[Okfn-irl] Next Steps for OGP in Ireland?

Wed Jan 8 08:47:34 UTC 2014

**Apologies for any cross-posting**

Dear Conor,

 Once again, thank you for sharing news regarding the plans to hold the OGP
Europe Regional
Meeting<http://per.gov.ie/2014/01/06/ireland-to-host-open-government-partnership-ogp-europe-regional-meeting-in-2014/>in
Dublin in May 2013. I believe we have a fantastic opportunity to
increase awareness about OGP and opportunities for Open Data in Ireland.

I would like to draw your attention to an absence of response on Nat
O’Connor’s letter<https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21topic/open-government-ireland/x3rsP2DwWq0>dated
22nd November 2013, where an ad-hoc group of civil society members
outlined a suggested way forward in terms of the collaboration between
government and civil society on the development of the first Irish National
Action plan.

Also, I would like to bring to your attention that at the meeting between
DPER and representatives of civil society on June
26th<https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21topic/open-government-ireland/3XxjHe22aJo>we
discussed the importance of public deliberation online. Subsequently,
we
looked at suitability of four
platforms<https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21topic/open-government-ireland/3XxjHe22aJo>suggested
by the OGP and Global Integrity and established that
http://crowdhall.com/ is the most adequate for us. As a result we have set
up an instance of ‘Crowdhall’ specifically for the Irish OGP consultation
process: http://crowdhall.com/h/52

This platform can be useful for the public online deliberation of the
62+10<http://per.gov.ie/open-government-partnership-ogp/>suggestions
generated during the initial consultation process that took
place between July and September 2013. Crowdhall allows for the generation
of a unique URL for each one of the action plan items.  This can facilitate
a public deliberation on each commitment online and an ability for civil
society to rate and rank commitments.
For example, Fingal County Council: Submission to Open Government
Partnership Ireland Consultation: https://crowdhall.com/h/52/p/402 (tweet:
https://twitter.com/opengovIRL/status/420663295754792960)

I hope this is helpful.

Best regards,

Denis Parfenov

-- 

Denis Parfenov // OKF Ambassador for Ireland // m: +353863850044 //
@prfnv<https://twitter.com/prfnv>//
http://okfirl.org/
 The Open Knowledge Foundation Empowering through Open Knowledge
http://okfn.org/

On 22 November 2013 15:19, Nat O'Connor <natoconnor at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Nat O'Connor <noconnor at tascnet.ie>
> Date: Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 3:09 PM
> Subject: Next Steps for OGP in Ireland?
> To: "Beausang, William(William.Beausang at per.gov.ie)" <
> William.Beausang at per.gov.ie>
> Cc: admin at ogpireland.ie, communications at ogpireland.ie,
> okfn-irl at lists.okfn.org, open-data-ireland at googlegroups.com,
> open-government-ireland at googlegroups.com, "evelyn.o'connor at per.gov.ie" <
> evelyn.o'connor at per.gov.ie>, "Martinez, Claire" <
> Claire.Martinez at per.gov.ie>, "McCann, Conor" <Conor.McCann at per.gov.ie>
>
>
> *William Beausang*
>
> *Head of Government Reform Unit and Civil Service HR Policy Division *
>
> *Department of Public Expenditure and Reform*
>
>
>
> *CC various mailing lists *
>
> *BCC (private) 43 individual email addresses of interested people*
>
> *Apologies for any cross-posting*
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear William,
>
>
>
> Further to the meeting between members of civil society and your team
> (October 25th), where
>
> it was suggested that we propose a process to inform your unit’s
> submission to a Government meeting before late November. I’m conscious that
> time is pressing on this.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> You noted that the national OGP Action Plans are meant to be short
> documents and you 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 a suggestion from me. I benefited from
> feedback by email from the various colleagues but any remaining
> errors/omissions are my own:
>
>
>
> *Proposed Process for Civil Society and Government Joint Working on
> Ireland’s OGP Plan*
>
>
>
> 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 lead to the best possible
> compromise and provide 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.
>
>
>
> 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) and other existing groups (e.g. Aarhus Roadshow) could be seen as
> relevant stakeholders equivalent to working groups too, 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.
>
>
>
> As you know, two significant things have occurred subsequently to our
> 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. It
> was good to see your colleagues Evelyn O’Connor and Claire Martinez there.
> I heard Minister Howlin speak supportively about OGP at the European Caucus
> and when addressing the panel on whistleblower protection. There seems to
> be a vibrant international movement for OGP – but one limited by resources
> and still in its fragile early stages.
>
>
>
> In relation to the dispute about FOI up-front fees, I would be remiss if I
> didn’t say that many activists are angry and feel a lack of trust, which
> extends in some cases to the wider OGP process. I personally believe that
> up-front FOI fees are a barrier to democratic participation and 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.
>
>
>
> I hope this proposal is of use in moving things forward. I would welcome
> your comments on it and I look forward to hearing from you.
>
>
>
> 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.tascnet.ie <http://www.tascnet.ie>*
> *Blog:   www.progressive-economy.ie <http://www.progressive-economy.ie/>*
>
> Research and Organisation Services Ltd. TA/ TASC. Registered Address: Hill
> House, 26 Sion Hill Road, Drumcondra, Dublin 9. Company No. 342993. CHY
> 14778.
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-irl/attachments/20140108/e517b0c7/attachment-0004.html>