The action plan recaps many transparency initiatives from the first three years of the Obama administration, such as the government-generated data set repository Data.gov, a governmentwide push to respond more quickly and fully to Freedom of Information Act requests and to declassify outdated national security information, and a recently launched website for citizens to petition the government.

The action plan also includes several new initiatives.

Among them are Foreignassistance.gov, a website where agencies that administer foreign aid will be required to post detailed and standardized project and budget information so officials can better evaluate those programs’ effectiveness, and Expertnet, an online forum where government officials can link up with private sector experts.

The Open Government Partnership is a voluntary association of 50 nations committed to creating detailed open government plans and to sharing best practices. Before its official launch Tuesday, the organization was led by an eight-nation steering committee chaired by the United States and Brazil.

The steering committee published a list of about 80 countries that are eligible to join the partnership based on a rating system that includes budget transparency and the income disclosure required of public officials.

The partnership’s aim is to be a "race to the top" for nations that already are committed to open government, not a ploy to promote transparency in closed regimes such as China and Iran, Nathaniel Heller, an international transparency advocate who helped develop the organization’s technical capacity, told Nextgov earlier this month.

The U.S. plan also involves packaging its transparency initiatives to be used easily in other nations. The White House plans to publish the source code for its We the People petition page, for instance, so it can be adopted by other nations or by state and local governments, the plan said.

The United States and India also have partnered to release a standardized version of Data.gov and the Indian data set repository India.gov.in, called "Data.gov in a box."

Early assessments of the U.S. action plan from transparency advocates were positive.

Katherine McFate, President of OMB Watch, called the plan "bold" and "ambitious." Former Clinton Administration Chief of Staff John Podesta, now president of the Center for American Progress said the plan put the Obama Administration on track to becoming the most transparent presidential administration in history.

"As a leader of open government initiatives undertaken by the Clinton administration," Podesta said in a statement, "I know it’s difficult to move bureaucracies on these issues…The initiatives announced today will improve democratic accountability and boost public trust in government–a trust that is sorely needed today, and which governments around the world must daily aim to restore."

Source: NextGov

An investigation by The Independent has found that the total cost of Labour’s 10 most notorious IT failures is equivalent to more than half of the budget for Britain’s schools last year. Parliament’s spending watchdog has described the projects as "fundamentally flawed" and blamed ministers for "stupendous incompetence" in managing them.

Further evidence has emerged over the failings of Labour’s most costly programme, the mammoth £12.7bn IT scheme to revolutionise the NHS. The Independent has learnt that just 160 health organisations out of about 9,000 are using electronic patient records delivered under the scheme. The vast majority of those were GP practices. New figures have also revealed that millions of pounds have been paid out in legal fees. The taxpayer has footed a £39.2m bill for "legal and commercial support" for the National Programme for IT (NPfIT).

Alan Milburn, the former health secretary, said in 2001 that everyone would have access to their health records online by 2005, but it is understood that the Department for Health is still "years away" from fulfilling the pledge.

Government departments right across Whitehall have been guilty of overseeing embarrassing IT failures. A project that was meant to save the Department for Transport (DfT) about £57m eventually cost £81m, and workers at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) were forced to brush up on their language skills when computer systems gave them messages in German.

Another ill-fated IT scheme, designed to allocate subsidies to farms, cost the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about £350m and left British farmers more than £1bn out of pocket. Last year the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) warned that the system was already "at risk of becoming obsolete". In 2004, the Department for Justice gave the go-ahead for the National Offender Management Information System (C-Nomis) to be rolled out to prisons and the probation service in an attempt to make sharing information about offenders easier. But in 2007, when the estimated cost doubled to more than £600m and senior officials questioned the validity of the project, it was abandoned – after £155m had been wasted.

The MoD’s Defence Information Infrastructure project is currently running more than £180m over budget and 18 months late, and is now set to cost £7.1bn. Last year, Edward Leigh, chairman of the PAC, said: "No proper pilot for this highly complex programme was carried out, and entirely inadequate research led to a major miscalculation of the condition of the Department’s buildings in which the new system would be installed."

Other botched IT projects include the identity cards scheme; the Libra system for modernising magistrates’ courts; an attempt to move the Government’s GCHQ computer systems into a new building which ended up costing more than £300m; the Benefit Processing Replacement Programme; and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Prism system.

IT experts blamed ministers for being too easily wooed by suppliers. Insiders said a lack of expertise within the Government about the technology industry meant they were willing to believe claims made by major IT firms before contracts were awarded.

Several projects are now under renewed threat of being cut back or abandoned altogether as Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, has targeted them as an area of government spending that can be reined in as he attempts to tackle Britain’s record £175bn deficit.

Tony Collins, an expert on the Government’s IT failures, said Labour had displayed an "irrational exuberance" for IT projects that has often led them to throw good money after bad at failing schemes. "There are too few people in the hierarchy of Labour who understand IT enough to understand that it is not a talisman – there is nothing magical about it."

David Cameron, the Tory leader, has signalled a move away from big IT projects, suggesting he will use technology to increase the transparency of government. "It is easy to make these noises out of office," said Mr Collins. "Once you’ve got civil servants giving you a host of reasons why you should not be more open, I fear the Tories will sink into the same depths of secrecy that Labour has found itself in."

Botched projects: The cost of failure

£12.7bn National Programme for IT (NHS)

It was meant to revolutionise the way the health service worked. But far from heralding a new age of efficiency, the National Programme for IT is now widely perceived as the greatest government IT white elephant of history. As well as the huge costs involved, suppliers have walked away, projects are running years behind schedule, while medical professionals have complained that they were never consulted on what they wanted the new system to achieve.

£7.1bn Defence Information Infrastructure (DII)

It seemed like a good idea at the time. In 2005, the Ministry of Defence decided to offer a contract to a consortium of suppliers to replace the hundreds of different computer systems being used by the military with a single system that would be used by the army, navy and air force, as well as the MoD itself. It was to be used by 300,000 people across 2,000 sites. However, it is running more than £180m over budget and 18 months late. A parliamentary inquiry also warned that forces’ reliance on older systems put them at risk of a security breach.

£5bn National Identity Scheme

Originally budgeted at £3bn, the Government’s plan for new identity cards, containing biometric data and linked to a central database, soon came under heavy criticism from civil liberty campaigners. As the costs spiralled, so the Home Office began to water down the aims of the scheme to assuage the critics. In July, Alan Johnson announced that the cards would no longer be compulsory, while moves to force all airport workers to use the cards were also abandoned.

£400m Libra system (for magistrates’ courts)

An attempt to bring records used by magistrates courts into the digital age backfired when trying to introduce one universal IT system to all courts descended into a costly mess. Fujitsu originally bid £146m to deliver the Libra system in 1998. However, the project proved more complicated than anticipated, and costs have now been put at more than £400m.

£350m Single Payment Scheme system (SPS)

The Single Payment Scheme system was designed in 2003 to be a sophisticated way of giving farmers their subsidies, by mapping their land and working out their level of payment. But failures with the IT systems being used mean that farmers were left short-changed. In 2006, around £1.28bn of the £1.5bn subsidies destined for British farmers still had not been given out. The Rural Payments Agency overseeing the project was ordered to make 23 major changes to the system. Despite the £350m spent on the technology, the Public Accounts Committee warned last year that it was already “at risk of becoming obsolete”.

£300m GCHQ "box move" of technology

When the Government’s intelligence organisation, GCHQ, decided to move its complex computer systems into a new building in 1997, the projected £41m cost was so small that officials believed it could be absorbed within existing budgets. That was until the Curse of the Government IT Project struck. Costs of the so-called “box move” soon began to rise out of control. In 2003, the National Audit Office (NAO) put the costs at more than £300m. Edward Leigh, Tory chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, called the original budget “staggeringly inaccurate”.

£155m National Offender Management Information System (C-Nomis)

In an attempt to make sharing information about offenders easier, the Department for Justice gave the go-ahead for the National Offender Management Information System (C-Nomis) to be rolled out to prisons and the probation service. As the estimated cost doubled to more than £600m and senior officials questioned the whole point of the project, it was abandoned in 2007, with £155m already spent.

£106m Benefit Processing Replacement Programme

In June 2006, the Department for Work and Pensions confidently assured Parliament that new funding for its Benefit Processing Replacement Programme (BPRP) had been approved. So it came as a surprise to many when it emerged just three months later that the project had been quietly scrapped. Little information has emerged on why BPRP was abandoned, but the Government has admitted that £106m had already been spent on it before it pulled the plug.

£88.5m Prism IT project

Undeterred by past failures, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) thought it would be a good idea in 2002 to order a new computer system for their 200 offices around the globe. The result was the Prism IT project, seemingly a bargain at just £54m. However, delays and costs have risen, while the contractor was even forced to temporarily halt the scheme in 2005 while an investigation took place into its various problems. The system has not proved a hit with staff. One wrote in 2004: “In all the FCO’s long history of ineptly implemented IT initiatives, Prism is the most badly designed, ill-considered one of the lot.”

£81m Shared Services Centre

To officials at the Department for Transport, the Shared Services Centre seemed to good to be true: not only would it integrate the human resources and financial services of the department and its various agencies, it would even save the taxpayer £57m. Unfortunately, those hopes were dashed as the scheme became another example of an IT project going horribly wrong. Workers at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) were forced to brush up on their language skills as computer systems gave them messages in German. It will now cost £81m, a failure in management that the Public Accounts Committee described as a display of “stupendous incompetence”.

TOTAL: £26.3bn

Source: The Independent

While electronic voting is not possible under the current legislation in Australia, other forms of automation are under discussion, said Michael Cuddihy, Director, Project Management Office, Strategic Capability Branch, AEC.

More than 70 per cent of the AEC’s budget goes on maintaining the voter register, and automation could significantly reduce this cost, Cuddihy noted.

“The AEC anticipates that by enhancing its electronic services such as online enrolment, some of the barriers to citizens maintaining a current enrolment will be removed, and the numbers falling off the roll as the result of people moving address will be decreased,” he said.

New technologies allow for online entry and transmission of enrolment application details via ‘smart forms’ hosted on the Australia.gov.au portal to the AEC. Recent federal legislative changes allow electors to apply for a change of enrolment address through the portal without the need for a follow-up paper enrolment form and personal signature.

E-voting is unlikely in Australia in the short term, although it was trialed with select groups in the 2007 elections. Defence personnel could use a unique PIN access to vote through a secure intranet, and the visually impaired could try electronically assisted voting.

However, a report by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recommended that the trials be discontinued for the 2010 election, citing a low take up and a high cost for voter.

Defence personnel have returned to a paper-based system for the current election but legislation was passed recently to allow e-voting for the visually impaired.

“Concerns about the security of e-voting systems might be manageable through the development of appropriate systems, including authentification in the future,” Cuddihy said. “But that future is not here yet in the federal context.”

He added: “The paper ballot is a familiar and comfortable way of voting for many Australians. Use of technology in these ways will need to be offered in a way that ensures that public trust in the delivery of such services is maintained.”

Indonesia to vote electronic

Indonesia is set to introduce e-voting in time for the next presidential election in 2014. Syamsul Bahri, Member, Indonesia’s General Election Commission (KPU), told FutureGov that the efficiencies and cost-savings to be made electronic balloting, vote counting and audit trailing make for a compelling argument for automated polls.

“We think that e-voting is the way to go for Indonesia. Automation will simplify and quicken the process of holding elections in a country with such a huge population and diverse topography. It will also make the process more transparent, secure and save on printing and logistical costs,” he said.

Elections automation in Indonesia will not get the go ahead until 2014, the year of the next presidential race – as long as the project receives sufficient investment. “The government must be financially prepared. Automation will require a huge investment,” he noted.

Legislative changes, the introduction of new regulations for e-voting as well as a public education programme are currently under review, Syamsul noted. Indonesia will follow the Philippines as the second country to embrace electronic voting in Southeast Asia.

Source: FutureGov

The Internet in China

Information Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China

Contents

Foreword

I. Endeavors to Spur the Development and Application of the Internet

II. Promoting the Extensive Use of the Internet

III. Guaranteeing Citizens’ Freedom of Speech on the Internet

IV. Basic Principles and Practices of Internet Administration

V. Protecting Internet Security

VI. Active International Exchanges and Cooperation

Concluding Remarks

Source: Gov.cn

But the Chinese authorities weren’t exactly paying attention. Since Clinton’s speech, China has reaffirmed its commitment to state censorship, required online map providers to obtain licenses and host their images inside the country, blocked Foursquare, and announced new rules for media companies. Earlier this week, China made Google rethink how it could move some search operations to Hong Kong.

If anything, China’s Internet restrictions have grown ever-tighter. In March, when Google began publishing a daily dashboard of China service availability, mobile and Web search was completely accessible. As of early July, both are partially blocked.

Some U.S. politicians responded this week by announcing legislation that would try to pressure China and other nations with Internet restrictions into becoming better Net-citizens by invoking two very old techniques: public shame and trade sanctions.

A bill introduced Thursday, the One Global Internet Act (PDF), would require the federal government to identify “priority” Internet concerns overseas. Then the U.S. Trade Representative would be directed to begin an investigation under the 1974 Trade Act, which authorizes sanctions and retaliatory actions.

Section 301 of the 1974 law permits retaliation when a “practice of a foreign country is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce,” according to the USTR. If the problem is severe enough, retaliation becomes mandatory.

“Preserving an open and truly global Internet should be a top priority for the U.S. government,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat whose district includes the heart of Silicon Valley. Lofgren’s legislation is cosponsored by seven fellow Democrats and two Republicans, including Bob Goodlatte of Virginia.

The idea of using trade sanctions as a way to batter down the Great Firewall of China isn’t exactly new. The California First Amendment Coalition has been making this point since at least 2007, as has a European think tank that claims members of the World Trade Organization are “legally obliged to permit an unrestricted supply of crossborder Internet services.” Trade scholars, however, have been skeptical this approach would work.

Lofgren’s legislation also would create a “Task Force on the Global Internet,” with representatives of the State Department, Commerce Department, Defense Department, and USTR. (Then again, the Bush administration created the “Global Internet Freedom Task Force” back in 2006; it, too, coordinated with “other U.S. government agencies and the National Security and National Economic Councils”–with not much to show by the time it stopped meeting.)

To be sure, an investigation by the USTR doesn’t mean sanctions or a trade war is automatic. The agency published a 600-page report in March saying that China maintains many non-tariff barriers that discriminate against foreign manufacturers, but took no other action. Many members of Congress have been complaining that China’s currency is valued too low–which makes exports more affordable for Americans–but no trade war has erupted.

China’s commerce minister has warned the United States that it had the most to lose in a trade war. But, Chen Deming said a few months ago, according to the Washington Post, such a move would benefit neither nation. “Both sides need to stay cool,” Chen said. “We need to sit down and talk.”

Source: CNet

"It’s common to use all kind of Internet-based solutions here in Estonia, everywhere on the level of central government, the level of municipalities and of course business," Estonia’s Prime Minister Andrus Ansip said recently, as he showed off the oval cabinet table equipped with a shiny new laptop for each minister to a group of foreign journalists.

"The decision-making process thanks to this e-government system is much more transparent. Just a minute or two after the decision-making here, all the people around Estonia or around the world know what happened," Ansip said.

Using special ID cards, Estonians can access virtually all public services via the Internet at the special site www.eesti.ee, including e-voting in national and local elections, as well as checking their medical and police records with a mouse-click.

Ninety-two percent of Estonian taxpayers filed their 2009 annual income tax returns via the Internet, while 79 percent do their banking online at least once a week, official statistics show.

After the end of five decades of Soviet rule in 1991, the minnow nation opted to go hi-tech as fast as possible and earned the nickname "E-stonia".

Estonia, which joined the European Union and NATO in 2004, is keen to export its e-government savvy — and associated transparency — around the globe with a special focus on developing democracies.

At the helm is the Tallinn-based e-Governance Academy (www.ega.ee).

Set up in 2002 by the Estonian government, the United Nations Development Programme and the Open Society Institute, it is a a non-governmental, non-profit organisation, focused on the creation and transfer of Estonian knowledge concerning e-governance, e-democracy and the development of civil society.

The Estonian state finances its projects.

The academy recently announced it would help Afghanistan’s parliament create and implement a modern e-voting system and has been involved in bringing e-government to the Palestinian territories.

Since 2008, Estonia has allocated over five million kroons (320,000 euros, 390,000 dollars) for Palestinian projects, introducing IT equipment for central authorities, public e-services for residents as well as e-solutions in the education system and police force.

"We are very grateful for the help Estonia has provided for Palestine. Estonia has been a true success story in this area and we would like to be one day a similar success story in our region," Palestinian foreign minister Riad al-Malki said during a recent visit to Estonia.

"Estonia’s experience has shown that implementing IT-technology helps to increase the openness of governance and to promote reforms better, and we are just happy when we can share our best practice this way with other states," Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet told AFP.

Source: Yahoo News

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg launched the Your Freedom website giving people the opportunity to suggest ideas on restoring liberties that have been lost, repealing unnecessary laws and stripping away excessive regulation on businesses.

• Visit the Your Freedom website

Mr Clegg urged people to use the site to make their voices heard. He said:

“For too long new laws have taken away your freedom, interfered in everyday life and made it difficult for businesses to get on. We want your ideas on how to change that, ideas on how we restore hard-won freedoms that have been lost, on how we repeal unnecessary laws that have amassed onto the statute book, on how we strip away the restrictive regulations that stop businesses from innovating. This debate isn’t new – people are already talking about it around kitchen tables, in staff rooms, online – but what is new is that for the first time in a long time, Government is listening and we’ll put the best suggestions into practice. It’s a totally new way of making policy – a totally new way of putting you in charge.”

The public have been asked to consider three questions:

• Restoring civil liberties: which current laws would you like to remove or change because they restrict your civil liberties?
• Cutting business and charity regulations: which regulations do you think should be removed or changed to make running your business or organisation as simple as possible?
• Repealing unnecessary laws: which offences do you think we should remove or change and why?

Users of the site will be able to comment on and rate their favourite ideas and relevant departments will then respond to the most popular workable ideas.

The views expressed on Your Freedom will be taken into account in the Freedom Bill later this year.

Source: number10.gov.uk

The announcement was made jointly by the Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Industry, the Honourable James Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, and the Honourable Diane Finley, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.

“Canada can and should be a leader in the global digital economy,” said Minister Clement. “Now is the time for the private sector to step up and contribute their ideas for a digital strategy and, when that strategy is in place, to implement the plan.”

“Our government is committed to ensuring that creators, inventors and entrepreneurs have the incentives to innovate, the confidence to take risks and the tools to succeed,” said Minister Moore. “We recognize the important role the digital media and content sector plays in the digital economy, and we intend to develop a long-term plan that will stand the test of time.”

“Our government wants Canadians to have the skills that will make them leaders in this rapidly developing and globally competitive industry,” said Minister Finley. “Through these consultations, we will work with industry and other partners to identify areas where we need to develop our workforce of the future.”

The consultations, which begin today and close on July 9, 2010, will be hosted online (www.digitaleconomy.gc.ca). A discussion paper posted on the consultation site provides details on the key themes being considered:

• Capacity to Innovate Using Digital Technologies;
• Building a World-Class Digital Infrastructure;
• Growing the Information and Communications Technology Industry;
• Digital Media: Creating Canada’s Digital Content Advantage; and
• Building Digital Skills for Tomorrow.

The consultation seeks feedback from all interested parties on priorities and targets as Canada moves toward improving innovation and creativity, adopting new technologies and achieving the shared goal of making Canada a global leader in the digital economy.

A strategy for Canada’s digital economy will recognize that success will not come through a particular government program or combination of government programs, but from a concerted effort — combining government vision and the resolve of individual businesses to be global leaders in their fields.

Once the consultation process has closed in July 2010, the government will review the information and use it to inform the development of a national digital economy strategy.

Consultations on Canada’s Strategy for the Digital Economy

The March 2010 Speech from the Throne and Budget 2010 both established the Government of Canada’s objective to develop a digital economy strategy for Canada. The strategy will enable the information and communications technology (ICT) sector to create new products and services, accelerate the adoption of digital technologies and contribute to improved cyber security practices by industry and consumers. It ensures that creators have the incentives to innovate, the confidence to take risks and the tools to succeed.

Canada’s ICT and digital media sectors create high-skilled, high-paying jobs in Canada, and the adoption of ICTs helps to raise business productivity. However, Canadian businesses currently lag their international competitors in the development, adoption and use of innovative ICTs.

For Canada to improve its position and take its place at the forefront of the global digital economy, some key questions need to be addressed. How can we improve the adoption and use of digital technologies in all sectors of Canada’s economy? What kind of digital infrastructure will we need for the 21st century? And what will grow the ICT industry while we try to reduce our deficit?

Canada was one of the first countries to take advantage of the digital economy. It was the first country to connect all of our schools and libraries to the Internet, and led Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member countries in the deployment and uptake of broadband. Canadians were early adopters of ICTs. Canada was one of the first countries to implement policies and programs that enabled the creation of digital media and content. Other countries have followed Canada’s lead, and some have overtaken us in a number of areas, prompting us to look at how to regain our advantage.

The June 2009 Canada 3.0 Conference in Stratford, Ontario, focused on the direction of digital media and the importance of this sector to the economy. That set the tone for the Forum on Canada’s Digital Economy in Ottawa later that month, where the key elements for a strategy began to take shape. There is broad agreement that the digital economy is a strong driver of innovation, which is essential to future growth across the entire Canadian economy.

The consultations over the next two months are aimed at identifying areas of collaboration, priority issues to be addressed and opportunities for realigning existing federal policies and programs. It is clear from previous and ongoing discussions that government can play a key role in providing the legislative and investment framework so that individual businesses can be global leaders in their fields. However, it is the private sector that has the talent, technology and entrepreneurial spirit to take the initiative in securing Canada’s position of leadership in the global digital economy.

These consultations will help to clearly define roles and responsibilities among industry, academia, content developers, technical experts, researchers and government, and build consensus on how to work together to develop a Canadian strategy for the digital economy.

Online

The Government of Canada is seeking the views of Canadians on the priorities and proposals for a digital economy strategy. Online submissions will be reviewed and considered as the strategy develops. All online submissions will be made public. For information on the consultation process and how to participate, please

visit www.digitaleconomy.gc.ca.

At a round table event in the Cabinet Room in Number 10, the PM, Deputy PM and invited guests debated the new civil society programme with Francis Maude, Minister for the Cabinet Office, and Nick Hurd, Minister for Civil Society.

The new proposals aim to create a climate that empowers local people and communities, building a big society that will “take power away from politicians and give it to people”.

Policies outlined today include giving communities more power and encouraging people to take an active role in their communities.

• Read the full policy programme [Cabinet Office website]

Speaking in the Cabinet Room, the PM said he wanted his vision of a “Big Society” of community work and social enterprise to be one of the “great legacies” of his Government.

He said:

“Today is the start of a deep and serious reform agenda to take power away from politicians and give it to people.

“That’s because we know instinctively that the state is often too inhuman, monolithic and clumsy to tackle our deepest social problems. We know that the best ideas come from the ground up, not the top down. We know that when you give people and communities more power over their lives, more power to come together and work together to make life better – great things happen.”

The Government has also announced that Nat Wei, founder of Teach First, has been appointed advisor to the Government on Big Society and will be made a member of the House of Lords.

He will work alongside Nick Hurd, to lead on the delivery of the programme.

Read more: Cabinet Office website

forrás: Number10.gov.uk

Questions can be sent via Twitter to @fornyingsdep or by contacting:

• Ann Kristin Lindaas (Telefon: 45 24 17 81) or Sverre Andreas Lunde-Danbolt (Telefon: 41 48 04 95)

Within only a couple of weeks, the blog already has posts, comments and links to useful resources and reports.

The launching of Data.norge.no follows on from the Norwegian Government’s announcement of the Web 2.0 Boxes Competition supporting individuals, companies and public entities to make innovative web 2.0 projects happen (2.5 million Kroner).

Olav Anders Øvrebø (on Vox Publica) has published news capturing the innovative spirit of the data.norge.no initiative pointing the work on the Norwegian open data community contributors. Here is the news by Olav entitled: “data.norge.no” (Approximate English translation) (Norwegian Text Online):

“It [data.norge.no] is the address of the site to gather information on public data, writes renewal Secretary Rigmor Aasrud in this guest post.

Did you know you can find out what zip code has a street address with postal Electronic Mail Address Book? The fact that the winter can download information for the entire country with the Norwegian Coastal Administration? You can download weather forecasts from the Meteorological Institute at Yr.no? Or you can see how much money the various political parties have been in support of partifinansiering.no? These are good examples of information the government makes available to citizens, and there will be many more such examples in the years to come.

Therefore I have begun work to create a website that can collect information on public data. This site should have the address data.norge.no! When both the United States, United Kingdom, Spain, Denmark, New Zealand and Australia have done so, it is time that we also do it! The aim is that this site will be a meeting place for everyone who works with the use of public data. The public data can be used by anyone other than the agencies and municipalities that have collected them in fact have a huge value creation potential. Maybe someone can create a service that sends weather information to your mobile phone when you are thinking of pulling out the boat? A service that points the way to the nearest City bikes stand? Or perhaps a service that alerts you if there is road construction sites along the road you tend to walk, cycle or drive to work, so you can take a different path and avoid queuing?

This topic has been discussed frequently in the past year, and many good and constructive suggestions have emerged through debates in both NRKbeta on Origo blog and online magazine Vox Publica and the blog on the Facts First Report. It has also been inspiring to see the work Sondre Bjellås added into the wiki datakilder.no, and volunteer-based mapping work of Olav Anders Øvrebø and Vox Publica, where they collected the data sources in a worksheet that is editable to anyone on the Internet and, more recently no.ckan.net.

I need their help to develop the site data.norge.no as a good overview of public data sources that are available for further use. What do you think is important? What should we consider? What information should be on site? What types of data are most important? What is important to know whether the data in order to re-use them in practice?

Say your opinion here – or through other channels such as Twitter or email. We are open to suggestions for creating a great site for data.norge.no, and make public data available on a proper and appropriate manner.”

Source: EPSIplatform

“Government interactions in the information age are often fueled by data,” said Aaron Smith, a Research Specialist at the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project and author of a report based on a new national phone survey. “Online citizens can—and often do—‘go to the source’ in their efforts to monitor government activities, evaluate the impacts of new legislation, and track the flow of their tax dollars.”

The report also finds that 31% of online adults have used social tools such as blogs, social networking sites, and online video as well as email and text alerts to keep informed about government activities. Moreover, these new tools show particular appeal to groups that have historically lagged in their use of other online government offerings—in particular, minority Americans. Latinos and African Americans are just as likely as whites to use these tools to keep up with government, and are much more likely to agree that government outreach using these channels makes government more accessible and helps people be more informed about what government agencies are doing.

“Just as social media and just-in-time applications have changed the way Americans get information about current events or health information, they are now changing how citizens interact with elected officials and government agencies,” said Smith. “People are not only getting involved with government in new and interesting ways, they are also using these tools to share their views with others and contribute to the broader debate around government policies.”

About the Survey

This report is based on the findings of a telephone survey conducted between November 30 and December 27, 2009, among a sample of 2,258 adults, age 18 and older. Interviews were conducted in both English (n=2,197) and Spanish (n=61) and a total of 565 interviews were conducted using the respondent’s cell phone. For results based on the total sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling and other random effects is plus or minus 2.4 percentage points. For results based Internet users (n=1,676), the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 2.8 percentage points.

Source: Pew

Download study in pdf

Source: UNPAN

A MyGov dashboard that allows every citizen to personalise the explosive growth of government services on the web was proposed today by Gordon Brown.
The prime minister suggested a new wave of web technology will open up policy-making, ending the current paternalistic Whitehall monopoly.

In a wide-ranging speech on the impact of the web on the government, he said the MyGov dashboard will make citizen interaction with government as easy as internet banking or online shopping.

Instead of civil servants or politicians being the sole authors of government information, he claimed that open source information will allow citizens to shape information for their own needs.

Brown said MyGov, which will eventually replace DirectGov, will end the current frustration of web users needing to identify themselves separately for different public services. He also said the dashboard will allow the citizen to manage their pensions, tax credits and child benefits, as well as pay council tax, fix doctors or hospital appointments, apply for schools of their choice and communicate with children’s teachers.

Brown, who was once described as an analogue politician in an internet age, praised the development of an Asborometer by software developer Jeff Gilfelt. The iPhone app allows users to locate the level of antisocial behaviour in a borough, including the number of crack houses closed, asbo statistics and area league tables.

Brown promised that all public service contracts worth more than £20,000 will be provided on a free online database. In addition to this, Martha Lane Fox, the co-founder of lastminute.com, will extend her brief from championing digital inclusion, to overseeing the spread of government data to citizens.

Brown said that by the autumn, the government will publish all non-personal datasets held by departments and quangos, forming an electronic doomsday book for the 21st century. He said the book will allow for the first time, the public to access in one place information in each set of data, including its size, source, format, content, timeliness, cost and quality. He said any business or developer will be free to develop the information as they please. Brown also promised £30m worth of funding to create an Institute of Web Science, which will work on the economic and social benefits of the web.

Likening the second wave of superfast broadband to the advent of electricity, Brown insisted that unlike the Conservatives, Labour were investing in digital infrastructure to ensure it was available to 90% of the public. He did not set a date, but has previously said a 50Mbps network will be available by 2017, partly paid for by the new 50p tax on phonelines.

The Tories would use a combination of deregulation and a portion of the BBC licence fee to create a 100Mbps network.

Source: Guardian

In the recent United Nations E-Government Survey 2010, China dropped seven places from the last rankings in 2008, despite the central government having spent billions on e-government projects over the last two years. In an interview with FutureGov, Haiyan Qian, the UN’s Director, Division for Public Administration and Development Management, singled China out as a country that has struggled to provide inclusive services in its hurry to embrace e-government.

She said that although the Chinese government promotes lots of policies and services, it takes time for them to work their way through from central to local government level, and to those who are supposed to benefit from them.

China has, probably more so than any country in the world, an opportunity to use ICT to involve its most far flung citizens, from the farmer in Hunan Province to the cockle-picker in Hainan Province. Qian points out that China’s efforts to expand its e-government infrastructure are commendable, but more can be done to ensure that more people have access to the flurry of government services that have sprung up online – or are given new ways (such as mobile) to access and use them.

Yes, let’s not forget that China is probably the country in which making e-government work is more difficult than anywhere. But this should not be used as an excuse for slow development.

Wang Feng-Ming, Deputy Secretary-General of Municipal Government of the northeastern Chinese city of Hengshui, told me that e-government initiatives have the habit of creating “digital islands” because only some cities benefit from, and know how to make use of, opportunities created by e-government initiatives devised by the central government.

This does not only lead to economic and social inequalities in China’s urban landscape, but also its rural areas. Farmers and countryfolk are only just beginning to feel a flavour of a digital age that has passed most of them by in the decade since e-government began in China. ICT can warn farmers of bad weather, give them intelligence on market prices and keep them up to date with the latest farming technology.

In this regard, China would do well to examine how its great rival, India, is faring in its efforts to close the digital divide in the countryside. No, India didn’t do particularly well in the UN E-Government Survey either (dropping six places into 119th; China is ranked 72nd). But that was for its efforts between 2008 and December 2009. India’s ‘e-Panchayat’ project will see close to a billion US dollars spent on improving service delivery at a local level in 2010.

A similarly large amount will be pumped into e-governance projects in China in 2010. Here’s to hoping that China’s e-government adventures in the year of the Tiger bring benefits to all, not just the fortuitous few.

Source: FutureGov

A document (PDF) providing high-level details of the initiative was posted on the Whitehouse.gov website. Some of the details that have been provided in the five page document are already known, but at least some of the material is fresh.

For instance, the document shows that the government is working on developing a next generation intrusion prevention system called Einstein 3, for civilian departments and agencies of the Federal Executive Branch.

Similarly, it shows that government is developing a cyber-counterintelligence strategy specifically to mitigate threats from overseas adversaries.

The administration’s decision to declassify portions of the 12-point programme was announced today at the RSA Security Conference by Howard Schmidt, recently appointed as White House cybersecurity advisor.

In a keynote address, Schmidt said the government had decided to lift the veil of secrecy that has shrouded CNCI for the past two years as part of its commitment to open-government and transparency.

Such a move is important for fostering the closer partnership between the private sector and the government that is needed to fight cyber-threats, he said. “Transparency and partnership are concepts that go hand in hand,” Schmidt said at the conference.

The government’s decision to partially lift the shroud of secrecy that has surrounded CNCI is likely to be welcomed by security experts. Even though the document posted today offered little by way of specific details, it at least offers some insight into where the government will be pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into cybersecurity over the next few years.

As previously understood, under CNCI all civilian federal agencies are consolidating external access points , including those to the Internet, as part of an effort to reduce their exposure to Internet borne threats.

Under the effort, more than 4,300 external connections are being consolidated, to about 100. The consolidated network will then be monitored by an upgraded version of a federal network intrusion detection technology called Einstein.

The new version of Einstein, called Einstein 2 will use signature-based sensors to inspect all Internet traffic entering Federal systems for malicious content.

The document released today reveals that in addition to Einstein 2, the government is also developing Einstein 3, a network intrusion prevention system based on technology developed at the National Security Agency. The Department of Homeland Security is currently piloting the technology, which will be used by the U.S. Computer Emergency Response Team (US-CERT) to respond to network intrusions.

Under CNCI, the federal government is also working on developing a strategy for deterring “interference and attack” on US cyber assets. The goal of the effort is to enhance advanced warning capabilities and to develop an effective deterrent response to attacks against federal and critical infrastructure targets.

Another key program that has been launched under CNCI is one that is focused on protecting global supply chains from cyber-attacks.

The CNCI was established under a classified directive known as Homeland Security Presidential Directive 21 in January 2008 by then President Bush. It is designed to essentially bolster the ability of federal agencies to detect and respond to cyber threats in a far more efficient manner.

The highly-classified nature of the initiative, and the fact that the National Security Agency (NSA) is actively participating in the effort has spooked many lawmakers, privacy advocates and security experts.

Over the past 18 months or so, there have been several calls for more details on the project to be released publicly. Much of the consternation has to do with what many see as an unsettling expansion of the NSA’s role in domestic cybersecurity matters.

Last month, for instance, privacy advocacy group the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a lawsuit against the NSA in US District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking the court’s intervention in getting the NSA to divulge details on the authority it has been granted on domestic cybersecurity matters as part of CNCI.

EPIC had previously filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with the NSA asking for the information. It is too soon to say whether the information released today will alleviate any of the concerns that have been previously expressed over CNCI.

Source: Computerworld UK

FROM: Peter R. Orszag, Director

SUBJECT: Open Government Directive

In the Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government, issued on January 21, 2009, the President instructed the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue an Open Government Directive.  Responding to that instruction, this memorandum is intended to direct executive departments and agencies to take specific actions to implement the principles of transparency, participation, and collaboration set forth in the President’s Memorandum.  This Directive was informed by recommendations from the Federal Chief Technology Officer, who solicited public comment through the White House Open Government Initiative.

The three principles of transparency, participation, and collaboration form the cornerstone of an open government.  Transparency promotes accountability by providing the public with information about what the Government is doing.  Participation allows members of the public to contribute ideas and expertise so that their government can make policies with the benefit of information that is widely dispersed in society.  Collaboration improves the effectiveness of Government by encouraging partnerships and cooperation within the Federal Government, across levels of government, and between the Government and private institutions.

This Open Government Directive establishes deadlines for action.  But because of the presumption of openness that the President has endorsed, agencies are encouraged to advance their open government initiatives well ahead of those deadlines.  In addition to the steps delineated in this memorandum, Attorney General Eric Holder earlier this year issued new guidelines¹ for agencies with regard to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).  With those guidelines, the Attorney General reinforced the principle that openness is the Federal Government’s default position for FOIA issues.

This memorandum requires executive departments and agencies to take the following steps toward the goal of creating a more open government:

1. Publish Government Information Online
   To increase accountability, promote informed participation by the public, and create economic opportunity, each agency shall take prompt steps to expand access to information by making it available online in open formats.² With respect to information, the presumption shall be in favor of openness (to the extent permitted by law and subject to valid privacy, confidentiality, security, or other restrictions).
   1. Agencies shall respect the presumption of openness by publishing information online (in addition to any other planned or mandated publication methods) and by preserving and maintaining electronic information, consistent with the Federal Records Act and other applicable law and policy.   Timely publication of information is an essential component of transparency.   Delays should not be viewed as an inevitable and insurmountable consequence of high demand.
   2. To the extent practicable and subject to valid restrictions, agencies should publish information online in an open format that can be retrieved, downloaded, indexed, and searched by commonly used web search applications. An open format is one that is platform independent, machine readable, and made available to the public without restrictions that would impede the re-use of that information.
   3. To the extent practical and subject to valid restrictions, agencies should proactively use modern technology to disseminate useful information, rather than waiting for specific requests under FOIA.
   4. Within 45 days, each agency shall identify and publish online in an open format at least three high-value data sets (see attachment section 3.a.i) and register those data sets via Data.gov. These must be data sets not previously available online or in a downloadable format.
   5. Within 60 days, each agency shall create an Open Government Webpage located at http://www.[agency].gov/open to serve as the gateway for agency activities related to the Open Government Directive and shall maintain and update that webpage in a timely fashion.
   6. Each Open Government Webpage shall incorporate a mechanism for the public to:
      1. Give feedback on and assessment of the quality of published information;
      2. Provide input about which information to prioritize for publication; and
      3. Provide input on the agency’s Open Government Plan (see 3.a.).
   7. Each agency shall respond to public input received on its Open Government Webpage on a regular basis.
   8. Each agency shall publish its annual Freedom of Information Act Report in an open format on its Open Government Webpage in addition to any other planned dissemination methods.
   9. Each agency with a significant pending backlog of outstanding Freedom of Information requests shall take steps to reduce any such backlog by ten percent each year.
   10. Each agency shall comply with guidance on implementing specific Presidential open government initiatives, such as Data.gov, eRulemaking, IT Dashboard, Recovery.gov, and USAspending.gov.
2. Improve the Quality of Government Information
   To improve the quality of government information available to the public, senior leaders should make certain that the information conforms to OMB guidance on information quality³ and that adequate systems and processes are in place within the agencies to promote such conformity.
   1. Within 45 days, each agency, in consultation with OMB, shall designate a high-level senior official to be accountable for the quality and objectivity⁴ of, and internal controls over, the Federal spending information publicly disseminated through such public venues as USAspending.gov or other similar websites.  The official shall participate in the agency’s Senior Management Council, or similar governance structure, for the agency-wide internal control assessment pursuant to the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act.⁵
   2. Within 60 days, the Deputy Director for Management at OMB will issue, through separate guidance or as part of any planned comprehensive management guidance, a framework for the quality of Federal spending information publicly disseminated through such public venues as USAspending.gov or other similar websites.  The framework shall require agencies to submit plans with details of the internal controls implemented over information quality, including system and process changes, and the integration of these controls within the agency’s existing infrastructure. An assessment will later be made as to whether additional guidance on implementing OMB guidance on information quality is necessary to cover other types of government information disseminated to the public.
   3. Within 120 days, the Deputy Director for Management at OMB will issue, through separate guidance or as part of any planned comprehensive management guidance, a longer-term comprehensive strategy for Federal spending transparency, including the Federal Funding Accountability Transparency Act and the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.  This guidance will identify the method for agencies to report quarterly on their progress toward improving their information quality.
3. Create and Institutionalize a Culture of Open Government
   To create an unprecedented and sustained level of openness and accountability in every     agency, senior leaders should strive to incorporate the values of transparency, participation, and collaboration into the ongoing work of their agency.  Achieving a more     open government will require the various professional disciplines within the Government  – such as policy, legal, procurement, finance, and technology operations – to work     together to define and to develop open government solutions.  Integration of various     disciplines facilitates organization-wide and lasting change in the way that Government works.
   1. Within 120 days, each agency shall develop and publish on its Open Government Webpage an Open Government Plan that will describe how it will improve transparency and integrate public participation and collaboration into its activities.    Additional details on the required content of this plan are attached.  Each agency’s plan shall be updated every two years.
   2. Within 60 days, the Federal Chief Information Officer and the Federal Chief Technology Officer shall create an Open Government Dashboard on www.whitehouse.gov/open.  The Open Government Dashboard will make available each agency’s Open Government Plan, together with aggregate statistics and visualizations designed to provide an assessment of the state of open government in the Executive Branch and progress over time toward meeting the deadlines for action outlined in this Directive.
   3. Within 45 days, the Deputy Director for Management at OMB, the Federal Chief Information Officer, and the Federal Chief Technology Officer will establish a working group that focuses on transparency, accountability, participation, and collaboration within the Federal Government.  This group, with senior level representation from program and management offices throughout the Government, will serve several critical functions, including:
      1. Providing a forum to share best practices on innovative ideas to promote transparency, including system and process solutions for information collection, aggregation, validation, and dissemination;
      2. Coordinating efforts to implement existing mandates for Federal spending transparency, including the Federal Funding Accountability Transparency Act and the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act; and
      3. Providing a forum to share best practices on innovative ideas to promote participation and collaboration, including how to experiment with new technologies, take advantage of the expertise and insight of people both inside and outside the Federal Government, and form high-impact collaborations with researchers, the private sector, and civil society.
   4. Within 90 days, the Deputy Director for Management at OMB will issue, through separate guidance or as part of any planned comprehensive management guidance, a framework for how agencies can use challenges, prizes, and other incentive-backed strategies to find innovative or cost-effective solutions to improving open government.
4. Create an Enabling Policy Framework for Open Government
   Emerging technologies open new forms of communication between a government and the people.  It is important that policies evolve to realize the potential of technology for open government.
   1. Within 120 days, the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), in consultation with the Federal Chief Information Officer and the Federal Chief Technology Officer, will review existing OMB policies, such as Paperwork Reduction Act guidance and privacy guidance, to identify impediments to open government and to the use of new technologies and, where necessary, issue clarifying guidance and/or propose revisions to such policies, to promote greater openness in government.

Nothing in this Directive shall be construed to supersede existing requirements for review and clearance of pre-decisional information by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to legislative, budgetary, administrative, and regulatory materials.  Moreover, nothing in this Directive shall be construed to suggest that the presumption of openness precludes the legitimate protection of information whose release would threaten national security, invade personal privacy, breach confidentiality, or damage other genuinely compelling interests.

If you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please direct them to opengov@omb.eop.gov or call Nicholas Fraser, Information Policy Branch, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget at (202) 395-3785

Attachment – Open Government Plan

1. Formulating the Plan: Your agency’s Open Government Plan is the public roadmap that details how your agency will incorporate the principles of the President’s January 21, 2009, Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government into the core mission objectives of your agency.  The Plan should reflect the input of (a) senior policy, legal, and technology leadership in your agency and (b) the general public and open government experts.  It should detail the specific actions that your agency will undertake and the timeline on which it will do so.
2. Publishing the Plan: Consistent with the deadlines set forth in this Directive, the Plan should be published online on the agency’s Open Government Webpage in an open format that enables the public to download, analyze, and visualize any information and data in the Plan.
3. Components of the Plan:
   1. Transparency: Your agency’s Open Government Plan should explain in detail how your agency will improve transparency. It should describe steps the agency will take to conduct its work more openly and publish its information online, including any proposed changes to internal management and administrative policies to improve transparency. Specifically, as part of your Plan to enhance information dissemination, your agency should describe how it is currently meeting its legal information dissemination obligations,⁶ and how it plans to improve its existing information dissemination practices by providing:
      1. A strategic action plan for transparency that (1) inventories agency high-value information currently available for download; (2) fosters the public’s use of this information to increase public knowledge and promote public scrutiny of agency services; and (3) identifies high value information not yet available and establishes a reasonable timeline for publication online in open formats with specific target dates. High-value information is information that can be used to increase agency accountability and responsiveness; improve public knowledge of the agency and its operations; further the core mission of the agency; create economic opportunity; or respond to need and demand as identified through public consultation.
      2. In cases where the agency provides public information maintained in electronic format, a plan for timely publication of the underlying data.   This underlying data should be in an open format and as granular as possible, consistent with statutory responsibilities and subject to valid privacy, confidentiality, security, or other restrictions.  Your agency should also identify key audiences for its information and their needs, and endeavor to publish high-value information for each of those audiences in the most accessible forms and formats.  In particular, information created or commissioned by the Government for educational use by teachers or students and made available online should clearly demarcate the public’s right to use, modify, and distribute the information.
      3. Details as to how your agency is complying with transparency initiative guidance such as Data.gov, eRulemaking, IT Dashboard, Recovery.gov, and USAspending.gov.   Where gaps exist, the agency should detail the steps the agency is taking and the timing to meet the requirements for each initiative.
      4. Details of proposed actions to be taken, with clear milestones, to inform the public of significant actions and business of your agency, such as through agency public meetings, briefings, press conferences on the Internet, and periodic national town hall meetings.
      5. A link to a publicly available website that shows how your agency is meeting its existing records management requirements.⁷ These requirements serve as the foundation for your agency’s records management program, which includes such activities as identifying and scheduling all electronic records,⁸ and ensuring the timely transfer of all permanently valuable records to the National Archives.
      6. A link to a website that includes (1) a description of your staffing, organizational structure, and process for analyzing and responding to FOIA requests;(2)  an assessment of your agency’s capacity to analyze, coordinate, and respond to such requests in a timely manner, together with proposed changes,  technological resources, or reforms that your agency determines are needed to strengthen your response processes; and (3) if your agency has a significant backlog, milestones that detail how your agency will reduce its pending backlog of outstanding FOIA requests by at least ten percent each year.   Providing prompt responses to FOIA requests keeps the public apprised of specific informational matters they seek.
      7. A description or link to a webpage that describes your staffing, organizational structure, and process for analyzing and responding to Congressional requests for information.
      8. A link to a publicly available webpage where the public can learn about your agency’s declassification programs, learn how to access declassified materials, and provide input about what types of information should be prioritized for declassification, as appropriate.  Declassification of government information that no longer needs protection, in accordance with established procedures, is essential to the free flow of information.⁹
   2. Participation: To create more informed and effective policies, the Federal Government should promote opportunities for the public to participate throughout the decision-making process. Your agency’s Open Government Plan should explain in detail how your agency will improve participation, including steps your agency will take to revise its current practices to increase opportunities for public participation in and feedback on the agency’s core mission activities. The specific details should include proposed changes to internal management and administrative policies to improve participation
      1. The Plan should include descriptions of and links to appropriate websites where the public can engage in existing participatory processes of your agency.
      2. The Plan should include proposals for new feedback mechanisms, including innovative tools and practices that create new and easier methods for public engagement.
   3. Collaboration: Your agency’s Open Government Plan should explain in detail how your agency will improve collaboration, including steps the agency will take to revise its current practices to further cooperation with other Federal and non-Federal governmental agencies, the public, and non-profit and private entities in fulfilling the agency’s core mission activities. The specific details should include proposed changes to internal management and administrative policies to improve collaboration.
      1. The Plan should include proposals to use technology platforms to improve collaboration among people within and outside your agency.
      2. The Plan should include descriptions of and links to appropriate websites where the public can learn about existing collaboration efforts of your agency.
      3. The Plan should include innovative methods, such as prizes and competitions, to obtain ideas from and to increase collaboration with those in the private sector, non-profit, and academic communities.
   4. Flagship Initiative: Each agency’s Open Government Plan should describe at least one specific, new transparency, participation, or collaboration initiative that your agency is currently implementing (or that will be implemented before the next update of the Open Government Plan). That description should include:
      1. An overview of the initiative, how it addresses one or more of the three openness principles, and how it aims to improve agency operations;
      2. An explanation of how your agency engages or plans to engage the public and maintain dialogue with interested parties who could contribute innovative ideas to the initiative;
      3. If appropriate, identification of any partners external to your agency with whom you directly collaborate on the initiative;
      4. An account of how your agency plans to measure improved transparency, participation, and/or collaboration through this initiative; and
      5. An explanation of the steps your agency is taking to make the initiative sustainable and allow for continued improvement.
   5. Public and Agency Involvement: Your agency’s Open Government Plan should include, but not be limited to, the requirements set forth in this attachment. Extensive public and employee engagement should take place during the formation of this plan, which should lead to the incorporation of relevant and useful ideas developed in that dialogue. Public engagement should continue to be part of your agency’s periodic review and modification of its plan. Your agency should respond to public feedback on a regular basis.

FOOTNOTES

1. http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/foia-memo-march2009.pdf

2. The Federal Government has defined information in OMB Circular A-130, “Management of Federal Information Resources,” as any communication or representation of knowledge such as facts, data, or opinions presented in any medium or format.

3. Information Quality Act, Pub.  L.  No.  106-554, section 515; see also, “Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies” (67 FR 8452) and your agency’s Information Quality Act guidelines.

4. The Federal Government has defined quality and objectivity in, “Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies” (67 FR 8452).  Quality is “…the encompassing term, of which ‘utility,’ ‘objectivity,’ and ‘integrity’ are the constituents.”  “‘Objectivity’ focuses on whether the disseminated information is being presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner, and as a matter of substance, is accurate, reliable, and unbiased.”

5. The implementing guidance for the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act can be found in OMB Circular A-123, “Management’s Responsibility for Internal Control.”

6. Paperwork Reduction Act, Pub L.  No.  104-13, section 3506(d).

7. 36 CFR Subchapter B – Records Management.

8. E-Government Act of 2002, Pub L.  No.  107-347, section 207(e).

9. Executive Order 12958, Classified National Security Information.

This document is also available as pdf, txt, doc or view on Slideshare

Source: White House

December 8, 2009

Az amerikai elnök nejével, Michelle Obamával együtt jelent meg helyi idő szerint hétfőn a Fehér Háztól néhány háztömbnyire fekvő épületben, ahol mintegy száz alkalmazott verődött össze a neves látogató érkezésére. Obama köszönetet mondott a szervezet munkatársainak a földrengéskárosultak javára emelt díjas sms-ekkel folytatott adománygyűjtő munkájukért.

Obama a székházból üzenetet küldött a Twitter mikroblog-szájton a vörös kereszt fiókjából is a világnak, amely úgy szólt: “Obama elnök és a First Lady éppen most tesz látogatást a segélyszervezet műveleti központjában”. A vöröskereszt munkatársai pedig rögtön küldtek egy másikat, arról értesítve a netezőket: “Az utolsó üzenetet Obama elnök küldte. Ez volt az első üzenete.”  Az amerikai vöröskereszt SMS-kampányával már dollármilliókat gyűjtött össze a földrengéskárosultak javára. A Twitter.com/BarackObama címen egyébként már régóta létezik hivatalos fiókja az amerikai elnöknek, de ezt nem ő, hanem egy munkatársa tölti fel tartalommal.

Forrás: Origo

Heralded as ‘the government’s strategic vision for ensuring that the UK is at the leading edge of the global digital economy’, the Digital Britain Final Report was published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on 16th June 2009. Like all good reports of its kind, Digital Britain – written by Lord Carter, the then Minister for Communications Technology and Broadcasting – has generated a mixed response and its fair share of controversy. But there can be no doubt that Lord Carter, a successful businessman and the founding Chief Executive of Ofcom, has moved the whole debate forward.

The final report includes plans to ensure there’s a first-rate digital and communications infrastructure and that the social and economic benefits of digital technologies are maximised for the good of all. Speaking at a National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts event in February, Carter said: “The biggest prize of all for Digital Britain is digital public services.” A commitment to ensure the whole population has access to broadband is partly about plans to switch public services over to digital channels from 2012. Moving public services online will offer convenience and flexibility to citizens and – perhaps more importantly in these straitened times – help to secure substantial efficiency savings. Research conducted by the Society of IT Management, which represents ICT managers working in and for the public sector, found that typical web visitors cost an organisation 27 pence, compared with £3.22 for each phone call and £6.56 for each visit in person.

The government has made considerable progress on rationalising the number of public sector websites that are out there. With over 14 million visits each month, Directgov is rapidly becoming the first port of call for people looking for information and services. Digital Britain goes a step further, identifying services that could be ripe for early switchover – such as student loans, electoral roll registration, school registration, redundancy advice processing and debt advice – and setting an expectation that by 2012 every government department will have identified at least two services that they can switch online as part of their broader customer contract strategies. It is an ambitious target, although some might say not ambitious enough; and success will depend on strong leadership. Particularly since Carter made it clear that simply moving existing services online is not enough: “Digital government will need to become genuinely ‘of the web’, not simply ‘on the web’.”

‘Of the web’ not ‘on the web’
The government can’t afford to take a Field of Dreams ‘build it and they will come’ approach. To make its online offering truly compelling, the web will need to be used as a platform – integrated with telephone and face-to-face channels – that can deliver completely new services and transactions. Being able to file your tax returns and apply for benefits online is all very well but frankly not that ‘sexy’; online public services will need to become much more compelling.

If you take the view that technology augments what we as humans do and always have done – communicate and share information – this opens up the possibility of a more radical transformation of services. The Power of Information Taskforce, which was set up by the government last year, has not only been looking at how to ‘use, re-use, create, recombine and distribute’ information; it has also been considering how people organise themselves around information depending on the way it is presented, and what impact this could have on public services. New ways of packaging and sharing information lead to new groupings and communities of understanding, which in turn lead to new ways of solving old problems.

Andrew Stott, recently appointed to the newly created role of Director of Digital Engagement in the Cabinet Office, has been tasked with taking this work forward. He will be working with Sir Tim Berners-Lee, pioneer of the worldwide web, who has been appointed by the Prime Minister as an expert adviser on public information delivery. These appointments are a clear signal of the government’s committment to this agenda. So where might all this take us? A recent government white paper included proposals for all schools to allow mothers and fathers to share advice and information through social networks, with plans for pilots with parenting sites like Netmums and Dad Talk. A social networking approach might also, for example, make it possible to see support for new businesses delivered online by virtual networks of volunteers with real-world experience, rather than through local business link operations.

Dealing with the digital divide
Before there’s a wholesale switchover to online services, the government needs to tackle the quarter of the population that is resisting a move to broadband. Research from Ofcom shows that people not yet using broadband tend to be older, from lower socioeconomic groups or those without children. Importantly, it seems that these groups are, by and large, the people who make more regular and frequent transactions with government. Digital Britain includes the need for a ‘safety net’ for those unable to access services online. If the business case for the switchover of public services to digital channels is going to stack up, the government will need to get the majority of these people online. And failure to do so could risk creating an even more unequal society. Making something like school registrations (which should be equally open to everyone) one of the first services to be switched online could favour the better off. Similarly, pushing online registrations for the electoral roll – which local councils frequently allow through all the available channels – runs the risk of undermining voter turnout rates.

People often cite financial constraints as the main reason for not adopting broadband, but the reality is often much more complex, wrapped up in a number of issues such as fear of technology or of the unknown, a lack of skills and simple lack of interest. There are some good schemes already in place that are trying to tackle these issues and tackle the ‘digital divide’. A Home Access scheme is providing financial support to help families with children get access to broadband and digital equipment, and UK online centres are working ‘to connect people to digital skills and opportunities, using technology to improve lives and life chances’. These are just a couple of examples; there are many more out there, but convincing people who are scared of getting, or simply reluctant to get, online will require a more concerted and coordinated effort. Martha Lane Fox, the founder of Lastminute.com who became the face of dotcom Britain in the 90s and who is now the UK’s Digital Champion, is taking on the challenge with plans to concentrate on encouraging the six million poorest to get online. She will be looking at how “really clever applications of technology could help people get more employment, get more choices, take control of where they live or their own situation in a slightly more cohesive way”.

There are challenges ahead but we should not be deterred. Technology has the potential to transform not only the way that public services are delivered but also the fundamental relationship between citizens and the government. And in this way a Digital Britain could well be a more democratic Britain.

Source: Public Service Britain

The public is getting a bad return on its tax dollars because government workers are operating with outdated technologies, Orszag said in a statement that kicked off a summit between Obama and dozens of corporate CEOs.

“Twenty years ago, people who came to work in the federal government had better technology at work than at home,” said Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget. “Now that’s no longer the case.

“The American people deserve better service from their government, and better return for their tax dollars.”

The White House release that included Orszag’s comments said one “specific source” of ineffective and inefficient government is the huge technology gap between the public and private sectors that results in billions of dollars in waste, slow and inadequate customer service and a lack of transparency about how dollars are spent.

Obama is meeting with CEOs to solicit their views on how to improve the federal government with new information technology.

“Improving the technology our government uses isn’t about having the fanciest bells and whistles on our websites — it’s about how we use the American people’s hard-earned tax dollars to make government work better for them,” Obama said in a statement.

Obama had proposed the meeting in April. CEOs from Craigslist, Facebook, Microsoft, Adobe Technology and Monster.com are among those taking part.

“It’s time to bring government into the 21^st century,” Orszag said. “Information technology has the power to transform how government works and revolutionize the ease, convenience and effectiveness by which it serves the American people.”

Those attending the summit are to break into smaller groups to discuss streamlining government operations, improving customer service and maximizing return on IT investments.

Source: The Hill

Journal article contributions are welcome on government 2.0 of both an empirical and theoretical nature, from a policy or technical perspective, from different disciplines, and particularly as relevant input in the definition of European policies on eGovernment.

By government 2.0 the Journal team does not refer only to the adoption of social tools (blog, wiki, social networks etc) in the government context, but to the overall change of values towards a more open and collaborative government. Relevant issues include transparency, re-use of public sector information, public decision-making, open innovation, social media adoption, collective intelligence, and user-generated public services. The application domains cover not only eParticipation, but all areas of government, including both back office and front-office, with particular emphasis on the role of citizens and civil servants.

The invited editor for the ninth edition of the ePractice Journal is David Osimo.

Since its emergence in 2004, web 2.0 has rapidly moved from a purely socialising tool to a key professional application. In the government context the so-called government 2.0 is now moving from a set of sparse bottom-up initiatives for opening up government from the outside, to a high priority in the government agenda. The victory of Barack Obama and the first actions of his administration made clear that government 2.0 can be a strong driver for government reform.

In the European context, this new emphasis is evident in the priority given to research funding in FP7 (ICT for governance and policy modelling) and in the eParticipation preparatory action. It will probably also be one priority of the forthcoming eGovernment Action Plan, in view of the emphasis given in the latest Ministerial Declaration in Malmö, which was accompanied by an Open Declaration.

But despite the progress made by government 2.0 in the policy agenda, much of the debate is still on the potential opportunities and risks, with government 2.0 evangelists emphasising the great benefits of crowdsourcing and leveraging collective intelligence, and skeptics pointing to the risks of wishful thinking, to the limits of transparency, and to the hype about its impact. It’s due time therefore for an in-depth critical reflection on government 2.0.

Further information:

• European Journal of ePractice – Call for papers: “Government 2.0: Hype, Hope, or Reality?”
• Article submission guidelines
• Contact for further information on article submission