Chatlog 2010-04-28

From W3C eGovernment Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Actually, RRSAgent wasn't invited. This is from Sandro's xchat log. Hopefully it will work.

See CommonScribe Control Panel, original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.

Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.

<sandro> Guest: Paul Curtis, Staffer for NY State Assembly Member Micah Kellner
<sandro> Guest: Rigo Wenning, W3C
<sandro> Guest: Benjamin Kallos
<sandro> Present: Daniel_Bennett, Ed_Summers, John_Sheridan, Kevin_Novak, Owen_Ambur, Sandro_Hawke, Chris_Beer
<sandro> Topic: New York's Open Government Data Bill
09:02:55 <sandro> zakim, this is egov
09:03:18 <Chris> cool
09:03:39 <Zakim> ok, sandro; that matches T&S_EGOV()9:00AM
09:06:20 <Zakim> -??P10
09:06:52 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
09:06:52 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.202.449.aaaa, Sandro, +1.917.432.aabb, +1.202.731.aacc, [LC], +1.917.570.aadd
09:07:26 <Daniel_Bennett> Daniel: I volunteer to scribe
09:07:27 <johnlsheridan> Gah - skype!
09:07:34 <johnlsheridan> Will dial back in....
09:07:45 <johnlsheridan> Kevin, could you handle chairing?
09:08:14 <sandro> scribe: Daniel_Bennett 
09:08:21 <edsu> Zakim, LC is edsu
09:08:21 <Zakim> +edsu; got it
09:08:26 <Daniel_Bennett> Kevin: about to start. are there any other agenda items?
09:08:36 <Zakim> + +
09:08:57 <sandro> johnlsheridan, yes, Kevin's got it.
09:08:58 <Zakim> +??P16
09:08:59 <Daniel_Bennett> ... Daniel will do Public Meeting Notice demo for next meeting. add to agenda
09:09:10 <Daniel_Bennett> ... turning it over to NY folks
09:09:15 <sandro> Paul Curtis
09:09:35 <Daniel_Bennett> Paul Curtis: staffer for a legislator in NY 65th district
09:09:41 <sandro> office of Micah Kellner, assembly member
09:09:59 <Daniel_Bennett> ... also on the line from NY State Ben
09:10:16 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
09:10:16 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.202.449.aaaa, Sandro, +1.917.432.aabb, +1.202.731.aacc, edsu, +1.917.570.aadd, +, ??P16
09:10:17 <Daniel_Bennett> ... I am speaking from policy side about this issue
09:10:47 <Daniel_Bennett> ... I was asked to speak about March 18th bill that adds to freedom of info act
09:10:47 <sandro> paul: amendment to FOI law
09:11:03 <sandro> paul: based on 8 principals of open data
09:11:22 <Daniel_Bennett> ... based on principles of open data
09:11:54 <Daniel_Bennett> Paul: looked to UK's open data and US federal Open Govt. Directive
09:12:01 <sandro> paul: really interesting to look at, white house open gov directive (transparency, etc, open format, pro-active use of tech, instead of waiting for FOI)
09:12:14 <sandro> paul: 991 nyc city council
09:12:36 <Daniel_Bennett> ... trying to be proactive to release data rather than just waiting for requests. Also looking at NY City Council legislation
09:12:58 <Zakim> +??P17
09:13:17 <Daniel_Bennett> ... 991 nyc city council. Another interesting influence is Utahs open data site.
09:13:37 <sandro> paul: centralized web portal
09:13:40 <Daniel_Bennett> ... agencies will have to put data online through a state centralized web portal.
09:13:54 <sandro> paul: start with newly created records, Jan 3 2011.
09:14:17 <sandro> paul: timetable
09:14:32 <Daniel_Bennett> ... as of Jan 3rd (if legislation passes as written now. That timetable is base on 4 types: immediate records -30 days
09:15:05 <sandro> paul: july 2014 for legacy records
09:15:13 <Daniel_Bennett> ... records to large or complex have six months to be put online (considered legacy records)
09:15:20 <sandro> paul: not FOIA records dont need to be on line
09:15:50 <sandro> paul: machine readable and electronic form
09:15:51 <rigo> zakim, code?
09:15:51 <Zakim> the conference code is 3468 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), rigo
09:16:11 <sandro> paul: with registration, fees, restrictions,    as close to real-time as possible.
09:16:27 <Daniel_Bennett> ... Legislation -- machine readable, electronic form, without any license or cost, permanent, and online as soon as possible.
09:16:36 <Zakim> +Rigo
09:16:40 <sandro> paul: privacy -- included FOIA privacy protections
09:16:46 <Daniel_Bennett> ... already includes privacy protections.
09:17:17 <sandro> paul: several named exceptions, as in FOIL
09:17:39 <sandro> paul: We got asked about RDF, SPARQL
09:17:44 <Daniel_Bennett> ... will avoid personal records and other things such as trade secrets, sensitive court records as already provided for in Freedom of Info Act (NY state)
09:18:12 <rigo> paul: doing technical neutral legislation
09:18:28 <Daniel_Bennett> ... technical standards are not specified, but looks to state agencies to regulate themselves per current best standards.
09:18:55 <sandro> paul: We see technical standards are a moving target, which we wouldnt want to freeze in statute, so we want the state agency (State Office for Technology) to create a Technical Manual, based on web standards from consensus standards bodies.    CIO required to continue to consult.
09:19:03 <rigo> paul: manual with selection of standards
09:19:04 <Daniel_Bennett> ... there will be a manual that will be developed so that CIO can have consensus kept.
09:19:37 <Daniel_Bennett> ... by the time of the enactment. NY does not have a reputation as open, but this legislation will help change things.
09:19:43 <sandro> paul: Pretty good support so far.    This legislation is beginning to be recognized as an pretty good tool in opening up govt.
09:19:44 <rigo> I note that EU and most national governaments do the same: e.g. SAGA of Germany, CAMSS etc
09:20:12 <Daniel_Bennett> ... have reached out and gotten support from lots of NGOs that support opening govt info.
09:20:24 <sandro> paul: companion peice of NYS leglsature to put its own work on line
09:20:25 <rigo> so that the interoperability challenges will be in the manual
09:20:41 <Daniel_Bennett> ... We are at a point that legislation has a good chance of passage.
09:20:53 <Daniel_Bennett> ... Are there any question?
09:20:53 <rigo> q+
09:20:56 <johnlsheridan> q+
09:21:01 <rigo> q- later
09:21:10 <rigo> ack rigo
09:21:22 <Chris> +q
09:21:27 <Daniel_Bennett> what is the name?
09:21:33 <sandro> Rigo Wenning
09:22:13 <Daniel_Bennett> Rigo: This legislation sounds good. We always come back as organizations and say although we do that, the data is not interoperable.
09:22:30 <sandro> rigo: National Govts always come back and sat still, interop doesn't work.    EU has 27 countries, and EU-wide efforts.   Transborder interop is much more important.
09:23:21 <Daniel_Bennett> ... Then trans-border data should be interoperable is very important. I think the manual is key part. Can you keep the standards out of the legislation?
09:23:46 <sandro> rigo: The interop challenge is in the manual:    Can you remain technically neutral, as you want, without hampering interop.     If one state does it in XML and another RDF and another does CSV, you'll have only a vague sort of interop.    This is exactly the challenge we have in the EU -- everyone does something in their corner.
09:23:55 <sandro> rigo: XML is sold as a panacea, but it's not.
09:24:06 <sandro> rigo: We need ontology federation, and such.
09:24:20 <Daniel_Bennett> ... other states may create non-interoperable data that is too difficult to have usable data across the orgs without a lot of cost.
09:24:29 <sandro> paul: That's certainly a concern; we have many jurisdictional issues as well.
09:24:59 <sandro> paul: How much can you put into statute without tying the hands of the CIO, without tying your hands going forward?   How much would you want in statute?
09:25:08 <Daniel_Bennett> Paul: We are considering the many jurisdictions, but how do you keep the standards in the legislation from hurting CIOs from making good chances?
09:25:47 <sandro> benj: each of the 50 states has its own power to decide what standards it will use.
09:26:00 <Daniel_Bennett> Benjamin: Federalist model means that each state creates own data.
09:26:12 <sandro> benj: if we (NY) do it well, we might be the role model
09:26:34 <Daniel_Bennett> ... so do you mean we should work with Federal system? And use funding to pull cooperation.
09:26:52 <sandro> benj: Database of law from all 50 states; 18 different fields for one type of information?
09:26:53 <sandro> q?
09:27:22 <sandro> daniel: I've been working on XML for legislative data centers
09:28:02 <sandro> daniel: Not just federal systems, but sep of govt from legislature -- separation of powers, which confuses things.   ministers dont oversee the agency.
09:29:27 <sandro> Daniel_Bennett: NCSL, ????, oportunities for view this across the states, despite attemps for 15-20 years.   NYS may have a big problem doing this within the law.     I feel badly not being able to answer why not best standards.      There are a lto of state govts that have relied on commercial firms, and those firms end up with rights.
09:29:34 <sandro> q?
09:30:36 <sandro> benj: yeah, you've hit the problem on the nose, in the US.     Privatizing sometimes turns into a problem down the road.
09:31:04 <Daniel_Bennett> Benjamin: Dirty secret is that privatizing government is that this has led to private firms get contracts that make info harder to use.
09:31:10 <Zakim> -??P16
09:31:20 <Daniel_Bennett> Paul: That is why we say no copyrights on data.
09:31:21 <sandro> benj: most govt information cannot be copyrighted, but there can be a license on the website which essentially puts it back under copyright.
09:31:50 <Zakim> +??P16
09:31:50 <sandro> benj: $4K/yr for subscription to govt data (when it's public info)
09:31:56 <sandro> benj: Special interests.
09:31:58 <edsu> ben++
09:31:59 <sandro> q?
09:32:07 <sandro> ack johnlsheridan 
09:32:14 <Daniel_Bennett> Benjamin: Problem has been that data is available in a way on the website, but otherwise data must be purchased by private firm--in the past.
09:32:55 <Daniel_Bennett> John: What is the reason for the the legislation, is it here to reduce costs?
09:32:57 <sandro> johnlsheridan: Motivation for policy?     transparency?     public services?     public money-well-spent?       internal cost saving (FOI)?
09:33:17 <sandro> paul: That's not all of it.     cost-of-FOI is an argument we do make.
09:34:16 <sandro> paul: AM Kellner's primary reasons were transparency, and making data available to benefit people's daily lives, as we've seen with apps.
09:34:30 <Daniel_Bennett> Paul: FOIA request to cost and reducing cost is important. But from the perspective of Rep. Kellner was transparency issue and the idea of the benefit of the data to the public. Such as applications of the data. Looked at NYC Big Apple apps contest.
09:34:34 <sandro> paul: unleashing creativity
09:34:47 <sandro> paul: so, both.
09:34:51 <sandro> zakim, q?
09:34:51 <Zakim> I see Chris on the speaker queue
09:35:02 <Daniel_Bennett> .... When Rep. Kellner talks about the legislation it is about transparency and use of the data.
09:35:29 <sandro> Chris: stds in legislation -- "open standards, full stop"
09:35:43 <rigo> q+ to suggest legislation by reference and to specify an exchange format as a minimum standard
09:35:44 <Daniel_Bennett> Chris: What standards is a question to be considered, use open standards only.
09:35:56 <sandro> chris: If driving by freedom-of-info, then surely privatization is a problem.
09:36:10 <sandro> chris: what happens if an org/agency doesn't follow it?
09:36:14 <edsu> Chris: great question
09:36:17 <Daniel_Bennett> ... from Australia. What is the requirements when the law is not followed? What is the enforcement?
09:36:39 <sandro> benj: I'm not sure if this bill has the enforcement provision.
09:37:06 <Daniel_Bennett> Benjamin: May not have enforcement, but does have reimbursement policy. And then FOIA request will now be free to citizens.
09:37:08 <sandro> benj: If someone puts in an FOI request for info that should have been on the web, then they must provide it for free.
09:37:39 <Daniel_Bennett> Chris: If you put up data in way to charge?
09:37:39 <sandro> chris: If you're putting up a data set, how will you charge for access?    what's a page?
09:38:11 <sandro> benj: Currently the charge is based on the time it takes to burn the CD.   Under the new rule they wouldn't be allowed to charge for it.
09:38:12 <sandro> q?
09:38:21 <sandro> ack Chris 
09:38:23 <sandro> ack rigo 
09:38:23 <Zakim> rigo, you wanted to suggest legislation by reference and to specify an exchange format as a minimum standard
09:38:36 <Daniel_Bennett> Paul: There is already a cost that is based on CDs. It will become free under the new act.
09:39:21 <sandro>  unknown: What is the process for the manual -- wiki?   public comments?     process for choosing standards?        human readabilkity of data, sep from machine readabilkity?
09:39:44 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
09:39:44 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.202.449.aaaa, Sandro, +1.917.432.aabb, +1.202.731.aacc, edsu, +1.917.570.aadd, +, ??P17, Rigo, ??P16
09:40:09 <Daniel_Bennett> Paul: The legislation does provide for consultation with standards bodies.
09:40:30 <sandro> paul: Legislation requires the OST develop the manual; it should be an open consultation process.
09:40:32 <Daniel_Bennett> ... the documentation will be available as part of open records themselves.
09:41:09 <Daniel_Bennett> Paul: We are happy to hear that W3C eGov can be helpful to us.
09:41:19 <sandro> q+
09:41:29 <sandro> q?
09:41:48 <edsu> zakim, + is Chris
09:41:48 <Zakim> +Chris; got it
09:41:58 <sandro> rigo: exchange format and API
09:42:00 <Daniel_Bennett> Rigo: How much interoperability should you include in the legislation? How do you set an API for translation?
09:42:20 <johnlsheridan> q+
09:43:06 <Zakim> + +1.202.564.aaff
09:43:10 <Daniel_Bennett> ... exchange formats. Governments have developed in-house many standards themselves. I would recommend using W3C for developing the manual.
09:43:17 <Chris> I agree - legacy information shouldn't be subject to a standard necessarily - you have to draw a line and look forward at some point. Prehaps infophilanthropy could be allowed for legacy information conversion?
09:43:35 <sandro> rigo: Consider developing Manual in forum like W3C, with experience balancing stakeholder interest, and managing public review/feedback.      This might be new experience for W3C and Governments, but I think its worthwhile trying.    The platform gives people a different vision, being on the web, with no borders.
09:43:51 <Daniel_Bennett> Rigo: I would say that use open standards rather than state developed ones.
09:44:18 <sandro> paul: That's why leg. says manual is done in consult with bodies like W3C.     The CIO has to be invoilved, but we want them to be reaching out.
09:44:23 <Daniel_Bennett> Paul: we specifically have the state look to various groups such as W3C.
09:44:23 <rigo> Daniel, it is also W3C wanting to help with the selection
09:44:50 <sandro> benjamin: Two issues:   public comments requirements & W3C, API
09:44:56 <Daniel_Bennett> Benjamin: We can require hearings.
09:45:12 <sandro> benjamin: We could require new public hearings on manual with some frequency
09:45:35 <sandro> benjamin: Appointment for something like W3C to sit on board?
09:45:46 <Daniel_Bennett> ... how many would you recommend? In regards, to looking to other standards bodies, how to do this?
09:45:58 <sandro> benj: Transition away from APIs
09:46:02 <rigo> q+ to answer
09:46:06 <Daniel_Bennett> ... we've heard that API's are being moved away from.
09:46:22 <Chris> q+ to answer/comment
09:46:52 <johnlsheridan> +1
09:47:05 <Daniel_Bennett> Chris: mandate for central portal may be a problem. closer to the people who create the data is better than not.
09:47:35 <sandro> s/Chris/Sandro/
09:47:42 <Daniel_Bennett> Paul: That is a good point so we looked at citizen perspective. Portal provides simple way to find data.
09:47:54 <Daniel_Bennett> sorry
09:48:15 <sandro> paul: It might be good to allow for decentralization, yes.
09:48:38 <sandro> benjamin: just over 10,000 individual agencies in NYC.
09:48:41 <edsu> the web scales quite will :-)
09:48:49 <edsu> s/will/well/
09:49:02 <Daniel_Bennett> Benjamin: we have lots of political jurisdictions and agencies. So centralization of portal crucial with over 10,000 places.
09:49:20 <sandro> benjamin: crawling through each of those takes too much work.
09:49:48 <edsu> this is where i ask my token feed syndication question :-)
09:49:51 <sandro> benjamin: proliferaiton of domains is a problem.
09:50:07 <johnlsheridan> q?
09:50:08 <sandro> benj: Maybe we should manadate it being in both places
09:50:11 <sandro> q-
09:50:12 <Daniel_Bennett> ... the idea is that the centralization. avoid confusion. perhaps double post.
09:50:28 <sandro> paul: Some centralization is important to making it user friendly
09:50:57 <rigo> I think distributed system and a central federation of it is not a contradiction in itself
09:51:03 <Daniel_Bennett> Kevin: feedback is that a portal is problem on.
09:51:06 <sandro> kevin: is great but what does it mean --- agencies hosting in context of what they;re trying to communicate is incredibly important.
09:51:37 <sandro> Daniel_Bennett: Issue with centraliaiton:   centralizing catalog is not the problem.    centralizing the data itself is a problem.
09:52:13 <sandro> Daniel_Bennett: "Authoritative Data".     You want the org which creates the data to remain close to the data.    Ease, and Authority.
09:52:35 <sandro> Daniel_Bennett: Local town councils to control citation.
09:53:30 <sandro> Daniel_Bennett: Interop with W3C or other stds body -- hearings?    I'd move away from hearings, but rather: publish manual openly, and have public comment process, where everyone can hear what's going on.
09:53:52 <sandro> Daniel_Bennett: Maybe a wiki, but make sure every portion of the manaul can be cited and blogged about.
09:54:03 <sandro> q?
09:54:15 <sandro> ack johnlsheridan 
09:54:20 <Daniel_Bennett> thanks Sandro
09:54:39 <Zakim> + +1.707.673.aagg
09:54:43 <Daniel_Bennett> John: data publishing must be distributed
09:54:53 <sandro> johnlsheridan: Very impoortant -- dont conflate single-point-of-access with centralized publsihing.     Single point of publications is a disaster.
09:55:10 <Daniel_Bennett> John: single point of access but distributed model of publishing the data.
09:55:13 <sandro> johnlsheridan: for : distributed model for publication, but central point of access
09:55:36 <sandro> johnlsheridan: How do you specify the standards?       Provide a mechanism for users to much more easily complain.
09:55:42 <Daniel_Bennett> John: How do you specify the standards? The idea of providing way of complaining.
09:56:23 <sandro> johnlsheridan: move beyond FOI.   not just get the data in the format the agency has, but let the user talk about the format they want.    Surface that bottom-up pressure.    Agency says why they chose their format.
09:56:27 <Daniel_Bennett> John: Have a mechanism for bottom up pressure to create fixes for standards.
09:57:03 <Daniel_Bennett> Paul: I like that point. Taking notes.
09:57:07 <sandro> johnlsheridan: Somehow try to introduce bottom-up pressure than rely on the CIO to make the right choices.
09:57:38 <sandro> Benj: specific case law -- can I request copies of maps as raster graphics -- required to rehash info
09:57:51 <Owen> In the U.S. the EFOIA Amendments require agencies to take reasonable efforts to make records available in whatever formats they may be requested.
09:57:51 <rigo> q?
09:57:58 <sandro> ... if three people request it in XML, then agency is required to use that format?   something like that?
09:58:41 <Daniel_Bennett> John: the citizens will explain their reasons for the choice for data standards. 
09:58:45 <sandro> johnlsheridan: Requesters probably have a good reason.     Don't want agency to always be converting data, but maybe they have to at least to seriously look at it.
09:59:40 <sandro>  unknown: conversion between machine formats is easy enough
10:00:00 <Daniel_Bennett> Benjamin: cant you just post around the information in different ways?
10:00:36 <Daniel_Bennett> John: no. without linking the data across the information there is no way to create ways to process.
10:00:38 <sandro> johnlsheridan: example -- CSV about contracts, suppliers, and I want to know how much one supplier got, ...   I have a big problem!       CSV doesn't let me to do that.    Then I'd have to push back and ask for RDF, with URI for supplier.
10:01:13 <Zakim> - +1.202.564.aaff
10:01:22 <sandro> johnlsheridan: when you want to grab from multiple sources, then you'll be asking for more than CSV, knocking on doors, applying this bottom up pressure.
10:01:43 <sandro> benj: then how do we make sure those 10,000 agencies use the same same terms.
10:01:51 <sandro> Daniel_Bennett: different types of standards.
10:02:04 <Zakim> -??P16
10:02:07 <Chris> Easy answer - controlled vocabularies, thesaurii and ontologies
10:02:12 <sandro> Daniel_Bennett: File formats (plain text), levels (semantics, data validation).
10:02:45 <rigo> chris, what about uncontrolled ontologies with SW and some kind of social process to converge
10:02:48 <Zakim> +??P24
10:03:51 <sandro> Daniel_Bennett: John is getting to a crucial explanation.     References.   When you stick data out there, and there's no way to reference it, that's a problem.       Data validation --- what do folks call a bill?    Each org needs a data validation, for what goes into that.       These are not small issues.   So putting the manual up for comment and public input is very important.   
10:04:18 <Chris> rigo - nice in theory, but in terms of getting 10000 agencies using the same terms for a business function for example - controlled is far easier and simpler to implement
10:04:21 <sandro> Daniel_Bennett: I've been advocating using HTML and RDFa to make this as human readable and accssible as possible.   Don't just assume data is data?
10:04:24 <sandro> q?
10:04:30 <sandro> ack rigo 
10:04:30 <Zakim> -??P24
10:04:31 <Zakim> rigo, you wanted to answer
10:05:06 <sandro> Rigo: central portal is just a representation of your distributed system.
10:05:09 <Daniel_Bennett> Rigo: the central portal is just a view of the distributed data.
10:05:17 <Daniel_Bennett> irc echo
10:05:26 <Daniel_Bennett> jinx
10:05:55 <sandro> Rigo: how you converge the agencies to follow -- that's a social process -- they want to be seen -- central reprentation provides convegence prressure.    distributed data model doesn't hinder standardization
10:06:14 <Zakim> +??P26
10:06:17 <Daniel_Bennett> hmmm jinx didnt work
10:06:23 <sandro> Rigo: Would W3C sit in hearings?   I've been in so many in Brussels, Berlin, Washington.      Gov 0.5 version of public scrutiny.
10:07:00 <sandro> Rigo: In manual, you can't do without specifying minimum of interchange format, but reference within law.        Some use ODF, some use OOXML, some use homegrown CSV.
10:07:28 <johnlsheridan> I think convergence should be around the use of identifiers rather than specific formats
10:08:32 <sandro> Rigo: for Hearings, "new approach", legislation leaves format spec open, if you chose a platform like W3C or Oasis, but with CONTINUOUS SCRUTINY.    W3C sometimes sits in hearings, but we can't do that with W3C Member funds.    It's peanuts, but it matters.
10:08:45 <Daniel_Bennett> yes. and the native identifier on the web are URLs and fragment URLs in XHTML
10:08:57 <sandro> Paul: i think this is good, useful feedback.     
10:09:04 <sandro> q?
10:09:34 <sandro> ack Chris
10:09:34 <Zakim> Chris, you wanted to answer/comment
10:10:20 <sandro> Chris: re W3C in hearings -- just watched CSPAN swearing in of someone -- no US court will recognize international law/standards -- W3C is international.   
10:10:43 <sandro> Chris: getting agencies talk to each other -- why not mandate common web service.
10:10:47 <rigo> to Chris: NIST is a member of W3C and may be able to help
10:11:23 <sandro> Paul: I think we're a couple steps away from that court problem, because it's about consulting.
10:11:44 <sandro> Chris: measurement, data formats.
10:12:27 <sandro> Paul: Certain gov't bodies do use metric, eg the military.       I doubt this is likely to be a problem.
10:12:44 <Daniel_Bennett> thanks for your work Paul and Benjamin
10:12:53 <Chris> Chris: Just examples :)
10:13:08 <Zakim> - +1.917.432.aabb
10:13:32 <Zakim> - +1.917.570.aadd
10:14:01 <Zakim> -Rigo
10:14:02 <Zakim> - +1.707.673.aagg
10:17:51 <edsu> +1
<sandro> Topic: Use of .gov outside of US Federal Gov't
10:19:19 <sandro> Daniel_Bennett: US .gov outside of federal
10:19:58 <sandro> Daniel_Bennett: with country codes not being country codes.....?    authoritative URLS, esp within govt?      
10:20:11 <sandro> q?
10:22:07 <sandro> Daniel_Bennett: once a state did a .com, it all kind of broke down
10:22:41 <sandro> kevin: when we did a county, in .us, we got a .org to get better recognition with public.
10:23:15 <sandro> Daniel_Bennett: what about ?   what country controls that!
10:24:09 <sandro> Daniel_Bennett: If we're really destroying top-level domains...?     .pol ?   
10:24:37 <sandro> sandro: speaker
10:24:50 <sandro> Daniel_Bennett: SOmeone from ICANN
10:25:46 <sandro> Daniel_Bennett: someone from GSA who can speak to .gov ?
10:26:07 <Chris> and - technically it was assigned by in Libya - costs $150 per year
10:26:41 <edsu> Daniel_Bennett: +1 for getting someone from gsa who can talk about
10:27:44 <sandro> Daniel_Bennett: comercial agencies control SSL certs, potentially between govts and the people
10:28:28 <sandro> Chris: NATO uses fictional countries for military exercises; maybe we can get one of those.
10:28:35 <sandro> or
10:30:07 <edsu> seeya!
10:30:09 <Zakim> - +1.202.731.aacc
10:30:10 <Zakim> -??P26
10:30:12 <Zakim> -edsu
10:30:15 <Zakim> - +1.202.449.aaaa
10:30:20 <sandro> ADJOURN
10:30:23 <Zakim> -??P17
10:30:27 <Zakim> -Sandro
10:30:31 <Zakim> -Chris
10:30:33 <Zakim> T&S_EGOV()9:00AM has ended
10:30:35 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.202.449.aaaa, Sandro, +1.917.432.aabb, +1.202.731.aacc, +1.917.570.aadd, edsu, Rigo, Chris, +1.202.564.aaff, +1.707.673.aagg