All posts in the topic Dataset terms of use (Short link)

Topic Navigation

Useful Links

Topics in The Open Government Ninjas

Summary

There are 9 posts — by 7 authors — in this topic.
Latest post made by Andrew Watkins at 2009 Jun 16 16:29 NZST

From: Jonathan Hunt Date: 2009 Jun 16 11:54 NZST Short link

On 16/06/2009, at 9:51 AM, Andrew Watkins wrote:

> Much of our data is published anyway on the www.niwa.co.nz website e.g
> https://secure.niwa.co.nz/wqis/index.do water quality information system.

WQIS and EDENZ are examples of what I find so disturbing about the
relatively small amounts of data that institutions are currently
publishing. Even if the data is "available" it isn't in as a web service,
and is often wrapped in developer-unfriendly terms of use.

WQIS, EDENZ terms
a. allow NIWA to remove access to data at their discretion for any purpose
they wish.
b. require explicit written permission to republish on any other website
(i.e. no mashups).
https://secure.niwa.co.nz/wqis/terms.do
http://edenz.niwa.co.nz/about/terms

DigitalNZ
I've already flagged by concern about the Digital NZ terms to Andy Neale
(and also mentioned them during Keitha's talk at GOVIS). This is what I
sent Andy:
"In my opinion, the terms seem overly legalistic and restrictive. Why is
there a restriction on reverse engineering, for example? That's the
kind of statement I'd expect from Microsoft rather than an institution of
learning and knowledge such as the National Library.

I don't like the idea that DNZ could unilaterally terminate my use,
especially if I have put significant time into developing a widget or
application. There's no mention of any mechanism for handling disputes or
misunderstandings.

And I couldn't possibly agree to "You are responsible for any damage you
cause to this website or to any of the National Librarys other websites,
electronic facilities or data." What liability does agreeing to that open
me (or the sites I am involved with) up to?"
http://www.digitalnz.org/terms

So, as well as publicising what data is available it would be good to
highlight the terms of use and encourage more friendly, less restrictive
terms.

It was great to hear of moves towards CC licensing in Govt - where are
those  initiatives now that SSC e-govt has been dismembered?

From: Mike Pearson Date: 2009 Jun 16 12:35 NZST Short link

>
> On 16/06/2009, at 9:51 AM, Andrew Watkins wrote:
>
> So, as well as publicising what data is available it would be good to
> highlight the terms of use and encourage more friendly, less restrictive
> terms.
>
Would it be useful to set up a Wiki, then we could have a list of NZ agency
terms of use?

Here's another one:
https://infoconnect.highwayinfo.govt.nz/opencms/opencms/InfoConnect/terms-of-use.html

From: Chris Daish Date: 2009 Jun 16 12:53 NZST Short link

Some very good points there, Jonathan. Can anyone point to examples of
*good* T&Cs - either from NZ or overseas - that we could blog about and
explain why they are more likely to be effective.

Chris

<email obscured> wrote:
> On 16/06/2009, at 9:51 AM, Andrew Watkins wrote:
>
>> Much of our data is published anyway on the www.niwa.co.nz website e.g
>> https://secure.niwa.co.nz/wqis/index.do water quality information system.
>
> WQIS and EDENZ are examples of what I find so disturbing about the
> relatively small amounts of data that institutions are currently
> publishing. Even if the data is "available" it isn't in as a web service,
> and is often wrapped in developer-unfriendly terms of use.
>
> WQIS, EDENZ terms
> a. allow NIWA to remove access to data at their discretion for any purpose
> they wish.
> b. require explicit written permission to republish on any other website
> (i.e. no mashups).
> https://secure.niwa.co.nz/wqis/terms.do
> http://edenz.niwa.co.nz/about/terms
>
> DigitalNZ
> I've already flagged by concern about the Digital NZ terms to Andy Neale
> (and also mentioned them during Keitha's talk at GOVIS). This is what I
> sent Andy:
> "In my opinion, the terms seem overly legalistic and restrictive. Why is
> there a restriction on reverse engineering, for example? That's the
> kind of statement I'd expect from Microsoft rather than an institution of
> learning and knowledge such as the National Library.
>
> I don't like the idea that DNZ could unilaterally terminate my use,
> especially if I have put significant time into developing a widget or
> application. There's no mention of any mechanism for handling disputes or
> misunderstandings.
>
> And I couldn't possibly agree to "You are responsible for any damage you
> cause to this website or to any of the National Librarys other websites,
> electronic facilities or data." What liability does agreeing to that open
> me (or the sites I am involved with) up to?"
> http://www.digitalnz.org/terms
>
> So, as well as publicising what data is available it would be good to
> highlight the terms of use and encourage more friendly, less restrictive
> terms.
>
> It was great to hear of moves towards CC licensing in Govt - where are
> those  initiatives now that SSC e-govt has been dismembered?
>
> Regards
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> https://groups.opengovt.org.nz/r/topic/2ubWgForJDyryhXlVbXqDw
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org

From: Andrew Watkins Date: 2009 Jun 16 13:19 NZST Short link

Much as I don't like it, NIWA is a commercial company with a requirement to
provide a return on investment to its shareholder (the govt).  I'm pushing
for a clearer policy direction but that may still reflect the commercial
perspective.
I am going to have to ask what is more important- that the data is free, or
that it is conveniently accessible.

All changes to existing systems will require both technical work from my
team as well as legal stuff. Although the science around here is publicly
funded - my teams pay pretty much comes out of the commercial income of the
company.

so we need to find real world ways to make this work.

2009/6/16 Chris Daish <email obscured>>

> Some very good points there, Jonathan. Can anyone point to examples of
> *good* T&Cs - either from NZ or overseas - that we could blog about and
> explain why they are more likely to be effective.
>
> Chris
>
> <email obscured> wrote:
> > On 16/06/2009, at 9:51 AM, Andrew Watkins wrote:
> >
> >> Much of our data is published anyway on the www.niwa.co.nz website e.g
> >> https://secure.niwa.co.nz/wqis/index.do water quality information
> system.
> >
> > WQIS and EDENZ are examples of what I find so disturbing about the
> > relatively small amounts of data that institutions are currently
> > publishing. Even if the data is "available" it isn't in as a web service,
> > and is often wrapped in developer-unfriendly terms of use.
> >
> > WQIS, EDENZ terms
> > a. allow NIWA to remove access to data at their discretion for any
> purpose
> > they wish.
> > b. require explicit written permission to republish on any other website
> > (i.e. no mashups).
> > https://secure.niwa.co.nz/wqis/terms.do
> > http://edenz.niwa.co.nz/about/terms
> >
> > DigitalNZ
> > I've already flagged by concern about the Digital NZ terms to Andy Neale
> > (and also mentioned them during Keitha's talk at GOVIS). This is what I
> > sent Andy:
> > "In my opinion, the terms seem overly legalistic and restrictive. Why is
> > there a restriction on reverse engineering, for example? That's the
> > kind of statement I'd expect from Microsoft rather than an institution of
> > learning and knowledge such as the National Library.
> >
> > I don't like the idea that DNZ could unilaterally terminate my use,
> > especially if I have put significant time into developing a widget or
> > application. There's no mention of any mechanism for handling disputes or
> > misunderstandings.
> >
> > And I couldn't possibly agree to "You are responsible for any damage you
> > cause to this website or to any of the National Librarys other websites,
> > electronic facilities or data." What liability does agreeing to that open
> > me (or the sites I am involved with) up to?"
> > http://www.digitalnz.org/terms
> >
> > So, as well as publicising what data is available it would be good to
> > highlight the terms of use and encourage more friendly, less restrictive
> > terms.
> >
> > It was great to hear of moves towards CC licensing in Govt - where are
> > those  initiatives now that SSC e-govt has been dismembered?
> >
> > Regards
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> > https://groups.opengovt.org.nz/r/topic/2ubWgForJDyryhXlVbXqDw
> >
> > To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> > <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
> >
> > Start your own free groups and site with
> > OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
> >
> > Host your own online groups site with
> > GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> https://groups.opengovt.org.nz/r/topic/2go3jUPmwQ5uXDaKC7ZzHE
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>

From: Glen Barnes Date: 2009 Jun 16 14:33 NZST Short link

I'm just in the process of adding the Agency/Supplier pages on the
ODC. I can easily add formatting for custom fields to link to the
terms of use. For individual sets I've kept it quite low key (Unknown,
No license, Crown Copyright, Creative Commons, Restrictive) to keep
maintenance easier but on the agency side we could make it a bit more
in-depth.

On 16/06/2009, at 12:09 PM, Mike Pearson wrote:

>>
>> On 16/06/2009, at 9:51 AM, Andrew Watkins wrote:
>>
>> So, as well as publicising what data is available it would be good to
>> highlight the terms of use and encourage more friendly, less
>> restrictive
>> terms.
>>
> Would it be useful to set up a Wiki, then we could have a list of NZ
> agency
> terms of use?
>
> Here's another one:
>
https://infoconnect.highwayinfo.govt.nz/opencms/opencms/InfoConnect/terms-of-use.html

From: Jonathan Hunt Date: 2009 Jun 16 14:56 NZST Short link

Andrew Watkins wrote:
> Much as I don't like it, NIWA is a commercial company with a requirement
> to
> provide a return on investment to its shareholder (the govt).  I'm pushing
> for a clearer policy direction but that may still reflect the commercial
> perspective.
> I am going to have to ask what is more important- that the data is free,
> or
> that it is conveniently accessible.

My quick answer to this is that it is better that the data is conveniently
accessible. At least if the data is there, community groups can fundraise
or get sponsorship for any fees, but if the data is not 'there' in any
useful sense (e.g. EDANZ flow data) then numerous downstream opportunities
are curtailed.

Also, my definition of 'conveniently accessible' includes having
reasonable and friendly terms of service. And sites should adhere to web
standards. This doesn't have to be hard and doesn't have to cost much.

> All changes to existing systems will require both technical work from my
> team as well as legal stuff. Although the science around here is publicly
> funded - my teams pay pretty much comes out of the commercial income of
> the
> company.
>
> so we need to find real world ways to make this work.

Agreed. What I would like to know is how the project briefs are structured
from FRST; do they specify public access to data? Do they specify open
data standards? Do they somehow require agencies to build grandiose
portals with IE-only technologies?

Regards
Jonathan

> 2009/6/16 Chris Daish <email obscured>>
>
>> Some very good points there, Jonathan. Can anyone point to examples of
>> *good* T&Cs - either from NZ or overseas - that we could blog about and
>> explain why they are more likely to be effective.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> <email obscured> wrote:
>> > On 16/06/2009, at 9:51 AM, Andrew Watkins wrote:
>> >
>> >> Much of our data is published anyway on the www.niwa.co.nz website
>> e.g
>> >> https://secure.niwa.co.nz/wqis/index.do water quality information
>> system.
>> >
>> > WQIS and EDENZ are examples of what I find so disturbing about the
>> > relatively small amounts of data that institutions are currently
>> > publishing. Even if the data is "available" it isn't in as a web
>> service,
>> > and is often wrapped in developer-unfriendly terms of use.
>> >
>> > WQIS, EDENZ terms
>> > a. allow NIWA to remove access to data at their discretion for any
>> purpose
>> > they wish.
>> > b. require explicit written permission to republish on any other
>> website
>> > (i.e. no mashups).
>> > https://secure.niwa.co.nz/wqis/terms.do
>> > http://edenz.niwa.co.nz/about/terms
>> >
>> > DigitalNZ
>> > I've already flagged by concern about the Digital NZ terms to Andy
>> Neale
>> > (and also mentioned them during Keitha's talk at GOVIS). This is what
>> I
>> > sent Andy:
>> > "In my opinion, the terms seem overly legalistic and restrictive. Why
>> is
>> > there a restriction on reverse engineering, for example? That's the
>> > kind of statement I'd expect from Microsoft rather than an institution
>> of
>> > learning and knowledge such as the National Library.
>> >
>> > I don't like the idea that DNZ could unilaterally terminate my use,
>> > especially if I have put significant time into developing a widget or
>> > application. There's no mention of any mechanism for handling disputes
>> or
>> > misunderstandings.
>> >
>> > And I couldn't possibly agree to "You are responsible for any damage
>> you
>> > cause to this website or to any of the National Librarys other
>> websites,
>> > electronic facilities or data." What liability does agreeing to that
>> open
>> > me (or the sites I am involved with) up to?"
>> > http://www.digitalnz.org/terms
>> >
>> > So, as well as publicising what data is available it would be good to
>> > highlight the terms of use and encourage more friendly, less
>> restrictive
>> > terms.
>> >
>> > It was great to hear of moves towards CC licensing in Govt - where are
>> > those  initiatives now that SSC e-govt has been dismembered?
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > Jonathan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -----------------------------------------
>> > Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>> > https://groups.opengovt.org.nz/r/topic/2ubWgForJDyryhXlVbXqDw
>> >
>> > To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>> > <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>> >
>> > Start your own free groups and site with
>> > OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>> >
>> > Host your own online groups site with
>> > GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>> https://groups.opengovt.org.nz/r/topic/2go3jUPmwQ5uXDaKC7ZzHE
>>
>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>
>> Start your own free groups and site with
>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>
>> Host your own online groups site with
>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> https://groups.opengovt.org.nz/r/topic/247uM27fzzfIAa2fmT7OiC
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>

From: Ed Corkery Date: 2009 Jun 16 15:11 NZST Short link

Crown Copyright and Licensing are different issues. Crown Copyright
persists regardless of license, whether data was released under the
OIA, etc.

However SOE's possibly don't claim "Crown Copyright" on their data and
information. I'm not sure what the deal is with them, but I guess
SOE's aren't a primary target for this movement, though technically
they come under the OIA.

Additionally, there are geospatial datasets floating around which are
generally assumed to be "Public Domain" as they were generated by
agencies which no longer exist and the data is no longer maintained
(e.g. data out of the old Forestry Service). Crown Copyright persists
for those datasets, even though no agency is trying to police them.

I'm not sure what the situation is regarding Council data; probably
the default position of the Copyright Act applies.

From: Keitha Booth Date: 2009 Jun 16 16:11 NZST Short link

Just clarifying that the SSC is continuing its work on the Open Government
Information and Data Re-use Project. Our key focus at present is Copyright and
Licensing.

Crown Copyright is defined in section 2 of the Copyright Act to mean "Her
Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand and includes a Minister of the Crown,
a government department and an office of Parliament". It does not include a
Crown entity or a State-Owned Enterprise (named in Schedule 1 to the
State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986. So, while Crown entities and State-Owned
enterprises do enjoy copyright in their works, their copyright is not Crown
Copyright.

You are right - Copyright and Crown copyright in content and licences to use
the content are conceptually distinct things.  Look upon the copyright as a
bundle of rights which the copyright owner can choose to share with others by
way of licence arrangements. These could be one-off, bespoke or a uniform
licence such as those offered by Creative Commons.

Keitha



--
Keitha Booth
Senior Advisor
State Services Commission
DDI: +64 4 495 6731
Mob: 027 445 4616
Fax: +64 4 495 6669
<email obscured>
www.ssc.govt.nz | www.e.govt.nz | newzealand.govt.nz

New Zealand's State Services Commission: Leading the state sector to world
class performance

............................................................................................

Caution: If you have received this message in error please notify the sender
immediately and then delete this message along with any attachments. Please
treat the contents of this message as private and confidential.


-----Original Message-----
From: <email obscured>
<email obscured>] On Behalf Of Ed Corkery
Sent: Tuesday, 16 June 2009 3:11 p.m.
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [the open government ninjas] Dataset terms of use

Crown Copyright and Licensing are different issues. Crown Copyright persists
regardless of license, whether data was released under the OIA, etc.

However SOE's possibly don't claim "Crown Copyright" on their data and
information. I'm not sure what the deal is with them, but I guess SOE's aren't
a primary target for this movement, though technically they come under the OIA.

Additionally, there are geospatial datasets floating around which are generally
assumed to be "Public Domain" as they were generated by agencies which no
longer exist and the data is no longer maintained (e.g. data out of the old
Forestry Service). Crown Copyright persists for those datasets, even though no
agency is trying to police them.

I'm not sure what the situation is regarding Council data; probably the default
position of the Copyright Act applies.

On 16/06/2009, at 2:24 PM, Glen Barnes wrote:

> I'm just in the process of adding the Agency/Supplier pages on the
> ODC. I can easily add formatting for custom fields to link to the
> terms of use. For individual sets I've kept it quite low key (Unknown,
> No license, Crown Copyright, Creative Commons, Restrictive) to keep
> maintenance easier but on the agency side we could make it a bit more
> in-depth.
>
>
> On 16/06/2009, at 12:09 PM, Mike Pearson wrote:
>
>>>
>>> On 16/06/2009, at 9:51 AM, Andrew Watkins wrote:
>>>
>>> So, as well as publicising what data is available it would be good
>>> to highlight the terms of use and encourage more friendly, less
>>> restrictive terms.
>>>
>> Would it be useful to set up a Wiki, then we could have a list of NZ
>> agency terms of use?
>>
>> Here's another one:
>> https://infoconnect.highwayinfo.govt.nz/opencms/opencms/InfoConnect/t
>> erms-of-use.html
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>> https://groups.opengovt.org.nz/r/topic/5cql6YpXrXCsMVJojBoQXP
>>
>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>
>> Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net
>> http://onlinegroups.net
>>
>> Host your own online groups site with GroupServer
>> http://groupserver.org
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> https://groups.opengovt.org.nz/r/topic/1nZMgMvhuCTR2NGrvQBDW8
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net
> http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org


-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
https://groups.opengovt.org.nz/r/topic/4iJaiX3lc1FIJAphYDLIXX

To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
<email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe

Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net
http://onlinegroups.net

Host your own online groups site with
GroupServer http://groupserver.org

From: Andrew Watkins Date: 2009 Jun 16 16:29 NZST Short link

I've not seen any project briefs that specify the nature of data access, web
standards or anything useful.  This month will be my first round of
reviewing funding proposals for the '10 year and you can be sure I will be
asking that question.
As for the person who approved a C#.net thick client. I am still repairing
our relationship after my first encounter. :)

Andrew.

2009/6/16 <email obscured>>

> Andrew Watkins wrote:
> > Much as I don't like it, NIWA is a commercial company with a requirement
> > to
> > provide a return on investment to its shareholder (the govt).  I'm
> pushing
> > for a clearer policy direction but that may still reflect the commercial
> > perspective.
> > I am going to have to ask what is more important- that the data is free,
> > or
> > that it is conveniently accessible.
>
> My quick answer to this is that it is better that the data is conveniently
> accessible. At least if the data is there, community groups can fundraise
> or get sponsorship for any fees, but if the data is not 'there' in any
> useful sense (e.g. EDANZ flow data) then numerous downstream opportunities
> are curtailed.
>
> Also, my definition of 'conveniently accessible' includes having
> reasonable and friendly terms of service. And sites should adhere to web
> standards. This doesn't have to be hard and doesn't have to cost much.
>
> > All changes to existing systems will require both technical work from my
> > team as well as legal stuff. Although the science around here is publicly
> > funded - my teams pay pretty much comes out of the commercial income of
> > the
> > company.
> >
> > so we need to find real world ways to make this work.
>
> Agreed. What I would like to know is how the project briefs are structured
> from FRST; do they specify public access to data? Do they specify open
> data standards? Do they somehow require agencies to build grandiose
> portals with IE-only technologies?
>
> Regards
> Jonathan
>
> > 2009/6/16 Chris Daish <email obscured>>
> >
> >> Some very good points there, Jonathan. Can anyone point to examples of
> >> *good* T&Cs - either from NZ or overseas - that we could blog about and
> >> explain why they are more likely to be effective.
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >> <email obscured> wrote:
> >> > On 16/06/2009, at 9:51 AM, Andrew Watkins wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Much of our data is published anyway on the www.niwa.co.nz website
> >> e.g
> >> >> https://secure.niwa.co.nz/wqis/index.do water quality information
> >> system.
> >> >
> >> > WQIS and EDENZ are examples of what I find so disturbing about the
> >> > relatively small amounts of data that institutions are currently
> >> > publishing. Even if the data is "available" it isn't in as a web
> >> service,
> >> > and is often wrapped in developer-unfriendly terms of use.
> >> >
> >> > WQIS, EDENZ terms
> >> > a. allow NIWA to remove access to data at their discretion for any
> >> purpose
> >> > they wish.
> >> > b. require explicit written permission to republish on any other
> >> website
> >> > (i.e. no mashups).
> >> > https://secure.niwa.co.nz/wqis/terms.do
> >> > http://edenz.niwa.co.nz/about/terms
> >> >
> >> > DigitalNZ
> >> > I've already flagged by concern about the Digital NZ terms to Andy
> >> Neale
> >> > (and also mentioned them during Keitha's talk at GOVIS). This is what
> >> I
> >> > sent Andy:
> >> > "In my opinion, the terms seem overly legalistic and restrictive. Why
> >> is
> >> > there a restriction on reverse engineering, for example? That's the
> >> > kind of statement I'd expect from Microsoft rather than an institution
> >> of
> >> > learning and knowledge such as the National Library.
> >> >
> >> > I don't like the idea that DNZ could unilaterally terminate my use,
> >> > especially if I have put significant time into developing a widget or
> >> > application. There's no mention of any mechanism for handling disputes
> >> or
> >> > misunderstandings.
> >> >
> >> > And I couldn't possibly agree to "You are responsible for any damage
> >> you
> >> > cause to this website or to any of the National Librarys other
> >> websites,
> >> > electronic facilities or data." What liability does agreeing to that
> >> open
> >> > me (or the sites I am involved with) up to?"
> >> > http://www.digitalnz.org/terms
> >> >
> >> > So, as well as publicising what data is available it would be good to
> >> > highlight the terms of use and encourage more friendly, less
> >> restrictive
> >> > terms.
> >> >
> >> > It was great to hear of moves towards CC licensing in Govt - where are
> >> > those  initiatives now that SSC e-govt has been dismembered?
> >> >
> >> > Regards
> >> > Jonathan
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -----------------------------------------
> >> > Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> >> > https://groups.opengovt.org.nz/r/topic/2ubWgForJDyryhXlVbXqDw
> >> >
> >> > To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> >> > <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
> >> >
> >> > Start your own free groups and site with
> >> > OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
> >> >
> >> > Host your own online groups site with
> >> > GroupServer http://groupserver.org
> >>
> >> -----------------------------------------
> >> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> >> https://groups.opengovt.org.nz/r/topic/2go3jUPmwQ5uXDaKC7ZzHE
> >>
> >> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> >> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
> >>
> >> Start your own free groups and site with
> >> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
> >>
> >> Host your own online groups site with
> >> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
> >>
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> > https://groups.opengovt.org.nz/r/topic/247uM27fzzfIAa2fmT7OiC
> >
> > To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> > <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
> >
> > Start your own free groups and site with
> > OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
> >
> > Host your own online groups site with
> > GroupServer http://groupserver.org
> >
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> https://groups.opengovt.org.nz/r/topic/1NJzCwfx9vHsPLpJLOHUpY
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>

You cannot post because you are not logged in. If you are a member The Open Government Ninjas, login to post to this topic. Otherwise sign up, become a member of The Open Government Ninjas, and post to this topic.

Privacy Acceptable Use Terms of Service About OnlineGroups.Net Contact OnlineGroups.Net

Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net

Host your own online groups site with GroupServer