[open-government] [euopendata] New RTI Legislation Rating Methodology Launched - a great opportunity coming up!
Uhlir, Paul
PUhlir at nas.edu
Mon Oct 4 13:26:14 BST 2010
Thanks for the comments, Katleen. I am very supportive of these activities and look forward to the results.
Cheers,
Paul
________________________________
From: Katleen Janssen [mailto:Katleen.Janssen at law.kuleuven.be]
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 2:16 AM
To: Marc de Vries; 'EU Open Data Working Group'; open-government at lists.okfn.org; transparency at ffii.org
Cc: 'KNYRIM Rainer'; richard.pettifer at dsl.pipex.com; 'Christopher Corbin'; Uhlir, Paul; geoff.offen at landmark.co.uk
Subject: RE: [euopendata] New RTI Legislation Rating Methodology Launched - a great opportunity coming up!
Dear Marc and Paul,
I am very much looking forward to the results of the application of this tool. Its aim for now is only to look at access on demand, and I think that that is a good idea to start with, because these obligations of the public bodies are fairly concrete and easy to determine, while in most FOI legislation the obligations to actively make data available are much more general and noncommittal. This is a great instrument for getting a good grip on the scope of FOI.
I very much agree that this tool could be a good start towards a tool for measuring the availability of data for any use (although in how far that already is a part of FOI is debatable). This entails more information on indeed conditions of possible use and level playing field issues, but preferably also look beyond the commercial re-use angle towards all possible applications that can be made of PSI. Probably, this should also include factors such as 'machine-readable formats', 'time needed to prepare the data for actual use', etc.
In any case, I hope we can get to a comparable tool for use/re-use soon, so we can finally get some truly measurable results!
Best regards,
Katleen
From: euopendata-bounces at lists.okfn.org [mailto:euopendata-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Marc de Vries
Sent: zondag 3 oktober 2010 17:46
To: 'EU Open Data Working Group'; open-government at lists.okfn.org; transparency at ffii.org
Cc: 'KNYRIM Rainer'; richard.pettifer at dsl.pipex.com; 'Christopher Corbin'; 'Uhlir, Paul'; geoff.offen at landmark.co.uk
Subject: Re: [euopendata] New RTI Legislation Rating Methodology Launched - a great opportunity coming up!
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_labyrinth_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<mailto: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
[cid:image001.jpg at 01CB639D.CE0EE8D0][cid:image002.jpg at 01CB639D.CE0EE8D0]
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/20101004/0a5db338/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3275 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/attachments/20101004/0a5db338/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4431 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/attachments/20101004/0a5db338/attachment-0003.jpg>
More information about the open-government
mailing list