Connecting with me on LinkedIn

18 02 2015

So you want to “Connect with me on LinkedIn” – awesome! But there needs to be a bit more for me to accept.

1) Tell me why
Simply asking to connect ain’t enough – let me know why, is it for a particular job, because of my background, due to something of mine you read, looking to connect with someone I know or because you recently met me and think we should be keeping track of each other.

2) Give me a hint at how we might know each other
Have I already met you, were we at the same event, do we have a mutual friend or two that told you that we need to meet, etc … please give me a clue.

Then we can connect, and hopefully do some cool stuff together.

If you don’t tell me how we might know each other, and why you think we should connect, the you start looking like someone who is just connecting contacts for the fun of it, or worse, a spammer.

The above was plagiarised shamelessly with permission from my good friend +Mike Riversdale, aka @MiramarMike, whose many endearing qualities include that he’s still using G+. Thanks Mike!

Religious Instruction in NZ state schools

15 02 2015

Should our children be taught Christianity (or any other specific religion) in state schools?

If this is of interest to you, read on…

I’ve been invited by David Hines to join the Secular Education Network’s mediation at the Human Rights Commission, in which they are lodging a complaint against the Ministry of Education in an attempt to remove Religious Instruction in state schools. The scheduled date for the mediation is Monday 23 February.

The objectives of this campaign are to:

  • Promote an inclusive school curriculum, which does not require any student to withdraw from class on account of different religious beliefs.
  • Cease the practice of volunteer-run religious instruction during school hours.
  • Treat all religious organisations who wish to use the school facilities outside of the school day with transparent and equitable policies.

The central problem is that Section 78 of the Education Act 1964 which allows state schools to provide up to 60 minutes of RI per week, so long as it’s approved by the Board of Trustees. Much of the demand and curriculum relate to Christianity. Side effects of this policy include children being separated from their peers (with the potential for exclusion and ridicule) on the basis of their religion, the denigration of non-Christian points of view in state schools which should be neutral, and the unfair use of public property and resources for prosylitising.

SEN isn’t against Religious Instruction, it’s just saying that the appropriate place for Religious Instruction is in the places of worship of the concerned communities, not in public schools which are attended by children with an increasingly wide variety of heritages. The SEN position is that it is appropriate for public schools to teach about world religions, but in an inclusive, neutral way that respects diversity, encourages children to express their own beliefs and develops empathy about the beliefs of others.

My own personal perspective can be briefly summarised as: One of the main reasons we’ve sent our three children to state schools is so that they didn’t have to endure Religious Instruction at school, or any of the “alternatives activities” that might single them out for differentiation.

Although I’m not a member of SEN, I’ve been asked to provide a Jewish perspective at the mediation, but I’d be really interested in perspectives from others.

If you would like me to reflect your opinion at the mediation, please comment below, or drop me a line.  If you’re doing the latter, let me know if I can use your name at the HRC mediation.

Thanks in advance for your consideration, and helping Aotearoa/NZ become a more inclusive society.

What does a startup need to thrive?

20 01 2015

Last weekend I was invited to be a panelist on Radio NZ’s “The Weekend” programme with Lynn Freeman, discussing what it takes for startups to thrive.  You can hear the audio here:

I took some notes before the panel, of all of the things that I wanted to say – but of course in these situations you never really get to say everything you want to, so I thought it might be useful to share them.


  • Diversity – leadership, sales, tech, project management.  You very rarely get these in one person.
  • Resilience – you have to be able to wake up every morning ready to be punched in the face repeatedly.
  • Adaptability – you need to be able to learn quickly from the active and passive feedback you’re getting, and pivot accordingly.


  • Big enough to support your goals; this generally means going after a market of 7 billion (the world) versus 4 million (New Zealand)
  • Plenty of room for growth
  • One in which you have a valuable point of difference from your competitors


  • Your team has experience in the domain you’re trying to attack.  There’s no point in trying to send a rocket to the moon if you’ve never seen the sky.
  • Track record in the tasks required to launch and operate your business.


  • This is what will carry you through the dark times and keep you excited about the change you’re trying to affect in the market and the world


  • You’re solving a significant problem that people actually have
  • It works, and can be shown to work
  • Potential customers are demonstrably willing to pay for it


  • You have a great network of fans and supporters
  • You’re operating in an ecosystem that supports you
  • You are making a real difference in your community


  • You have enough money, or access to enough money to make your business fly
  • You have the ability and networks to establish and maintain a presence in remote markets. [see note below]


  • You have a way of getting your product or service in front of people so that they know you exist
  • You have a supply chain that is interested in working with you
  • If you’re selling direct, the product has in-built viral mechanisms to ensure your existing users are helping distribute your product
  • Lack of distribution is a common failure point for Kiwi startups.


  • You need to make your own luck.  It helps to have a plan.  Seriously.

Note on resources: “No worries”, I hear you say, “We’re an Internet based business operating from New Zealand, the Internet brings us everywhere so that we don’t need to be there physically ourselves.”  If only.  Unfortunately, each geographic market has its own cultural, legal, and physical peculiarities, and there’s no substitute for actually being there to establish yourself.  Sure, there are pure plays like github or noip to which geography is completely irrelevant, but these are few and far between.

Other notes:

On the panel, Masha said that NZ is a useful test market, in that our demographics are similar to the rest of the developed world.  I’d argue that these similarities are usually very superficial. The killer difference between NZ and the rest of the world is the structure of our market.  There’s one degree of separation in NZ, and practically everyone knows or has easy access to everyone else.  The rest of the world does not operate like that – distribution is critical.  As a global startup, every week you spend chasing the New Zealand market is a week spent learning the wrong lessons.  To extend Steve Blank, don’t only get out of the building, get out of the country!

Finally, the number 8 wire mentality is killing us.  Sure, we’re great all-rounder generalists, very flexible, and very resourceful. This is great for building a prototype, but suboptimal for building a scalable business that can compete on the world stage.  By all means build your minimum viable product out of number 8 wire, but plan out which bits need to be shored up to be industrial strength as you scale.  And rather than relying on cousin Trev who has a passing acquaintance with a specialist aspect of your business, do bring in some people who have deep experience, rather than relying on mates and mates-of-mates to see you through.


In the wake of Charlie Hebdo

12 01 2015

In the wake of the recent Paris killings, I helped organise an interfaith meeting of Jews, Christians, and Muslims at the Kilbirnie Islamic Centre.

All three faiths denounced the killings, as per our media release from the Wellington Council of Christians and Jews.

The meeting had reasonably good media coverage from Radio NZ, One News (from about 6 min 40 sec into the bulletin), 3 News, ZB, and Radio Live.

Here’s what I said to the 100 or so people gathered at the meeting:

Kia ora tatau.

We have come together today in the spirit of friendship, with a shared purpose.

We all are saddened by recent events in Paris, and the senseless deaths of people killed simply because of their occupation or religion.

We all are fearful that the hatred that brews overseas will spread to Aotearoa / New Zealand. This hatred and fear are counterproductive. The killers and fearmongers score a victory whenever our hatred and fear grow.

We all understand that it is contrary to all of our religious teachings to kill someone for something they have said, written, or believe.

We all know that despite our strength of faith and pride in our religions, there are people who do ghastly things in the name of religion. They do not represent us, and we must not let them define us.

We all recognise that the freedom of expression that enables us to practice our religions is the same freedom of expression that enables others to parody and ridicule us. These rights are critical to maintaining a free society where we can peacefully coexist. It is unfortunate when this parody is offensive, but our response should always be one of dialogue and education.

As a result of these events, I believe we should ask ourselves what we can do, individually, as well as together in our religions and wider society:

  • To help improve relations between our religions
  • To learn more about each other, accepting our differences, and resolving disagreements through discussion. At times we’ll need to agree to disagree.
  • To speak out against religious violence, no matter who the perpetrator.
  • To prevent extremism from silencing the voice of diversity, even when we are offended by the voice.
  • To overcome hatred through positivity and understanding.

Thank you, shalom, salaam, peace.

Should you keep your startup idea secret?

2 11 2014

I recently facilitated Startup Weekend Hawkes Bay, the first such event in one of my favourite regions of New Zealand.  Most of the people there were first-timers, and they put in a fantastic effort.

Just after the final presentations, one of our esteemed judges and local hero Sir Graeme Avery decided to give an impromptu speech, exhorting people to keep their ideas close to their chest:

Sir Graeme has built businesses around medical publishing and food and beverage.  It might make sense in these verticals to have everything planned out before you go public, but I don’t believe that this is the case for most online startups.  Your idea is important, but it’s all about execution.  I don’t think many businesses are going to be able to develop a sufficiently big first mover advantage from Hawkes Bay or New Zealand that will outweigh the benefits of getting customer feedback from a Minimum Viable Product as soon as possible.

Apologies to Sir Graeme if my interjection seemed rude.

My TEDx talk: The four superpowers of the Internet

10 09 2014

I gave a talk at the inaugural TEDxWellington this year, called “The four superpowers of the Internet”, which are being direct, open, accessible and free.  These superpowers are all underpinned by the golden rule, that we should treat all others as we would wish to be treated ourselves.  This modern force of good has driven the explosive growth of the Internet, and can turn all of us into leaders and heroes.  It includes an homage to entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs as the heroes of our generation leading the creative destruction that will bring about a better world, a hat-tip to TED Prize winner Karen Armstrong and her Charter for Compassion, as well as a brief history of the Internet and its governance and why humming is an effective tool in bringing about consensus.

Enjoy.  A transcript follows.

Kia ora koutou and warm greetings – I’m Dave Moskovitz.

Six years ago, theologian and former nun Karen Armstrong won the TED prize with her wish for a Charter for Compassion, which calls upon each of us to live the “golden rule”, and treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves. I want to start my talk by saying “thank you” to Karen Armstrong and the TED community. The text was crowdsourced by religious leaders worldwide, and it’s been a strong force of religious cohesion here in New Zealand and around the world.

This talk isn’t about Karen Armstrong, but it is about the golden rule, and how it underpins the core values that have driven the explosive growth of the Internet. These core values are: Being direct, open, accessible, and free. They are so simple and so powerful that I call them the Internet’s superpowers.

This is a story about how good can arise from evil, how all of us are smarter than any of us, and of how these superpowers turn each of into leaders.

I arrived in Wellington on the first day of Summer in 1982 in a stiff southerly with pelting rain. I fell in love with early 1980’s New Zealand: it’s classlessness, giving everyone a fair go, respect for diversity, and how everyone has direct access to anyone. But most of all, people seemed to really care about each other. Looking back, the things I love about New Zealand resonate with these superpowers and the golden rule.

In contemporary times, many people feel that technology is an isolating force, a tool used by the state and corporations to trap us in a capitalist downward spiral, as we trudge through our lives staring at our smartphones hoping for fulfilment in the next dollar, gadget, or lolcat.

These are the birthing pains of a new era. We are currently experiencing a silent revolution where power hierarchies are being destroyed. We are refactoring society into a collaborative economy of networked value, where everyone has something to receive and to give, and we treat all others in the way we wish to be treated ourselves.

In order to understand how these superpowers came about, I’d like to give you a short whirlwind history of the Internet.

I was born in 1960, in the dark years of the pre-Internet age, when everything was disconnected. A year later in 1961, Leonard Kleinrock wrote the first paper on packet switching theory, which in modern times controls how data flows on the Internet. On my birthday in 1969, the Network Working Group issued the first “Request for Comment”– RFC 1 – defining the specifics of how computers could talk to each other on an open network, and later that year the first four computers were connected in the US Defence Department’s ARPAnet. Thus you could say the Internet is the bastard child of an unholy union between the war machine of the most powerful country in the world, and a group of geeky academics.

I wrote my first computer program in 1971. The 1970’s and 1980’s saw rapid developments in computing, but in the commercial world, for the most part, computers were islands; when they were connected at all, they were mostly restricted to proprietary networks linking the computers of one organisation.

In 1989, Tim Berners-Lee proposed the WorldWideWeb project, and by 1993 Mosaic, the first web browser was released, and the Web as we know it was born. There were 623 web sites at the end of ‘93, 10,000 by the end of ‘94, and earlier this year we crossed the billion mark.

How do you manage such explosive growth, across billions of people, millions of organisations, in 249 country codes? You can’t manage it centrally – it’s too big for anyone or anything to control by themselves. The Internet is the world’s largest and most important collaborative project to date. Its design encourages cooperation, so that ordinary people can benefit from it, so that businesses can profit from it, academics can learn from it, and so on. In the lingo of Internet governance, this is called “multistakeholderism”.

Multistakeholderism means all affected parties can be part of the conversation and decision making process. In other words, “nothing about us without us”.

Why? Because people are a lot more important than the technology. As the Māori proverb says, “What is the most important thing in the world? It is people, it is people, it is people.” Technology is only an enabler – the people are the enabled.

We just heard about the first “Request for Comment” or RFC. The Internet isn’t built on laws, it’s built on these RFC’s agreed by multistakeholder processes. RFC’s cover broad topics like email and file transfer protocols, how domain names work, and so on. There are even RFC’s that address interplanetary communications and datagram delivery by avian carriers … that used to be homing pigeons, but now it’s quadcopters.

One of the most fundamental RFC’s, RFC 760 was issued in 1980, and formalised the Internet Protocol, or IP. Its editor, the late Jon Postel, said that “in general, an implementation should be conservative in its sending behavior, and liberal in its receiving behavior.” Fifteen years later, when Postel was referred to as “the god of the Internet”, he replied, “[T]here isn’t any ‘God of the Internet.’ The Internet works because a lot of people cooperate to do things together.”

The latest governance-related RFC is RFC 7282, just issued in June 2014. It codifies the decision making process in the Internet Engineering Task Force or IETF. It specifically says that “We reject: kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code.” And how do they arrive at this rough consensus without voting? According to RFC7282, the when chair of the working group wants to get a ‘sense of the room’, instead of a show of hands, the chair might ask for each side to hum on a particular question, either ‘for’ or ‘against’.”

You know you have rough consensus when the hums on one side are a lot louder than the hums on the other.

Let’s practice this – I know you can all hum, so let’s try this now. If you like this decision making process, please hum now.

And if you think it’s stupid, please hum now.

The Internet is what it is today because a small number of people chose to get together, talk, reach consensus, and act. Those who chose to act made a real difference.

Multistakeholder processes were used to determine these four core values in 2009 at the Internet Governance Forum or IGF. These were: End-to-end, Open Standards, Universal Access, and Freedom of expression. These core values are the Internet’s superpowers.

Each of these four superpowers helps us become better as a society, levels the playing field between people, corporations, and nations, and unleashes huge latent economic and social value. In fact, each of us can use the Internet’s superpowers to become heroes. We can activate them through two simple but powerful tools we have – how we spend our time and how we spend our money.

Each superpower has a dark side though, that we must heed to ensure that they are used for good and not evil – that’s up to each of us individually and collectively, it’s not something we can fully delegate to network management algorithms, the IETF, or governments. The best defence against the dark arts, in the words of JK Rowling’s Mad-eye Moody is: CONSTANT VIGILANCE!

Let’s look at these superpowers more closely.

The first is End-to-end, or “being direct”. The edge-dominant end-to-end model of the Internet means that the network itself should be largely transparent. Any person or device should be able to freely and directly communicate with any other person or device on the network. Intermediaries are unnecessary, unless they add real value.

Being direct is important because it enables us to paint our own picture of the truth, based on data gleaned from the source. In a world without asymmetric knowledge, where everything is knowable, we no longer need external parties to interpret and re-interpret the truth for us.

Being direct results in massive economic value as we can work with smaller and smaller pieces of each other’s value chains, only the bits that are useful to us. We don’t need to buy the whole album when we only want one song. We don’t need to be part of a big company to contribute to society, we only need to do one small thing very well, and work directly with the people to whom that is useful.

But there is a dark side of being direct. Without legislation protecting employees, the environment, and other externalities, we run the risk of all becoming mechanical turks, working piecemeal, competing in an unregulated market for the lowest price.

You can become a hero by using the direct superpower – this is within everyone’s ability. You are a direct hero when you purchase content rather than pirating it, when you upgrade free apps on your phone to paid versions, when you donate to a crowdfunding campaign, when you join a civic cause or help a neighbour you met on the ‘net.

Can you think of a time when you’ve used the direct superpower?

The second superpower is Open Standards, or just Open for short. We’ve seen how the RFC process allows everyone to know the rules, and to help make or revise them. These open standards enable full interoperability on the ‘net – this is what lets your iPad talk to my Android.

Open standards turn proprietary Towers of Babel into a cooperative world, where we understand each other, and collaborate in an economy of networked value. If you don’t like one implementation of those standards, use another or write your own. Hate Internet Explorer? Use Firefox. The economic value of these open standards is huge, as well as the value of business ecosystems built around open source, open data, and open content.

One dark side to Open is that security vulnerabilities can hide in broad daylight, as happened recently with the heartbleed exploit, by which millions of web site passwords were stolen. It’s rumoured that the NSA knew about heartbleed for two years before it was discovered, but found it a useful tool for gathering intelligence. Frankly, I’d rather have my vulnerabilities available to everyone to look at and fix, implementing what Eric Raymond called “Linus’s Law”: given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow.

You are an open hero when you use this superpower to join the conversation at a multistakeholder forum like NetHui or an IGF; when you contribute to an Open Source project, when you license one of your works under a Creative Commons or other open license.

Can you think of a time when you’ve used the open superpower?

The third superpower is Universal access, or accessible for short. Everyone can play, everyone has equal access, and there is no distinction between producers and consumers – everyone is a participant. You may have heard about this in discussions about the “digital divide” and “net neutrality”. On the Internet, no one knows you’re a dog, and it doesn’t matter. Or that you’re Bill Gates, or living below the poverty line, or Deaf, or in New Zealand, or sitting on the throne. Commercially, this extends our potential market as buyers, sellers, contributors or collaborators to everyone, globally. Or any specific niche. Anywhere.

One dark side of universal access is that the bad guys all have access too, and also have have direct, no-cost access to everyone else. That’s why according to Symantec, 68% of all email traffic is SPAM – but the good news is that this is down from nearly 80% a few years ago.

You are an accessible hero whenever you help someone who isn’t as computer literate as you, whenever you donate your old computer for educational use , or give your time or money to organisations who are working to bridge the digital divide; whenever you install security software on your computer to prevent it from becoming infected and infectious.

Can you think of a time when you’ve used the accessible superpower?

The fourth superpower is Freedom of expression, or just free. Everyone has the right to participate, securely, privately and anonymously if necessary. Information wants to be free, especially in the sense of “free speech”, but often also in the sense of “free beer”. In the words of John Gilmore, “The Net interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it.

It’s a cliché, but with freedom comes responsibility, and we should be empathetic to those around us and avoid hurting people through exercising our own freedoms.

Of the four superpowers, “free” has the blurriest edges. And the dark side is very dark indeed. How objectionable does content need to be before it should be banned? Should we allow images of child abuse, hate speech, sedition? I believe that these aren’t network issues at all, but rather legal issues for society to decide – your rights are your rights, offline or online.

You are a free hero whenever you add your considered opinion constructively to the debate, when you call out governments and other organisations who are infringing your right to free expression or your right to privacy; when you call out other people who are abusing their freedoms to be hurtful to others. When you donate your time or money to organisations that protect our freedom.

Can you think of a time when you’ve used the free superpower?

If you’ve ever used any of these superpowers, I’d like you to hum now.

If you haven’t used any of these superpowers, I’d like you to hum now.

Thanks – we have consensus, we’re all heroes! Wow!! The whole time, you’ve been a hero and didn’t even know it!

These superpowers have a big economic impact. According to McKinsey is that the Internet accounted for 21 percent of GDP growth in mature economies during the period 2006-2011.

They also have a long-lasting social impact. Although I am religious, I don’t believe in an afterlife, but I believe that when our lives are finished, we leave behind a legacy defined by the transaction trail of how we’ve chosen to act, how we’ve spent our time and money. Judgement Day doesn’t come at the end of your life or the end of time, Judgement Day is every day as we and those around us continually re-evaluate the value of our actions.

Moment by moment, we each make choices that turn each one of us into leaders as we create our own heavens or hells around us through our actions and transactions, drawing others into our either virtuous or vicious cycles.

So I salute you all – you’re the heroes and leaders that will leave us the legacy of the Internet we all deserve – and the world that we all deserve.

But there’s one special group of leaders that I’d like to single out for being our not-so-secret weapon in destroying power hierarchies and creating a collaborative economy of networked value – entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs. They’re the people risking everything they have, staring failure in the face every day, leading the creative destruction necessary to bring about a better world, inspiring everyone to be more than they thought possible. They’re the true leaders of the future.

But here’s the most powerful thing of all: We get the best leverage on our superpowers when we help others use their superpowers. In the words of Tom Peters, “Leaders don’t create followers, they create more leaders”. Building the future we want to live in, treating all others as we wish to be treated ourselves.

Please use your newly discovered superpowers wisely.

Be a hero.

Be a leader.

And don’t forget the Golden Rule.

Thank you.

[Please note the following corrigenda from the video: (1) we crossed the billion web sites mark earlier this year, not the ten billion mark.  My mouth was ahead of my brain.  (2) The late Mr Postel’s first name was spelled “Jon”, not “John”, as it appears on the slide.]

Speak little; listen much

17 08 2014

I’ll be giving a talk at TEDxWellington next weekend.  I’m not allowed to reveal too much about what I’m going to say, but I will be spending some time talking about the IETF’s Requests for Comments, or RFC’s for short.

One of the most important RFC’s is RFC 760, which defined Internet Protocol, or IP for short – this is the really basic schematic for how Internet information packets are put together.  Section 3.2 contains the following lovely snippet, now referred to as “Postel’s Law”:

an implementation should be conservative in its sending behavior, and liberal in its receiving behavior

I was looking for a way of expressing this in plain English, and came across this lovely paragraph from 17th century theologian Francis Fenlon:

Speak little; listen much; think far more of understanding hearts and of adapting yourself to their needs than of saying clever things to them.  Show that you have an open mind, and let everyone see by experience that there is safety and consolation in opening his mind to you.  Avoid extreme severity, and reprove, where necessary, with caution and gentleness.  Never say more than is needed, but let whatever you say be said with entire frankness.  Let no one fear to be deceived by trusting you …  And correct yourself, for the sake of correcting others.

This came from Fenlon’s collection of Spritual Letters to Women, but is equally applicable to us moderns of any gender, especially software engineers.

HT: Stan

Pitching tips

7 08 2014

Idealog magazine published an article today about a great little initiative by MYOB – getting people to pitch their startup ideas for a cup of coffee on their way to work.  Nice one, Sarah Putt – I’m all for anything that encourages people to find their inner entrepreneur and find the courage to share.

Sarah had asked me earlier in the week if I could share five tips for people pitching their ideas on the fly – and here’s what I said:

1. Always start with your name and the name of your business, enunciated very clearly.  Really basic, eh – you’d be surprised how many people don’t get this right, and left me thinking – who was that?  what was their business called?

2. Establish rapport with your audience – look them in the eye, and send out your love.  You’re doing what you’re doing because you believe in it and you want to help them, right?  If not, you should probably be doing something else or talking to someone else.

3. What’s your vision/strapline?  Whatever you’re doing, it’s to solve a real world problem.  Examples: The Warehouse – where everyone gets a bargain;  MYOB – Love your work;  BMW – The ultimate driving experience.  Focus on the why or the end state, not the how or the process.  Make sure your passion shines through!

4. What is it about your team or product that makes it unavoidably attractive?  Kiwis are prone to underselling themselves, now is not the time to be modest.  Don’t lie or overextend the truth, but everyone and everything has some kernel of underlying awesome – leave your audience in no doubt as to what that is.

5. End with a positive call to action – no ask, no get.  Frame it with urgency (not desperation) in the sense that they’ll be missing out if they don’t act.  Do what you can to make it easy to say yes and hard to say no.  If your audience doesn’t know what you’d like them to do, how could you ever expect them to do that?

6.  Practice, practice, practice.  Use live subjects wherever possible – listen uncritically, and integrate the feedback into the next iteration of your pitch.

Okay that was six tips, so here’s an extra added bonus:

7.  Always stretch the rules – but don’t overstay your welcome.

Moxie: The next 25 years of the Internet

29 07 2014

As a side event of NetHui this year, I was asked by Hayden Glass and Glenn Williams to participate in a Moxie Session with Jenene Crossan and Ross Young, marking the 25th anniversary of the Internet in New Zealand and discussing what the next 25 would be like.

My bottom line is that we have the opportunity to level-up ourselves as a society, because Internet.  In order to take advantage of this opportunity, we need to adopt the core values of the Internet itself:

  • Collaborative at the core
  • Celebrates diversity
  • Resilient, even antifragile
  • Has many communities
  • Borderless
  • Self-empowering

Good will triumph over evil thanks to the Internet, because it empowers people to do things never before possible, and everyone wants a better future that’s better than the past.

Do head over to The Moxie Sessions and have a look at the great work these guys are doing.

NetHui 2014 reflections

14 07 2014

This year’s NetHui, InternetNZ‘s annual multistakeholder meeting, was the best yet.

Multistakeholder meeting? Wasn’t it a conference? Yes and no. It was a conference in the sense that it was held at the SkyCity Convention Centre, some sessions had speakers with questions and answers, and people walked around with name tags.  But it was much more than a conference.

We drew participants from a very broad spectrum of society.  Nearly all Internet conferences around the world are attended by beardy geeks, and sometimes you also get lawyers and public servants – an odd mix at the best of times.  NetHui had all that, plus representation from all sectors of society.  Teachers, startup entrepreneurs, tangata whenua, librarians, politicians, feminists, investors, a High Court judge, business scions, journalists, anarchists, futurists, secondary school students, social scientists … you name it, they were there, helping shape the future of the Internet in New Zealand.  We even had a couple of dickheads.  At InternetNZ, we walk the talk that everyone is a stakeholder in the Internet.

We left plenty of space for everyone to contribute.  Normal conferences have sessions led by a speaker, and you’re lucky if there’s time left for Q&A at the end.  At NetHui, session facilitators were briefed that in the breakout sessions that made up about about half of the allocated time, there was to be no more that 5-10 minutes of scene setting, and then the participants were to drive the discourse.  In the barcamp sessions (more on this below), which represented a significant chunk of the rest of the schedule, participants set the entire agenda and engaged in collaborative learning.  Everyone had a chance to speak and be listened to; everyone had a chance to learn from their peers.  While we did have some excellent star presenters in the more formal sessions, for me the most interesting and useful learnings arose from collaboration among people with no real public profile.

We provided a substrate for community building.  Most conferences are mostly about acquiring skills and contacts, and plenty of that happened at NetHui.  But even more, NetHui was about joining together organic groups of interest that could continue on and make progress after the event.  Community is a wonderful thing, in that communities can form along any common interest, whether that’s based on location, demographic, identity, academic interest, professional skill, political concern, and any one of a host of other variables.  We provided a safe place where people could explore or expound their own interests, and build relationships and communities with people with common goals.

The power hierarchy was greatly diminished.  In normal conferences, there are both explicit and implicit hierarchies – the busy experts fly in, speak, and fly out or engage in meetings with the other busy experts, and high profile names have little entourages around them.  At NetHui, most people were there for the duration and nominally high profile people were very accessible, present, and ready to engage.  Completely eradicating hierarchy is a very big task, but the spirit of NetHui is such that the playing field was about as level as it could get.

NetHui is national Internet Governance Forum (IGF).  Having attended the global IGF in Bali last year, I can tell you that in New Zealand we live multistakeholderism in a much more real way than in many parts of the rest of the world.  It just seems to fit well with the New Zealand psyche, where everyone should have a fair go, and people naturally treat each other as equals.

This year’s theme was “the next 25 years”, recognising the anniversary of New Zealand plugging into the Internet in 1989.  The programme was very wide-ranging, covering subjects like accessible design, data journalism, e-voting, open data, empowering women, education, privacy, surveillance, bitcoin, health, research, and lots more.

This year I volunteered to organise the 11 barcamp (unconference) sessions, along with Kevin Prince and Kelly Buehler.  We asked attendees on Wednesday and Thursday evening to write down their ideas for sessions they’d like to see on post-it notes, an whack them on the main exit door.  My job was to collate these and try to coalesce them into common themes, and then schedule them in such a way that they didn’t conflict with themes running in the other streams – not an easy job, and one that continued into the wee hours of each morning.

Barcamp sessions were run on: Using the Internet to solve global problems, Online media funding models, Bridging the digital divide, Gender Issues, Online communities, Privacy, Education, Citizen science, Online safety, Democracy and legal issues, and Networking over the edge. Notes from the sessions can be found in the resulting collaborative notes from the sessions.  I facilitated most of the sessions, and was very grateful for help from people who volunteered to run the sessions which were either running in parallel, or were way out of my subject area depth.

One of those sessions that was way out of my subject area depth was the session on gender issues, which was facilitated by the brilliant Joy Liddicoat, one of my fellow directors at the Domain Name Commission. One of the few hetero men in the group, I learned a lot, more than I expected from this session.  The timing was great, in that it helped inform my facilitation of other barcamp sessions during the day.  My key takeout from this session is that we aging white men who tend to dominate the agenda and conversation especially in technical forums, are well served to take a bit of extra effort to ensure that people whose voices are less confident, or frequently spoken over, to be heard and acted upon.

The session on bridging the digital divide was also fascinating.  We broke into smaller groups during this session; the group I was in discussed funding access initiatives.  I was surprised to learn the WINZ makes a practice of sending their clients whom they are about to cut off from their benefits to public libraries to compose CVs using the libraries’ computers and Internet.  This results in a significant drain on public library resources for which they receive no funding from WINZ, essentially shifting the funding burden from central government to local government.

In  the subsequent Parliamentary Panel on Digital Rights, I asked the government MP Simon O’Connor why this was happening, and to please fix it.  He seemed to be in a state of denial that this was happening, while the opposition MPs assured the audience that this would never happen on their watch.  NZ First’s Tracey Martin while admitting to not knowing much about ICT, worryingly suggested that universal Internet access could be provided by ISPs at no cost to the end user without government subsidies using an advertising-supported business model.  Given that she is the party spokesperson on research, science, and technology, I hope she can upskill herself should she ever get near real power.

Other standout performances from politicians included a great speech by ICT Minister Amy Adams, who over her term in this portfolio has done a great job of understanding many of the key pain points of our sector.  Her support of open data in government was excellent, as was her commitment to the New Zealand Government’s support of the multistakeholder approach to Internet governance, saying that cross-jurisdictional issues are a big reason why the Internet is best run by non-government agencies.

Of the politicians present, Gareth Hughes from the Greens exhibited the most comprehensive empathy with the audience and knowledge of the subject area, and seemed to have his party’s unqualified backing for improving Internet access, supporting the weightless economy, providing better checks on government surveillance including dismantling the Waihopai spy base, and opposing joining the Trans Pacific Partnership which would severely impact New Zealand’s independence, particularly with respect to intellectual property. Labour’s Clare Curran also has an excellent understanding of the issues.  Labour chose NetHui to launch its ICT Policy which was a savvy move.

Other highlights for me included the plenary address by Privacy Commissioner John Edwards, who beautifully unpicked the right to be forgotten in the aspects of market, mores, law, and architecture.  The text of his address is online, and well worth a read.  In the panel following the address, Thomas Beagle of Tech Liberty explained why he thought that privacy is not dead, highlighting that despite its complexity, we do have considerable control over our privacy, and expressing optimism that with a bit of tweaking, New Zealand’s Privacy Act could ratchet up baseline protections and close existing loopholes for local services.

The barcamp session on privacy was also great, the bottom line of which it all boils down to informed consent. Click-through gobbledygook legalese “I Accept” terms and conditions don’t really amount to people having an understanding of how, why, or for how long the receiving company will be accessing, using, aggregating, and distributing the information.  It was suggested that sites be required to have a maximum-number-of-words plain English summary of the terms available next to the “I Accept” button, and that a third party authority supply badges for sites that reach minimum privacy standards.

Similarly, in the online safety session there was general agreement the we need to provide the skills for everyone from the very young to the very old to think critically about the information they consume, and the actions they take online, both with respect to the impact on themselves as well as other people.  As much as we’d like to be able to protect people, it will never be possible to do this in a foolproof manner, and it would be very useful for everyone to be able to have evaluation skills that will warn them when they are about to do something that is unsafe.

The job of giving the final address fell on Rod Drury, whose time had been cut short by the previous panel on convergence and the future of digital media going overtime.  Rod very artfully embraced the NetHui kaupapa, dispensed with his speech, and drove straight into questions in which he let rip.  I don’t always agree with Rod, but I admire his agility, responsiveness, and ability to cut straight to the heart of the issue, as if time were a scarce resource (which it is).  And Rod is always himself, for which I have great respect.

One of the side events of NetHui was Hadyn Glass’s Moxie Session on The Next 25 Years.  I was one of three speakers, including Google’s NZ Country Manager Ross Young, and Flossie CEO Jenene Crossan. I had six minutes to describe how the Internet would change the world in the next 25 years.  My central thesis is that things keep getting better, and the Internet plays an important role in this by enabling much faster, efficient communications.  25 years ago, Sun Microsystems’ tag line was “The Network is the Computer” – now the network is everything, the computer, storage, exotic peripherals, users, and even programmer – the Internet of Everything.  This trend is set to continue, and is already significantly impacting the way we think, which will really accelerate as we become fully integrated with the net and each other in the future through direct bodily implants.  Move over Google Glass, you’re a transitional technology.  In order to maximise the benefits of this, we each will adopt within ourselves the core values that arise from the Internet: being collaborative at the core, making decisions using multistakeholder processes, embracing diversity, resilience and antifragility, borderlessness, supporting many communities of interest, and self-empowerment.  Improved integration and communication will help ensure that good triumphs over evil (albeit unevenly), as we all want a future that’s better than the present.

The other key side event for me was the National Startup Meetup, where we launched Startup New Zealand.  Our purpose: to bring together and activate regional and national communities of entrepreneurs, technical talent and related organisations. We run programmes including Startup Weekends supporting early stage entrepreneurs and their ventures. Entrepreneurship can be difficult and risky, but by working together we can realise our goal of a connected, innovative and prosperous New Zealand.  At our meetup, we brainstormed ideas for startups arising from the key themes of NetHui – beginning the process of turning the talk at NetHui into tangible action.  Each person present also had the opportunity to give a one-minute pitch on their startup, and any asks or offers they had to make of the group.  Over 50 people came from around the country, including many who were not NetHui attendees.  Watch this space as Startup New Zealand grows as an organic entity supporting entrepreneurial communities.

In summary, this year’s NetHui was very busy and productive on many fronts. I made many new friends and learned so much, and many of the things I learned were serendipitous, wonderful, and useful.

I’m proud to be an InternetNZ Councillor, that my organisation put on such a great event for the benefit of all of New Zealand’s Internet stakeholders.  But the real credit goes to the organising team, particularly Ellen Strickland, Kevin Prince, David Cormack, Krystal “Ball” Waine, and of course Jordan Carter our Chief Exec, as well as all of the other InternetNZ staff, stream leaders, and volunteers who pulled out all the stops to make it happen.  I’d also like to hat-tip outgoing InternetNZ President Frank March with whom I sat in a group at our strategic planning day back in 2010 sketching out what a New Zealand Internet Governance Forum might look like, and also Vikram Kumar the former InternetNZ Chief Exec who shaped the first two NetHui and pulled it together as a flagship event for our organisation and the Internet in NZ.