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

Michael Holloway michael at openrightsgroup.org
Fri Mar 23 11:36:42 UTC 2007


Just to confirm  that Becky is working on a draft, based on the discussions
in this thread and text up on the wiki, which she'll put out for comment
this avo. Appreciate that leaves only a little time for review and
discussion, but hopefully that's enough grace for representatives of OKFN
and FCUK to make any changes necessary before giving it their approval.

Thanks

On 3/22/07, Michael Holloway <michael at openrightsgroup.org> wrote:
>
> ORG are definitely on-board as signatories. My understanding is that Becky
> will put some time on the draft today / tomorrow.
>
> Thanks everyone for pushing this on. I support the addition of 'scenarios'
> and more expansive definitions of 'open' data / content.
>
> Bests
>
> On 3/22/07, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
> >
> > Saul Albert wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 04:03:44PM +0000, Tim Cowlishaw wrote:
> > >>    Happy to draft these in, if everyone agrees....
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I had a go at synthesising my draft and Rufus' comments:
> > >
> > > http://www.openrightsgroup.org/orgwiki/index.php/Ofcom_PSP_Consultation_March_2007#Draft_Response
> >
> >
> > Great work Saul.
> >
> > > At Rufus' suggestion I removed the p2p bit and the semweb bit -
> > perhaps
> > > these are the kinds of projects the psp we call for could support -
> > > rather than core properties of the psp itself. This makes it even
> >
> > Yes I think it would be cool if they did do that but I think at this
> > stage it would be taking us a bit far off-topic.
> >
> > > simpler and shorter - which I like.
> >
> > I've added a scenarios section which tries to convert our general
> > suggestions into a couple of concrete examples. Also do we need a
> > definition of open content/open data somewhere -- perhaps as a
> > postscript (given that their consultation site is called open media
> > network I'm concerned their meaning of open is much more limited than
> > ours).
> >
> > > However, I haven't had time to add Tim and Martin's ideas - perhaps
> > > you'd have time to do this Tim? I'm afraid I'm under the gun for the
> > > next few weeks so won't have a chance.
> > >
> > > Also I remember Becky Hogge saying she could do some work on this. I
> > > think it still needs some development - and then some promotion to get
> > > lots of good signatories.
> >
> > Given time constraints I think we will have to keep this fairly
> > restricted (though we could do a later call via boingboing which would
> > add weight)
> >
> > Current potential signatories:
> >
> >    * Open Knowledge Foundation
> >    * Free Culture UK
> >    * Open Rights Group (need to confirm)
> >    * Knowledge Ecology International (was cptech) -- need to contact
> >    * ? other suggestions
> >
> > If we want individual signatories we could put this out to various lists
> > though I am wary of doing this given time limit (and need to corral the
> > responses).
> >
> > ~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/20070323/9ebc76eb/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the okfn-discuss mailing list