This past weekend, I had the opportunity to spend time with a roomful of people doing some pretty inspiring work (one of the best perks of my job!). One of those people was Richard Conlin, Council President for the City of Seattle.

For several years now, Richard has worked to help make Seattle a more livable city. This past Monday, Seattle become one of the few places in the States where you can:

• Grow food on your residential and sell it there too (think curb-side fruit stands in every community).
• Put a small, food-producing, greenhouse on your roof
• And — garnering a surprising amount of attention, and praise — the ability to raise up to eight chickens in your backyard.

This is only the latest development in what is an impressive record of achievements toward making Seattle one of the most green, low-waste, and energy-efficient cities in the US.

Richard — who biked from his home in Seattle to the gathering on Bainbridge Island — brims with enthusiasm when talking about urban farming, community gardening, and the potential for Seattle to become a zero-waste city.

Canada needs to find a way to import some of this vision and execution to our city councils. Toronto, I’m lookin’ at you.

Over lunch with Matt Thompson earlier this week, I was lamenting the U.S Court of Appeals had ruled that FCC "did not have the authority to order Comcast to stop slowing down BitTorrent traffic" and -- in effect -- doesn't have the authority to enforce net neutrality. This is an issue that Matt had worked on for years and one that is near-and-dear to his heart. 

Matt shared with me some of the battles that were fought while he was working on the Save The Internet campaign and -- interestingly -- how some of the organizations working in the "open Internet" space don't support the FCC, or -- more specifically -- the idea of any regulation of the Internet at all. Matt pointed out, correctly I think, that this lack of government regulation creates exactly the right kind of environment for the opposite of regulation -- Monopolization. And with monopolies -- like Bell and Rogers to date in Canada -- the average citizen gets an entirely different kind of regulation, and it's usually not the kind that favours Canadian culture, openness, or anything other than the interests of the monopoly. 

David Eaves had recently offered up thoughts for the Canadian Parliamentary committee on "the future of media in Canada" and that post echoed some of the sentiments that I've also heard from those that favour an open Internet, but seek less government regulation. In Canada's case, this is the CRTC, which is by no means a perfect organization. However, I fear the call to limit the CRTC's ability to regulate the Internet in Canada.

An article published yesterday on TechCrunch about the ruling that impacts the FCC has an insightful quote (the bold is mine):

“Yesterday’s decision may affect a significant number of important Plan recommendations.  Among them are recommendations aimed at accelerating broadband access and adoption in rural America; connecting low-income Americans, Native American communities, and Americans with disabilities; supporting robust use of broadband by small businesses to drive productivity, growth and ongoing innovation; lowering barriers that hinder broadband deployment; strengthening public safety communications; cybersecurity; consumer protection, including transparency and disclosure; and consumer privacy. The Commission must have a sound legal basis for implementing each of these recommendations. We are assessing the implications of yesterday’s decision for each one, to ensure that the Commission has adequate authority to execute the mission laid out in the Plan.”

Reading the implications of the U.S Court of Appeals ruling struck a cord with me; more so in light of a piece that I read in last week's Globe about "Canada's digital divide" that points out "As urban centres rush to build high-speed broadband networks to keep up with exploding demand, many rural regions are being left behind." 

Canada's competitive future and cultural future both require an open, fast, and relatively unobstructed Internet. Canadian citizens -- and, thus, Canadian democracy -- require the same. The CRTC and its attempts to enforce Canadian content rules on the Internet may be misguided -- I am not arguing with that -- but I caution Canadians to not throw out the good with the bad.

Given a choice of a bureaucracy that reports to the people, or a monopoly that reports to the shareholders: I'll go with a bureaucracy every time.

See also

• Megan Tady: The Courts Can't Take Away Our Internet (huffingtonpost.com)
• Ruling puts US net plans in flux (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Court says FCC can't impose network neutrality (sfgate.com)
• FCC can't enforce net neutrality: court (cbc.ca)

I passionately believe in Open, but I need your help to sell my case to the rest of the New Internationalist co-operative. You see, each year the co-op determines the subject of the next ten issues of the magazine at an annual general meeting, and they do it in a very co-op-y way, with lots of discussion, and consensus-building, and then -- when that all fails -- by direct democracy. Its a beautiful thing to watch.

Cross-posted from the New Internationalist Tech blog

Internet freedom has become a critical component of functional democracies. Global events like the election in Iran highlight the important role that both Internet freedom and press freedom play in maintaining the balance of power between people and politics. 

Joseph E. Stiglitz wrote in his book Globalization and its discontents :

“We have come to take it for granted the important role that an informed and free press has in reining in even our democratically elected governments: any mischief, any minor indiscretion, any favoritism, is subject to scrutiny, and public pressure works powerfully.”

And, should that book be published today, no doubt Stiglitz would note that “an informed and free press” is threatened in all countries, not just Iran, when Internet freedom is undermined. 

Cross-posted from Two bulls in a china shop.

It’s hard to believe that it’s been a week and a day since Melanie and I fixed our resolve, swallowed our timidity, and jumped right in to Twestival Buenos Aires. Our joint objective: To not embarrass ourselves or our respective nations at this international solidarity event.

Twestival, if this is the first you’ve heard of it, is a grassroots, locally organized, globally-simultaneous event. Along the lines of self-organized knowledge gatherings like BarCamp, the Twestival organizers simply established the framework and let the Internet do the rest. And following in the footsteps of more recent events like #HoHoTo in Toronto, the event was equal parts social and social conscience: all proceeds from Twestival were donated to a charity working to bring clean and safe drinking water to people in developing nations.

Globally, Twestival raised a stunning $250,000 USD, which (according to the Twestival site) pays for 55 water projects in places like Ethiopia, Uganda and India — clean water for just over 17,000 people.

So who were these people?

This message brought to you by SaveOurNet.ca. Please take a moment to send your comments to the CRTC by February 16th, 2009:

With your assistance, we have helped propel Net Neutrality from
an obscure issue into a national effort to secure open and equal
access to the Internet for all Canadians. NOW is the time to let
the CRTC know where YOU stand on Internet freedom:
http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/n7qAbqF1iPFM/

Have you ever seen one of those pyramids that describes food choices? Well, if you’re a “good vegetarian” like me, then you’ve probably seen your share, or have mentally created a few of your own. You might have even caught yourself thinking “Is a conventional vegetable within walking distance better than an organic one that I have to take public transportation to get?” — before realizing how circular those questions can be. That said, over the last couple of years, I’ve been thinking how helpful a software pyramid would be… as the saying goes: a picture is worth a thousand words.

Over the last couple of weeks, I was thinking a lot about “network leadership,” and the role of innovative technology, and how it all becomes part of a movement here in Canada that could change the field of innovation. The last burning question for me is: How can Canadian grant makers play a bigger role in catalyzing the necessary networks, and helping innovators build the necessary relationships?

Lots has already been said about the opportunities for a more holistic approach to financing non-profit technology initiatives. So, when it comes time to explore new ways of financing social innovation, I hope that foundations and grant makers will invest some time to integrate the “old” ideas too. But, when I return to the question “how can Canadian grant makers play a bigger role in ensuring that technology projects are successful and sustainable,” I always come back to the same conclusion: the funding model needs to be innovative too.

One of the questions that I’ve struggled with over the last couple of years is: What systemic changes are necessary to help catalyze innovation around social technology? I came back to this question the other week as the conversation swayed toward the opportunity for progressive organizations — and social innovators — to integrate social software, social networks, and the ideas of Web 2.0 into their work. I think for most of us who work in the non-profit technology space, the sparkle is off the Web 2.0 starburst, as we see organizations struggle to fully “get” what this new technology movement is all about.

What I do think is cool about Web 2.0 — especially when it comes to non-profit organizations and social innovators — is the operational style (business model if you must). Having a usable, interactive, data-exposing, read/write Web site is, in my opinion, more a function of a new approach to problem solving than a tectonic shift in the way the underlying technology works.

Photo of Kirsten Jordan (Taking IT Global) and Andres Dussan (Askoka) by Michael Lewkowitz

How often have you sought to answer questions like “how can new technologies support social change that has impact, durability and scale?” or “is it possible to foster collaboration, sharing, and even co-development of technology solutions rather than everyone building their own or working in isolation?” Well, last week, I was surprised to find myself in a room with some of Canada’s brightest minds when it comes to social innovation and social technology (that is: technology in support of social innovation). We gathered early in the morning on July 26th at MaRS to do some brainstorming on how best to support innovative organizations to leverage appropriate technology, execute technology projects successfully, and how to build capacity for ongoing innovation and sustainable technology operations.