[open-government] New RTI Legislation Rating Methodology Launched

Mon Oct 4 13:14:48 BST 2010

Excellent. Thanks for the explanation, Helen.

Regards,
Paul

________________________________
From: Helen Darbishire [mailto:helen at access-info.org]
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 6:53 AM
To: Uhlir, Paul; 'EU Open Data Working Group'; open-government at lists.okfn.org; transparency at ffii.org
Cc: 'Toby Mendel'
Subject: RE: [open-government] New RTI Legislation Rating Methodology Launched

Dear Paul

Thanks for your message and the feedback on the RTI Rating Methodology. I just need to clarify one important thing: as we explain in the intro, this part of the methodology is ONLY about the demand side.

I agree completely that a right to information regime is almost meaningless without proactive disclosure. Indeed, I have recently written about this:
"It is now well established that there is a human right of access to information held by public bodies. The right is enshrined in at least 50 national constitutions and international courts have read it into the freedom of expression and information provisions of human rights treaties. If the only channel for access to information were via requests filed by individuals, huge information inequalities would rapidly arise with different people knowing different things about the functioning of government, with large sections of the population remaining ill informed, to the detriment of society as a whole. Such a system would also place an intolerable burden on public officials who would have to strive to answer huge volumes of requests from information- hungry citizens. Proactive disclosure therefore levels the playing field for access to government-held information."
See World Bank publication Proactive Transparency: The future of the right to information? A review of standards, challenges, and opportunities<http://siteresources.worldbank.org/WBI/Resources/213798-1259011531325/6598384-1268250334206/Darbishire_Proactive_Transparency.pdf> http://bit.ly/9lZGyE

To rank the legal framework for proactive disclosure requires considerably more resources as there are typically provisions in multiple laws. So to start with we are ranking the access to information laws from the demand side, then in the future we will map proactive disclosure and actual implementation of both reactive and proactive sides in practice.

Best, Helen

From: Uhlir, Paul [mailto:PUhlir at nas.edu]
Sent: 03 October 2010 02:54
To: Helen Darbishire; 'EU Open Data Working Group'; open-government at lists.okfn.org; transparency at ffii.org
Subject: RE: [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

[cid:image003.jpg at 01CB639C.34F6AB20][cid:image004.jpg at 01CB639C.34F6AB20]

New RTI Legislation Rating Methodology Launched<http://access-info.org/en/advancing-the-right-to-know/111-rti-rating-methodology>
29 September 2010, Madrid/Halifax: A new tool for evaluating and comparing national right to information frameworks was launched today by Access Info Europe<http://www.access-info.org/> (Madrid, Spain) and the Centre for Law and Democracy<http://www.law-democracy.org/> (Halifax, Canada) as part of activities to mark the week of International Right to Know Day (28 September).
The Right to Information (RTI) Legislation Rating Methodology<http://access-info.org/en/advancing-the-right-to-know/111-rti-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_list.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
www.access-info.org<http://www.access-info.org>                                                    www.law-democracy.org<http://www.law-democracy.org>
e-mail: helen at access-info.org<mailto:helen at access-info.org>                                 e-mail: toby at law-democracy.org<mailto: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/20101004/d940c610/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3275 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/attachments/20101004/d940c610/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4431 bytes
Desc: image004.jpg
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/attachments/20101004/d940c610/attachment-0003.jpg>