I’m still not enthusiastic about the “LDNbeta” name, but at least it’s something and people more or less understand what it’s about (more than if it was any other name) when they hear it — or at least it doesn’t lead people to make the wrong assumptions.
The problem is, the global movement as a whole doesn’t have a distinct, identifiable name yet, as John Geraci discussed for O’Reilly Radar:
Gov2.0, e-gov, e-democracy, open gov–these are all names that get applied to what is happening. And they are great for describing a certain aspect of this movement, the aspect that actually deals with government.
…But that ecosystem doesn’t fit neatly under the hood of “Gov 2.0″ or any of the other “gov” labels.
Recalling my post last week about the four pillars of an open civic system, these “gov” names–e-gov, gov2.0, open gov–focus on the G2C aspect of what is going on, to the exclusion of the other aspects of this open civic system that is emerging.
And this new civic system should have a name, because it is a real ecosystem. It is also a movement, with more and more people focusing on it around the world every day. It is also increasingly becoming an industry.
So what do we call this new thing?
My own preference is simply “open government.”
