Through a posting of Roel I came across Rick Klau again, someone who like me was blogging about knowledge management in the early ’00s. These days his writing is on Medium it seems.

Browsing through his latest posts, I came across this one about homebrew contact management.

Contact management is one area where until now I mostly stayed away from automating anything.
First and foremost because of the by definition poor initial data quality that you use to set it up (I still have 11 yr old contact info on my phone because it is hard to delete, and then gets put back due to some odd feedback loop in syncing).
Second, because of the risk of instrumentalising the relationships to others, instead of interacting for its own sake.
Third, because most systems I encountered depend on letting all your mail etc flow through it, which is a type of centralisation / single point of failure I want to avoid.

There’s much in Rick’s post to like (even though I doubt I’d want to shell out $1k/yr to do the same), and there are things in there I definitely think useful. He’s right when he says that being able to have a better overview of your network in terms of gender, location, diversity, background etc. is valuable. Not just in terms of contacts, but in terms of information filtering when you follow your contacts in several platforms etc.

Bookmarked to come up with an experiment. Timely also because I just decided to create a simple tool for my company as well, to start mapping stakeholders we encounter. In Copenhagen last September I noticed someone using a 4 question page on her phone to quickly capture she met me, the context and my organisation. When I asked she said it was to have an overview of the types of organisations and roles of people she encountered in her work, building a map as it were of the ecosystem. Definitely something I see the use of.

HandShakeHandshakes and conversations is what I’m interested in, not marketing instruments. Image Handshake by Elisha Project, license CC BY SA

UntitledProbably the top left gives the most realistic information. Image by Brooke Novak, license CC BY

An organisation that says it wants to work data driven as well as sees ethics as a key design ingredient, needs to take a very close look imho at how they set KPI’s and other indicators. I recently came across an organisation that says those first two things, but whose process of setting indicators looks to have been left as a naive exercise to internal teams.

To begin with, indicators easily become their own goals, and people will start gaming the measurement system to attain the set targets. (Think of call centers picking up the phone and then disconnecting, because they are scored on the number of calls answered within 3 rings, but the length of calls isn’t checked for those picked up)

Measurement also isn’t neutral. It’s an expression of values, regardless of whether you articulated your values. When you measure the number of traffic deaths for instance as an indicator for road safety, but not wounded or accidents as such, nor their location, you’ll end up minimising traffic deaths but not maximising road safety. Because the absence of deaths isn’t the presence of road safety. Deaths is just one, albeit the most irreparable one, expression of the consequences of unsafety. Different measurements lead to different real life actions and outcomes.

Gauges‘Gauges’ by Adam Kent, license CC BY

When you set indicators it is needed to evaluate what they cover, and more importantly what they don’t cover. To check if the overall set of indicators is balanced, where some indicators by definition deteriorate when others improve (so balance needs to be sought). To check if assumptions behind indicators have been expressed and when needed dealt with.

Otherwise you are bound to end up with blind spots, lack of balance, and potential injustices. Defined indicators also determine what data gets collected, and thus what your playing field is when you have a ‘data driven’ way of working. That way any blind spot, lack of balance and injustice will end up even more profoundly in your decisions. Because where indicators mostly look back in time at output, data driven use of the data underlying those indicators actively determines actions and thus (part of) future output, turning your indicators in a much more direct and sometimes even automated feedback loop.

CompassOnly if you’ve deliberately defined your true north, can you use your measurements to determine direction of your next steps. ‘Compass’ by Anthony, license CC BY ND

Good catching up with you after too long Boris. Excited to hear about Fission. Later on was wondering how IPFS as starting point plays out with highly dynamic material (e.g. real time data sets), versus dat for such data sets. Pleasing to note our thinking since our joined session at BarCamp Brussels in 2006 has evolved along similar lines in the current timeframe, except you more on the tech side of things, and me on the change management side of it.

This is a somewhat worrying development: the entire .org registry of domain names has been sold to a private equity investor. That basically spells out just one way forward, extraction and rent-seeking. As this step immediately follows from ICANN lifting price increase caps in place earlier this year (against the advise of US competition authorities it appears), and the buyer is a newly established entity it seems to have but that purpose.

“Price hikes in 3, 2, 1, ….” seems to be the consensus.

As this site’s domain is part of the .org TLD (when I registered it in the spring of 2003, it was the one non-country TLD ‘zylstra’ was available for), I briefly looked into my options, to defend against price gouging. My domain name renews on May 3rd 2020, in just under 6 months time. I should be able to renew the domain 60 days before it expires, so by early March, in 4 months. Then I will be able to renew for a 5 year period at once. Which, if it precedes a price hike, means I get to buy myself a few years extra before needing to make a decision.

On a more fundamental level, I am surprised that maintaining a TLD domain name registry is entirely left to market forces by ICANN like that. For instance the Dutch national TLD registry is maintained by a non-profit foundation. Whoever runs a TLD registry has a monopoly by default and the costs of leaving for existing domain holders is very substantial. Combining that, monopoly and lock-in, with private investors whose first commandment is not maintaining the general public service that a domains registry (not: registrar) constitutes is worrisome. E.g. this site has been on this domain name for 16.5 years. This domain name is for all intents and purposes my online unique identifier, and I definitely use it as such. Now, for me personally, moving the entire thing isn’t extremely bothersome in itself. It would sadly cause a major chunk of link-rot, but moving it to e.g. zylstra.eu which I also have can be done without much consequence for myself should the costs of zylstra.org rise uncomfortably. It would however also mean moving my de-facto online identity, which is likely to cause confusion in my networks. That identity confusion, and brand damage will be of an entirely different level if you’re a very established NGO, brand or non-profit on a .org domain. E.g. the World Bank, WordPress or Wikipedia, which coincidentally spells WWW, also hosted on .org. Then leaving is much harder, and you’ll likely go with whatever pricing model gets introduced. If only for after a move someone else will pick your old high-recognition domain up for spoofing and phishing most likely, so you’ll stay put whatever the cost.

It smells like something that should be of interest to competition authorities everywhere.

Bookmarked Breaking: Private Equity company acquires .Org registry – Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News (Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News)

Ethos Capital, led by former ABRY Partners Managing Partner, buys .Org registry. I thought this might happen. And now it has. Fresh off ICANN’s blunder letting Public Interest Registry set whatever price it wants for .org domain names, Internet Society (ISOC) has sold the .org registry Public Interest Registry (PIR) to private equity company Ethos …