As we near the end of our week's discussion, Siva approriately directs our attention to the conjunction of Google and the incoming Obama administration. I'd like to offer a few comments on one of the issues Siva raises, the appropriateness of the federal government anointing YouTube as the home of videos of government hearings.

The news item that reports on the ongoing negotiations between the General Services administration and YouTube is brief. It does mention in passing that the talks began six months ago, well before the election. Nothing on the face is disturbing: no mention is made of exclusivity being demanded on the part of YouTube. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the terms will be as unobjectionable as can be imagined: nonexclusive hosting by YouTube---and without any commercial messages, so we'll be spared a pre-roll commercial before seeing our tax dollars at work. We'll picture Google as civic exemplar, providing the service and asking nothing in return.

I, like Siva, would be concerned, nonetheless, that such an arrangement would create too close a relationship between the government and a private firm that may come under regulatory scrutiny. I'm not comfortable with Google's volunteering to provide the National Archives with a video annex, gratis, not because the government is a monolith---the head of the Archives does not get to call the head of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and and remove prospective targets of investigation---but because Google would acquire the halo of the government seal, which strikes me as unseemly and inappropriate---especially if Google turns out to be the only company willing to serve as host.

If the GSA could simultaneously sign up three or four companies who would all host the videos, my concerns would be greatly eased. I don't think that is likely: it's too costly. If Microsoft had no stomach for a sustained effort to try to match Google in book scanning, it does not seem likely it will step up to be a new content provider in this area, either. The required investment would be too large; the payoff for the company too amorphous.

Nor do I think it's likely that individual government agencies will find the funds to host the videos themselves. Consider relatively tiny text files, which cost next-to-nothing to archive and serve, but which have been too burdensome to be provided to the public for free in some cases that I know of---the federal court system charges to be able to view pages online, while the SEC does not.

BitTorrent? An intriguing idea for supplementary delivery, but I don't think well-suited as the primary medium.

The lack of alternatives makes the question of Google's potential involvement all the more interesting: as the Obama administration attempts to usher in a new era of governing, utilizing information technology to make the government's deliberations dramatically more transparent, it will run into this problem: it can be done, but if it's video, it's not without significant costs.

I've run through some possible proposals to address this---a web-video industry tax; a C-SPAN like entity supported by many for-profit companies----but don't like anything that occurs to me. Fellow discussants: suggestions for the new Administration, helping it with its wish to give us a 24/7 look at Our Government at Work---for free?