Thank you.

Saturday.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for this very experienced reflection.

Yes. Of course. They think we are the civic society, which doesn’t want to share this representative power, and the representative situation, and the capability to interact directly with the government. We didn’t want to share this power, so they block.

Exactly. They are trying to block the social initiatives on civic tech movement. They are not funding civic tech. They try to put them on the side. We have a very strong political issue about NGO which are thinking they’re representative.

Of coalitions. The NGO feel incoherent with this new actors and say, "OK. You are new. You are young, but you haven’t the experience of institutional discussion and institutional process."

When you were speaking about coalition of NGO and civic tech, in France, one of the problems is...

I will come back to try.

Yeah.

Where did the idea come from? Why do you start to...?

Thank you. I will note that. Perhaps the last question about this kind of open office?

Coalitions.

That one is of our main concerned. Each time as you take, want something, it makes their distrust higher. People can see that they are selling data. If they are not collaborating with the institution, they are selling data. People say, tsk.

I would say that.

Each time as you take...

And personal data selling. We have real issue of trust. Those startups who works, who can develop the activity, people start to distrust them.

Of course. In France, one of the main issues is that the only business model which seems to be available for civic tech is data selling.

No, not enough to give some independence and some autonomies to the projects. How does it work here? You have some foundations?

Yeah, but not so strong.

In France, we haven’t this kind of foundation. I remember a collective called Open Democracy. We tried to promote open government in France. We are discussing about how to fund. Can we rise some fund for civic tech projects?

The Knight Foundation.

My last question is about the funding of civic tech movements. I can see that, in the US, you have some foundation, crowdfunding.

I think that’s one of the main constant that we can make in France. It is plain why the civic tech movement stay very weak in France.

Exactly.

Exactly.

I think that it’s one of the most important difference. That’s why people are totally right that the government is not as open as it can. On some subjects, they say, "OK, do what you want. I think you are doing well." You know what I mean?

I think that’s a very important difference. In France, our representative culture is very strongly [claps] .

I think for Nuit debout, one of the main next step is La France Insoumise, because all these militants translate their engagement in a political party.

I don’t say there is nothing, but not so deep that all the students and the civil society can have some legitimacy to say, "OK, re build a new system."

I think that’s one of the main difference with France. We haven’t the same kind of political crisis to start.

OK.

And the constitution was rejected.

Look in Iceland. They make deliberative processes, they vote, and at the end...

You take the example of Iceland, and I can say the same for Internet governance, there was one time, if you take a long term, it can be open one time, but the institutionalization makes things that the states are taking power back.

I think that’s one of the main issues for the civic tech and civic hacking scene in France. The institution are working with startups because of public market, they give some them some function to make them public consultation. This is very hard for the civic hacking field to build ...

It sounds very interesting. In France, it’s very different. We have some siloes between social innovation -- this is for digital technologies -- and civic innovation. The incentives in the civic field are often led by start ups and in a kind of concurrence between civic hacking and start ups.

When you were speaking about this dictionary, I can see that you are mixing social innovation and civic innovation.

All the time, it’s the same citizens who are coming, very few citizens.

The fund for mobilization, in France, we use to say no issue, no public. People come in this kind of mobilization because they can feel a larger political issue. We can see that sometimes it’s very difficult to transform the issue in a public problem.

Three citizens, OK. What we can see that for the first campaign we got a lot of people, but with the other campaign there is less people mobilized. How can you explain that the g0v community stay mobilized?

Yeah. After this beta test, we put a second one, and this second version across the crowdsourcing to be valid. Every information have to be texted by two or three citizens.

Yeah. That thing very interesting and the parliamentary’s crowdsourcing is not very reliable.

In France we had an experience of crowdsourcing led by an association, an NGO called Citizen Look, Regards Citoyens. We ask, citizens asks for the declaration of parliamentaries about transparency, about what the function and everything. They release only paper versions, so we put the PDF online, the association asks ...

Is this kind of data got some public...?

You put everything online.

Of course. You say everything is recorded.

Some part of the network is more strong than others.

That’s very interesting. That shows there is some power in the open government situation. We can have the imaginary, the representation of the very fluidity of the network, but I’m sure that there is some point of control.

Of course.