[Okfn-irl] Proposal on a process to advance the OGP Project

Thu Nov 21 16:10:29 UTC 2013

TBD at Open Data Ireland Meetup
#11<https://tito.io/open-data-ireland/meetup-11>tonight in Engine Yard
at 18:30.

Best regards,
-- 
Denis Parfenov

OKF Ambassador for Ireland

m: +353863850044 |  @prfnv <https://twitter.com/prfnv> |
prfnv.org<http://www.prfnv.org/>

The Open Knowledge Foundation Empowering through Open Knowledge
http://okfn.org/ | irl.okfn.org

On 21 November 2013 15:17, Nuala Haughey <research at transparency.ie> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I think this is a sensible approach in terms of the process.
>
> Best, Nuala
>
> On 21 Nov 2013, at 08:36, Nat O'Connor <noconnor at tascnet.ie> wrote:
>
>  *What follows is a letter to everyone who participated in the civil
> society meeting with Government officials on 25th October, to anyone who
> attended the OGP consultations run by Transparency Ireland and to anyone
> interested in promoting more open government in Ireland – please feel free
> to circulate. (I have send this email to the above lists, also BCC’d to 43
> individual email addresses I have from our discussions of OGP to date)*
>
>
>
> *Please let me know if you think this is (or isn’t) a good proposal to
> send to the Government Reform Unit.*
>
>
>
>
>
> At the meeting (25th October) of civil society activists with William
> Beausang and officials from the Government Reform Unit at DPER, it was
> suggested that we propose a process to them to inform their own submission
> to the Government meeting of late November. I’m conscious that time is
> pressing on this.
>
>
>
> Two significant things have occurred subsequently to the October meeting.
> Firstly, some civil society people attended the two-day global Open
> Government Partnership summit in London (31st Oct/1st Nov), which was
> preceded for those who could attend by civil society meetings and open data
> meetings earlier in the week. Secondly, there has been a major public
> dispute about FOI fees and a real risk that the amended FOI Act will
> increase the barriers to FOI usage through higher costs associated with
> non-personal FOI requests, which runs counter to the goals of the OGP.
>
>
>
> The summit provided lots of useful information and examples of how OGP is
> working in other countries, the pitfalls as well as the success stories.
> There is a vibrant international movement for OGP – but one limited by
> resources and still in its fragile early stages.
>
>
>
> In relation to FOI up-front fees, I believe these should be abolished.
>
>
>
> But OGP is about more than FOI, and it is important that Ireland puts in
> place a robust process for civil society engagement with Government about
> our first OGP Action Plan and its implementation (and annual renewal). This
> process should be solid enough to permit us to have a serious debate with
> Government about the merits and demerits of FOI fees, without allowing this
> issue to block further progress on the other 70 proposed actions from the
> OGP consultancy process.
>
>
>
> At our discussion at the October meeting, I recall that a potential
> impasse was identified. Civil society has put forward 71 recommended
> actions; however the Government has yet to put forward their own list of
> proposed actions, derived from the Programme for Government and from civil
> service suggestions from the relevant Departments. We risk getting bogged
> down if either side wants to stick to their preferred list and go through
> each item one after the other in exhaustive detail.
>
>
>
> William Beausang noted that the national OGP Action Plans are meant to be
> short documents and he suggested that we begin the Irish Action Plan with a
> higher level narrative text, informed by both lists of proposed actions.
> Out of this higher level text, we would then derive a set of SMART actions
> for the first plan. These would differ in detail from some of the proposals
> from either side, but they would hopefully address a large number of them
> and provide a basis for substantive progress on some of the OGP goals. (I
> would add, this should not close down further discussion on any proposals
> from civil society).
>
>
>
> Based on this, the following is my suggestion:
>
>
>
> 1.       We want a process that leads to a jointly-drafted Action Plan
> between civil society and Government;
>
>
>
> 2.       A steering group drawn from civil society needs to be
> established to provide continuity of contact between wider civil society
> and the Government. We need a small number of volunteers to commit to
> attending a regular number of meetings between now and April 2014, to
> engage with the Government on jointly-drafting the first Irish Action Plan;
>
>
>
> 3.       The Government needs to commit to a series of meetings between
> now and April 2014 to work jointly on the first Irish OGP Action Plan;
>
>
>
> 4.       All formal records of the process (e.g. Agendas, Minutes) should
> be posted online in a timely fashion after each meeting, so that wider
> civil society and the general public can access them and monitor the
> process;
>
>
>
> 5.       Members of civil society have been consulted by Transparency
> International Ireland, leading to a report containing 62 recommended
> actions (some of which are multiple actions). Another 9 additional actions
> were submitted in parallel to this process, leading to a total of 71 civil
> society proposed actions (some of which have multiple aspects to them);
>
>
>
> 6.       The Government is to produce a list of its own proposed actions
> for inclusion in the OGP Action Plan;
>
>
>
> 7.       The first meeting of the Joint Government-Civil Society OGP
> Steering Group (hereafter Steering Group) should agree headers for high
> level narrative text within the first Action Plan – drawing on experience
> from other countries’ plans;
>
>
>
> 8.       These headers should be elaborated with text that accurately
> reflects the diverse ideas and the overall direction of travel indicated in
> the TI report of the civil society consultations. It should equally
> represent the Programme for Government/civil service proposals;
>
>
>
> 9.       Based on the high level text, subsequent meetings of the
> Steering Group should agree SMART actions to be included in the first
> Action Plan;
>
>
>
> 10.   A draft Action Plan should then be published with sufficient time
> for wider civil society and the general public to make comments and
> suggestions;
>
>
>
> 11.   The joint Steering Group than should meet to agree the final plan
> text for submission to the OGP Summit in April.
>
>
>
> 12.   Periodic meetings of the joint Steering Group should continue to
> monitor progress on the plan, and prepare for its renewal.
>
>
>
> Come April 2014, no one is likely to be perfectly happy with the resultant
> Action Plan, however I would hope that it would give civil society the best
> possible compromise and a solid basis to see some new open government
> actions implemented that go beyond what was anticipated in the Programme
> for Government.
>
>
>
> Likewise, I would hope that the process would provide a basis for working
> together and with Government on open government that would be sustainable
> throughout the lifetime of the plan.
>
>
>
> One obvious sticking point is who from civil society gets to join the
> Steering Group? I suggest a group five or six people, to keep it
> manageable, all of whom should commit to attending monthly meetings until
> April 2014 and less frequent meetings thereafter. They would also have to
> commit to regular communication with wider civil society. I would like to
> see a balanced group, with no more than one or two people sharing the same
> organisational affiliation, and a balance of the sectors/interests
> represented in the consultation (e.g. those seeking open data; those
> seeking accountability for environmental decisions; those concerned with
> social justice; etc.). This is inevitably going to be a self-selected
> group, hence the importance of posting documents online and keeping
> channels of communication open with others. The membership of this group
> should be refreshed annually.
>
>
>
> There is already work ongoing to form a series of thematic working groups
> (following similar topics to the ones being formed at international level
> in OGP), so that everyone interested in a given topic has an opportunity to
> voice their suggestions and concerns between meetings of the Steering
> Group. Facilitating this and attending relevant working groups would be an
> additional commitment required of anyone volunteering to join the Steering
> Group.
>
>
>
> I hope this is of some use in moving things forward. Comments welcome.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Nat
>
> *Nat O'Connor *MA PhD
>
> Director
>
> *TASC – Think-tank for Action on Social Change*
>
> *Second Floor, Castleriver House, 14-15 Parliament Street*
> *Dublin 2, Ireland*
>
> *Tel:     +353 1 6169050 <%2B353%201%206169050>*
> *Email: noconnor at tascnet.ie <noconnor at tascnet.ie>*
> *Web:   www.tasc.ie <http://www.tasc.ie/>*
> *Blog:   www.progressive-economy.ie <http://www.progressive-economy.ie/>*
>
> *<image001.gif>*Research and Organisation Services Ltd. TA/ TASC.
> Registered Address: Hill House, 26 Sion Hill Road, Drumcondra, Dublin 9.
> Company No. 342993. CHY 14778.
>
>

-- 
Denis Parfenov

OKF Ambassador for Ireland

m: +353863850044 |  @prfnv <https://twitter.com/prfnv> |
prfnv.org<http://www.prfnv.org/>

The Open Knowledge Foundation Empowering through Open Knowledge
http://okfn.org/ | irl.okfn.org <http://okfn.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-irl/attachments/20131121/b7a660bf/attachment-0005.html>