This is the thirteenth conversation of the 100+ Conversations to Inspire Our New Direction (#OKFN100) project.

Since 2023, we are meeting with more than 100 people to discuss the future of open knowledge, shaped by a diverse set of visions from artists, activists, scholars, archivists, thinkers, policymakers, data scientists, educators, and community leaders from everywhere.

The Open Knowledge Foundation team wants to identify and discuss issues sensitive to our movement and use this effort to constantly shape our actions and business strategies to deliver best what the community expects of us and our Network, a pioneering organisation that has been defining the standards of the open movement for two decades.

Another goal is to include the perspectives of people of diverse backgrounds, especially those from marginalised communities, dissident identities, and whose geographic location is outside of the world’s major financial powers.

How openness can accelerate and strengthen the struggles against the complex challenges of our time? This is the key question behind conversations like the one you can read below.

*

This time we did something different, a collective conversation. A few weeks ago we had the chance to bring together several members of the Open Knowledge Network to talk about the current context, opportunities and challenges for open knowledge in Asia.

The conversation took place online in English on 4 July 2024, with the participation of Nikesh Balami (Nepal), Tomoaki Watanabe (Japan), Thanisara Ruangdej (Thailand), Nurunnaby Chowdhury (Bangladesh), Apoorv Anand and Setu Bandh Upadhyay (India), moderated by Lucas Pretti, OKFN’s Communications & Advocacy Director.

One of the important contexts of this conversation is precisely Setu’s incorporation as regional coordinator of the Network’s Asia Hub. With this piece of content, we also aim to facilitate regional integration and find common points of collaboration for shared work within the Network. That’s why we started by asking him to introduce himself in her own words. 

We hope you enjoy reading it.

*

Setu Bandh Upadhyay: Hello everyone! It’s great to meet you all. My name is Setu and I’m the Asia Coordinator for the Prototype Programme at OKFN. I’m a lawyer and policy analyst by profession. I studied law in India and later did a Masters in Public Policy in Europe.

For the last six or seven years, I’ve worked in the broader field of digital rights, technology policy and open data. I’ve had the opportunity to work with organisations like Mozilla and Global Voices. I’m currently leading the learning portfolio at the Global Network Initiative, a multi-stakeholder organisation that brings together businesses, civil society, academia and investors to ensure that human rights are embedded in all their activities.

That’s a bit of my background. Since joining the programme, I’ve been mapping stakeholders in the region, a task that other coordinators are also doing in their respective regions. My plans are very much in line with what the community in this region wants.

For example, in our conversations, we discussed focusing on open climate data. Nikesh took the lead on this initiative, while I contributed some ideas, and together with Nurunnaby, we were able to submit a proposal for funding to support this project.

I’m very open to hearing from the community about your needs and interests in the region. I’m here to support you, share ideas and help move projects forward in any way I can.

Tomoaki Watanabe: Great, thank you. So this is a question that I’ve been thinking about and discussing with my colleagues in the openness movement: How much of our efforts in this movement have been either misguided or perhaps unsuccessful? In particular, I’ve been thinking about the tendency to make resources available for free.

Recently I’ve been hearing more about the idea that such resources should be fairly compensated. In fact, I noticed that OKFN has started to use the word “fairness” in their slogan. For me, this shift feels a little unfamiliar, maybe even unsettling, because I’ve long associated openness not only with freedom of speech, but also with the idea of free access in a very literal sense.

I understand the reasoning behind this change, but I’m still trying to figure out the best way forward. How do we strike the right balance and navigate this evolving landscape?

Setu Bandh Upadhyay: That’s a very broad and challenging question. I’m sorry, I’m going to have to get a little academic to answer it. My Ph.D. thesis focused on the “tragedy of the commons” and the “resource curse”, concepts defined by Elinor Ostrom. I’m a strong believer in the idea of the commons, especially in the digital world, where everyone can benefit from shared resources without depleting them.

Investing time, energy and advocacy in the openness movement is critical to its growth and development. In my experience, while I’ve mostly worked on open data in India, I’ve also worked with organisations in East and West Africa and Sri Lanka. What I’ve found is that governments and regulators are increasingly recognising the value of open data. In India, for example, the government has introduced policies to regulate and promote open data, despite historical bureaucratic challenges.

This recognition by governments, particularly in developing countries, signals real potential for the movement. Unlike in countries like Germany or the US, where governments often lead innovation, in India policymakers tend to act after the public has already demonstrated the value of an idea. This gives me hope for the future of the movement.

Of course, as with any initiative, there have been successes and failures. But in the realm of open data, where resources are often free to use and innovate with, there are relatively few barriers compared to something like personal data. The benefits are clear, and it’s easier to get people on board when there’s little to no compromise required.

So while the movement has its challenges, I remain optimistic. The potential for innovation is huge and the incentives to participate are strong. I hope that answers your question.

Nikesh Balami: I don’t have a specific question for this session, but I’d like to throw out some thoughts and questions that we can discuss together. Setu can also chime in and it would be great to hear everyone’s views.

Reflecting on the journey of open knowledge and open data in South and Southeast Asia, I’ve noticed something important. While we’re doing great work in our respective countries – collaborating on projects and initiatives – there is a significant limitation when it comes to regional collaboration and knowledge flow across borders. Learning from each other has been somewhat limited, particularly in South Asia.

For example, there are strong examples of cross-border cooperation in regions such as Thailand, Myanmar and the Mekong. But in South Asia, we face geographical and geopolitical challenges that hinder similar efforts. Despite these challenges, as individuals leading civil society and the knowledge movement in our countries, we should consider some ideas to bridge this gap.

It would be valuable to discuss how we can begin to foster better regional synergies and what steps need to be taken to move forward. I’d like to hear Setu’s thoughts as a regional coordinator and discuss how Open Knowledge can move these collaborations forward, focusing on prioritising this crucial aspect.

Thanisara Ruangdej: When you asked your question, and after listening to all the answers, I started thinking about the Open Knowledge initiative in Southeast Asia. As you mentioned, these initiatives often start with good intentions, driven by civil society. However, when we try to make them more impactful, we often have to work with the government. This can sometimes lead to the politicisation of our movement, especially in polarised societies.

What starts as a movement for everyone can change once it becomes embedded in the system. We are seeing this debate in several countries. We’re now asking ourselves how we should position our relationship with the government. I’ve talked to people in the US, where civic tech initiatives are often adopted by the government, and that’s seen as a success. But in Thailand and Southeast Asia, it’s different. Here, we want social credit – firstly because the initiative came from us, and secondly because it helps us secure funding or create new projects.

However, if the government adopts something and takes ownership of it, it can become a political issue. I don’t have a clear solution, but I wanted to share this concern. Perhaps you all have more opinions or ideas on how to overcome this challenge.

Setu Bandh Upadhyay: To start with Thanisara’s point, it sounds like you’re talking about the government co-opting the movement for political gain. This happens everywhere, and I’m sure we’ve seen it here in India. While I don’t have a definitive solution, the key may be to make it clear that this is not a political movement, but a social one – for everyone, regardless of party lines or polarisation. Of course, this can be much harder to do in certain countries, especially as polarisation is increasing globally. But it’s important to continue the movement and innovate despite these challenges.

Regarding Nikesh’s point about the lack of knowledge transfer across countries and regions, this is an important issue that we can work on. For example, we could have quarterly or bimonthly learning sessions. In my current job, I facilitate learning between different stakeholders, so I could help with this. For example, if Nikesh has successfully completed a project and Thanisara wants to implement something similar, it would be beneficial for one to learn from the other’s experience – what worked, what didn’t and what lessons were learnt.

One idea could be to share regular updates from members and experts with the whole group. I could also host a bi-monthly or quarterly call for members to discuss their projects, share insights and make connections. If there’s interest, we could start as early as this month. I’d love to hear if anyone has any thoughts or would like to add to this idea.

Nurunnaby Chowdhury: It’s great to see so many new faces here. I’ve already noticed some helpful discussions, which reminded me of a similar conversation we had at the OK Festival in Germany in 2014. Some of us from Nepal, India and elsewhere were discussing the same issues. Nikesh and Open Knowledge Nepal are doing incredible work, and I’ve been associated with Open Knowledge since 2013, observing their various efforts. However, in Bangladesh, we haven’t been able to achieve the same level of success, partly due to a lack of technical expertise.

Nikesh, being an expert in these areas, could really help us. I discussed this with him about a year ago, and it’s still a crucial point. In 2021, after the pandemic, we organised a conference in Bangladesh that brought together open access and open knowledge advocates from several countries. I chaired two seminars at this event and it was well received, especially by the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council, one of the largest agricultural research organisations in the country.

They had originally planned to invite a minister to inaugurate the event. As a well-connected journalist, I was asked to help, and after a brief discussion, the ICT minister agreed to attend. When he joined us and attended two seminars, he later told me how much he appreciated the opportunity to interact with intellectuals and experts from different countries.

This experience has taught me that if we can invite regional experts to our programmes, it is easier to attract policymakers. They tend to focus more on events with diverse, international participation. For example, if we invite Nikesh to our programmes and engage policymakers, they are more likely to pay attention and support our initiatives.

In South Asia, the political landscape can be challenging, but by using our network of experts and working across countries, we can make real progress. We’ve seen that getting the right people involved can lead to tangible results, such as the launch of the Open Government Portal in Bangladesh. Although it’s not fully active or up to date, the fact that it was launched at all shows the impact of engaging the right people. If we continue to engage the right people and involve our network of experts, we can achieve more at government and policy level.

Apoorv Anand: I agree with all the points that have been raised. The first priority should be to strengthen cooperation within the region. Both Nikesh and I, along with someone from Bangladesh, have already tried to initiate something. The issues we face – like climate change, AI policy, etc. – require an exchange of ideas across borders. I agree with Setu’s suggestion to start with a regular online meeting, perhaps quarterly. A dedicated discussion forum for the region could also be beneficial. While the OKFN calls keep me up to date with the Network, a focused channel for regional projects would be invaluable.

From my experience in India, the concept of open knowledge is still seen as very technical, which inadvertently excludes a lot of people. I’ve worked with many NGOs over the last four to five years, and while they agree with the principles of open knowledge, they struggle to apply them to their projects. The challenge lies in the perceived zero-sum game due to limited funding and resources, which makes it difficult for people to see the benefits of participating. We need to shift the conversation from open knowledge as a tool to a community movement where everyone’s participation is critical to growth.

It would be great to see more diverse participation, especially in India. We could be more intentional about inviting people who aren’t currently part of the network but could benefit from it. This approach would help the network to grow organically as they in turn reach out to others.

As a community, if we can identify two or three key priorities for the next year or two, it would help everyone focus on how they can contribute, both individually and collectively. Even if we don’t work on specific projects, regular communication and collaboration – such as inviting each other to relevant events – will be essential.

These are just some initial thoughts on how we can move forward.

Setu Bandh Upadhyay: Thanks everyone. I agree that a discussion forum is valuable, but in my experience live interactions tend to foster more dynamic conversations and idea generation. Perhaps we can do both. I’m happy to facilitate the calls – schedule them, send out invitations, host and moderate. We can also circulate notes afterwards for those who couldn’t attend.

The challenge of open knowledge being perceived as a technical concept is significant. To overcome this, we could frame it as a social movement rather than focusing on technical solutions and incentives. For example, I worked on a case study of the Electrical Supply Monitoring Initiative (ESMI) by Prayas, an Indian NGO. India has a history of severe power cuts, although the situation has improved in recent years. ESMI began by distributing IoT devices to monitor power cuts in Pune, and using the data collected as evidence in public interest litigation against power companies and the government. This initiative led to better public services, proving that when people see a clear benefit, such as improved electricity, they are more likely to participate.

The key is to present open knowledge as something that benefits society without asking individuals to give up much – whether it’s time, money or effort. With ESMI, for example, the promise was better electricity with fewer blackouts and less need for backup power. While not everyone will be on board immediately, especially as the results aren’t immediate, pushing the narrative of long-term societal benefits can help build momentum.

In my experience, people are more receptive if the movement is framed as something that improves public services without asking much of them personally. We can’t make everyone happy, but by promoting it as a social movement, we’re more likely to get wider acceptance and results.

I’ve done some research and interviews on the open data movement in India, and this approach seemed to resonate with those involved. I hope this perspective is helpful.

Nikesh Balami: There have been a lot of interesting discussions, case studies and ideas shared here. I really like the idea of hosting calls on a monthly or bi-monthly basis. For example, during the recent Open Data Day, I hosted an Open House session for the Open Data Charter in Asia. It was a great experience and I noticed some fascinating case studies from countries like Cambodia and Korea. This highlighted the need for us to regularly share knowledge so that we can learn from each other, stay up to date, and explore potential opportunities for collaboration.

When I was at the Foundation, we often discussed how to engage the network in potential collaborations – whether through events, joint funding proposals or joint projects. Regular calls could help us continue these discussions and strengthen our network.

I also have a question about the changing dynamics of the open knowledge movement in our respective countries. Globally, there’s been a noticeable shift. Organisations that used to focus on open data and open knowledge are now struggling with funding and support, especially compared to the support they received 7-10 years ago. The focus seems to be shifting towards more thematic areas, such as climate data, gender data and other specific issues, rather than general open data initiatives.

So my question is: how is the momentum around open knowledge shifting in your countries, and what are the current emerging thematic priorities? Is the focus on climate, gender, transparency or something else? It would be great if we could document these insights, as they could serve as a blueprint for our upcoming activities.

Anyone can start by sharing what’s happening in their respective countries and we can use this as a basis for future discussions and planning.

Setu Bandh Upadhyay: That sounds good to me. I don’t know if anybody wants to jump in.

Apoorv Anand: My observation is that there has been a significant shift in India in the last year or two, particularly with a strong push from the government. This push is very top-down, focusing on keywords like Digital Public Goods (DPGs) and Digital Public Infrastructure (DPIs). The recent G20 summit played a big role in this momentum. As a result, these terms have started to influence the funding landscape, with funders increasingly looking for projects that align with these concepts.

However, there’s still a lot of ambiguity around what exactly qualifies as a digital public good. Different stakeholders have different interpretations. For example, can something you’re working on be considered a digital public good if its source code is available online? Or does it go beyond that? People are still learning and figuring this out, but the push to integrate these concepts is strong.

Importantly, this focus is sector agnostic, although there is a noticeable emphasis on climate change. The intersectionality of these issues is evident, as they affect sectors such as public health, disaster management and more. While the emphasis on DPGs and DPIs cuts across sectors, climate change remains a key focus.

Overall, these are the buzzwords driving the current landscape, and even I’m still learning about them. But it’s clear that the impetus is coming from the top.

Setu Bandh Upadhyay: In many ways, India often presents itself as a bottom-up country, but in reality it operates in a top-down manner. This isn’t unique to India; it’s a pattern seen in many other countries, particularly those represented on this call. However, this is where social movements come in – they play a crucial role in shifting the focus from top-down to bottom-up approaches.

However, when an initiative is endorsed by the government, it gains momentum. You can use the idea of nationalism to argue for it, saying ‘it’s good for the country because the government supports it’, unless of course there’s strong opposition to the government itself.

You’re absolutely right – buzzwords are prevalent, especially in the context of AI. Concerns like “AI is going to take over” dominate the conversation, which leads to questions about data: Where does it come from? How do we get it? This push to open up data is an important part of current policy discussions.

Lucas Pretti: Can I just add something? I was talking to someone the other day and I mentioned how much you seem to travel. I said, “I always see your updates, you’re in Asia, India, Japan, everywhere”. This person, who is a CEO, replied, “Oh yeah, that’s where the money is.”

I’m not sure if that’s true, so I wanted to ask: do you see a trend? Is there more funding or focus on open data and technology in Asia? I don’t have any concrete evidence, but I’m curious – do you find it easier to secure funding now compared to, say, 10 years ago?

Nurunnaby Chowdhury: In Bangladesh, our government has been focusing on digital initiatives for many years, and now they’ve announced a plan to transition to “Smart Bangladesh” by 2041. There are several major projects underway, such as the new Metro Rail in Dhaka.

In light of these developments, I discussed with Nikesh a few months ago how the Open Knowledge Network could take the initiative to engage with the government on these projects. For example, we could ask ministers or relevant authorities to share project details. Many people in Bangladesh are curious about these big projects, especially the funding sources and details, but it’s often difficult to get this information.

Even though we have laws, it’s not always easy to access data. If we could encourage the government to make this information openly available, it would be a significant step forward. This initiative could really resonate with people, showing them how to find data and ask the government for details. I think projects like this would be incredibly helpful in getting more people involved in the open knowledge movement, especially in politically sensitive environments like ours.

Thanisara Ruangdej: I have a few thoughts, but I can’t fully answer your question, Lucas, because my organisation is only five years old. For the past four years, we’ve mainly received support from abroad, mainly from the US and some European countries. The reason is that we deal with political issues, such as advocating for transparency, and local governments are unlikely to fund us for that.

Apart from the funding itself, one of the biggest benefits of international support is the network it provides – just like what we’re doing here. When we talk about collaboration, it’s not just about sharing what we’re working on, but also sharing information about funding opportunities and strategies for tackling these issues. In Thailand, many civil society organisations are struggling to survive because they can’t maintain sustainability, both in terms of funding and in terms of how they promote their causes. So it’s important to focus not only on what we do, but also on how we do it.

Setu Bandh Upadhyay: Thank you everyone. This has been a very enlightening and productive conversation. I think we already have some action items lined up and ready to go. I’m looking forward to working on them and continuing to engage with all of you.

I’m also looking forward to discussing more solutions to practical problems, as well as larger, overarching issues. I hope that together we can tackle these challenges and help transform the open movement into a broader social movement and drive it forward. It’s great to be part of this movement from the inside and I’m excited about what we can achieve together.