[open-government] New RTI Legislation Rating Methodology Launched - a great opportunity coming up!

Sun Oct 3 16:45:37 BST 2010

Dear colleagues,

First of all I fully agree with Paul: this is a truly interesting initiative
and as far as I know the first real attempt to create an integrated tool
that allows for measuring (practical applicability of) national access rules
(you may know that Chris Corbin did also extensive work on bench marking
countries, but that is much more policy oriented, see:
http://www.epsiplus.net/examples/scorecard). To me the set of indicators
seems pretty much complete, for the purpose the tool has been created for.
Obviously, one can always argue about the weight and value of certain
(clusters of) indicators, but that is beside the point now. So I think Helen
and her team deserves our full appreciation for the work done. 

In fact, taking it one step further, I think it could form the basis and
core for a more elaborate tool also capturing the other elements that
determine the value of PSI. In that context, and connecting to Paul's
observations, which I think is very much linked to the accessibility of
(metadata on) PSI, I think the essence is that the tool looks at the (1)
regulatory framework on (2) access. In that sense it is limited, where it
leaves the use, in particular the commercial re-use of the PSI concerned,
untouched. So the determining factors of the value of the PSI, that kick in
*after* access has been granted and put into effect, are, to a large extent
at least, uncovered.

To me the determining factors are - next to (1) access (Helen) and (2)
accessibility (Paul) - (3) re-use limitations and (4) fair market
conditions. In other words, the ultimate (re-)use value is predestined by
access (am I allowed to see the PSI) and accessibility (can I find the PSI)
which jointly set the prerequisite for any PSI value. If both questions have
been answered positively, then the next two issues determine whether a
(re-)user can turn this PSI into something even more valuable. Factor 3 (the
re-use limitations) basically cover the exertion of copyrights and database
rights by the public sector content holder: it is possible that on the basis
of the legal monopolies (on the basis of copy right and data base right
laws) re-use is simply forbidden, meaning that the re-use value - so not the
access value! - is zero. Factor 4 (the fair market conditions, governed by
the PSI Directive and general competition rules) essentially determine
whether there is a sustainable business case for re-use. If the public
sector content holder allows re-use but adds value and exploits the PSI
itself, while at the same time charging higher prices (than its own internal
direct costs) to re-users, in the long term the re-user will not be able to
compete with this public sector market player. (Most of you have probably
seen my article diving into these four elements in much more detail. If not,
please have a look at:
http://www.epsiplus.net/news/news/making_one_s_way_through_the_legal_labyrin
th_surrounding_psi_re_use (and feel free to re-use it!)) 

So I guess what I am advocating is: how about extending this great tool so
that it can also take into account the economic side of the value of PSI.
Obviously, the measurement of these other two factors is quite challenging,
where it coerces us to move down to a meso (sectoral) or even micro level of
PSI re-use, instead of looking at the legal framework indicators (on access)
which, to a large extend are quite binary. However, there may a real good
opportunity quite soon. You probably heard that the DG INFOSOC of the EC is
doing quite a lot of work on economic indicators, inter alia quite recently
it launched a call for proposals to dig into the success factors of PSI
re-use. The winner of this study, soon to be decided I think, could actually
apply Helen's tool and see whether it could additionally take on board
indicators on the economic aspects, making good practices and effects
comparable across sectors and countries. It could serve as a great test
case!

All of you are cordially invited to respond!

Kind regards,

Marc de Vries 

info at devriesmarc.nl

+31 653897002

Van: euopendata-bounces at lists.okfn.org
[mailto:euopendata-bounces at lists.okfn.org] Namens Uhlir, Paul
Verzonden: zondag 3 oktober 2010 2:54
Aan: Helen Darbishire; 'EU Open Data Working Group';
open-government at lists.okfn.org; transparency at ffii.org
Onderwerp: Re: [euopendata] [open-government] New RTI Legislation Rating
Methodology Launched

Dear colleagues,

I think this is a really useful initiative and commend you for bringing it
together. I have a conceptual and methodological question, however. The
framework appears skewed in favor of the demand side rather than the supply
side. That is, most of the indicators assume that citzens have to ask for
access, rather than there being a positive duty for the government to
disseminate its info. This is the FOIA approach to information access, which
in the US at least is the mechanism of last resort. In other words, isn't a
positive right of access the most important factor in the amount of
government information that is available, rather than a high-transaction
cost FOIA right, that is used mostly by companies and journalists, and not
individuals? If so, the 1. Right of Access indicator should be weighted as
the most important by far, rather than the least, as in your rating
methodology. One can see an info regime that divulges little public
information, but has a great FOIA law (at least on paper) having a much
higher score than one in which much PSI is routinely made available to all
as a matter of public policy.

Regards,

Paul

Paul F. Uhlir, J.D.

Director, NRC Board on Research Data and Information, and

  IAP Program on Digital Knowledge Resources and Infrastructure in
Developing Countries

National Academy of Sciences, Keck-511

500 Fifth Street NW

Washington, DC 20001

USA

Tel. + 1 202 334 1531

Fax + 1 202 334 2231

Email: puhlir at nas.edu 

Web: http://www.nationalacademies.org/brdi

Web: http://www.interacademies.net/CMS/Programmes/4704.aspx 

  _____  

From: open-government-bounces at lists.okfn.org
[open-government-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Helen Darbishire
[helen at access-info.org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 7:32 AM
To: 'EU Open Data Working Group'; open-government at lists.okfn.org;
transparency at ffii.org
Subject: [open-government] New RTI Legislation Rating Methodology Launched

access info_logoNEWcid:58E22EF4-9010-489A-8E2E-D4B449DE67F7 at eastlink.ca 

<http://access-info.org/en/advancing-the-right-to-know/111-rti-rating-method
ology> New RTI Legislation Rating Methodology Launched

29 September 2010, Madrid/Halifax: A new tool for evaluating and comparing
national right to information frameworks was launched today by
<http://www.access-info.org/> Access Info Europe (Madrid, Spain) and the
<http://www.law-democracy.org/> Centre for Law and Democracy (Halifax,
Canada) as part of activities to mark the week of International Right to
Know Day (28 September). 

The
<http://access-info.org/en/advancing-the-right-to-know/111-rti-rating-method
ology> Right to Information (RTI) Legislation Rating Methodology is a tool
to assess the overall legal framework for the right to information, based on
how well that framework gives effect to the right to access information held
by public authorities. 

"This Methodology will provide a detailed comparative ranking of the world's
over 80 access to information regimes," said Helen Darbishire of Access Info
Europe. "This is essential for gaining a deeper understanding of the right
to information and promoting compliance with common minimum standards."

Toby Mendel of the Centre for Law and Democracy added: "By breaking down the
rating into seven different thematic areas, this Methodology provides a
detailed assessment of specific strengths and weaknesses. This is an
invaluable tool for civil society groups promoting RTI law reform." 

The seven key elements of the right of access to information are: the Right
of Access, Scope, Requesting Procedures, Exceptions and Refusals, Appeals,
Sanctions and Protections, and Promotional Measures. They are weighted as
follows out of a possible total of 150 points based on 61 Indicators: 

Section

Max Points

1. Right of Access

6

2. Scope

30

3. Requesting Procedures

30

4. Exceptions and Refusals

30

5. Appeals

30

6. Sanctions and Protections

8

7. Promotional Measures

16

Total score

150

The 61 Indicators
<http://access-info.org/documents/Access_Docs/Advancing/Indicators.D9.pdf>
are drawn from a wide range of international standards on the right to
information, as well as comparative study of numerous right to information
laws from around the world and pilot testing of the Methodology on selected
laws. 

An Advisory Council
<http://access-info.org/documents/Access_Docs/Advancing/Advisory_Council_lis
t.pdf>  of renowned experts on the right to information has been advising
CLD and Access Info Europe on the development of the Indicators.

For further information, please contact: 

Helen Darbishire
Toby Mendel

Access Info Europe
Centre for Law and Democracy

 <http://www.access-info.org> www.access-info.org
<http://www.law-democracy.org> www.law-democracy.org 

e-mail:  <mailto:helen at access-info.org> helen at access-info.org
e-mail:  <mailto:toby at law-democracy.org> toby at law-democracy.org 

tel: + 34 667 685 319
tel: +1 902 431-3688

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/attachments/20101003/5def3832/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3275 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/attachments/20101003/5def3832/attachment-0002.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4431 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/attachments/20101003/5def3832/attachment-0003.jpeg>