This is what Uber is doing, but also a lot of other people are doing and we say, "What do the stake holders care about is behaviour?" We say, "We will have a deliberation with all the stakeholders that I just described face-to-face a month from now." But what we ...

We talk about Uber, and we have already defined a specific question which is phrased as, "What if you have not a professional driver’s license that you carry passenger in your car, and by the time they get out your car, you charge them for it?" This is not ideological. ...

Now, we collect what they really care about the Uber case, and then we say, "We have the entire nations driver talk about this." The way we do it is bottom-up, asking what do you want to talk about? Most people want to talk about Uber and the Airbnb. The ...

This means there is minimal lobbying, because each force is counterbalanced by the other two forces and second that people are more willing to say authentic things about them because they know at least one of the people understands the language they are talking about. That’s what we call expertise ...

The way vTaiwan surveying works is that we have one elected official representative from the ministry, one civil servant, an elected normal civic people, one or two hackers and then one or two private sector people from the Information Institute. Whenever we do a survey like this, it’s always four ...

Then, through connection with the transport industry, we get hold of the local governments, and through them, they own sometimes illegal rights sharing platforms that’s existing before Uber. There’s already right sharing platforms, which is voluntary. They are not really making a profit, and also illegal or grey-zone Uber-like operations. ...

What we did was that we asked people who have connections to the taxi fleets and to have them work with the ministry of economy on what they actually want out of Uber, just one simple point, but internally, the outside doesn’t have to see it. It’s that they reach ...

For them to even just publish a word of analysis, they risk getting occupied and surrounded or like here — burning tires in the streets, [laughs] so they did nothing. Doing nothing is not an option for things like that. It just escalates.

The Minister thinks it’s actually the finance ministry’s job because it’s about insurance and taxing. But none of the ministries want to take responsibility of proposing analysis and putting a call for deliberation, because of obvious reasons. The same dynamics you can see in any other country. It’s about ideology. ...

Now, we want to talk with the transport ministry, which is already fining €1 million from Uber. We talked with the economy ministry, which Uber argues it’s their job, because they’re just a ride share platform on the Internet, so it’s up to the economy.

This kind of effect, it’s mobilisation exactly, so they did not usually answer to deliberation — they just showed up. The thing is that they don’t even have an office that’s operating in Taiwan. They only have a PR office in Taiwan. There’s very little our existing process can do ...

This is their lobbying tool, because then everybody in the city will get the impression that if the mayor’s regulation passes, you will not be able to get Uber anymore, and then of course, the celebrities love it. They were tweeting it, creating a lot of pressures, so the idea ...

This entity, Uber, is very good at lobbying. You know what they did in NYC. They had a mayor’s feel that they were considering, and then they built in the app Uber, Black Uber, Luxury Uber X, and then Uber was the mayor’s loss. Then if you swipe to here, ...

Because you asked what I do and this is what I do, right?

Am I going too long or is it OK?

The idea is that the consensus is built in this way. It’s very difficult for other political power to refute. This is our tool kit. The point here is that we changed our methodology a little bit when we’re faced with a entity that does not even have to answer ...

Then we talk about one aspect of their law each time. Then, for 20 minutes, face to face for 20 minutes to the cyber-participation. Whether you’re offline or online, you get the same amount of time to deliberate. All this is standard deliberative technology, where we use it is tele-communicatively. ...

Any party that blocks this bill will be seen as the enemy of the entire process. They pass the bill. It’s signed to the law, whatever. The point is that we use this Focused Conversation Method technology that says, "These are the facts. These are the feelings. These are the ...

Most after that, it’s sent to the parliament. The parliament at that time was filibustering each other. A party want to change their constitution. They are not passing any bills at that point. They stopped it two days after that. For this particular bill, they have to pass it. Because ...

It should allow telecommunication for the board meetings. It should not, it may not. This is the RFC language. It was exactly the same definition. We are like the editors for RFC. The ministry of the economy are like the coders, the implementers. They coded into legalese, and must answer ...

We go through all the debates points, and said if the nation doesn’t pass this law it’s fine, but if it does, it must include multiple laws per share. It must not limit the crowdfunding in coming.

This is the key. We use the IETF-style working groups, meaning that these people are exactly the people who made constructive comments here or here. My role is just the facilitator, the editor for the request of comment. We actually call you that. The RFC document that we proposed are ...

We can gather around this open space. We design the system. The system invites everybody who is a stakeholder to comment. Anyone who commented is marked as constructive, gets invited to the face to face deliberation with all the ministry people and other academics in the civil law and the ...

Jaclyn, she came to the hackathon. She took stickers. Hers was law and text. She went on the podium, take three minutes to explain that they want to reach everybody who want or is already registering in Cayman Islands, and suggest to the government what kind of law are we ...

There is no association of Kickstarter companies in Taiwan. There is no coalition of Taiwan companies registering in Cayman Island. These are oxymoron. It’s not possible. The problem is that if they invite just people they know to the public hearing, everybody else will say this is lobbying. This is ...

For example, for telecommuting regulations or the closely-held company law, like this, usually they invite the union people, the syndicate people, but there is no syndicate for teleworkers, because it’s impossible.

But what I see is that in Sunflower movement the demo really worked. They say, "OK, you say you’re better than the parliament at debating, so prove it to the nation." You said that during those 20 days — so prove it. What the parliament could not agree on, you ...

He recruited his vice prime minister as the ex-Google engineer, Simon, who recruited Jaclyn, who was ex-IBM Asia, head of IBM’s Asian Law Department. What they are, are basically technical savvy and cyber-educated. If you disagree with them, you’d call them technocrats.

He was elected in a very five-star movement kind of way. A hacker-mayor, basically. The prime minister was replaced with an engineer, and the prime minister said, “Engineers cannot choose to avoid problems. We still have to solve it."

The entire sentiment of government changed, and the prime minister was forced to resign because he was the one who refused to negotiate with the occupiers, and was generally seen as the reason why Nationalists lost this election so completely, and why we have a independent, nonpartisan mayor as the ...

Very divided things. Then, the Nationalists lost the election on all its cities, but one, one city, the New Taipei City, in the election here, so basically, everybody knows the Nationalist government has one year to live till the presidential election this year at that time.

Some people would say, "If that professor come, I will not come." Do you have this problem here? [laughs]

The civil law people, and the case law people, and the entrepreneurs, and so on, they agree to disagree very, very, very early on, like three years or four years ago, and so this law never even really passed the public hearing because you’re not even sure who to invite ...

You know what I’m saying?

There’s a lot of debate and they were, how do you call it here, ideological sides on this kind of thing, and the problem is that they agreed to never agree.

That law was generally seen as — I don’t mean in France — in Taiwan, as something that runs counter to the civil law tradition that we inherited from Germany, because that is a very US thing, a very UK thing maybe, because that’s private agreement above the law, basically, ...

For example, this is the closely-held company law that you also passed trough a hearing in France a few years ago, about a new company type of company that takes agreements between the shareholders above the law, in a sense, so that it’s limited in the stakeholder amount, that’s more ...

One very concrete example. We know that this is a difficult thing because most people don’t know they’re being affected, and that most people don’t know how to commentate. They are better at posting their pictures, and most people find loss to be overwhelming, but to deliberate, you really need ...

But the parliament was built in a bottom-up way, so it’s a bazaar. A bazaar with the cathedral, in the cathedral. [laughs]

Basically, a parliament in the administration. You get this idea?

[laughs] What I do nowadays is, for example, I’m a facilitator, and moderator, and architect to the what we call rule-making, on those topics. For those topics we take opinions of others. Decoders will do a face-to-face deliberation, but powered by Sunflower technology so that the entire nation see it ...

Yeah, I have the interview with Amaëlle Guiton at Libération, literally.

It’s an opt out system, you have to prove this is sensitive data, otherwise it’s flowing out. Then people start to gather around that, and become a gradual ladder of expertise around it, but without that guaranteed source of information or transparency you cannot build reflection outside of that.

It’s not even a choice. It’s the default. Now, once you have that default, the expertise network start to grow. It’s like participator budgeting. There’s no NGOs in some area, but because of PB it starts to grow around the budget. The same idea because the data is now flowing.

This is what France does. Frequently, you have those television debates that with smart writers that both know the layperson’s language and the expert’s language. That’s what you do very well. In Taiwan, what we specialise, is on the transparency in the policy level. For example, we have a law ...

You have a dialogue because the experts are able to converge on some kind of blended discussion in a way that the lay people and other experts are lay people in other fields, in the shared social sphere.

Yeah. The public sphere is by definition transparent, but what is transparent is not enough. Transparency just means that all the raw data are there, but to make sense of the transparency, you have to derive what we call expertise networks. You know all the theory. It’s not enough because ...

Eventually, we upgraded our equipment because some IT companies in Taiwan, they donate, they re-synthesise actually, the movement. They donate new screens that are two stories high or something, but that comes a few days later. The basic idea is that we eliminate rumours using this kind of what we ...

The wall, that is the prototype of the Occupy Central, of this one. Same, same idea. Basically, this then completely eliminates rumour on that street, so the other streets set up the same projection screen. Then the occupiers inside saw it was such a good idea that they also set ...

It was projected on the wall.