of political WWW conferences have emerged at the national and state level. Like newsgroups they offer the reader the ability to access the “discussion thread” of their choice and allow the creation of highly topical discussions with smaller and likely more interested audiences. WWW-conferencing is still in its beginning phases, but the various competing proprietary systems are making rapid improvements. These systems may offer great tools for organizational development and volunteer activities. It may also become the preferred platform for special online events that are organized by citizen-based efforts. The challenge with this form of conferencing is building and keeping audience and commitment of participants to return to a WWW conference. If the commitment is already there, this might be an excellent platform. However, it must be noted that WWW-conferencing requires a continuous connection to the Internet while e-mail and newsgroups allow the person to download messages and read and compose responses off-line.

Minnesota E-Democracy’s Implementation – This project is the most experienced in the use of e-mail lists and is biased in that direction. The “MN-POLITICS” e-mail forum has been the heartbeat of the Minnesota E-Democracy process and has around 400 direct e-mail subscribers. It is the largest state-level politics e-mail list in the United States and averages close to 10 postings a day. Subscribers have the options of receiving messages individually (the default) or through a digested version of the posting sen periodically in one large indexed message. All the postings dating back to the start of the list in August 1994 are archived on the WWW.

It is important that a forum of this nature have a well developed charter and that rules and guidelines be developed over time to ensure that this unmoderated “public space” is of ever increasing value to most of the participants. Having a “list manager” or other project volunteers step in from time to time to guide the discussion back to the forum’s focus is very important. The first two or three months of a list is the most crucial time frame to establish a pattern of successful public conferencing. Our two messages per person per day rule helps keep anyone person from dominating the discussion. It does not censor what someone can say, just how often they can say it. This also helps ensure time for discussions that involve more people before they are taken too far or “into the ground.” In terms of mixing discussion with tips on “hard” information resources, it is also helpful to develop a set of volunteer WWW “hunters” who look for interesting content and WWW site references for distribution on the list.

E-mail forums require commitment and so does civic participation! By subscribing to an e-mail list you are essentially saying, “Come into my home. I am interested in hearing what you have to say.” With a good charter and list guidelines subscribers do have the right to say, however, “I’d rather you not wipe your dirty feet all over my carpets and I am sorry but parts of my house are off-limits.”

In the fall of 1996, through the work of our E-Debate Coordinator, Scott Aikens, we reengaged our MN-DEBATE e-mail list for our second, and the only, U.S. Senate candidate e-mail based debate. In 1994 we held online debates for both the Governor and U.S. Senate candidates. In a sense we created an online stage and structure for a week long debate on three questions with designated rebuttal periods. The debate content was fed into MN-POLITICS for public reaction as well as distributed to a number of high profile media-based online efforts in Minnesota as part of the Minnesota Town Hall 1996 effort. The debate feed was then threaded into a number of different WWW conferencing systems. Over the last year, Minnesota E-Democracy has floated a proposal for another list called MN-FORUM which would create an similar structure to MN-DEBATE, but likely be issue based for “organized online moments.” Depending upon resources and volunteer capacity this forum may be launched in the next year.

Some important references for more details on these topics include:

• MN-POLITICS Description and Archive – http://freenet.msp.mn.us/govt/e-democracy/mn-politics-archive/
• MN-POLITICS Posting Guideline – http://freenet.msp.mn.us/govt/e-democracy/mn-politics-archive/guide.html
• Minnesota Town Hall 1996 – MN-DEBATE – http://www.e-democracy.org/1996/podium.html
• MN-FORUM Proposals – http://www.freenet.msp.mn.us/govt/e-democracy/issues/forum.html

6. Public Access Points – “Electronic Democracy” will forever be elitist without some capacity for people without computers or home Internet connections to participate. This paper argues for leveraging of the necessary information infrastructure from various organizations. Along these lines working with libraries, schools, colleges, cafes, and other current or potential public locations of Internet public access points is an important extension. The online content efforts of the commercial and government sectors have a tremendous interest in promoting public access for their own reasons. Work to ensure that your effort is one of the reasons why such access points gain community support (for the most part free to use Internet public access points require public monies to exist.)

Participants

1. Building Audience One Person at a Time – People will be brought into your efforts, either as volunteers or participants in your forums, one person at a time. There is no short-cut to broad participation, so focus on creating a valuable experience for those you are able to bring in the project. The one-way announcement e-mail list will help with the development of an audience of “civic-minded” individuals and organizations. Many of the people who are interested in your project will be new to the Internet and you don’t want to overwhelm them right away with a flood of messages. It is much more likely that an elected official would appreciate project updates, but initially only a few will take the time to follow the open forum discussions. Overall, be strategic and use “traditional” means of outreach to involve key people, organizations, targeted populations, and the general public.

2. Attract People with a Mix of Experience, Backgrounds, and Opinions – The key to Minnesota E-Democracy’s early success was that it involved people with a diverse mix of skills and experiences. We had people with political, academic, organizational, non-profit, public policy, business, and technical backgrounds involved from the start. The project outline identified a set of needs that no one person could ever hold – so when we attracted a good mix of people who were willing to commit time to the project we were able to move forward without wearing out any one volunteer.

3. Develop a Media Strategy – My own quote is that the “Internet has 5 million channels and everything is on.” Build it and they will never come unless you tell them where it is. Currently, the traditional media is the best way to let a population in a specific area know about the project. So write and strategically distribute press releases, collect media e-mail addresses and encourage them to join your announcement e-mail list. When dealing with the media, encourage publication of your general e-mail address, subscription information for the announcement list, the project’s WWW address, and the general open forum’s subscription information. In general under-hype, yes under-hype your project. Letting the reporter decide that your project is newsworthy or some how noble is much better than telling them that it is. In general don’t claim that “citizen-based electronic democracy” is representative or some form of self-selected direct democracy. Instead talk about how you are working to something positive to encourage more purposeful use of the Internet now that more people are going online.

In the end, the real success might be measured in how people begin using the global Internet to come home to their neighborhood or actually getting people out to public meetings (this has happened a number of times on MN-POLITICS where people have reported on meetings they attended). As more and more members of the media have joined our lists to follow our discussions, it has become clear that we have created a new public opinion sphere that has led to a number of topical stories in the traditional media. This has given a number of participants the opportunity to be quoted in the paper or interviewed on the radio.

Conclusion

This is about real democracy. “Electronic democracy” is not some notion of a future state of affairs, it is simply today’s democracy with an infusion of people using information networks and technology to assist their participation in “democracy.” Information technology is changing our current form of democracy. Will is be for th better? We don’t know. Without the development of online “citizen participation centers” across the world, I think the primary direction will be negative. We know that established interests and organizations will use information technology to further their interests. That is how democracy works. But without an open “public space” online, these interest’s use of technology will simply raise the level of noise and conflict in out traditional political institutions and media. With a well established, neutral, online public space perhaps these interests will enter a circle of accountability and public awareness that will enable everyday citizens to become real part of broad public discussions and hopefully part of future solutions.

Recommended Further Reading and WWW Sites

See: http://www.e-democracy.org/about.html
http://www.publicus.net

This report was released by the Minnesota Government Information Access Council (WayBack Archive) in December, 1996. In 1994, an extensive list of policy questions that I drafted helped launch this important policy exploration funded by our state legislature.

As a Senior Planner with the Information Policy Office (now part of the Office of Technology) in the Department of Administration, I provided extensive staff assistance to this council and drafted many parts of this very collaborative document. Like so many useful government documents, this document is not longer available online from the State of Minnesota directly. So here is the text below.

(Correction – A version scanned from the paper version by the Legislative Reference Library is now online.)

MINNESOTA
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION
ACCESS COUNCIL

DIGITAL DEMOCRACY

Minnesota Citizens’ Guide for Government Information PolicyTABLE OF CONTENTS

Government Information Access Council: Digital Democracy

Citizens’ Guide for Government Policy in the Information Age

Executive Summary……………………………………………. iA. Recommendations…………………………………. i

B. Principles……………………………………………. iii

I. Introduction………………………………………………. 1

A. Tools of Democracy………………………………. 1

B. Vision………………………………………………….. 2

II. Recommendations……………………………………… 3

A. System Design……………………………………… 4

B. Training……………………………………………….. 4

C. Government On-line……………………………… 5

D. Information Policy Organization

and Enforcement…………………………………… 6

E. Community Access………………………………… 7

F. Additional Recommendations………………….. 8

III. Guiding Principles……………………………………… 12

Appendices

A. The Government Information Access Council (GIAC)………………………. 19

B. GIAC Enabling Legislation, and the Minnesota Data Practices Act…….. 25

C. Nominal Group Process Used for Recommendation Prioritization………. 31

D. Working Group Objectives and Report Excerpts……………………………….. 32

E. British Columbia Model for Independent Commissioner of

Freedom of Information and Privacy………………………………………………… 58

F. Bibliography and Resources……………………………………………………………. 59

G. GIAC Member Additional Comments………………………………………………. 60

H. Reader Comment/Feedback Form…………………………………………………….. 61

DIGITAL DEMOCRACY

Government Information Access Council

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Minnesota Government Information Access Council (GIAC) was created in 1994 by the Minnesota State Legislature for the following purposes: to improve public access to government information and, therefore, to improve the democratic process, through the use of information technology; and to help government become more efficient, effective and responsive to the public through the use of information technology.

GIAC is a broadly representative group of 29 members who have met to provide vision and leadership for the tremendously exciting and challenging issues that the Ainformation age@ brings to a democracy. The Council embraced input from additional citizen members in their Work Groups, and traveled across the state conducting public meetings to include any interested individual or organization; all to gain inclusion and capture the collective wisdom of the people.

The vision guiding the Government Information Access Council is an ideal of more open government and more participatory citizens. All policy for access to and dissemination of government information and services must revolve around this philosophy; therefore, GIAC recommends that the following vision statement be formally adopted in statute as a guidepost for all future planning: A primary purpose of providing information access is open government.

A series of recommendations and a review of the GIAC basic principles is offered in this report. Although many important issues remain to be resolved, these can form the foundation for action on the part of elected officials and other government decision makers as deliberations proceed on how to enhance Minnesota=s position as a leader in quality of life. The tools of technology can and will affect Minnesotans= opportunities, rights and responsibilities. Thoughtful consideration of the guidance, observations and needs of the citizens will serve our state and our country well as leaders establish policies on information technology and applications.

I. RECOMMENDATIONS

Specific action is required to move forward in the implementation of the vision. To that end, GIAC has made the following recommendations:

A. Systems Design: All new or redesigned electronic government systems containing public information and services should fully integrate electronic public access to the information and services, and they should be interoperable to the greatest extent possible.

B. Training: Comprehensive training and education programs for all government personnel should be available. Such training should result in government personnel who are knowledgeable about fulfilling obligations and requirements under Minnesota=s information policy laws and practices; and are able to use current technologies and technology applications to improve public access to information and services. In addition, incentives should be provided for collaborative efforts to make available comprehensive training and education programs for citizens. The object of this training is to result in citizens who are knowledgeable about their rights under Minnesota=s information policy laws and are able to use current technologies and technology applications to access public information and services.

C. Government On-line: North Star should be recognized as Minnesota government=s official electronic access point. The State of Minnesota should implement a government information locator and index system that is compatible with established standards for government documents, information and services. The public should be enabled and encouraged to communicate electronically with elected officials, policy makers in government to encourage active citizenship. An on-line clearinghouse that includes service models, best practices, and an index of government on-line activities should be developed through the North Star Project. Local government representatives should be involved in determining what information and services should be provided by local governments, and in establishing a local government model for delivering information and services via North Star.

D. Information Policy Organization and Enforcement: Government units should review current practices to ensure that procedures for public access to public information and services are fully and clearly articulated, whether those procedures involve paper or electronic dissemination. To simplify proper understanding and use, existing government information policy law should be codified into a single chapter or a series of related chapters of Minnesota statute. Alternative methods to the resolution of disputes in a simple and less expensive manner than through the courts, need to be established. A Joint Legislative Commission on Information Policy should be created to assume primary responsibility for the development of uniform public information policy, strip old statutes of the confusing mix of nomenclature, and work with new legislation to ensure consistent language and policy results.

E. Community Access: Additional funding should be made available for the development of technology-supported government information and service projects at the local level. To ensure that citizens in every community have access to public, on-line government information and services, terminals for general public use should be made available during locally determined times at community sites. Comprehensive and ongoing outreach program to inform citizens about information technologies and services should be established to help them realize the potential benefits that information technologies offer to individuals, organizations and communities. Such an outreach program would identify which government organizations serve as the liaisons to support local grass-roots initiatives for developing information technologies and telecommunications infrastructure; and help citizens identify and use various public and private assistance that is available for improving the community=s economic development opportunities through the use of technologies. The use of interactive regional teleconferencing, public access channels and public broadcast facilities should be encouraged, with emphasis given to the provision of access to government decisionmaking.

F. Additional Recommendations: Further recommendations were discussed at length by GIAC, and are also offered in this report. They address collaborative, multi-government efforts to share information; Universal Service; equitable access; the matter of costs associated with getting government information; and the notification of the public as to the public availability of information.

It is the hope of all members of the Government Information Access Council that the publication of Digital Democracy, Minnesota Citizens= Guide for Government Information Policy, provides guidance to elected officials in providing improved public access to government information, improves the democratic process and helps government become more efficient, effective and responsive to the public as it incorporates information technology into the daily conduct of business.

II. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION ACCESS COUNCIL PRINCIPLES

The recommendations that are forwarded in this report are based on the 12 guiding principles that were adopted by GIAC in January 1996. Those principles are:

1. Access to government information is a fundamental right of all citizens in a democracy.

2. Responsive provision of information access and the dissemination of government information are essential functions of government.

3. Public access to government information shall be free, and any charge for copies shall not exceed marginal cost.

4. All citizens, regardless of geographic, physical, cultural, socio-economic status or other barriers, shall have equitable and affordable access to government information.

5. The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and other information access policy laws must be complied with and enforced at all levels of government.

6. Privacy is a right that must be maintained and protected in the context of changing technology.

7. Government information shall exist in the public domain to the greatest extent possible.

8. Government shall ensure that government employees and citizens have the tools, applications, training and support for electronic access.

9. Interaction among citizens, governments, businesses and organizations shall be promoted through the use of information technology and networks.

10. Citizens shall be enabled and encouraged to be consumers and producers of electronic information and services.

11. The State shall ensure that all citizens of Minnesota have the benefits of Universal Service.

12. Effective competition in telecommunications services in Minnesota is an essential component of effective access and interactive use of government information and services in electronic form.

DIGITAL DEMOCRACY

Government Information Access Council

I. INTRODUCTION

In 1995, the Government Information Access Council (GIAC) developed principles to guide elected officials and other government officials in decisions that impact citizen access to government information. Those principles were the basis for the recommendations that follow.

It is significant to note that GIAC is made up of a diverse group of individuals who think and feel passionately about government and information in the emerging electronic age.

Their backgrounds, experiences and commitments mold their beliefs on the subject, and during the process of considering the issues that was apparent. GIAC members, as well as additional citizen members, formed four Work Groups: Citizens and their Government – Tools of Democracy, Regulation and Tax Policy, Information Access Principles, and Demonstration Projects, Equal Access and Outreach. These Work Groups were the springboard for the recommendations presented in this report. For a summary of the Work Group objectives and supplemental information generated by them, please turn to Appendix D.

Of particular importance is the identification of certain tools of democracy that can and should be made available as quickly as possible. The Minnesota Data Practices Act stands out as the foundation for assuring that government information is publicly accessible. In addition, GIAC enabling legislation identifies some types of specific information or data that is essential to allow citizens to participate fully in a democratic system of government, and the following list of tools include those and core information resources that are important to public understanding of government activities. These documents or publications are currently accessible in traditional format, and most have statewide application. Electronic dissemination and access is viewed as necessary to carry out the spirit of the GIAC legislation.

A. TOOLS OF DEMOCRACY

The following list identifies the particular documents, data or information that are considered the basic electronic tools of democracy:

(1) directories of government services and institutions; Minnesota Guidebook to State Agency Services; State of Minnesota Telephone Directory; Legislative Directories

(2) legislative and rulemaking information, including public information newsletters; bill text and summaries; bill status information; rule status information; meeting schedules; and the text of statutes and rules (including index and search tools); state register

(3) official documents, releases, speeches and other public information issued by the Governor=s Office and Constitutional Officers, such as Secretary of State with the best ultimate guide to secretary desks, Attorney General, State Treasurer=s Office, and the State Auditor=s Office

(4) the text of other government documents and publications such as the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals opinions and general judicial information; Ethical Practices Board, election finance and other reports; state budget information; local government documents like city codes, and county board minutes

Research by the staff of flexy finance innovative class of retail financial products. Providing empirical evidence suggesting that innovative financial products like these can help alleviate loss aversion and thus the low participation of households in risky asset markets.

In addition to https://gadcapital.com/easy-payday-loans/, government should be encouraged to offer services to the public electronically to improve convenience of access to those services. Examples include such services as applications for licenses such as driver=s or hunting licenses, the filing of tax returns or applications for employment.

B. VISION

The vision guiding the Government Information Access Council, as well the recommendations in this report, is an ideal of more open government and more participatory citizens. The two mutually encourage one another: open government–government that makes its information readily accessible to citizens– allows citizens to become more knowledgeable and therefore participatory; more participatory citizens demand that their government be more open, and therefore more efficient, effective and responsive. Get loang term loans fast by Going Here at their site.

All policy for access to and dissemination of government information and services must revolve around this philosophy; therefore, GIAC recommends that the following vision statement be formally adopted in statute as a guidepost for all future planning in this area:

A primary purpose of providing information access is open government.

We are at an evolving, chaotic and transitory time in history, and the lively discussions that have taken place through GIAC represent a healthy discourse that will help us as a state and as a nation take action with awareness. Our country is a patchwork of differing points of view, and finding consensus on topics is both important and challenging. As we travel through this difficult period, government is presented with issues that demand immediate decision making as well as ongoing adjustments as we learn their long-term impacts. Readers of this report can take assurance that the recommendations and principles stem from a vision about democracy, equity and efficiency, and that this is a dialogue that will continue far into the future. Read the Patient Information Leaflet if available from your pharmacist before you start taking valacyclovir and each time you get a refill online at https://www.ukmeds.co.uk/treatments/sexual-health/valtrex/. If you have any questions, ask your doctor or pharmacist. Take valacyclovir by mouth, with or without food, as directed by your doctor. Everyone is talking about solution for premature ejaculation, before you buy any product learn the facts here now. Drink plenty of fluids while taking this medication to lower the chance of side effects.

The dosage and length of treatment are based on your type of drug addiction, medical condition, and response to treatment. For treating chickenpox in children, the dosage is also based on weight. Most of the people mix up methamphetamine and Amphetamines, but this is understandable since they are similar in so many ways. Methamphetamine, “meth”, is manufactured in clandestine or “labs” illegally, using amphetamine as the parent drug. Amphetamine has been around for long but meth has received a lot of publicity over the recent years due to its addiction even though the two are very addictive. Methamphetamine usually breaks down and then metabolizes into amphetamine. Check this article here but a word of caution because this blog is gross.

At the University of Miami Hospital, Dr. Stephen Weber, an expert team of plastic surgeons employs the latest available surgical techniques to perform a wide range of plastic and reconstructive surgical procedures.

II. RECOMMENDATIONS

In its second year of meetings, the Government Information Access Council concentrated on refining, and then prioritizing, specific recommendations to the Legislature for improving public access to government information and for improving government efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness through the use of information technology. In order to establish these priorities, members of the Priorities Committee generated and applied the following criteria:

& Will the recommendation improve and expand citizen access to government information?

& Will the recommendation improve government efficiency and effectiveness?

& Is the recommendation a foundational initiative, which must be established before other recommendations can be implemented?

& Will the recommendation clarify policy and principles that impact government information and services?

& Is the recommendation cost-effective?

Based on this criteria the following five recommendations were those categories in which most consensus was demonstrated. In the section following these five priorities, all other recommendations are discussed. Each of the recommendations in this section of the report have strong advocates within GIAC; recognizing that a simultaneous effort may disperse energy and resources too broadly, the Priorities Subcommittee of GIAC used a nominal group process to establish the criteria listed above to rank order the comprehensive array of recommendations. A summary of that process is available as Appendix C. Individual members of GIAC were offered the opportunity for comment to allow for the expressions of any concerns that may have been missed in the consensus building process. These comments are noted in Appendix G.

Recommendation Categories:

A. System Design

B. Training

C. Government On-line

D. Information Policy and Enforcement

E. Community Access

F. Additional Recommendations

A. System Design

New information technologies can eliminate barriers that sometimes exist between citizens and their government, as well as between government units themselves. If state and local governments make their public information and services available electronically, even more citizens will have ready access to the information and services, no matter what their geographic distance from the government unit that manages and maintains the information, no matter what time of day they want to access the information and services. Further, if government systems for delivering information and services are interoperable, new possibilities for improving efficiency and effectiveness arise.

To ensure that government units become more efficient and effective by taking full advantage of the possibilities offered by information technologies, GIAC makes the following recommendations:

1. All new or redesigned electronic government systems containing public information and services should fully integrate electronic public access to the information and services.

• • 2. New or redesigned government systems should be interoperable to the greatest extent possible.
  • 1. Comprehensive training and education programs for all government personnel should be available. These programs should result in government personnel who are:
  • 2. Incentives should be provided for collaborative efforts between the private sector, libraries, educational programs and institutions, state and local government, non-profit organizations and other community groups to make available comprehensive training and education programs for citizens. These programs should result in citizens who are:
  • 1. North Star should be recognized as Minnesota government=s official electronic access point, and each agency should assist in enhancing and expanding the North Star functions.

B. TrainingIt is important to remember that information technologies are only a tool, almost meaningless in their own right. Without ongoing training and education programs for the people who collect, manage, generate and provide electronic information and services, and for the citizens who use and benefit from them, the information technologies that can improve our lives will never realize their potential. Government personnel, for example, must clearly understand what information and services are to be provided, and they must know the most efficient and effective way to provide them. Citizens must know what information and services are available, and they must know how to access them.

To ensure that both government and citizens are able to take full advantage of these valuable resources, GIAC makes the following recommendations:

a) knowledgeable about fulfilling obligations and requirements under Minnesota=s information policy laws and practices; andb) able to use current technologies and technology applications to improve public access to information and services.

a) knowledgeable about their rights under Minnesota=s information policy laws; andb) able to use current technologies and technology applications to access public information and services.

C. Government On-line

Effective democracy requires ready public access to government information and services. Citizens need to have one clearly identified starting point from which to access all government information and services. Public government information and services must be well indexed, easily navigable, and presented in a uniform fashion. Further, citizens must be steadily informed on the issues being considered by elected officials, have forums for discussing the issues among themselves, and have clear, efficient ways to offer feedback and suggestions to decision-makers. Information technologies offer unprecedented opportunities to expand and improve this kind of citizen participation in government and its decision-making processes.

To ensure that Minnesota advances with its global leadership position for on-line citizen participation in government, GIAC makes the following recommendations:

• • 2. The State of Minnesota should implement a government information locator and index system for government documents, information and services. This system should be compatible with all national and international standards for such systems.

• • 3. The public should be enabled and encouraged to submit comments and other correspondence electronically to elected officials, policy makers and government units at the state and local level.

• • 4. Active citizen participation and input should be encouraged in the official public decision-making process through the use of electronic interactive forums. In particular, all public decision-making bodies should be encouraged to provide electronic interactive forums as a part of the official public-input processes, and also to participate in electronic interactive forums hosted by groups outside of government.
  • 1. Government units should review current practices to ensure that procedures for public access to public information and services are fully and clearly articulated, whether those procedures involve paper or electronic dissemination.

D. Information Policy Organization and EnforcementUnderstanding of state information policy is a challenge for many that conduct business with or for the state. The various Minnesota statutes contain a confusing mix of nomenclature and this sometimes yields inconsistent policy results. Emerging technologies make information policy issues even more complex, and make comprehensive, long-range planning crucial. All policy, no matter how clear and well-planned, will sometimes give rise to disputes. Currently, the only way to resolve such disputes is through a cumbersome legal process.

To ensure that public information policy is consistently and uniformly developed, applied and enforced and to establish an alternative dispute resolution process that is simple, quick, and non-litigious, GIAC makes the following recommendations:

• • 2. Existing information policy law should be codified into a single chapter or a series of related chapters of Minnesota statutes.

• • 3. To assist with the resolution of disputes in a simple and less expensive manner than through the courts, alternative methods need to be established. One example reviewed by GIAC was an independent Commissioner for Freedom of Information and Privacy. Such a commissioner would have sufficient authority and political independence to:
  • 4. A Joint legislative Commission on Information Policy should be created. The commission would assume primary responsibility for the development of uniform public information policy, stripping old statutes of the confusing mix of nomenclature, and working with new legislation to ensure consistent language and policy results.
  • 1. Additional funding should be made available to award grants, or matching grants in collaboration with the Regional Initiative Funds, for the development of technology-supported government information and service projects at the local level. Priority should be given to projects that provide 24-hour access.

a) ensure that government units comply with the access and data practices provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and other state information access and data practices laws, policies and procedures;b) inform and educate the public about Minnesota=s access and data practices laws, policies and procedures;

c) resolve disputes about the enforcement of access and data practices laws, policies and procedures; and

d) conduct research on access and data practices issues in order to provide advice and comment on proposed government legislation, systems, programs and policies.

See Appendix E for more information on a model for a Minnesota Commissioner for Freedom of Information and Privacy, based on that of the Canadian province of British Columbia.

E. Community Access

The United States Advisory Council on the National Information Infrastructure concluded that the Aquickest, most efficient way@ to give every citizen access to the Information Superhighway by the year 2000 is Ato bring the Superhighway to the neighborhood–to schools, libraries, and community centers.@

To ensure that local communities receive the support, encouragement and impetus they need to bring all levels of government information and services into their neighborhoods, GIAC makes the following recommendations:

• • 2. To ensure that citizens in every community have access to public, on-line government information and services, terminals for general public use should be made available during locally determined times at community sites (such as educational institutions, libraries, and county government centers) where electronic network connections are funded in part by state dollars.

• • 3. A comprehensive and ongoing outreach program to inform citizens about information technologies and services should be established. This outreach program should result in citizens who:
  • 4. The use of interactive regional teleconferencing, public access channels and public broadcast facilities should be encouraged and funded where appropriate. A major emphasis should be the provision of statewide access to legislative and executive deliberations, and regional or local access to local government deliberations.

a) realize the potential benefits that information technologies offer to individuals, organizations and communities;b) know what government organizations serve as the liaisons to support local grass-roots initiatives for developing information technologies and telecommunications infrastructure; and

c) can identify and use various public and private assistance that is available for improving the community=s trade and economic development opportunities through the use of technologies.

F. Additional Recommendations

In addition to the highest priorities listed above, there are also a number of other recommendations that are very important to the realization of the vision.

Additional Recommendation Categories:

Collaborative, Multi-government Efforts

Universal Service

Equitable Access

Cost

Information Access Awareness

1. Collaborative, Multi-government Efforts

State and local governments collect and manage vast amounts of information. Until now, these efforts have been relatively isolated: government units did not necessarily cooperate with one another to collect or provide information and services. New information technologies, however, can eliminate these kinds of barriers between government units and provide opportunities for new collaborative efforts. An excellent basis for this work would be an electronic rulemaking information system used by state agencies with rulemaking authority.

To ensure that all government units begin to take full advantage of the collaborative possibilities offered by information technologies, GIAC makes the following recommendations:

a. Incentives should be provided for government units to continue and expand collaborative, multi-government efforts to improve efficiency and effectiveness when collecting and disseminating information and meeting requests for public information. Such collaborative efforts might include sharing databases and access points; obviously, this would be greatly assisted by a basis of interoperability.

b. To promote public understanding of and participation in the state=s rule-making process through electronic access, a task force should be established to:

1) review the existing rulemaking process in order to develop a proposal for an electronic rulemaking information system; and

2) ensure electronic public access to that information system.

2. Universal Service

The term Universal Service was originally associated with electronic communications features provided by regular telephone service. As new technologies have emerged, the state has modified the definition of Universal Service to include new features such as touch-tone, 911 access, and single line service. This definition should periodically be reviewed and revised to reflect changing standards.

To ensure that citizens of Minnesota can take advantage of all information technologies and the opportunities and advantages they provide, GIAC makes the following recommendations:

a. Through adaptation of its methods and jurisdiction for regulation of telecommunications services, government should assure that Universal Service is achieved.

b. In conjunction with the Federal Telecommunications Act, a fund designed to provide Universal Service should be researched and created.

c. Consistent with the Federal Telecommunications Act, the Legislature should act to expand the definition of Universal Service, and periodically define the specific products, services and infrastructure requirements which constitute Universal Service.

3. Equitable Access

Information technologies can remove a variety of barriers which have until now made it difficult, if not impossible, for certain citizens to access vital government information and services. Barriers including physical limitations and language can be minimized when information and services are delivered electronically.

To ensure that all citizens have equitable access to vital government information and services, GIAC makes the following recommendations:

a. Following the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and any other existing applicable state or local government disabilities regulations, government units should be required to accommodate those with disability or impairment when developing on-line government information and service systems, and when providing public sites for access to those systems.

b. A policy for providing electronic access to existing and future Minnesota government information and services in languages other than English (as requested) should be established, similar to the current Communication Services Act.

c. In order to make it easier for businesses to interact with Minnesota state government, Minnesota state government procurement policies should be modified under a transition plan to an electronic commerce environment. The policies should closely parallel those of the federal government as dictated by the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, and any subsequent federal procurement laws and regulations.

d. Existing public access projects, such as Access Minnesota and METC grants, should continue to ensure that all Minnesota communities, both rural and urban, have equitable and reasonable access to public on-line government information and services. Communities with limited resources should be targeted for supplementary assistance in establishing public access sites.

4. Cost

The cost of accessing public government information and services can be an additional barrier to certain citizens. Many kinds of basic information must be made available at no cost, particularly if the information affects citizens= rights and responsibilities.

To ensure that this barrier is minimized, if not eliminated, GIAC makes the following recommendations:

a. The Legislature should establish in statute a definition for Amarginal cost@ (if it opts to replace the current term Aactual cost@) regarding fees assessed for copies or electronic transmission of government data. GIAC recommends that the Legislature adopt the definition of marginal cost articulated in the GIAC Principles (see footnote, Principle 3).

b. The existing Acommercial value@ section of Minn. Stat. 13.03 should be reviewed in developing any new information access policy. GIAC recommends that all fees for copies and electronic access collected by government units be retained by the government unit to improve and accelerate public access to its information and services. Further, GIAC recommends that the Legislature retain the current practice of requiring government units who charge for value-added service to obtain specific permission from the Legislature.

5. Information Access Awareness

a. The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act should be amended to require agencies requesting public data from citizens to inform those citizens that the data being requested are public data under Minnesota law, and that anyone may access public data.

IV. GUIDING PRINCIPLES

These are the principles adopted by the Government Information Access Council in 1996.

1. Access to government information is a fundamental right of all citizens in a democracy.

1.1 Citizens can more effectively contribute to democratic, economic and social progress when they can access and use public information without restraint.

1.2 Basic access rights include the equal and timely right to free inspection, to receive copies, and to access and use government information in all forms and media for any legal purpose.

1.3 All Minnesota government data should be presumed to be public unless otherwise classified by statute.

2. Responsive provision of information access and the dissemination of government information are essential functions of government.

2.1 Creating, disseminating and providing access to information is a mission of government units and such activities should be funded by public dollars just as are any other essential government functions.

2.2 Government has a duty to collect and disseminate information to further its public purpose only, not for its economic gain.

2.3 To achieve convenient and cost-effective public access, intergovernmental coordination and organization of information–from creation to preservation–is essential.

2.4 Government units shall support the essential functions of citizen assistance and education, and provision of information locator tools.

2.5 Government shall acknowledge the ATools of Democracy@ as essential for citizens to actively participate in and understand government, and shall make those tools available in various media, including electronically, at no cost to the user.

3. Public access to government information shall be free, and any charge for copies shall not exceed marginal cost.

3.1 Inspection of public data in all media must be available free of charge. Copies shall be available for duplication or electronic transmission for free, or at a cost not to exceed the marginal cost of dissemination.

3.2 Recovery of development costs or generation of revenue from information created or collected with public funds shall not occur without specific statutory authorization.

4. All citizens, regardless of geographic, physical, cultural, socio-economic status or other barriers shall have equitable and affordable access to government information.

4.1 Geographic and economic barriers to access shall be eliminated by making tax incentives and funding mechanisms available to citizens, government jurisdictions, private businesses and especially providers of content, connectivity and site access for linked community-business networks.

4.2 Barriers to information access shall be eliminated in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).

4.3 Government information access barriers that are based on language and culture shall be eliminated by implementing, in accordance with federal and state laws, multilingual and multicultural components.

4.4 The State shall ensure equitable and affordable access to government information through a variety of public-private funding mechanisms including tax incentives, low-interest loans, public appropriations, private foundations and charitable contributions with no bad credit loans online.

5. The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and other information access policy laws must be complied with and enforced at all levels of government.

5.1 Training of government personnel and citizen education regarding the rights granted under access and data practices laws is essential for compliance with those laws.

5.2 Additional non-litigious mechanisms for effective enforcement of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and other access laws shall be developed and implemented.

6. Privacy is a right that must be maintained and protected in the context of changing technology.

6.1 The public=s right to know should be balanced with individuals, businesses and organizations right to privacy.

6.2 Users of government information shall have a protectable privacy interest.

7. Government information shall exist in the public domain to the greatest extent possible.

7.1 Stewardship of government information, and the value of that information, is a function of government.

7.2 Government shall protect the right of citizens to use public government information for any legal purpose and shall promote the use of public government information to meet public purposes.

7.3 Use of government information should not be constrained by copyright or copyright-like controls except under limited circumstances.

7.4 A government unit may exercise copyright on certain government information pursuant to criteria established by the Legislature.

7.5 In no case should government=s exercise of copyright be used to deny public access for inspection or to receive copies of public government information.

8. Government shall ensure that government employees and citizens have the tools, applications, training, and support for electronic access.

8.1 The State shall provide training to government personnel across all levels of government on information access and service technologies, applications and policies which shall be supported by additional state appropriations.

8.2 The State shall establish a variety of outreach and public relations programs statewide to educate and inform citizens on the value and use of emerging information access and service technologies used by the State.

8.3 The State shall provide support to citizens who require assistance accessing government information and services electronically on a twenty-four-hours-per-day, seven-days-per-week basis.

9. Interaction among citizens, governments, businesses and organizations shall be promoted through the use of information technology and networks.

9.1 Government shall accelerate the provision of its services through technology and networks which encourage electronic interaction among citizens, businesses and organizations

9.2 Publicly-supported, statewide electronic access to government information and services through multiple technologies and public access points is essential for information dissemination and efficient delivery of government services.

9.3 A diversity of information sources in the public, private and non-profit sectors should be encouraged to provide the public with access to government information resources.

9.4 The State shall establish timetables for statewide electronic public access to government information and services.

9.5 Government shall support public and private on-line efforts to ensure the development of on-line public spaces for discussion of public issues, civic participation, and problem-solving.

9.6 Government shall increase its use of electronic communication infrastructures and promote their use in the professional work of government staff.

9.7 Demonstration projects and outreach efforts shall be promoted and/or developed by government at all levels.

9.8 Government shall base its investment in the development and provision of electronic services on the long-term economic and social benefits of those investments.

10. Citizens shall be enabled and encouraged to be consumers and producers of electronic information and services.

10.1 State policies should encourage symmetry in the access and dissemination of information.

10.2 State policies shall support individual and community economic vitality through effective and efficient electronic information and services.

10.3 The State shall provide individuals, libraries, educational institutions, non-profits and businesses with tax incentives or other financial assistance to acquire and use equipment, applications, content, infrastructure, training and other tools to stimulate demand for electronic access to government information and services.

10.4 The State should provide libraries and public and private educational institutions with ongoing financial assistance for recurring costs of electronic access to government information and services.

11. The State shall ensure that all citizens of Minnesota have the benefits of Universal Service.

11.1 The Legislature and Administration shall periodically define the specific products, services, and infrastructure requirements which constitute Universal Service.

11.2 The State shall establish a fund to provide Universal Service. Support for such Universal Service Fund should be equitably assessed on all providers of telecommunications services.

12. Effective competition in telecommunications services in Minnesota is an essential component of effective access and interactive use of government information and services in electronic form.

12.1 The State shall continue to adapt its methods and jurisdiction for regulating providers of telecommunications services toward the point where effective competition in telecommunications services ensures reasonable cost telecommunications services throughout the state, and ensures development of telecommunications infrastructure throughout the state.

12.2 Until such time as there is effective competition in telecommunications services throughout the state, the State shall have the legal power and the practical ability, within the construct of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, to intercede in the market so as to avoid or prevent pricing disparities among groups of customers and/or regions of the state, and to ensure development of the telecommunications infrastructure throughout the state.

12.3 At such time as there is effective competition in telecommunications services throughout the state, the State=s oversight of the telecommunications services market shall be limited to the extent necessary to ensure Universal Service, interoperability of telecommunications systems, and consumer protection as is provided in other competitive markets.

12.4 The State shall create a formal mechanism to coordinate policy formation and oversight with respect to appropriations, regulatory, and tax policy to ensure continuity and consistency among federal, state and local policies which affect telecommunications services.

Using Electronic Communication for Political Discussions

Draft 1.0 – June 15, 1996

By Steven L. Clift,
Copyright 1996, Steven Clift – See disclaimer about DRAFT below.

1.  Take what you write seriously.
2.  Don't take yourself too seriously.
3.  Never post when you are upset.
4.  Avoid one-on-one battles on public forums.  Take disputes
    "off-line" whenever possible.
5.  Expect what you write to be around for you great 
    great grandchildren to read.
6.  Think of your major postings as letters to the editor.  
7.  Use your real identity and sign your posts.
8.  Use correct spelling, punctuation, and capitalization.
9.  Use humor and sarcasm cues - ;-) - Be careful.  Be clear.
10.  Don't overuse acronyms.
11.  Use private e-mail accounts for personal opinions to
     avoid problems at work.  
12.  It is appropriate and encouraged that people in their official
     capacity use work e-mail to participate in public forms.
13.  Don't expect to quickly change any minds in this medium.
14.  Build your own personal "civic network."  Send public responses
     other's message and send short thank yous to individuals.
15.  Avoid acidic, mean-spirited tones.  Don't expect that people
     who are jerks in person will be any better online.
16.  Be careful when you post or respond - double check to make sure
     you are sending it where you want to. (public lists, individuals,
     CC: area)  
17.  Write clear and concise subject lines.  
18.  Maintain subject line integrity with responses.  Change the
     subject line if the topic shifts significantly.
19.  Write in short paragraphs.  Use white space to improve effectiveness
     of communication.
20.  Avoid lengthy signature sections on messages.
21.  Make sure you correctly attribute quoted text.
22.  Only include attributed quotes that are needed.  Do not include
     the entire message if you are posting a brief reaction of a
     general nature.
23.  While you won't be judged online by many of the factors involved
     with in person discussion, you will be highly judged on what you
     write and style with which you write it. 
24.  Most complaints about postings to online forums are based on 
     tone and style not the content of the messages.  Good content
     is easily obscured by poor tone and style.  Bad content is
     bad content regardless.
25.  Developing charters, rules and guidelines for online forums that 
     cover political topics are often quite helpful.  
26.  If one forum does not suit your interests move on to another.
27.  "Lurk" on an active forums at least two to four weeks before
     posting your first message (or seek out the archives for a forum
     if one exists).
28.  Carefully read all the information you receive when subscribing
     to a new forum.
29.  Expect differences in how electronic communication manifests itself
     with different applications (e-lists, newsgroups, WWW-conferencing).
30.  Never post unsubscribe requests to the entire list.  
31.  Always save subscribe confirmation information. Consider creating
     a folder called "lists."  This will be very useful when your 
     you decide to leave the forum.
32.  Be a good net citizen - unsubscribe from all e-lists before an 
     e-mail account closed.  Bounced message are the biggest time 
     waster for list managers.
33.  If a discussion is not going the way you like, try to shift its
     direction.
34.  More to come...

Idea - these need to be placed into some sort of a 
topical/functional order:

General:

To:

Subject:

Text:

Signature:

Responses and Interaction:

Other:

Please send in your suggestions! Special thanks to Mick Souder, list manager of MN-POLITICS and the rest of the Minnesota E-Democracy crew, from whom I have learned much about the nature of online political discussions.

Copyright 1996, Steven Clift. This posting may be freely redistributed to individuals in its entirety. Redistribution of this document to public e-mail lists or publication requires the permission of the author.
Version 1.0 – October 12, 1996