Open it.

Just the results.

Of course.

Corrective Yuan?

In France, we can see that open data policy is led by generalization and from some data which have some political power. The administration doesn’t want to take the risk. They put on open data all the inoffensive data that have. They keep the more sensible data because of their ...

Citizen can ask, but the ministry is not following them, the administration is not following them. Have you ever seen this kind of reserve in the administration?

For example, when we ask for open data in France, like from EGN, with the mapping data, some of this data was sold by the state. The administration were running the mapping, doesn’t want to ask the citizens about some mapping.

Are you ever see that the other ministers can be a bit afraid by citizen because sometimes they ask to do some things that they are not used to do?

They can choose what they want to talk about?

The citizens have the agenda setting?

They can’t share a ground...

In France, what I can see in my field is that, to make sure that citizen can express themself, you have to take care of what they are saying. You have to give them more than time than experts.

Are there some mechanism to put more regulations between stakeholders?

If I take the example of IETF, between the stakeholder and IETF, you have some innovative between American engineers and south countries, engineers who are not speaking good English.

How do you take the concern of representativity? In France, when we make some public consultations, we have a very important issue about who you are representing. People used to say that it’s not enough to speak about the opposition. How do you take this question of representativity of citizens?

How are they chosen?

Yeah, you put some passengers in decisions?

Some experts?

In the different stakeholders you have some institutions?

How can you say in concrete that every stakeholder got them the same power to interact?

Design thinking, but in this kind of methodology information is very important, so the frame of information is important, too. How do you build this frame to be sure that every stakeholder got the same information?

In current life, for example, regulation of Uber, how can you make a rough consensus? Because you can see some cities, they are very different from each other. How do you make a rough consensus for some subjects when you have to make a choice?

For you, it’s very different from deliberation. Rough consensus is different from deliberation?

What do you mean exactly?

You talk about rough consensus?

I would like to share with you some feelings about what I read about Taiwan on some discussions I had since I’ve been here. I heard you interested a lot about...You are very inspired by the Internet governance, like IETF. What is exactly for you a multi stakeholder governance?

Yeah, of course. I come today to introduce myself and to say hello. I’m very pleased to be here, and I want to ask you a few question about how it works here, because my main research subject is about how public actors are working in a open government way ...

Nice to meet you, too. I’m a French academic researcher...

Hello. My name is Clément Mabi.

The second one is about the mobilization of the society. If you are offering some openness, some open tools, you need to have a multitude to use them. If nobody is able to take the opportunity you are giving to the citizen, you would not have your digital nation. You ...

From the normative part, I consider there is two main issues for the digital state. There is the question of infrastructure, with the openness, security, and everything. That’s the administration part for, like I said, a state who is able to adapt to the new issues offered by digital.

Just a few words, because I’m a research, so I used to observe more than imagine. I guess in my presentation, I gave you some elements with my normative perspective. I think a large part of my job is to make a civic arrangement, to read, to make a normative ...

Another easy question for you, Derek.

We have to keep the hand on them. I take just one example. I’m not sure that online vote can replace the traditional vote. We have seen in different election, in different experimentation that it can be very dangerous and manipulated.

That’s why I’m never talking about digital transformation of the state, never. I’m talking about digital transition or adaptation. I think we have to be clever on our move. We have to keep in mind that some of our societal aspects, some of our political aspects, have to keep in ...

You have the security issue, about how to protect yourself, how to protect your infrastructures. There is many way to do that, like you said. I think it’s important to keep in mind that we should not put all our action to, in the same way.

It’s to organize the circulation. This means you can have some protections. I think there is two main issues. There is the question of security, like you said, the question of manipulation. For the manipulation, you can develop at least one legislative approach to organize a content policy, and to ...

I think we have to think that open is not like open every door or every window. I think when we mean open government, open information, or things like that, it’s not like opening every windows or every doors of a country.

Fighting against inequality, the promotion of a full citizenship, and the defense of democracy as the expression of people’s will. Thank you.

For the civic tech, we can see that the risk is to focus on technological solutions, on economic benefits, without a real strong political perspective. If they think only about services, public authorities will miss an opportunity to find solution for the three crucial issues for the digital future of ...

To conclude, we can see that the main challenge for having a digital nation in France or everywhere else, 1.0 or 2.0, is a problem of political determination. Open is often seen as a concession, as a detour to ultimately preserve power relationship.

We observe that the role of public actors in the civic tech ecosystem is not very really clear. Most of its action to open democratic markets, which largely reinforce and empower the civic startups model. Meanwhile, civic hacking remains fragile in France, because communities’ works need time on innovation to ...

Civic startups improve democracy by delivering a service, when civic hacking try to empower a network based on shared values. The second results is that there is a risk that French civic tech will be absorbed by gov tech initiatives, as a kind of sponsorized citizen expression.

On the one hand, we have the civic startups, which try to consolidate business and general interest by collaboration with institutions. On the other hand, civic hacking try to prove that collective interest is now associated to common good and to communities that use them.

Examining the French civic tech this way makes possible to highlight at least two major results. The first one, that there is a tension between two vision of civic tech. Each performs a different conception of democracy.

The last group, the embedded hackers, were groups, actors seeking to hack democracy from inside. Here, we find, for example, platforms that want to associate citizens to law-making. This is the case of the platform called Parlement & Citoyens, citizen and parliament, which proposes an online debating tool to bring ...

Like you know very well here, activists and developers meet at the Academia Sinica to improve those civic techs. In France, the Voxe Network has been organizing since almost two years, to contribute to those dynamics, and to develop an active, open source community in France.

The third group, the critical reformers, would belong to the field of counter-democracy. They seek to transform institutional democracy by disruption, like Ethan Zuckerman said this morning. Here, the idea to mobilize civil society in order to renew institutions in a civic perspective.

For the time being in France, the external reformers are the best developed category of civic tech, the most visible. Perhaps also, they’re less critical. They’re less critics about French government, but we can discuss it, and those who used to empower the unempowered.

The second groups, the external reformers, seek to deepen the functioning of representation by encouraging collaboration between citizen and institutions. In this category, we can find tools for collective intelligence and debating platforms, like Politiversity or CAP Collective. Or this one, called voxe.org, with a tool for comparing electoral programs.