According to euobserver.com the EU is about to launch a social networking site in October this year. Myparl.eu aims to connect the MPs of the national parliaments among each other and with the Members of the European Parliament as well.
The first official talks on the project, which is sponsored by the European Commission and will receive EU funds, took place in Brussels on Thursday (28 May) involving MEPs and the 27 national co-ordinators for each member state.
Daniela Vincenti Mitchener, editor of the site, told EUobserver the project is about “creating a transnational community of ideas” and that it will alert MPs to MPs in other countries “who are thinking alike.”
The project could potentially involve up to 20,000 people, including politicians from regional governments and parliaments.
It is planned that the site will be managed in the three main working languages of the EU – French, German and English – but that people can also post comments in their own language.
Myparl.eu will put forward three main themes for debate – the future of Europe, climate change and intercultural dialogue.
David Weinberger, co-author of the Cluetrain Manifesto about serendipity, free and open internet, twitter, control and why Obama’s campaign makes a difference. Great videocast presented by we-magazin.
PoliticsOnline and the World e-Democracy Forum are proud to open the call for nominations of the Top 10 Who Are Changing the World of Internet and Politics. For the nineth year in a row, PoliticsOnline subscribers and visitors from around the world will help select the top 10 individuals, organizations and companies having the greatest impact on the way the Internet is changing politics. The winners will be invited as honored guests to the World e-Democracy forum October 16-17,2008, in Issy-les-Moulineaux, (Paris, France), where they’ll take part in an awards ceremony and other special programs throughout the two-day forum.
I think it is important to promote this award, which seeks to recognize the innovators and pioneers – those who blaze new e-political trails everyday, the dreamers and doers who bring democracy online. If you know of someone or something deserving recognition, send in your nomination today.
Criteria:
Highly effective leaders who are making outstanding e-political and e-governmental achievements
Forward thinking organizations that have led the way in this revolution
Innovative ideas or strategies that have forever changed the political process
A “Top 10 nominee list” will be published July 28, from which voters will be asked to select the final top 10. The deadline for nominations is July 21.
Örebro University will submit a proposal to the new EU eParticipation call and we now look for possible partners. We need partners in at least two European countries (other than Sweden) . The ideal partner is a university with a good record in conducting eParticipatory processes who has contacts with some government (local or other) where trials can take place. There will be a need for an interesting decision problem and a willingness on part of the government to try out a new method (which has been tested already – we can provide results and experiences). The project will include both technical systems (which we develop) and designing and analysis of particiaptory decision processes (which each partner must localize). A brief description of the project will be sent upon request.
The proposed UK Parliamentary system would be scoped from scratch, cost an estimated £0.5 million and is likely to replace the tarnished No.10 ePetitioning site.However, despite being a proven democratic lever there is concern that such exercises in eDemocracy are nothing more than an electronic registering of dislike.Equally that, contrary to claims of engaging with the public, online petitions could, in the words of one Parliamentarian, “produce disaffection, as people register their dislike … and then nothing happens”.
These are valid points, particularly as there are no current powers to force an answer from a British central government department on the back of a petition. Focusing on what you ‘don’t like’ is in some way dis-empowering. Focusing on what you ‘can-do’ is proactive and empowering. Being part of the solution, not the problem, seems like the best way forward. That’s why Pledgebank is, in my view, a better empowerment tool in many ways.
It would seem we’re back to the age-old problem of managing stakeholder expectations – a problem that applies to almost every eDemocracy activity. Tom Steinberg, founder of the No.10 site, suggests the solution for ePetitioning is a simple disclaimer – “You are registering your voice that but you won’t necessarily get what you want”.But perhaps this is a problem of granularity; that a persons ‘circle of concern’ is more likely to be locally focused and the probability of influencing a local decision or concern is much higher.
ICELE have been the advocates for local ePetitioning for a number of years now.It stands to reason that ePetitioning offers a more structured approach to petitioning in general – and it is clear that a number of local authorities still have no formal process for dealing with traditional petitions.However, while a ‘duty to respond’ seems like a good idea the administrative burden cannot be ignored.
My view is this – that we should first abandon the emotive word ‘petition’ which stirs-up the feeling of a ‘right to action’.Secondly that we focus on local mechanisms, in favour of retaining some input by actors of representative democracy.Thirdly that we recognise petitioning as ‘democracy lite’ yet also a favoured way to participate.In view of this we should consider how ePetition sites can be built which focus on taking participants up the ladder of escalating empowerment.
Unfortunately a pan-European petitioning system has all of these factors stacked against it.Does anybody have any ideas about a more suitable name?How about a ‘citizens’ lobby’?
From June 15th – 18th the 21st Bled eConference takes place, this year under the title eCollabarotion: Overcoming Boundaries Through Multi Channel interaction.
This conference attracts speakers and delegates from business, government, information technology providers and universities and is the major venue for researchers working in all aspects of “e”. There will be a variety of keynote speakers from industry, government and academe.
There has already been a plenary session on Government, Parliament, and University this morning, where e.gDiana Wallis, Vice President of the European Parliament, spoke about “eCollaboration: A Borderless Democracy”.
On Wednesday two research tracks on eGovernment will take place and a work shop on services for Living Labs. In this work shop the intermediate results of the EU-funded TELL-ME project will be introduced and discussed whether there is any specific comparative advantage from the implementation of Living Labs methodology in the eGovernment, eDemocracy and eServices arena.
Over the past five years or so, it has been increasingly popular to talk about the value of co-operation between policymakers, academia and business, the emergence of a new collaborative model, the importance of public-private sector partnerships etc…..
If my experience is anything to go by, however, most of this talk is just this: TALK. As a card carrying member of the private sector – albeit one with an academic background – I have found that more often than not practioneers and educators tend to ‘hold their noses and swallow’ when asked to collaborate with business, whilst entreprenuers spend most of their time biting their tongues at the alleged ‘wishy-washiness’ of the policy world.
It was with some trepidation then that I led the ‘Supplier’ break out session at the Pep-Net launch last May. Like it or not, a series of pesky questions kept floating in my head: Do practioneers and not-for-profits really want to hear what business has to say? Worse still, does business really have anything of value to add? Can suppliers really benefit from a network like Pep-Net? Or more scary still, can Pep-Net really benefit from the input of a bunch of money-makers?
Happily, as you might by now have guessed from the public nature of this posting, I was pleasantly surprised by the ultimate answers to these irksome questions.
To begin with in response to the question ‘What do Suppliers Expect from Pep-Net?’, I found a range of interesting answers that extended far beyond the simple one: MONEY. Instead, my colleagues and I all agreed that Pep-Net brought us tremendous value in terms of sharing experience, collaborating across borders, identifying trusted partners, potentially developing basic standards for software and tools, and, perhaps most interestingly, trend spotting.
When it came the question ‘What role can Suppliers play in Pep-Net?,’ the answers once again extended beyond the obvious to reveal a range of skills and services, including research, contacts, writing, project delivery, and service and software solutions. Moreover, when asked ‘What are the benefits of Pep-Net to Suppliers?,’ the entrepenuers amongst us tended to focus much more on reputation and visibility than sales per se – with access to language skills and a potential recruitment pool coming in a strong second.
So well done Pep-Net for allaying my fears, welcoming the private sector into the fold and laying the foundation for some genuinely collaborative thinking and work!
Julia Glidden is Managing Director of 21c Consultancy
It is often stated that citizens only try to gain individual advantages and therefore are unwilling to provide ideas about how to consolidate public spending. There is also the argument that the high complexity of public budgeting makes it almost impossible for citizens to take rational and useful decisions about how to change it. But if you look at the results of participatory budgeting projects this does not seem to be the case.Read the rest of this entry »
11. June 2008 – 16:24 by Danish Technological Institute
To consult the Australian public, strengthen the participatory process and outcome Kevin Rudd (Australian Prime Minister) announced in February 2008 an Australia 2020 Summit to help shape a long term strategy for the nation’s future – a strategy requiring long-term commitment and responses beyond the usual electoral cycle. In this connection more then 1000 opinion makers and citizens were invited to give their opinion and provide their input to help shape a long term strategy for the Australia’s future. More then 3600 persons and interest organisations submitted in excess of 8800 suggestions for evaluation and discussion culminating in the Australia 2020 Summit in Canberra 19-20 April this year.
The summit and consultation process focused on ten areas deemed critical for Australia’s future i.e.:Read the rest of this entry »
10. June 2008 – 22:05 by Bengt Feil (TuTech Innovation GmbH)
The online consultation in Munich concerning the role of families for the city is a prime example of engaging the public authorities in direct communication with the citizens. A profound learning process on the side of the individuals working for public institutions could be observed. In the course of the discussion there were many cases of direct and productive communication between citizens and public officials which led to a deeper understanding for the issues and attitudes on both sides.
