Re: CivicAccess-discuss Digest, Vol 84, Issue 13
Locked
Re: CivicAccess-discuss Digest, Vol 84, Issue 13
 
|
Hi all,
I would just like to voice a few issues and concerns that I have had with the OGP consultation process thus far. Firstly, the government has chosen not have civil society actors support individual action plan commitments. This is an approach taken by the UK government and one that would be beneficial in Canada as it provides both civil society and government with a point of contact for individual commitments,. It also means that the supported CSO must agree with the text of the commitment, which further increases buy-in and ensures more rigorous consultations. I personally believe that this could be a key 'ask' that can unite CSOs in this process. Secondly, one of the things that I was told at my recent meeting is that TBS does not really think that Canadian CSOs have the capacity to write draft commitments or comment on the specific text of draft commitments. I personally think that this assumption is false, by providing short meaningless draft commitments, it actually prevents meaningful engagement over the substantive text of the commitment. I believe another 'ask' that CSOs could express as a united front is the desire to comment on the full text of the draft commitment. Another things that CSOs might consider is drafting their own commitments (PWYP's commitment can be found here http://www.pwyp.ca/images/PWYP-Canada_OGP_Action_Plan_Commitment_on_Extracti ves_Transparency.pdf). When 'ideas' are sent to departments for their review, they include all materials prepared by CSOs. If draft commitments were also included in those commitments it might influence departmental/TBS thinking. These are just a few ideas and 'asks' where CSOs might be able to come together with a united voice. Cheers, Claire -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of [hidden email] Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 11:39 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: CivicAccess-discuss Digest, Vol 84, Issue 13 Send CivicAccess-discuss mailing list submissions to [hidden email] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/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: Meeting with TBS: Update (Tracey P. Lauriault) 2. Proceedings: Electronic Government and the Information Systems Perspective Third International Conference, EGOVIS 2014, (Glen Newton) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 17:46:51 +0100 From: "Tracey P. Lauriault" <[hidden email]> To: civicaccess discuss <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Meeting with TBS: Update Message-ID: <CAPT_w+k_uzQmQ6o1Pvs1kzUMqsgd0ghRVREZZCf3Mjrrpi=[hidden email]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" The OGP has an independent review mechanism (IRM) in place to review country plans. Mary Francoliwas the OGP IRM researcher and reporter and the results of her work is available here ( http://www.maryfrancoli.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=89: open-government-partnership&catid=38:home&Itemid=115). The IRM reviewers at the EU Regional Meetings held here in Dublin in the spring, have made clear to the OGP the limitations of the IRM process, namely that the timeline alloted for the review needs to be lengthened to ensure broader consultation with public, private and civil society stakeholders and information about the broader context within which these initiatives are situated should be discussed, as was the need for more specificity on what is being evaluated, namely it should not be is an initiative in place, but also what of its quality. The context in Canada is related to the broader issues of the cancelation of data collection (Census, surveys), quashing the voice of scientists, bullying civil society organizations with the threat of non compliace to the 10% advocacy rule, etc. Regarding specificity, the IRM reporter had to give Canada high marks based on the OGP criteria for FOIA, even though most would consider Canada's FOIA process to be flawed. The IRM report for Canada does however elaborate on these issues and a number of others. It is worth the read, albeit, as many of these types of documents are, it is not the juiciest piece of literature on the planet, although, in terms of a democratic process, it is important. The difficulty in Canada is lack of coordinated civil society voice on issues related to open data, opengov, transparency, FOIA, etc. There are however some great minds working at all levels of government within and outside of government. We did have representation at the OGP meetings in Rio by the Canadian Council on Social Development, Harvey Low with some consultations conducted by Harvey and I, and others in the space also attended, most notably David Eaves, Toby Mendel, and Michael Gurstein. The Summits that have to date been led out of BC by Herb Lainchbury, and soon by Open North, are the next best thing, although primarily focussed on Open Data. People who attend those Summits come with a broadbase of knowledge on many related issues. The potential of coordination with OGP and the Summit next year could prove strategically interesting. There has however not yet been a collaborative focus on the OGP. There is of course the Open Government Advisory board to the Federal Initiative, but it rarely meets and when it does meetings are short and are mostly about information exchange and not stragety and issue based. In terms of our civil society voice, well, what do we want? are those concerns in the plan? and if not then how do we get them in? If they are in the plan then are they up to par? And who are we in terms of civil society? How do we get our voices heard? Cheers t On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Michael Lenczner <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi Claire, > > Thanks for sending this along. I don't know that much about the OGP > process, but do think that we need a unified and solid message from > the community if we're not getting what the feds have signed up for. > > Any other thoughts on the government's progress so far on their OGP > commitments? > > Michael Lenczner > CEO, Ajah > http://www.ajah.ca > 514-708-5112 > > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Claire Woodside <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> I met with Mark Levene (Mark is acting director open government >> policy at >> TBS) and one of his colleagues from TBS today and I received some >> news on the OGP process moving forward. >> >> >> >> 1. The government is currently in phase three of the consultations >> and will be working with departments to post new commitments in the >> ?suggested ideas? section of data.gc.ca >> >> 2. The suggested ideas section recently posted on data.gc.ca >> constitutes the consultation on the ?draft? action plan. >> >> 3. When the government publicizes the action plan, they will also >> make public a document that provides details about why the ?ideas? >> posted during the ?ideas dialogue were included in the final action >> plan or were not included in the final action plan. >> >> >> >> In the meeting I impressed upon Mark and his colleague that the >> ?suggested ideas? section posted on data.gc.ca does NOT constitute a >> consultation on a draft action plan. The ?suggested ideas? are brief, >> vague and include no real commitments. I made it clear that this >> would be a major issue for Canadian CSOs and that they should >> consider a consultation on the draft text of the action plan. I also >> raised the previous IRM and stated that this would definitely be raised >> >> >> >> I am only one voice in this process and I think it might be useful if >> others emailed [hidden email], with a cc? to >> [hidden email] and [hidden email] and >> expressed their desire to provide feedback on the ?draft action plan? ie. >> not a few short ideas with ?possible? actions. We could also >> coordinate a bunch of tweets at the TBS secretariat calling on them >> to publish the draft action plan. >> >> >> >> I do think that some coordinated messaging might be helpful. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> Claire >> >> >> >> Claire Woodside >> >> >> >> Director/Directrice | Publish What You Pay-Canada/Publiez Ce Que Vous >> Payez-Canada >> >> Unit 600-331 Cooper st. | Ottawa ON K2P 0G5 >> >> 1-613-237-6768 ext.7 (o) | 1-613-794-3536 (m) | Skype: HelenClaire04 >> >> [hidden email] | www.pwyp.ca | @PwypCanada >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 http://traceyplauriault.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/moving-to-ireland/ https://gcrc.carleton.ca/confluence/display/GCRCWEB/Lauriault http://datalibre.ca/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.pwd.ca/pipermail/civicaccess-discuss/attachments/20140822/3aff d132/attachment-0001.html> ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:37:37 -0400 From: Glen Newton <[hidden email]> To: GOSLING members in Ottawa <[hidden email]>, civicaccess discuss <[hidden email]> Subject: [CivicAccess-discuss] Proceedings: Electronic Government and the Information Systems Perspective Third International Conference, EGOVIS 2014, Message-ID: <CANL2-4MpkQk=H1WPEPiZJC7WwEdJM5G2PP7Ttp4z=x=+[hidden email]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Munich, Germany, September 1-3, 2014. Volume 8650: Electronic Government and the Information Systems Perspective by Andrea K?, Enrico Francesconi is now available on the SpringerLink web site at http://alerts.springer.com/re?l=D0In5s9j9I6gsxrysI0 ================================================================= TABLE OF CONTENTS: Social Signature: Signing by Tweeting Author(s): Francesco Buccafurri, Lidia Fotia, Gianluca Lax Page: 1 - 14 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-10178-1_1 URL: http://alerts.springer.com/re?l=D0In5s9j9I6gsxrysI2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Accessibility Issues in E-Government Author(s): Eleanor Leist, Dan Smith Page: 15 - 25 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-10178-1_2 URL: http://alerts.springer.com/re?l=D0In5s9j9I6gsxrysI3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - An Interoperability Approach for Enabling Access to e-Justice Systems across Europe Author(s): Enrico Francesconi Page: 26 - 40 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-10178-1_3 URL: http://alerts.springer.com/re?l=D0In5s9j9I6gsxrysI4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - An Efficient Homomorphic E-Voting System over Elliptic Curves Author(s): M. ?ngels Cerver?, V?ctor Mateu, Josep M. Miret, Francesc Seb?, Javier Valera Page: 41 - 53 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-10178-1_4 URL: http://alerts.springer.com/re?l=D0In5s9j9I6gsxrysI5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Exploring the Determinants of Citizens? Intention to Participate in the Development of e-Government Services Author(s): Her-Sen Doong, Hui-Chih Wang Page: 54 - 62 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-10178-1_5 URL: http://alerts.springer.com/re?l=D0In5s9j9I6gsxrysI6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E-mail Responsiveness in the Public Sector Author(s): Hanne S?rum Page: 63 - 72 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-10178-1_6 URL: http://alerts.springer.com/re?l=D0In5s9j9I6gsxrysI7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Business Intelligence Systems as Management, Accountability and Transparency Tools for the Government: The Case of Platform Aquarius Author(s): Ethel Airton Capuano Page: 73 - 90 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-10178-1_7 URL: http://alerts.springer.com/re?l=D0In5s9j9I6gsxrysI8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Process-Based Knowledge Extraction in a Public Authority: A Text Mining Approach Author(s): Saira Andleeb Gillani, Andrea K? Page: 91 - 103 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-10178-1_8 URL: http://alerts.springer.com/re?l=D0In5s9j9I6gsxrysI9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Combining Knowledge Management and Business Process Management ? A Solution for Information Extraction from Business Process Models Focusing on BPM Challenges Author(s): Katalin Ternai, M?ty?s T?r?k, Kriszti?n Varga Page: 104 - 117 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-10178-1_9 URL: http://alerts.springer.com/re?l=D0In5s9j9I6gsxrysIa - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Persistent Storage and Query of E-government Ontologies in Relational Databases Author(s): Jean Vincent Fonou-Dombeu, Nicholas Mwenya Phiri, Madga Huisman Page: 118 - 132 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-10178-1_10 URL: http://alerts.springer.com/re?l=D0In5s9j9I6gsxrysIb - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Application of Process Ontology to Improve the Funding Allocation Process at the European Institute of Innovation and Technology Author(s): Matteo Arru Page: 133 - 147 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-10178-1_11 URL: http://alerts.springer.com/re?l=D0In5s9j9I6gsxrysIc - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Extending Computerized Adaptive Testing to Multiple Objectives: Envisioned on a Case from the Health Care Author(s): Christian Weber, R?ka Vas Page: 148 - 162 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-10178-1_12 URL: http://alerts.springer.com/re?l=D0In5s9j9I6gsxrysId - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >From Legislation towards the Provision of Services Author(s): Tom van Engers, Sjir Nijssen Page: 163 - 172 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-10178-1_13 URL: http://alerts.springer.com/re?l=D0In5s9j9I6gsxrysIe - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Breaking the Barriers of e-Participation: The Experience of Russian Digital Office Development Author(s): Samuil Gorelik, Vitaly Lyaper, Lyudmila Bershadskaya, Francesco Buccafurri Page: 173 - 186 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-10178-1_14 URL: http://alerts.springer.com/re?l=D0In5s9j9I6gsxrysIf - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Model of Digital Mediation to Support Communication between Teachers Unions and the Education Community Author(s): Artur Afonso Sousa, Pedro Agante, Carlos Quental, Lu?s Borges Gouveia Page: 187 - 200 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-10178-1_15 URL: http://alerts.springer.com/re?l=D0In5s9j9I6gsxrysIg - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Open Government and Electronic Government: Some Considerations Author(s): Roland Traunm?ller Page: 201 - 207 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-10178-1_16 URL: http://alerts.springer.com/re?l=D0In5s9j9I6gsxrysIh - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Modeling, Fusion and Exploration of Regional Statistics and Indicators with Linked Data Tools Author(s): Valentina Janev, Vuk Mijovi?, Dejan Paunovi?, Uro? Milo?evi? Page: 208 - 221 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-10178-1_17 URL: http://alerts.springer.com/re?l=D0In5s9j9I6gsxrysIi - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Environmental Thesauri under the Lens of Reusability Author(s): Riccardo Albertoni, Monica De Martino, Paola Podest? Page: 222 - 236 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-10178-1_18 URL: http://alerts.springer.com/re?l=D0In5s9j9I6gsxrysIj - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Empowering Users to Specify and Manage Their Privacy Preferences in e-Government Environments Author(s): Prokopios Drogkaris, Aristomenis Gritzalis, Costas Lambrinoudakis Page: 237 - 245 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-10178-1_19 URL: http://alerts.springer.com/re?l=D0In5s9j9I6gsxrysIk - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Helios Verification: To Alleviate, or to Nominate: Is That the Question, or Shall we Have Both? Author(s): Stephan Neumann, M. Maina Olembo, Karen Renaud, Melanie Volkamer Page: 246 - 260 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-10178-1_20 URL: http://alerts.springer.com/re?l=D0In5s9j9I6gsxrysIl - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Certification of SME Online: A Web-Based Service, of Universal Use, for SME Qualification Author(s): Miguel Cruz, Rita Serrano, Jo?o Gon?alves Page: 261 - 274 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-10178-1_21 URL: http://alerts.springer.com/re?l=D0In5s9j9I6gsxrysIm - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Open Government Data Beyond Transparency Author(s): Monica Palmirani, Michele Martoni, Dino Girardi Page: 275 - 291 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-10178-1_22 URL: http://alerts.springer.com/re?l=D0In5s9j9I6gsxrysIn - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ahead in the G-clouds: Policies, Deployment and Issues Author(s): Aliya Mukhametzhanova, Richard Harvey, Dan Smith Page: 292 - 306 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-10178-1_23 URL: http://alerts.springer.com/re?l=D0In5s9j9I6gsxrysIo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.pwd.ca/pipermail/civicaccess-discuss/attachments/20140823/3388 23e1/attachment.html> ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss End of CivicAccess-discuss Digest, Vol 84, Issue 13 *************************************************** _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: CivicAccess-discuss Digest, Vol 84, Issue 13
|
|
Good one Claire. It remains that we do not know who Canadian CSOs are. We know some, but they have by no means been mobilized. That is what I was getting at in my previous response. Perhaps the next Open Data / Open Government Summit being organized by Open North can slot something in about that.We also need to find a way for cities to have a voice in the OGP, that is the other conundrum, OGP is about national and not the sub-national, and to day, the national plan has not found a way to effectively communicate wtih cities. Cheers t On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Claire Woodside <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi all, -- _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: CivicAccess-discuss Digest, Vol 84, Issue 13
|
|
Tracey ...
A good point you make is the lack of communications/involvement of the national OGP with cities. At the national level, cities seem to be ignored and at the civic level, cities have no formal mechanism to "sign on" to the OGP and demonstrate progress at the municipal level. ... ggt On 25/08/2014 8:57 AM, Tracey P.
Lauriault wrote:
_______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: CivicAccess-discuss Digest, Vol 84, Issue 13
|
|
From what I know, municipalities still have had no say at the table, and only when they want us to help in local consultations and when it suites. Offer was there. That's all I gotta say.
Harvey Low, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Social Research & Analysis Unit,
Toronto Social Development Finance & Administration Division, City Hall, 14th Floor E.,
>>> Gerry Tychon <[hidden email]> 25/08/2014 1:23 PM >>>Tracey ... A good point you make is the lack of communications/involvement of the national OGP with cities. At the national level, cities seem to be ignored and at the civic level, cities have no formal mechanism to "sign on" to the OGP and demonstrate progress at the municipal level. ... ggt On 25/08/2014 8:57 AM, Tracey P. Lauriault wrote:
_______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: CivicAccess-discuss Digest, Vol 84, Issue 13
|
|
Provinces, Territories and cities are not at the OGP table. MISA and FCM have not really stepped up to the plate on that front. And even at the federal level, is it only TBS? what of inforamtion commissioner?Privacy? and so on.Technically speaking, it would mean that only national scale civil society groups count as well, and so far no one has the consultative resources or mandate to do that national scale consolidation and to provide that national voice. Some do so on their particular files, and that is great, but something that can include all the open data cities, for which there are now many, the provinces and territories and the groups formal and informal in this space, as well as the associations listed in the censuse page of the datalibre.ca blog would be amazing. That is a super big ask. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Harvey Low <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: CivicAccess-discuss Digest, Vol 84, Issue 13
|
|
There were some municipalities, such as in 2012, that chimed-in in Brazil (their equivalent of FCM). Dont know if that's there case now so there may still be some inconsistencies internationally in that regard. Yep I agree that unified municipal or provincial input is difficult. To me, "any" representation from a municipal or provincial voice and perspective would be better than none as we have our own different perspectives and data needs which are not being addressed through formal networks and channels. Again I offered but eh....
Harvey Low, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Social Research & Analysis Unit,
Toronto Social Development Finance & Administration Division, City Hall, 14th Floor E.,
>>> "Tracey P. Lauriault" <[hidden email]> 25/08/2014 2:17 PM >>>Provinces, Territories and cities are not at the OGP table. MISA and FCM have not really stepped up to the plate on that front. And even at the federal level, is it only TBS? what of inforamtion commissioner?Privacy? and so on.Technically speaking, it would mean that only national scale civil society groups count as well, and so far no one has the consultative resources or mandate to do that national scale consolidation and to provide that national voice. Some do so on their particular files, and that is great, but something that can include all the open data cities, for which there are now many, the provinces and territories and the groups formal and informal in this space, as well as the associations listed in the censuse page of the datalibre.ca blog would be amazing. That is a super big ask. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Harvey Low <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: CivicAccess-discuss Digest, Vol 84, Issue 13
|
|
Hi all, I'm working my way through the documentation and reports to date, but as a short-cut, can anyone point me to the stakeholder list of civil society groups that have participated, or those that have been invited to participate? Bianca On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Harvey Low <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: CivicAccess-discuss Digest, Vol 84, Issue 13
|
|
Hi Bianca, Which documentation are you referring to? Stakeholders who participated in what? On Wednesday, September 3, 2014, Bianca Wylie <[hidden email]> wrote:
Cheers T
-- _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: CivicAccess-discuss Digest, Vol 84, Issue 13
|
|
Hiya, General documentation about the OGP process (website, reports, etc.) - am hoping to find something akin to a consultation plan. Stakeholders in terms of civil society organizations that were consulted with or were invited to take part in consultation on the Action Plan 2.0. Is there a list of these organizations? For example, The Council of Canadians immediately comes to mind, and I'm wondering if they provided feedback or not. Bianca
_______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
«
Return to CivicAccess
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |