dear all, I updated http://publicgeodata.org/Open_Letter_Third_Reading - below the text as it stands now. I'm concerned that the preamble is a bit long - takes a while to get to the point. We should have an appendix with Amendments 21 and 27 as well as the standard appendix with references to the PIRA, KPMG, etc studies. I'd really like to have a doublecheck that we're not missing anything from 2nd reading too.
I'm also a bit concerned that this is heckling the council a bit much - and that the last para should if possible outline a more constructive 'technical' approach - but don't want to go on too long. I'm sorry that I've been so timelagged on this - i'm right in the middle of preparing to move back to Europe for a while - to this end i'm going to be offline and travelling for most of the next 2 days :/ I hope this helps, and if you think waiting til Friday isn't a terrible idea Benjamin, we can have another big push and 2nd pass then - I'll try to look in on Thursday afternoon/evening - and we'll actually be in the same timezone for once :) jo ----------------------- Dear Minister, We are writing to convey our concerns regarding the proposed INSPIRE directive on establishing a common framework for sharing geographic information in Europe, and to ask the Minister for their stance on some of the Parliament's amendments to the text. Geographic information is an important issue as it is estimated that fully 80% of all information collected by government has a spatial component and geographic information is needed for environmental, census, and transport purposes among many others. Moreover state-collected geographic information is a public good and, as demonstrated by several studies, open access to it is the only way to realize its full social and commercial potential for Europe. However since the first draft of INSPIRE, a set of amendments have been introduced which restrict the rights of the public to access, view, or even know about the existence of, geographic information that they have paid to collect. The Council's initial common position on the Directive not only fails to promote open access but risks doing the very opposite. This would be a disastrous outcome and one which runs against the very purpose of INSPIRE. The Commission itself stated in this regard: "the common position could have the effect of reducing rather than increasing the availability of spatial data. ... The text of the common position leaves too much scope for data providers to refuse to give public access to their data and share it with other authorities." The ENVI Committee of the Parliament voted against many of the Council's amendments to the original wording. ENVI's Rapporteur recommended "intellectual property rights to be deleted from the list of exceptions that would restrict access to environmental information... access free of charge, must be guaranteed not only for search services but also for view services." We urge you to support amendments that promote open access and the sharing of geographic information. At Second Reading, the European Parliament supported Amendment 21 - to restore the right of the public to view, free of cost, the holdings of geographic information collected by the state. The Parliament also supported Amendment 27 - deleting the mention of "intellectual property rights" held by state agencies that collect geographic data from the Council's common position. We request a response from the Minister to the following questions: * Does the Minister support the Parliament's Amendment 21? If not, is it possible to outline the reasons why not? * Does the Minister support the Parliament's Amendment 27? If not, is it possible to outline the reasons why not? More than 6000 European citizens who work with geographic information have signed a petition to amend or reject INSPIRE, viewable at http://petition.publicgeodata.org/ We suggest that rejection be considered should it prove impossible to remove the obstacles to open access that currently exist in the text. Such an outcome would be better than the adoption of a flawed directive and, should the Commission reintroduce the proposal, would allow for the development of a new draft which adequately considered the broader implications for access and reuse of spatial and environmental data, and included more of the local government, academic, business and civil society interests who will be deeply affected by INSPIRE's terms. _______________________________________________ geo-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/geo-discuss
