Internal:Public Policy

At an upcoming Wikimedia DC board meeting the establishment of a Wikimedia DC Public Policy Committee will be considered. The draft resolution is here: Internal:Public Policy Committee resolution.

Below are some working activities related to the committee's likely internal charter and work.

Public policy work group proposal

• Work group within Wiki DC
• Can edit articles on legislation and court cases (meeting usual criteria of neutral language, sourcing of statements, and working cooperatively online) -- we've done well creating the article on the upcoming case Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International
• Can team up with Cato Institute for edit-a-thons

• could organize an edit-a-thon on government procurement topics ; or, again do one on legislation

• Prepare congressional briefings in 2014 after good experiences in 2013 (Prep materials used in 2013 round)
• possible talk at WikiConference USA: Wiki Loves Capitol Hill. (SlowKing4 to link to meta)
• Maintain a page on Wiki-DC site for our activities and views
• Can organize group trip to see software patents case argued at Supreme Court.
• Can take public positions on copyrights, patents, and free knowledge issues? Coordinated with WMF and others? Erik Moeller pointed me to a Luis Villa and Stephen P. in the WMF general counsel's office to coordinate with on software patents issue.

Taking positions on public matters

• The Wikimedia DC board must approve any public document from the committee representing the chapter, before release
• Background: in 2013, Wiki DC was publicly committed to resisting/changing SOPA/PIPA, and supporting WMF's blackout of the Wikipedias. This was framed as advocating for Internet freedom. Wiki DC had some budget capacity for this.
• Software patenting comes up in impending judicial cases (no legislative consideration at the moment)
• Work group should not claim to represent Wiki-DC without board approval of specifics (?)
• Generally Wiki-DC and this group should takes stances (if any) that are in the public interest of free knowledge, not stances organized towards the narrow interest of the organization
• Members can self-identify as members of Wiki DC in public, without apology, but do not generally represent the organization except with board approval

• useful for those of us who do not have a work affiliation we can use for open-source / free-knowledge work
• an alternative framing is that coordination with the WMF is required ; but this is costly for moving quickly
• Wikipedias in Native American languages

• Software patents are a subject in the public sphere. The Supreme Court will hear a software/business-methods case ("the Alice case") on March 31 at 10am
• Could blog in advance on the topic, write learned papers, or coauthor briefs
• We can organize a chapter trip to see the case argued. An experienced person told me that if we organize a group of ten we can get seats for the entire case. They give tickets. It takes a little planning but he can help. We'll need to gather interested people and perhaps combine this with a salon or edit-a-thon or anyway a trip to a cafe.
• Possible teammates or coauthors: WMF ; Creative Commons ; Electronic Frontier Foundation ; Public Knowledge ; Open Knowledge Foundation ; OSI ; many others
• Work group might propose a talk for Wikimania 2014 on public policy issues, e.g. "Software patents: an update from the U.S.", or "Government software procurement", or "Can chapters take public policy positions?"

Background -- topics and legislation of interest

• ACTA: The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), is a multinational treaty for the purpose of establishing international standards for intellectual property; agreed on in 2011 if I understand correctly
• CISPA: Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act -- a proposed U.S. law to "allow" (require?) sharing of Internet traffic data between the U.S. government and some companies, intended to help the government investigate cyber threats and ensure security of networks.
• Aaron's Law: sponsored by Rep. Zoe Lofgren's office
• SOPA/PIPA -- effort by recording industry and Hollyword to incorporate copyright protection into the infrastructure of the Internet; beaten back in 2011.
• CALEA: The wikipedia:Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act is a United States wiretapping law passed in 1994
• Research "Aaron's law" proposal (named for Aaron Swartz) from Rep. Lofgren's office: proposed revision to Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to reduce penalties and maybe more. [1]. A contact person at Lofgren's office is senior legislative counsel: harley.geiger at mail.house.gov ; 225-3072.
• Public Domain Day mentioned in Signpost
• copyright reform might be a policy item for agenda
• The potential right-to-repair [2], [3], [4]
• Net neutrality
• Native Language Immersion Student Achievement Act
  • Note that Wikimedia DC cannot take official positions on pieces of legislation. James Hare (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2014 (EST)

• Why not? Is this a policy of the Wiki-DC board? But the chapter has done so in the past: Statement on SOPA and PIPA. It's not a constraint on 501(c)3s generally, which may lobby as long as lobbying is not "substantial": IRS doc see p.7 on legislative activities.
• this source says "501(c)3 Public Charities, including Community Foundations, have every right to advocate on behalf of policies they believe in. But, when nonprofits advocate for specific legislation (i.e. lobby), it may trigger specific rules and limits."
• This guidance says that "501(c)(3) organizations can, and often should, lobby at all levels of government. Federal tax law has always permitted some lobbying by nonprofits."
• Perhaps the potential committee should provide an analysis or specific proposal on this topic if and when becomes relevant. An IRS tax attorney may be on the committee. We do not in the near run have a specific proposal to do it, or to budget a penny for it.
• To me it seems too early to constrain our potential freedom of speech and contribution, apart from our previously discussed agreement that the Wiki DC Board can take positions but the public policy committee cannot. -- Econterms (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2014 (EST)
• More info: Wikipedia has a clear helpful paragraph on this point. The IRS guidance is very clear here. We have to file a trivial form, Form 5768, if we take positions. The "expenditure test" seems to say that if the org spends approximately zero on lobbying, it is not at any risk. If its lobbying is not "substantial" timewise, it is not at risk. We'll be fine. A possible step is to assign an analysis of the Corporation's limits here to the Public Policy Committee, once it exists. And perhaps a policy proposal on keeping the risk to a negligible level. -- Econterms (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2014 (EST)