Re: CivicAccess-discuss Digest, Vol 58, Issue 14
Locked
Re: CivicAccess-discuss Digest, Vol 58, Issue 14
 
|
Please cancel all emails. Carol Charalambous Facilities Services Representative Asset Management Services 1151 Bronte Road Oakville, ON L6M 3L1 905.825.6000 x7241 -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of [hidden email] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 10:49 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: CivicAccess-discuss Digest, Vol 58, Issue 14 Send CivicAccess-discuss mailing list submissions to [hidden email] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.pwd.ca/mman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [hidden email] You can reach the person managing the list at [hidden email] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of CivicAccess-discuss digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Open Government Partnership and CanadianCivil Society (David Eaves) 2. OGP - Standards and Criteria sub-committee (Tracey P. Lauriault) 3. Re: Open Government Partnership and Canadian Civil Society (Tracey P. Lauriault) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 21:02:13 -0700 From: David Eaves <[hidden email]> To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Open Government Partnership and CanadianCivil Society Message-ID: <[hidden email]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed I agree with with James and Glen - in relation to the OGP and assessment, I would start a new list. On 12-05-10 8:44 AM, Glen Newton wrote: > I agree with James: announce the new list on this list and people on > this list who want to participate can subscribe to that list. > Otherwise this list becomes too broad / diluted. > > Occasional, relevant, well-behaved cross-posting welcome. :-) > > -Glen > > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:25 AM, James McKinney<[hidden email]> wrote: >> In that case, to answer your earlier question, I suppose others on >> this list should chime in as to whether or not civicaccess should >> host these discussions. For my part, I think it makes sense to start a new list. >> >> On 2012-05-10, at 7:38 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> Hi James, >> >> I have a feeling that it might be a good idea for a broad coalition >> of those with an interest in discussing these areas to begin >> discussions well in advance of the time for undertaking these >> evaluations if only to find common ground on which to conduct such >> evaluations. At least that seems to be the case among several of the >> groups/individuals I've mentioned this to outside of those for >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [hidden email] >> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of >> James McKinney >> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 8:12 PM >> To: civicaccess discuss >> Cc: [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email] >> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Open Government Partnership and >> CanadianCivil Society >> >> I think for now these discussions are happening on this list >> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/ogp-civil-society >> >> Once the timelines become clearer, there can certainly be a >> Canada-specific list to avoid flooding the main OGP Civil Society >> >> In the meantime, we need to wait and see what the government does. >> It's too early to start evaluating them on their commitments, since >> they've only just made them. >> >> On 2012-05-09, at 1:48 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> >> I had the privilege of attending the Inaugural meeting of the Open >> Government Partnership in Brasilia in April as a researcher but in >> addition I was asked to contribute (participate on a panel) as a >> member of Civil Society. >> >> Among many observations that I came away with from the meeting were >> several concerning Civil Society and specifically the very >> significant role that Civil Society is being expected play in the >> on-going OGP, and the consequent need for CS in this sector to become >> effectively organized and structured at both the national and the >> global levels. Since the intention is that the OGP is a "member" >> organization, with a requirement on governments to ensure >> participation in all aspects of their OGD planning and implementation >> there is very considerable pressure for national civil societies to >> organize themselves into some sort of coherent body i.e. a body that >> is capable of acting as an effective interlocutor with government -- >> not necessarily speaking with one voice but at least being able to formulate a coherent response/intervention to government initiatives. >> >> It is already clear from the lead up to the Brasilia meeting, the >> meeting itself and the fall-out from the meeting that creating a >> framework out of which this coherent voice might come will not be an >> easy or uncontested process either globally or nationally. But just >> because it will be difficult doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. >> For we CS in Canada, the pay-off could be significant as it would >> give us a voice and access to (the Federal) government as it develops >> its OGD policies and equally as it evolves its structures in response to the opportunities and risks that OGD presents. >> >> Given the very non or even "anti" "Open" policies of the current >> Federal government this "access" and legitimized/formal platform for >> comment and consultation is a not inconsiderable opportunity. >> >> On casual observation there are a number of streams (dare I say >> silos) currently in Canadian CS with an interest in Open Government >> Data--the folks around the civicaccess list, the very powerful and >> significant municipal data movement (and its champion the CCSD), the >> FOI folks, the open app/hackathon community, the community access >> community (Telecommunities Canada and others), the open democracy >> group and I'm sure I've missed many others and of course there are >> overlaps and double counting among all of these. >> >> I think it is not too early to be beginning a process of discussion >> among all of these groups in anticipation of the next meeting of the >> OGP which will be in London next year (I'm not sure if a date has >> However, whatever that date, Canadian OGD CS has a number of >> tasks/opportunities in anticipation of that meeting including 1. >> developing a means to monitor and assess the commitments made by the >> Canadian government to the OGP in Brasilia 2. undertaking that >> monitoring and developing a means for reporting back on that >> monitoring 3. developing a common framework for Canadian CS in >> participating in the OGP meetings both nationally and internationally >> 4. and others such as for example developing a Canadian OGP >> declaration to match the global OGP declaration >> >> Perhaps others might want to comment on this note. >> >> If there is sufficient interest it might be useful to develop a >> separate electronic space (e-list?) for carrying this discussion >> forward or perhaps the civicaccess list is the proper venue for the >> discussion in which case others with an interest might wish to join the list. >> >> Comments, discussion etc.etc. >> >> Mike Gurstein >> (here speaking in a personal capacity and as a Board Member of >> Telecommunities Canada) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 09:56:08 -0400 From: "Tracey P. Lauriault" <[hidden email]> To: civicaccess discuss <[hidden email]> Subject: [CivicAccess-discuss] OGP - Standards and Criteria sub-committee Message-ID: <CAPT_w+=[hidden email]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Some of you on the list might be interested in participating in this survey or being more engaged in this process. If so contact Paul on the OGP list directly. If you respond to the survey, you may want to blog your responses so that we can refer to them. Cheers Tracey ************************* *From:* [hidden email] [mailto: [hidden email]] *On Behalf Of *paul maassen *Sent:* Friday, May 11, 2012 1:56 AM *To:* [hidden email]; [hidden email] *Cc:* [hidden email]; [hidden email]; Suneeta Kaimal; Warren Krafchik *Subject:* Invitation to input on the IRM Dear civil society colleagues, I hope this message finds you well. One of the promises we made in Brasilia was to find ways of engaging you more in the work of the Steering Committee. The first opportunity is there! The Standards and Criteria sub-committee of the Open Government Partnership Steering Committee will be discussing the Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM), during a meeting in London May 24 ? 25. The sub-committee is tasked with presenting recommendations around the IRM process, including: * general process and timeline for report production * sequencing of government and independent reports * structure and content of the reports * selection, ideal profile and role of the independent expert panel and country researchers. The sub-committee will draw on the experience of other international initiatives, while crafting an approach that meets the specific needs of the OGP. The civil society steering committee members on the IRM sub-committee, Juan Pardinas from IMCO, Martin Tisne from the Omidyar Network and Karin Lissakers and Suneeta Kaimal from the Revenue Watch Institute want to ensure this discussion is informed by our civil society colleagues. If you are interested to participate in the discussion about the IRM, *please send me an email confirming your interest, by close of business next Tuesday, May 19.* Given the tight time lines, we will circulate a survey shortly after to those interested to seek feedback on key decision points. This will require rapid response over the next week to ensure we are prepared for the May 24 meeting. We will keep all civil society colleagues posted as the process unfolds. Thank you! Best, Paul -- Tracey P. Lauriault 613-234-2805 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.pwd.ca/pipermail/civicaccess-discuss/attachments/20120511/ 8f80661c/attachment-0001.html> ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 10:45:07 -0400 From: "Tracey P. Lauriault" <[hidden email]> To: civicaccess discuss <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Open Government Partnership and Canadian Civil Society Message-ID: <CAPT_w+=+[hidden email]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" That makes sense James. Cheers t On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 11:12 PM, James McKinney <[hidden email]>wrote: > I think for now these discussions are happening on this list > https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/ogp-civil-society > > Once the timelines become clearer, there can certainly be a > Canada-specific list to avoid flooding the main OGP Civil Society group. > > In the meantime, we need to wait and see what the government does. > It's too early to start evaluating them on their commitments, since > they've only just made them. > > On 2012-05-09, at 1:48 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > I had the privilege of attending the Inaugural meeting of the Open > Government Partnership in Brasilia in April as a researcher but in > addition I was asked to contribute (participate on a panel) as a > member of Civil Society. > > Among many observations that I came away with from the meeting were > several concerning Civil Society and specifically the very significant > role that Civil Society is being expected play in the on-going OGP, > and the consequent need for CS in this sector to become effectively > organized and structured at both the national and the global levels. > Since the intention is that the OGP is a "member" organization, with a > requirement on governments to ensure participation in all aspects of > their OGD planning and implementation there is very considerable > pressure for national civil societies to organize themselves into some > sort of coherent body i.e. a body that is capable of acting as an > effective interlocutor with government -- not necessarily speaking > with one voice but at least being able to formulate a coherent > response/intervention to government initiatives. > > It is already clear from the lead up to the Brasilia meeting, the > meeting itself and the fall-out from the meeting that creating a > framework out of which this coherent voice might come will not be an > easy or uncontested process either globally or nationally. But just > because it will be difficult doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. > For we CS in Canada, the pay-off could be significant as it would give > us a voice and access to (the > Federal) > government as it develops its OGD policies and equally as it evolves > its structures in response to the opportunities and risks that OGD presents. > > Given the very non or even "anti" "Open" policies of the current > Federal government this "access" and legitimized/formal platform for > comment and consultation is a not inconsiderable opportunity. > > On casual observation there are a number of streams (dare I say silos) > currently in Canadian CS with an interest in Open Government Data--the > folks around the civicaccess list, the very powerful and significant > municipal data movement (and its champion the CCSD), the FOI folks, > the open app/hackathon community, the community access community > (Telecommunities Canada and others), the open democracy group and I'm > sure I've missed many others and of course there are overlaps and > double counting among all of these. > > I think it is not too early to be beginning a process of discussion > among all of these groups in anticipation of the next meeting of the > OGP which will be in London next year (I'm not sure if a date has been > However, whatever that date, Canadian OGD CS has a number of > tasks/opportunities in anticipation of that meeting including 1. > developing a means to monitor and assess the commitments made by the > Canadian government to the OGP in Brasilia 2. undertaking that > monitoring and developing a means for reporting back on that > monitoring 3. developing a common framework for Canadian CS in > participating in the OGP meetings both nationally and internationally > 4. and others such as for example developing a Canadian OGP > declaration to match the global OGP declaration > > Perhaps others might want to comment on this note. > > If there is sufficient interest it might be useful to develop a > separate electronic space (e-list?) for carrying this discussion > forward or perhaps the civicaccess list is the proper venue for the > discussion in which case others with an interest might wish to join > > Comments, discussion etc.etc. > > Mike Gurstein > (here speaking in a personal capacity and as a Board Member of > Telecommunities Canada) > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > -- Tracey P. Lauriault 613-234-2805 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.pwd.ca/pipermail/civicaccess-discuss/attachments/20120511/ ef9f83df/attachment.html> ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss End of CivicAccess-discuss Digest, Vol 58, Issue 14 *************************************************** _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ This message, including any attachments, is privileged and intended only for the person(s) named above. This material may contain confidential or personal information which may be subject to the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Act. Any other distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, fax or e-mail and permanently delete the original transmission from us, including any attachments, without making a copy. Thank you |
«
Return to CivicAccess
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |