[okfn-discuss] INSPIRE directive consultation up for comments

Michael Holloway michael at openrightsgroup.org
Fri May 22 10:17:44 UTC 2009

Hi Jo

Thanks a lot for putting time and thought into this (whilst also
holding a baby).

Without more understanding of the consultation doc and the underlying
issues its hard for me to criticise your draft but the points seem
sensible so i'm happy to put this forward. I would be happier still if
the doc contained - as you suggest - even just a para or two on the
general themes of IPR and links to evidence that would support the
"more open" approach you mention.

Can you knock that out today?

Much appreciated.

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Jo Walsh <jo at frot.org> wrote:
> dear all,
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
>> Just to update from discussion off-list: Jo has very kindly
>> volunteered to draft something which we'll submit with ORG and anyone
>> else who'd like to sign on.
> Well, here is what I thought was worth writing down:
> http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dctb97jj_10hp6nxgd4
> This boils down to:
> - The suggestion to exclude local authorities below District Council
> level from conforming to INSPIRE standards is incompatible with the
> terms of INSPIRE itself which says that the "lowest levels of
> government" must publish geodata which there is an obligation to
> collect in the law.
> - There is a long list of exclusions, including "intellectual
> property" and "commercial confidentiality", from offering even data
> viewing services (tyically a Web Map Service) free of cost. This list
> is lifted from the Public Sector Information Directive and the
> Environmental Information Directive. But if they were working, would
> we still need INSPIRE? It is better to be "more open" thereby
> complying with the spirit of INSPIRE. Note that there is always a
> "presumption in favour of public access" to at least data viewing
> services, and data search will always be free of cost.
> - At one point there is talk of only cost of maintenance to be
> chargeable (tending to a free marginal cost) for data and services.
> Elsewhere the phrase "and a reasonable return on investment", the
> language of the PSI Directive, is used. DEFRA cites the "Power of
> Information" review somewhere. Can the true intention be more
> explicit?
> There is scope for more on general themes, some pointers to the study
> into Trading Fund pricing models that Rufus worked on, that would
> belong in section 3.
> There is also a passage marked up [[ ]]
> [[This would be a point at which to go further into "intellectual
> property rights"
> and "confidentiality of commercial information" as they may apply to
> Crown Copyright data and data gathered by local authorities, planning
> authorities,
> etc. The guidelines already say there will be a "presumption in favour
> of public access" to "view services"]]
> How much time anyone would want to put into it is a judgement call
> based on the likelihood of this consultation being mere button-pushing
> or is there a real opportunity to create more open local amendments in
> the transposition phase.
> I am happy to add anyone to that google doc if they mail me their gmail address.
> Sorry this took so long, I have been solely in charge of a baby for
> the past couple of days, it is hard work!
> cheers,
> jo
> --

Michael Holloway

Operations Manager, Open Rights Group
Phone: +44 (0) 20 7096 1079
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/openrightsgroup
Web: http://www.openrightsgroup.org
Fax: +44 (0) 20 7070 7011
Office: 7th floor, 100 Grays Inn Road, London WC1X 8AL, UK

More information about the okfn-discuss mailing list