[open-government] [euopendata] Commission will NOT regulate on FOI

Thu Apr 11 09:09:51 UTC 2013

Dear Folks,

the EU has NOT competence for FOI and cannot
enforce governments to open their treasures. They
have a competence only for re-use as part of the
economic regime of the EU.

That was the reason why the PSI Directive had to
refer to (different) national regimes.

The new draft Directive will therefore not include
that provision. Quite simple. (sorry, I had EU law
at university).

Kind regards,

Gerhard

Von: open-government-bounces at lists.okfn.org
[mailto:open-government-bounces at lists.okfn.org] Im
Auftrag von Ton Zijlstra
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. April 2013 09:57
An: Daniel Dietrich
Cc: Open Government WG List; Erik Borälv; EU Open
Data Working Group
Betreff: Re: [open-government] [euopendata]
Commission welcomes Member States' endorsement of
EU Open Data rules

Not an in-depth analysis, but this is the gist I
get from comparing the document Erik sent and the
2003 Directive:

Neelie Kroes press release states "Create a
genuine right to re-use public information, not
present in the original 2003 Directive;"

I can't find that in the text that Erik shared.
General principle of the directive is unchanged.

No pro-active publishing required, the Directive
rests on citizens requesting re-use of data.

Cultural heritage data from musea, libraries and
archives now in scope of Directive, though with
special status.

Redress mechanisms: shall include impartial review
body with the appropriate expertise, such as the
national competition authority, the national
access to documents authority or the national
judicial authority, whose decisions are binding
upon the public sector body concerned. 

Licensing (unchanged): MS, if they use a license,
need to supply standard licenses, and encourage
all PSBs to use them. Standard licenses need to be
electronically available.

Charging: marginal costing is the new normal (cost
of data collection cannot be charged). Existing
revenue models that are legally required, as well
as the cultural sector are exempted here. Where
marginal costing is not used and more is charged,
how and why is charged needs to be established
beforehand and the cost structure that motivates
the charges needs to be made transparent up front.

Formats: open and machine readable formats
required where possible and appropriate

Exclusive arrangements: Illegal unless needed for
a public interest service (unchanged).
Arrangements need to be motivated and reviewed
every 3 years. For digitization of cultural
heritage material it may be 10 years (new).

I'm intrigued by the statement of Kroes on the
'genuine right to re-use which was not present
before'. Will do some more close reading to find
what that remark is based on.

Ton

--------------------------------------------------
-------------------------
Interdependent Thoughts
Ton Zijlstra

ton at tonzijlstra.eu
+31-6-34489360

http://zylstra.org/blog

--------------------------------------------------
-------------------------

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Daniel Dietrich
<daniel.dietrich at okfn.org> wrote:

Thanks Erik! Has someone already analysed it?
Whats in it regarding to our most burning
questions: Licensing, pricing and the extension of
the directive to include cultural heritage
institutions. Is the previously progressive
proposal of the commission watered down? I would
like to hear what other people find in it.

Daniel

On 10 Apr 2013, at 21:19, Erik Borälv
<Erik.Boralv at VINNOVA.se> wrote:

> And here it is...
>
> Cheers,
> Erik Borälv
> VINNOVA - The Swedish Innovation Agency
>
> ________________________________________
> Från: euopendata-bounces at lists.okfn.org
[euopendata-bounces at lists.okfn.org] för Ton
Zijlstra [ton.zijlstra at gmail.com]
> Skickat: den 10 april 2013 18:10
> Till: Daniel Dietrich
> Kopia: Open Government WG List; EU Open Data
Working Group
> Ämne: Re: [euopendata] [open-government]
Commission welcomes Member States' endorsement of
EU Open Data rules
>
> Did that as well. Asked EC and sent a request to
the Dutch representative.
>
> best,
> Ton
>
>
--------------------------------------------------
-------------------------
> Interdependent Thoughts
> Ton Zijlstra
>
> ton at tonzijlstra.eu<mailto:ton at tonzijlstra.eu>
> +31-6-34489360
>
> http://zylstra.org/blog
>
>
--------------------------------------------------
-------------------------
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Daniel Dietrich
<daniel.dietrich at okfn.org<mailto:daniel.dietrich at o
kfn.org>> wrote:
> Hi Katleen,
>
> On 10 Apr 2013, at 17:04, Katleen Janssen
<Katleen.Janssen at law.kuleuven.be<mailto:Katleen.Ja
nssen at law.kuleuven.be>> wrote:
>
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> It may take a while for the official document
will appear in the Council's document register. I
think the best thing to do is ask the Commission
or our national representatives for a copy.
>
> This is what I just did. Lets see who gets the
answer first :)
>
> Daniel
>
>
>>
>> If I understood it correctly, there was already
a trialogue going on, so the Parliament's approval
in June should in theory only be a formal
matter...
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Katleen
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:
open-government-bounces at lists.okfn.org<mailto:open
-government-bounces at lists.okfn.org>
[mailto:open-government-bounces at lists.okfn.org<mai
lto:open-government-bounces at lists.okfn.org>] On
Behalf Of Daniel Dietrich
>> Sent: woensdag 10 april 2013 17:01
>> To: Open Government WG List
>> Cc: EU Open Data Working Group
>> Subject: [open-government] Commission welcomes
Member States' endorsement of EU Open Data rules
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> with interest I have read todays press release:
>>
>> Commission welcomes Member States' endorsement
of EU Open Data rules
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-316_en.
htm
>>
>> and Commissioner Kroes tweet:
>>
>>
https://twitter.com/NeelieKroesEU/status/321931122
017697792
>>
>> I guess this doesn't refers to the original Dec
2011 proposal but to a modified version. However I
could not find it.
>>
>> I would very much appreciate any hints. Thanks
in advance.
>>
>> All the best
>> Daniel
>>
>> PS: Of course we are not quite there yet, since
this the proposed amendment still have to pass the
European Parliament.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Dietrich
>> Open Data evangelist; Open Knowledge Foundation
Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age
www.okfn.org<http://www.okfn.org> -
www.opendefinition.org<http://www.opendefinition.o
rg>
>>
>> www.ddie.me<http://www.ddie.me>
>> twitter.com/ddie<http://twitter.com/ddie>
>> +49 176 327 685 30
>> +49 30 57703666 0
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-government mailing list
>>
open-government at lists.okfn.org<mailto:open-governm
ent at lists.okfn.org>
>>
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-govern
ment
>> Unsubscribe:
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-governm
ent
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-government mailing list
>
open-government at lists.okfn.org<mailto:open-governm
ent at lists.okfn.org>
>
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-govern
ment
> Unsubscribe:
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-governm
ent
>

> <st08060.en13.pdf>

_______________________________________________
euopendata mailing list
euopendata at lists.okfn.org
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/euopendata
Unsubscribe:
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/euopendata

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/attachments/20130411/de082420/attachment.html>