[okfn-discuss] OFCOM Public Service Publisher (PSP) consultation response

[Michael Holloway]

Any suggestions for how we draft this document? (Deadline approaching!)

On 3/20/07, Michael Holloway <michael at openrightsgroup.org> wrote:
>
> I took some brief notes on this very-encouraging consultation paper last
> night (using ORG's wiki cos confused by markup language on FCUK), but may
> not have time to summarise beyond the Executive Summary...
>
> http://www.openrightsgroup.org/orgwiki/index.php/Ofcom_PSP_Consultation_March_2007#Next_steps
>
> FYI input sought in particular on:
>
>    - The appropriate nature of intervention in the digital media age,
>    and the balance between TV and non-TV forms of public service content
>    distribution
>    - The potential role of the PSP and its creative remit
>    - The operating model – in particular, the approach to rights
>    management
>    - The scale of funding required.
>
> For ORG's, the main areas for comment are:
>
> 1. Licensing: encouraging best practice for sharing and reuse
>
> 2. Internationalisation: if PSP is to be truly open, content must be open
> to all nations, not merely UK taxpayer (i.e. must avoid Creative Archive
> experience). Better to see the PSP as one node on a global network, such
> that investment now will bring net benefit to UK public in time
>
> 3. PSP can help the move away from 20th century's 'Broadcast' model
> and production companies / content creators by contributing to
> an architecture of participation
> Pleased this is coming together now...
>
> On 3/20/07, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
>
> > Saul Albert wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > So - having looked through the other responses posted to the ofcom
> > site
> > > - where my original blog post was re-posted, I think something much
> > >   more recommendation-like and less rant-like is in order.
> > >
> > > How about something short and relatively simple like this:
> >
> > I think this looks good but I have quite a few comments (see below). To
> > my mind the essential thing is that the most effective use for PSP
> > funding would be:
> >
> > 1. Developing infrastructure (including documentation) to assist others
> > to create (open) content.
> >
> > 2. Seeding the knowledge (content/data) space by sponsoring the initial
> > development of open material and open projects to get to the them point
> > that they can then be taken on by the community (the history of F/OSS is
> >
> > full of examples of projects that needed some upfront investment of
> > money/time/energy to get to point they became self-sustaining)
> >
> > > -------------------------
> > > The founding of a Public Service Publisher (PSP) is an opportunity to
> > > make a significant ongoing investment in the vast landscape of
> > publicly
> > > owned knowledge and the public knowledge infrastructures already
> >
> > suggest: publicly owned -> open
> >
> > > developing on the Net.
> > >
> > > We, the undersigned would like to see the PSP joining the
> > international
> > > communities of individuals, organisations and enlightened states
> > > investing in:
> > >
> > > - Free, Libre and Open Source (FLOSS) technologies and systems.
> >
> > Suggest:
> >
> > - Open Content and Open Data. In particular we urge that, where the PSP
> > fund the generation of new content, such content should always be made
> > available under a license such that others are free to use, redistribute
> >
> > and most importantly re-use that content.
> >
> > > - Advocacy and educational initiatives about viable alternatives to
> > >   restrictive Intellectual Property (IP) for publicly funded projects.
> >
> > Not quite sure about this one: are we arguing that they should use the
> > PSP to educate other governmental departments about openness?
> >
> > > - Advocacy and educational initiatives for people, companies, local
> > >   government and organisations to publish their materials and public
> > >   data in open, traversable formats, using open APIs.
> >
> > I completely agree with the open formats item (and it is part of the
> > open knowledge definition
> >
> > As I've posted about previously I have my concerns regarding open APIs
> > vs. just having open data/open services. What good is an open API if the
> > underlying data isn't open (so I can't redistribute or re-use that data
> > freely).
> >
> > > - Decentralized systems for the distribution of data and metadata
> > (peer
> > >   to peer systems) for publicly funded and user generated content.
> > > - Open Source Semantic Web services and infrastructures for greater
> > >   association and interlinking and searching of online resources.
> >
> > This is a nice item but a) this is a rather massive area :) b) is it
> > really what one wants the PSP doing (perhaps but I'm just concerned that
> > as a recommendation it is just too broad to have much impact)
> >
> > > We feel that the PSP could have a vital role in addressing the
> > strategic
> > > concerns of the Net as a global and national infrastructure; exploring
> > > and protecting the educational, commercial and societal possibilities
> > of
> > > what 'public service' might mean in this new context.
> >
> > Nice ending.
> >
> > ~rufus
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Michael H Holloway
> +44 (0) 7974 566 823
>
> http://www.openbusiness.cc/
> http://www.openrightsgroup.org
>



-- 
Michael H Holloway
+44 (0) 7974 566 823

http://www.openbusiness.cc/
http://www.openrightsgroup.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20070321/3fd9495f/attachment-0002.html>