Tom,

Let's call it "enlightened disinterest." The reality we learned more than a decade ago, when a handful of us started Joint Venture Silicon Valley, is that the Valley prides itself on being two steps ahead of Washington. And, so far, we of the Web 2.0 generation have been able to outrun the scoundrels. Problem is, we're starting to hear footsteps again.

Hi Tom,
Sorry we didn't get a chance to meet in person at TPS. I'm one of the organizers of the summit (my business partner and I are the producers), and I appreciate you stopping by to cover some of the sessions.
There is indeed a level of apathy in the Valley when it comes to policy issues. And I couldn't agree more that it is "despite numerous reasons why such ignorance can be damaging."
When we set out to plan this event close to a year ago, we made a decision that it would be an invite-only event because we wanted to limit attendance to 300 people and we felt the success of the event going forward counted on us getting the right people there in the first year.
We invited the "core" group of government affairs execs, most based in D.C., who represent the interests of tech's biggest companies. That was our original target audience. We wanted to host an annual event that would bring them to the Valley.
Of course, we also reached out to other leaders from academia, government and the non-profit community because they all play a critical role. And we invited a number of key VCs, entrepreneurs, CEOs and General Counsels based in Silicon Valley.
So the lower-than-expected turnout can't entirely be explained by the apathy we vehemently agree exists. We had over 280 registered for TPS, just shy of our original goal, and roughly half of those people were from the Bay Area. The rest were from D.C. and other cities. We certainly had a number of out-of-towners who didn't make it because of the freakish weather. No doubt about.
As for some of the local people who registered to attend and didn't make it, there are any number of reasons why they didn't show up. We hope to learn more when we follow-up with a conference survey.
I just wanted to go on the record to explain that some people registered and then didn't follow through and show up...which is different than saying that there wasn't enough interest in tech policy to register in the first place.
Having said all of that, I look forward to chatting with you in the future as we make plans for the next summit because we agree that not enough people in Silicon Valley get the reasons why D.C. matters. I'm far from a policy wonk, but trust me -- D.C. isn't going away any time soon and decisions made there can either include the input from Silicon Valley, or not. To us, the former is clearly a better option.

I seriously question whether the right people were invited, both as guests and as panelists/speakers.

Quite frankly, the Center for Democracy and Technology would repel me from attending; they're too politically biased, too left-wing. Some balance would have been nice (I guess this is why Kara was invited.)

I agree with Joe Kraus and his observation that tech policy needs to get more airtime in the Valley. But I wonder if there was interest (as noted by the number who signed up), but in the final analysis, the speakers/panelists were not good enough of a draw.

Honestly, as great at Walt M. is, is he really a tech policy expert? New PC tricks, go to Walt. But why would I care about anything he has to say about tech policy?

How about people from DARPA, ONR, AFOSR, NASA, NSF, NAE/NAS, DOE, OSTP, the list goes on? Were they in attendance, were they the key speakers/panelists? They know tech policy because they live it 24/7.

Yet, I suspect that the Valley still wouldn't have cared.

Regarding Tom Hayes remark, sorry Tom, but DARPA is way ahead of anything Web 2.0-ish. Let's face it, grid computing is certainly in a different (and more advanced) league than AJAX and other cool Web 2.0 technologies. And, how do they relate to tech policy? At least grid computing makes sense. Do does CFD. So do a lot of areas. But why Web 2.0? Why would the government care 2 cents about Web 2.0 except for updating an e-government web site?

Natalie: thank you for your note about the Tech Policy Summit. I think you are headed in the right direction and the subject matter is very important.

Tom: It seems that it is the sound of footsteps running way ahead rather than coming from behind. The Digital Millennium Act was let through without much of a fight, and Sarbanes Oxley compliance has been a huge burden for local startups.

David: I'd have to agree, star power only works in the appropriate setting. But there were some heavy hitters there and I'm sure it'll be much improved next year.

To elaborate a bit further, tech policy (from the perspective of the U.S. government) deals more with telecom policy, R&D tax credits, homeland security, e-commerce taxation, privacy issues, IP protection, things like this. Web 2.0 doesn't make the list.

But when you look at the list, it isn't quite as broad as many may think when they initially ponder all things "tech policy". Privacy is a concern to many, but perhaps not enough to attend a forum -- and it may not be considered a business driver. Ditto for so many other areas relating to tech policy. Nice-to-knows, but not necessarily perceived as essentials. Perhaps a misperception, I agree, but still the running perception.

David: You've hit a couple of nails on the head, the valley is very business and sector driven. Tech policy is broader in terms of effects and it can be difficult sometimes to foresee unwelcome outcomes. Silicon Valley is so fragmented with 5000+ startups, it is difficult to get people's heads out of their trenches to see what the politicians are doing. But the larger companies certainly are watching and are interested in excerting a point of view in Washington. They don't seem to be very successful possibly because they haven't been donating much to political campaigns.

The Telcos and other industries have donated far larger amounts and gotten better results.