Weighing in late on this but I support the points made by both David and Laura.
The FOIAnet Steering Committee will be meeting next week, in part to discuss FOIAnet's approach to OGP. We will probably propose some sort of session and the issue that Laura raises is one of the issues we have been discussing. I think it is important to look at this not only from the perspective of the relationship between these different OGP areas, but also in terms of the different communities that focus on them and the only partly explored potential synergies and possibly conflicts between them. Re. David's point, I think it is essential that the OGP tackle very frankly the issue of what might be called ambition in Action Plans. We are seeing many countries put forward weak Action Plans, or Plans which largely recycle activities that were already in the pipeline. There is also the issue that David raises, namely that there appears to be no proper mechanism to address rollbacks, which of course will not feature in Action Plans! These issues go to the very heart of what the OGP stands for. If the growing perception in at least some countries that the OGP is being used almost as a certification of quality on openness, even as little is actually being done, is not checked, the credibility of the OGP will be at risk. Toby ___________________________________ Toby Mendel Executive Director Centre for Law and Democracy t...@law-democracy.org Tel: +1 902 431-3688 Fax: +1 902 431-3689 www.law-democracy.org On 12 Aug 2013, at 14:17, Neuman, Laura wrote: > I agree that this is a great idea. In line with David’s idea below, I wonder > whether there might also be a space to discuss the synergies and also the > potential conflicts between open data and access to information. There still > seems to be a conflation of these themes and while they often support one > another, there will be times when the ideals of one do not advance the other. > > All my best, > > Laura Neuman > Manager, Global Access to Information Initiative > Senior Associate Director > The Carter Center > > From: ogp-civilsoci...@opengovpartnership.org > [mailto:ogp-civilsoci...@opengovpartnership.org] On Behalf Of David Eaves > Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 3:26 PM > To: Javier Ruiz > Cc: Open Government Partnership - Civil Society UK; > ogp-civilsoci...@opengovpartnership.org > Subject: Re: Tackling “thorny issues” of open government at the OGP London > summit > > Javiers, > > This is a great piece. I've been thinking a similar thought. I've been > increasingly worried that if the OGP focuses on the fulfilling of specific > commitments it potentially misses larger question of the role of transparency > and technology in open societies. It is quite conceivable to actually fulfill > your commitments while taking huge steps backwards in ways that undermine the > spirit of the OGP, in other areas. > > It would be nice if there was a stream that focused on the ethical use of > openness and technology in an open society. I was recently asked if I might > want to give a talk at OGP and was thinning of making that the focus. Open to > push back, other ideas, counter thoughts, or support! > > cheers, > > David Eaves > da...@eaves.ca > www.eaves.ca > > > > On 2013-08-09, at 12:10 AM, Javier Ruiz <jav...@openrightsgroup.org> wrote: > > > Dear all > > The Open Government Partnership summit in London is gaining momentum, as > evidenced by the growing engagement from civil society organisations. The OGP > is reaching an important milestone, with the closure of its first cycle of > country commitments and independent assessments. > > The summit will be an inclusive space where governments can announce > inspiring projects and collaborate with civil society. But this does not have > to mean shying away from tackling difficult questions around open government. > > Last week, UK civil society organisations held a meeting to discuss the > summit. One proposal was making these areas of potential conflict explicit by > creating a specific track for “thorny issues”. This would show the OGP is a > confident process that takes these matters seriously. > > The following areas would be suitable for inclusion. Some have already been > proposed as a concrete session, while others are just an idea looking for > more partners: > > 1. Transparency and private public services > > Private companies have an important role to play in many of the areas covered > by the OGP, such as the extractive industries and fiscal transparency. But > this session will focus on the increasing provision of public services by > private companies. > > These companies tend to be excluded from “Right to Information” laws. Where > there is information available, this is normally limited to narrow terms of > contract delivery, making it difficult to assess overall performance and > value for money. > > 2. Openness and privacy > > Open data and transparency programmes can have privacy impacts, which could > also lower acceptance and engagement from citizens. From a different > perspective, we may also find that privacy can be used as an excuse to hinder > transparency. > > In some cases these tensions will involve personal data that is published in > the public interest, such as subsidies, taxes, registers, judicial documents, > etc. Another potential conflict is the publication of data from public > services - schools, hospitals, welfare, etc. This kind of data is normally > “anonymised”, but there are growing concerns about the risks of > re-identification of individuals by combining different data sources. > > An international workshop on this topic will have to analyse how to balance > diverse regulatory approaches with upholding fundamental principles on > privacy and the protection of personal data. > > Privacy International and Open Rights Group are coordinating this session. > > 3. Surveillance and national security > > The recent confirmation of the existence of mass internet surveillance > programmes by several industrialised nations is a game-changer that brings > into question some of the assumptions that have underpinned the relations > between open government, surveillance and national security. > > Few will question that there is a role for secrecy and special powers. But > the blanket exemptions for national security from most transparency > programmes and right to information laws may have gone too far. In some > countries there is no basic information on the legal basis of surveillance > programmes, or the size of their overall budget. Many civil society > organisations are demanding more targeted surveillance and better > accountability. > > More fundamentally, we may need to revisit the unspoken presumption in open > government circles that there is no need to justify collecting increasing > amounts of data on citizens because eventually something good will come out > of it. > > Open Society Foundations, Open Rights Group and Tactical Technology > Collective are coordinating this session. > > 4. Protection for whistleblowers > > There are growing concerns that despite an increase in commitment to > openness, many OGP countries are actually ratcheting up the persecution of > whistleblowers. Besides several high profile cases withinternational > resonance there are many less known cases throughout the world. > > Several organisations, including OSF, have expressed interest in organising > sessions on this important topic. Please get in touch. > > 5. Citizens’ rights, practical tools and government commitments > > Groups involved int he OGP have alternative approaches to openness. This has > been characterised in simple terms as involving on one side Right to > Information veterans, who have focused for a long time on getting government > to implement legislation. One the other side would be Open Data activists > that, instead of driving policy, develop practical technology solutions to > provide access to public information. Of course the reality is a more > complex. Nowadays most people in the field will agree that transparency and > accountability require both laws and tools, plus citizen engagement and > infomediaries. > > There are concerns, however, that the OGP may be skewing this balance with > its focus on voluntary commitments by the executive branches of government > that lack legally enforceable mechanisms. The problems arise when the same > governments that propose national plans with excellent aspects are > simultaneously weakening Right to Information legislation or the role of > civil society. > > The Campaign for Freedom of Information are coordinating this proposal. > > The proposals above are all in a shared online document that attempts to > collate all the sessions proposed by civil society groups. Please add the > details of any proposals you are developing to that spreadsheet, and get in > contact with anyone who is developing an idea you would be interested in > supporting. > > It is important to get international collaborations to shape the sessions. > Particularly, let us know if you know of any government representatives from > your country who are coming to the summit and may be interested in > participating in these panels. > > There is a growing consensus that the summit should reflect the diversity and > multistakeholder nature of the OGP. A criteria for acceptance into the > programme should be that panels are gender balanced and include > representation from the majority world. > > The deadline for presenting complete proposals to the OGP summit team is the > 1st of September. > > http://www.opengovernment.org.uk/tackling-thorny-issues-of-open-government-at-the-ogp-london-summit/ > > > -- > Javier Ruiz > jav...@openrightsgroup.org > +44(0)7877 911 412 > @javierruiz > www.OpenRightsGroup.org > Winners of Liberty's Human Rights Campaigner of the Year Award 2012 > > > > > This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of > the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged > information. If the reader of this message is not the intended > recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution > or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly > prohibited. > > If you have received this message in error, please contact > the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the > original message (including attachments).
