Internal:Public Policy

The Public Policy Committee is a chapter committee to develop expertise and consensus on public policy matters and advise the board. In the long run we may write white papers and recommend public policy, when these recommendations are approved by the board. Any chapter money we budget for policy positions and lobbying must be small in order to stay within the rules on nopnprofit organizations.

Here are constructive things we can do:

• 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
• 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

• Our committee has a responsibility to clarify for ourselves the limits of taking positions and lobby, and to advise the board that Wiki DC is in compliance with any constraints on 501(c)3 organizations -- let's see if we can do that in March or April 2014 and establish our technique for it. Further discussion can go in /Taking positions on public policy and nonprofit-charity status

• 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 -- article recommended by Jeremy P
• Native Language Immersion Student Achievement Act