[open-government] [euopendata] Commission welcomes Member States' endorsement of EU Open Data rules

Thu Apr 11 15:48:27 UTC 2013

Hi Katleen,

Thanks, I had missed that.....I read it as if it was the same wording but
now just with a reference to article 1 (which hasn't changed in terms of
subarticle 1.)

The venom was in the 'where it is allowed' indeed.

best,
Ton

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

ton at tonzijlstra.eu
+31-6-34489360

http://zylstra.org/blog

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

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Katleen Janssen <
Katleen.Janssen at law.kuleuven.be> wrote:

>  Hi Ton,****
>
> ** **
>
> The general principle has changed in the sense that documents that are now
> accessible under FOI (generally speaking) should also be re-usable under
> article 3.1, while previously MS and public authorities still had the
> choice to allow re-use, even though the documents were accessible. ****
>
> While the 2003 directive said “where the re-use of documents held by
> public sector bodies is allowed”, now it says “Member States shall ensure
> that documents (that are accessible and fall under the scope) shall be
> re-usable”. So the option to allow (or not allow) re-use is gone. ****
>
> ** **
>
> So the phrasing could have been a lot clearer, but at least the idea is
> there J. Of course only for documents that are accessible, leaving some
> leeway for the public authorities there...****
>
> ** **
>
> Best regards,****
>
> Katleen****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* open-government-bounces at lists.okfn.org [mailto:
> open-government-bounces at lists.okfn.org] *On Behalf Of *Ton Zijlstra
>
> *Sent:* donderdag 11 april 2013 9:57
> *To:* Daniel Dietrich
> *Cc:* Open Government WG List; Erik Borälv; EU Open Data Working Group
> *Subject:* 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 okfn.org>> wrote:
> > Hi Katleen,
> >
> > On 10 Apr 2013, at 17:04, Katleen Janssen <
> Katleen.Janssen at law.kuleuven.be<mailto:Katleen.Janssen 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<mailto:
> 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/321931122017697792
> >>
> >> 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.org>
> >>
> >> 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-government at lists.okfn.org>
> >> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-government
> >> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-government
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > open-government mailing list
> > open-government at lists.okfn.org<mailto:open-government at lists.okfn.org>
> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-government
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-government
> >****
>
> > <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/20130411/45c02ba8/attachment-0001.html>