My attention has been recently diverted a bit by an update that I received a few days ago from WashingtonWatch about the Global Online Freedom Act of 2007 (H.R. 275). The tag line on the bill is that it is intended to promote freedom of expression on the Internet and protect United States businesses from coercion to participate in repression by authoritarian foreign governments. I investigated this proposed legislation because I thought that the notion of freedom of expression on the Internet was critical to online learning (eLearning) in general and to our recent postings about open educational resources (OER) quite directly. In fact, without a whole lot of effort or creativity, it would be pretty easy to connect parts of the conceptual underpinning of the Global Online Freedom Act to all three strategies that were outlined in the Capetown Open Education Declaration and some of the derivative works to increase the reach and impact of open educational resources. Note too that the Bill refers to Article 19 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for part of its philosophical underpinning.

Just to set the stage a bit, H.R. 275 is meant to support the following policy of the United States:

1. to promote as a fundamental component of United States foreign policy the right of everyone to freedom of opinion and expression, including the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers;
2. to use all appropriate instruments of United States influence, including diplomacy, trade policy, and export controls, to support, promote, and strengthen principles, practices, and values that promote the free flow of information, including through the Internet and other electronic media; and
3. to deter any United States business from cooperating with officials of Internet-restricting countries in effecting the political censorship of online content.

Please note that I do not want to get into how well the US government follows its own policy, etc. right now. If you want to comment on that, or on issues around implementation, please feel free. In any event, the Bill is, at least on its face, about enhancing and protecting access and reducing coercion. It is meant to address activities of selected foreign governments that are designated as “Internet-restricting countries.”

A government gets this designation when it blocks Internet sites or filters search engine terms and phrases relating to human rights, democracy, religious free exercise, and peaceful political dissent, both in general and as specifically related to the particular context and circumstances. In addition to blocking and filtering, H.R. 275 prohibits US businesses from locating (finding and giving away), within a designated Internet-restricting country, any electronic communication that contains any personally identifiable information. Currently Belarus, Cuba, Ethiopia, Iran, Laos, North Korea, the People’s Republic of China, Tunisia, and Vietnam would be identified as Internet-restricting countries.

The teeth in H.R. 275 come from applying sanctions of various types against offending governments (some sanctions will be determined only after the Bill is passed), and applying penalties to US businesses that contribute to offending activities. Offending activities by Microsoft and Yahoo are cited in documents that support the Bill. The coordination activities would fall under the purview of a newly established “Office of Global Internet Freedom,” while enforcement would fall to a number of US government agencies. Civil and criminal actions against US businesses would go through the Attorney General.

I see some connections between H.R. 245 and our previous dialogs around OER and Open Education, as indicated above, but I am wondering really what they might be. Given that H.R. 275 does provide civil and criminal recourse and also points to potential export controls, it could impact many US education providers who operate in Internet-restricting countries as partners with local universities and companies, or through branch campuses. I think too though that the notion of such legislation might have international interest. In early 2007 the following NGOs

• Reporters Without Borders
• Amnesty International
• Human Rights Watch
• China Information Center
• Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
• Earth Rights International
• Laogai Research Foundation
• National Economic and Social Rights Initiative
• PEN USA
• PEN American Center
• Religious Freedom Coalition
• Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights
• Secretariat of the International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR-Net)
• Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia

endorsed H.R. 275 in a Joint Statement to the members of Congress, the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights, and International Operations, because of the Bill’s “…effort to prevent U.S. companies from carrying out or facilitating the suppression of online speech in China and other countries.”

So, would this type of legislation be useful to educators? Would it potentially serve as a means to free up OER for use in various countries? Does it address fundamental access issues that are precursors for Open Education?

More pragmatically, does it potentially pose interesting questions for US universities who partner with universities in foreign countries that require “location of personally identifiable information” of students or faculty, wish to filter content, or block Internet sites?

I think that the Global Online Freedom Act of 2007 is one way that Internet Freedom and Open Education, which is predicated on various freedoms, is starting to align in various ways. I am not sure if national legislation is the most direct way forward, but it is becoming a factor in the dialog that will potentially impact education and education providers. Online learning and the Open Education movement raise the visibility, profile, and stakes of engaging in repression of education. Please feel free to share your thoughts!

The posting has two parts: the first part describes the past and current UNESCO FOSS activities and the second part suggests a new activity aimed at building an integrated FOSS Education solution targeting universities and that UNESCO may wish to initiate.

I. Brief Summary of UNESCO’s activities in FOSS For Education

1. UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, promotes international cooperation and dissemination of knowledge in the field of education, sciences, culture and communication. Therefore the organization recognises that community approaches to software development in general, and FOSS in particular, have a very significant role to play. There are a number of activities undertaken by UNESCO in support to FOSS.
2. Free & Open Source Software Portal - The UNESCO Free and Open Source Software Portal was developed and published in November 2001. It is maintained by the Information Society Division and provides a one-stop access point to reference documents on the FOSS movements, as well as to websites hosting the most popular and useful FOSS packages in UNESCO’s fields of competence. The portal also mirrors the Free Software Directory, a joint project of UNESCO and FSF that catalogues useful free software that runs under free operating systems — particularly the GNU operating system and its GNU/Linux variants.
3. The Greenstone Digital Library (GSDL) - UNESCO has produced with the New Zealand Digital Library Project (NZDL) of the University of Waikato (New Zealand) and the Human Info NGO (Antwerp) a multi-lingual version of the Free and Open Source Greenstone Digital Library software suite. It is expected that the Greenstone software package will enable educational, scientific and cultural institutions worldwide to build and share compatible digital libraries of open access and public domain information. UNESCO makes available free of charge CD-ROMs containing Greenstone 2.70, documentation available in four “core” languages (English, French, Spanish, Russian) and documented examples of digital libraries and associated software. A feasibility study conducted by UNESCO suggested that the open source GSDL, associated with appropriate training and documentation, could constitute a unique resource in the implementation of digital libraries for Africa.
4. UNESCO assisted in the deployment of an open-source Learning Management System (LMS) at the Arab Open University in Bahrain, which was further replicated in Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
5. Together with UNDP, UNESCO also organised a consultative meeting of specialists to assess the needs of developing countries in terms of FOSS and on modalities to pursue an FOSS initiative for developing countries with special focus for Africa.
6. UNESCO has partnerships with FSF, the Free and Open Source Software Foundation for Africa (FOSSFA) and various FOSS-active non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and is participating to the Latin American and Caribbean Conference on Free Software Development and Use (LACFREE). In addition UNESCO is informally collaborating with FAO, UNEP, UNDP and UNCTAD in promoting FOSS.
7. Other activities undertaken by UNESCO in support of FOSS are: development, distribution and translation of UNESCO FOSS software (CDS/ISIS – database software, IDAMS – statistical software).
8. Two discussion forums organized by UNESCO IIEP have focused on the related issues of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) for e-learning (June 2004) and Open Educational Resources (OER): open content for higher education (October/November 2005). The FOSS and OER groups have continued to interact on a more informal basis as international Communities of Interest.
9. The Discussion forum on Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) for Open Educational Resources organized by IIEP/UNESCO took place from 11 September to 6 October 2006. The main outcomes were the elaboration of a list of FOSS tools for OER development, management and dissemination, and the creation of a wiki collaboration space dedicated to the UNESCO IIEP Community of Interest on Open Educational Resources.
10. An Internet discussion forum aimed at discussing the OECD study on Open Educational Resources (OER) was held from 13 November to 1 December 2006.
11. Documentary on “Software for development: Documentary and Case Studies” - UNESCO contributed financially to this activity implemented by the UNDP Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme’s (UNDP-APDIP) International Open Source Network (IOSN) initiative, which aims to promote the choice of FOSS as affordable (yet effective) solutions for developing countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

II. UNESCO Activities envisaged and related to FOSS for EducationFOSS Education Solutions

1. Needs Analysis
   There is a strong demand for Free and Open Source Software solutions based upon open standards from developing and emerging countries who want to initiate secondary school and/or higher education computerization programs, as well as to computerize public administration. The ability to customize a solution to the special needs of a country, and any school or university in the country as well as using open standards, are the key advantages of providing open source solutions. It is usually quite easy to find FOSS applications that can solve a specific isolated problem such as an LMS or CMS, but most of the time a global solution is needed and there is really a lack of integrated FOSS solutions for education.
2. Vision
   In view of these needs, UNESCO would like to explore the possibility of producing a complete FOSS Education Solution for higher education that would integrate a stack of software tools, guidelines, and good documentation.
   A complete integrated FOSS Education Solution should be a technical roadmap with a stack of software tools and that could integrate for example:
   1. A Generic Integration Engine or Framework that:
   • Should solve the current Student Information System (SIS) problem
   • Add value by integrating isolated software tools and providing bridges
   • Allow flexibility to add more applications to the stack
   • Provide a seamless Education IT environment
   2. A Web Single SignOn (SSO) across or within organizational boundaries. It allows sites to make informed authorization decisions for individual access of protected online resources in a privacy-preserving manner.
      (Schibboleth — http://shibboleth.internet2.edu/ )
   3. The Moodle Core
   • Course Management (search, create/edit/delete, classify, event management, etc …)
   • User Management (add/edit/delete, authenticate, enrol, grouping, etc…)
   • Configuration Management (general configuration, site configuration, language, module, etc…)
   • Teacher & Student functions (register, logon, teaching, learning, finding resources, etc…)
   4. The Education Management System (EMS)
   5. Guidelines and requirements for flexible IT Infrastructure
   6. Guidelines for planning, budgeting and implementing
   7. Step-by-step guide to implementing open distance learning.
3. Tentatively Skeleton for Project Management
   Projects are usually divided into eight phases. Each phase has an objective, associated documents and deliverables.Phase 1: The first phase intends to produce a Requirements Evaluation and Project Proposal document.
   Areas to be addressed include:
   • Fundamental Problem to be solved
   • Tasks/functions the FOSS Education Solution will perform
   • Benefits/Savings/Cost Justification
   • Economic
   • Contribution to EFA goals and objectives
   • Quality
   • Performance Requirements
   • Security
   • Compatibility/Migration
   • Product integration
   • Packaging
   • Related/Dependent Projects; Other Dependencies

   The project proposal document should set the background, define the fundamental concepts, compare and evaluate the alternate FOSS Education solutions in terms of functionality and compatibility, and should be accompanied by a thoughtful analysis of the current isolated FOSS Education Solutions and the desired integrated FOSS solution. It should also identify the missing components if any.

   Phase 2: Planning Phase
   Phase 3: Detailed Design Phase
   Phase 4: Construction Phase
   Phase 5: Testing Phase
   Phase 6: Implementation Phase
   Phase 7: User Support Phase
   Phase 8: Completion Phase

   Please note that this is a first attempt to design a project proposal for building a FOSS Education Solution targeting universities. It needs further improvement and elaboration. It could also be envisaged to build a FOSS Education Solution for secondary education (or K12).

I have been attending the National University Telecommunication Network (NUTN) annual meeting in Philadelphia, and due to a missed flight by the keynote presenter, Dr. David Cavallo co-leader of MIT Media Lab’s Future of Learning, Ene Tammeoru of the Estonian e-Learning Development Centre affiliated with the Estonian e-University and I were rescheduled to open the meeting. Ene talked about a multi-organizational e-learning partnership composed of Estonian universities and technical schools that she leads. The project is 4 years old and its purpose is to develop sustainable infrastructure ranging from technology to faculty development. I provided a more general presentation on some considerations associated with selecting activities that make sense. The main ideas were that:

• International activities do not have to start and stop at delivering or extending educational programmes to international students, but can include involvement in OSS, OER, and open communities of practice.
• Activities can be aligned within the context of global tends, institutional mission, and capacity.

Please feel free to check out the presentation materials, update, share, comment, etc.

View the presentation in PowerPoint format.

Earlier this week I had the chance to chat with Michael Adewumi, who, among other things, serves as the director of the Alliance for Earth Sciences, Engineering, and Development in Africa (AESEDA). As an aside, AESEDA and the World Campus co-sponsored an interesting event in early December 2006, which included a seminar titled “What Does It Mean to Be a Global Land Grant University?” Audio files and notes can be found on WikiEducator. Following that seminar, Michael expressed interest in the global land-grant notion, and during our recent chat raised a number of interesting issues, inspiring me to try and frame the idea, which will hopefully shape the conversation as it develops. I am taking my guidance from the work that the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) has done around internationalizing the university, the dialog generated during the previously mentioned December 2006 seminars, observable trends on the perception of globalization, and the changing nature of international assistance programming.

I would like to start by developing a high-level outline of things we ought to consider; from there we can develop, dispute, formalize, explore, etc.

Goals: Understanding and articulating why a global land grant is a compelling notion, what it has to offer, and what its goals would be. During my recent chat with Michael he made an observation that unlike many other universities, Penn State’s forte is resource management, which speaks to its land-grant heritage, and is relevant to much of the geo-political, commercial, and environmental activity through which we often describe the effects of globalization. What can the internally and externally facing goals of the global land grant be? Are there other types of institutional models that support similar strengths or complementary strengths, particularly while considering the impact of online learning and social networking applications?

Structure: Given what it means to be “global,” how can we organize ourselves and structure the organization to fulfill the land-grant development mission based on the connections among teaching, applied research, and practice (cooperative extension), frequently in a community context? That is, what types of models will help us meet our goals while working across tremendous geographic distance, economic conditions, forms of government, development needs, national and societal interests, cultural norms, etc.? What can the global land grant look like?

Finance and Economics: What types of financial arrangements and exchanges of value will support the mission and sustain participation? Due to a trend in reduction of state support, U.S. land-grant universities have had to rethink how they operationalize their missions and seek new sources of revenue to finance operations and program development. We might ask ourselves what types of arrangements will work on a global scale with little central financial support. How can the global land grant operate and create sustainable value to all participants?

I will start fleshing-out each of these areas in future posts, digging into what lies beneath the surface. This is all very conceptual right now, which provides us with an opportunity to create the path as we walk it. I welcome your feedback, whether it is supportive or disparaging—constructive contributions move the dialog forward. In addition, sharing resources on the topic would be appreciated.

Well, I’ve been thinking a little bit about the possibilities. What if a land grant university really took its mission globally, and if it did, what might be the role of online learning?

After all, there are many parallels between the environment in which the U.S. land grants were established in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and the current environment in much of the modern developing and developed world. When the land grants were established in the U.S. there was social unrest, post-war reconstruction, profound economic and social stratification, expansionism paved by the systemic genocide of native populations, epidemics, economic migration, the need for developing civil infrastructure, agricultural capacity, education, health, and human service systems to support economic and social capacity to scaffold the civil society. Although things aren’t perfect, by many measures they are considerably better, and I would argue that the land-grant universities have played a significant role in making things better by fueling development through outreach into communities by integrating educational activities, practical research, and cooperative extension.

If the basic model has promise, how can we leverage the benefits of online learning? I believe that there would be a pretty practical curriculum focusing on business, work force development, engineering, natural sciences, education, etc. Unlike the elusive Global Online MBA this program would be intensely international because of the applied research and extension activities grounding the online component in practice onsite in places like Uzbekistan and Liberia. Think about the possibilities for study abroad programs and internships.

Although online learning has great potential for reducing barriers to education, whenever we work globally there are considerations about technology and connectivity, and access to educational resources. We would have to assume that this global land grant would have the same financial challenges as its more-or-less state bound counterparts in the U.S. are suffering and would have to fit the budget of a global audience. How might we reduce the financial and access barriers to infrastructure and educational materials? My experience suggests that western textbooks carry too big a price tag. How would we localize the learning environment and content? Would the organizational model be a network or a centralized institution? There are a lot of questions. Are there examples of institutions that might look something like the global online land grant, and are they delivering the promise?

Sometimes it seems that a project is just perfect, tying together elements that are mutually reinforcing, interesting, and relevant. The World Campus is contributing to the Commonwealth Computer Navigator’s Certificate (CCNC), which is a project dedicated to creating open courseware that is designed to help learners develop computer competencies using open source software. The project is building from the OpenICDL project, which is an open computer competency certification. The CCNC-added value is that the curriculum and modules will be specifically designed for distance and eLearning delivery.

World Campus learning designers will be working with colleagues in more than 7 countries to refine the pedagogical template used across the curriculum and assume responsibility for one of the certificate modules, while also contributing across the curriculum. I am excited about this project because it is breaking ground in open educational resources (OER) and open source software (OSS), which are two major global trends that hold significant promise for lowering barriers to education, particularly for eLearning. In addition, it provides us the opportunity to work collaboratively with a truly global consortium of colleagues, which will be organizationally enriching.

It is very much my hope that after the basic computer competency curriculum is developed, we will start taking leadership in developing educational materials supporting more advanced competencies related to OSS, such as evaluating OSS software/projects using appropriate metrics, contributing to community development, establishing and growing open source projects and communities, open licensing, etc. And while there currently are materials being produced as stand-alone primers (just Google it), organizations that concentrate on specific OSS topics such as the Open Business Readiness Rating (BRR) project with OSS evaluation, and academic programs (e.g., Carnegie Mellon West, MS program in Software Management) that are integrating OSS topics into their course offerings, pulling a curriculum together as open courseware designed globally would be something very special.

The CCNC is an open project. We would gladly work with enthusiastic designers, graphic artists, and other folks interested in an easy way to contribute.

Any thoughts? Please feel free to share them.
PS: More of Open Source Software as we kick off the “Impact of OSS in Education” series on March 12 for our first posting on Terra Incognita.