[open-government] New RTI Legislation Rating Methodology Launched

Mon Oct 4 10:53:12 UTC 2010

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
<http://siteresources.worldbank.org/WBI/Resources/213798-1259011531325/65983
84-1268250334206/Darbishire_Proactive_Transparency.pdf> Proactive
Transparency: The future of the right to information? A review of standards,
challenges, and opportunities 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

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/20101004/44a778d5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3275 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/attachments/20101004/44a778d5/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4431 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/attachments/20101004/44a778d5/attachment-0003.jpg>