## 2 Background: Open Data, Gov 2.0, and Proprietary Tensions  
New participatory mechanisms, systemic openness, and virtualization are underpinning an emerging governance ethos that, for the public sector, is often termed as the emergence of Gov 2.0. At the heart of Gov 2.0 are drivers of collective intelligence and more collaborative forms of governance that are typically associated with a widening online universe and less hierarchical and control-minded forms of governance [5]. From both external vantage points on new societal formations (such as Wikipedia and a myriad of social media-driven movements) as well as internal to the public sector (what [PERSON] characterizes as \"public administration 2.0\"), governments are increasingly challenged to move beyond a typology of hierarchies and markets and embrace usage of networks typically more open and collaborative in formation and execution [6]. Governments are embracing such changes which present significant structural and cultural shifts. The State of Victoria in Australia, for example, has articulated a Gov 2.0 Action Plan premised on the following principles: leadership, participation, transparency, and performance. Aligned with the spirit of such principles, the spreading of web 2.0 experimentation within government is specifically meant to foster collaboration and democatize the creation and exchange of ideas:  
_The role of citizens in an open government environment--enriched by open government data--can be one of democratic innovators. In an ongoing open innovation process, citizens can draw on open data, and propose both policy-areas to tackle and technical approaches to take [5] (p.187)._  
The potential recasting of governance in terms of expectations and roles is profound. Rather than gathering information and ideas via highly regimented and contained mechanisms (shaped by a proprietary mindset), this alternative presentation of openness and ideas begins from the premise that the ownership of information and ideas is fundamentally diffused and shared. At the same time, however, such an ethos of openness invariably faces strong pushback from both the traditions of proprietary protection and its organizational cousin that is particularly prevalent in the public sector--namely hierarchical and informational control. For example, one early study of the usage and acceptance of new social media within the public sector found such tensions deeply engrained within Canadian government where information is viewed predominantly as a proprietary asset. The authorsconclude that the most significant impediment to Gov 2.0-inspired reform is the \"clay layer\" embedded by a hierarchical public service culture [7]. Along with much fanfare in that country with respect to open data initiatives, an independent review of information management processes within the British government found \"concern about publishing data externally\" [8]. By contrast, open government is based upon the \"notion that public sector information is a resource, the release of which will maximize its social and economic value to citizens\" [4]. In the Netherlands, for example, an impetus for non-proprietary public data came from the Dutch courts in April of 2009 when a City of Amsterdam's appeal to impose restrictions and fees over several its data holdings was rejected [4]. Such clashes between proprietary and openness, and control and empowerment shape the pursuit and effectiveness of open data and its wider ramifications while outside of government too, similar tensions between proprietary and open systems are prevalent across many segments of industry and society [9]. Yet a widening ethos of openness draws sustenance from: (i) the Internet as a platform for democratization in the broadest sense; (ii) a widening array of self-expressive and interactive web 2.0 tools and platforms; and (iii) most recently the advent of mobility.