Some comments on the workshop with Freedom of Information and Open Government Data Communities.

@Silvanavf

During last week's OGP Global Summit we had two opportunities, for the first in this context, to talk about convergences between the Freedom of Information and Open Government Data communities. In the next few lines I include some of the first impressions of the workshop -organized with the help of Moisés Sánchez- held the day before the official start of the Summit. I will write a more elaborated document in the next few weeks but I don’t want the memories to fade away while other activities begin to fill the calendar.

Rationale:

The Freedom of Information (FOI) and Open Government Data (OGD) communities present not only different backgrounds but also a diverse set of goals and drivers. Although these two approaches (FOI and OGD) are complementary, these two groups are not working as closely as one might imagine. The differences in approaches, languages, and skills, among other features, seem to build barriers to the interaction. However, those differences are the key elements that make this collaboration necessary.

Already in 2013, in a post, which was published on the blog of the OGP  (open Government Partnership) Civil Society Hub, I mentioned that OGP would be an ideal scenario to promote collaboration between these communities. A couple of years later (and many projects and initiatives in both areas) the conversation on the links between access to public information and open data has resurfaced. After the 3rd International Conference of Open Data (held in Canada in May 2015) a debate, which began as a discussion about the relationship between privacy and openness, soon focused on the relationship between the FOI and OGD communities.

In this context, the OGP Global Summit certainly offered an ideal setting to promote the conversation. This was so because the Summit offered the possibility to bring together very different actors (in terms of geographical aspects to interest and background). The workshop, which took place on Tuesday 27, aimed to promote not only the conversation but also future projects involving the collaboration of actors in these two communities.

Workshop:

The Civil Society Day provided a space for conversation between these two communities. As this debate goes beyond the boundaries of a particular country or region, facilitators and participants from different regions were invited. Each table (divided by region, mainly to avoid language barriers and so participants can clearly reflect the peculiarities of each of them) was facilitated by experts from both communities (FOI and OGD). Fabrizio Scrollini (ILDA), Pablo Collada (Ciudadano Inteligente) and Ezequiel Santagada (Idea) were in charge of the Americas’ group (most of participants came from Latin America though). Helen Darbishire (Access Info Europe) and Mor Rubinstein (OKFN) facilitated the European table while Michael Canares (Jakarta Open Data Lab) and Ilham Saenong (Transparency International Indonesia) took care of the Asian table. In the African table, Savita Bailur (Web Foundation) and Gilbert Sendugwa (Afic) facilitated the conversation.

There were 4 suggested points to guide the conversation:

➢ Legislation

➢ Use

➢ Measurements

➢ How to improve the dialogue between communities

The topics were quite broad. The reason behind it was to present some topics to guide the conversation but not to impose definitions and/or particular approaches to the conversation. Thus, participants could contribute with their own views and opinions (especially considering the different perspectives that each of these communities present).

Highlights:

➢ Legislation

Participants, from all regions, agreed that the possibility of requesting and accessing data in reusable formats should be part of every FOI legislation. In that sense, legislative reforms to explicit add these provisions in current FOI legislations are needed.

Data is the "raw material" that, after processed, can be turned into information. Thus, data is a component of information. That is why there is not much discussion about the links between data and information, and thus, the need to add provisions to request and access data in reusable formats to the current legislation. The possibility to request data in reusable formats is part of the changes that ICT have brought to every aspect of our lives.

Beyond this consensus on the need for reforms to expressly include the access to data in reusable formats, it should be noted that participants were also concern about the lack of infrastructure and capacities of public sector agencies to collect and publish data in those formats. In this regard, further work in terms of ​​record management is needed. A few decades ago this area was focused, among other things, on the preservation of documents to be later proactively published and/or disclosed when requested. However, nowadays, there is a need to create the infrastructure, the knowledge, and to have the will to allow instruments, that agencies use to generate and collect data, to be designed with the aim that data can be published and reused by any member of society.

➢ Uses

Although the time for discussion was very brief some other points were raised. One of those issues that were also mentioned was the need for a space to share story about the use of information and data. A common space to meet and promote the uses in both areas was mentioned as an initiative that should be developed. Studies, reports and other assessments can be very interesting for a certain sort of public but to tell a story, to give the data and information a context, can help people relate to the topic. This could help in the promotion of the value of accessing government data and information. This could assist not only for civil society organization working in these particular issues but also for public sector agencies that collect and publish such information and data.

➢ Measurements

This was one of the least explored issues during the workshop. Perhaps the complexity of the issue requires not only more time for the discussion but also participants specifically involved with issues of measurement.

In spite of that, there were mentions to the lack of consistent measurements, along with the need for them. It was also noted that there is a need to explore and carefully analyse what we need to measure (to ask about issues that matter most to both communities).

Although the idea of ​​joint and/or complementary measurements of both areas was not analysed, participants agreed on the need for more systematic information on the implementation of both policies/instruments.

➢ How to improve the dialogue between communities

This point was the workshop’s main objective, despite that it is known that it is very difficult to provide concrete options with such limited time. In the next few lines I would highlight some of the ideas that were discussed in the workshop and should be considered and implemented.

- Sectoral approach

This issue was raised in the group of Latin America but is a point that has been mentioned in other opportunities and meetings. This point is key to move forward a common agenda between the two communities.

In most of these conversations, the involved actors are “generalists” on each agenda (FOI or OGD) and they are, in most cases, unfamiliar with the use (and needs) of information and data in certain sectors such as health, education, etc. (Examples could be almost endless).

In the case of Latin America the area of ​​ human rights’ protection was highlighted. A large number of countries in the region (including the host of the Global Summit) have enormous difficulties in the area of ​​protection of those rights. This, like many other examples, could be a starting point for strengthening the relationship and communication between the communities of FOI and open data.

- Definition of priorities between the two communities

This topic is closely related to the above-mentioned point. While it is a very general idea, you need to start thinking about key areas (as mentioned in the previous paragraph), and, within these areas, the priorities for different actors. The latter is important because although both groups focus on similar objects (information and data), each does so from a different perspective, resources and with a myriad of goals.

- Improve and promote networking

This point, although it seems obvious, is key to continue the conversation. In this sense, it is necessary to create spaces of interaction (virtual and face-to-face) so debates are not limited to annual (or biannual) events and the will of the organizers to include a session or a workshop on this topic.

Much has been said on this point: from the idea of ​​a specific event to a platform to share stories. Despite the specifics, it is time to put the discussions aside, for a moment, and move on to the concretion of the ideas.

These were just some of my first impressions of the workshop on Tuesday 27^th. A couple of days later (Thursday, 29^th) we had the opportunity to address similar issues with the anchors of both (FOI and Open Data) OGP working groups. In the next post I will include some of the key points from that session.

Going back to the workshop, we only had a little over an hour to have a conversation. Although time did not allow for a deep conversation on each of the above-mentioned points, it is key that we have resumed the conversation (and in a face-to-face interaction). Much remains to be done. The convergence of agendas is an area that many mentioned but, for now, few have seriously addressed and resourced.

Los Desafíos de la Maduración

@SilvanavF

Increíble que ya hayan concluido dos de los eventos más esperados por la comunidad latinoamericana de datos abiertos. Sin darnos un minuto de respiro se sucedieron charlas, talleres y demás actividades. Es hora de resumir algunas de las impresiones antes de que nuevas actividades comiencen a poblar la agenda.

Mi último post hizo referencia a las expectativas, en particular en torno a la confluencia de las agendas de datos abiertos y del derecho de acceso a la información pública. Es momento, entonces, de pensar si las expectativas se cumplieron a lo largo de los 4 días de actividades. Para ello, un breve resumen de los puntos relevantes que han dejado Abrelatam y Condatos desde mi perspectiva:

• Ya no hay dudas que los dos eventos se han consolidados como de los mas relevantes en el área de la apertura de datos;
• América Latina no solo tiene un potencial enorme en el campo de la apertura de datos sino que ya ha comenzado a perfilarse como una región a la que no se puede dejar de hacer referencia cuando se debate sobre innovación, colaboración, comunidad y apertura;
• En lo que respecta al área de Datos Abiertos, en líneas generales, el foco de las conversaciones giro, en muchas oportunidades, en torno al uso de los datos (el “para qué de estas políticas?).
•  Asimismo, en correlato con el énfasis en el uso, también se hizo mucho hincapié en la medición de ese uso de los datos abiertos (para conocer su potencial impacto). De todos modos, la lógica proactiva de la publicación de datos, en la mayoría de los casos, imposibilita el conocer en forma exhaustiva los usos que se le dan a los datos.

•        El énfasis en la idea que el contexto es relevante es otra de las muestras de la madurez que esta comunidad esta alcanzando lentamente;
•         De todos modos, todavía falta aprender para evitar la tentación de replicar proyectos solo porque han sido exitosos (el concepto de éxito en este caso se encuentra asociado con cumplir, o exceder, los objetivos planteados)

En particular en el área de acceso a la información y datos abiertos para transparentar el accionar de los gobiernos:

•       Lentamente los actores relevantes del área del derecho de acceso a la información publica se están comenzando a acercar y a entender que necesitan del “know how” de actores de la comunidad de datos abiertos para poder aprovechar al máximo el potencial que tienen los datos abiertos gubernamentales para la transparencia (y, en algunos casos, la rendición de cuentas si es que existen los mecanismos institucionales adecuados)

•       De la misma manera, varios actores de la comunidad de datos saben que necesitan de las leyes de acceso a la información para obtener datos que no se publican en forma proactiva.
•       Los periodistas de investigación parecen ser los que hacen uso, con mas frecuencia, de ambas agendas y herramientas para poder acceder a la información necesaria para desarrollar sus notas.
•       Todavía quedan muchas batallas en torno a la posibilidad efectiva de acceder a bases de datos en formatos abiertos a través de pedidos de acceso a la información
•       En muchos casos una de las grandes barreras es la falta de digitalización de la información así como la falta de producción de información (incluso cuando el Estado se encuentra obligado por determinadas leyes a producirla)

Mas allá de las puntos relevantes en las conversaciones sobre Datos Abiertos, así como también en las charlas sobre la convergencia con la agenda del derecho de Acceso a la Información, es muy importante reflexionar acerca de cómo se moverá la comunidad de datos abiertos, de cara al próximo Abrelatam y Condatos (y el futuro cercano, en líneas generales, de la comunidad):

•        La comunidad latinoamericana de datos abiertos se encuentra en un diferente estadio de maduración desde el primer Abrelatam/Condatos en Montevideo, allá por el 2013.
•        Si bien nuevos actores se suman en cada nueva edición (así como en otros eventos) un gran número de los miembros de esta comunidad se han encontrado por los últimos años. Esto conduce a que las conversaciones y los temas han evolucionado, junto con estos actores.
•        La maduración no solo de la comunidad, sino de las temas relacionados con la apertura y uso de los datos, nos lleva a que tengamos que pensar, asimismo, en la adaptación de los eventos.
•        Una mayor profundidad en el enfoque de cada uno de los temas conlleva una nueva estructura de los eventos. Quizás las mesas en un formato como un “unconference” necesitaran ser pensadas con antelación (para evitar repetir conversaciones que no nos ayudan a avanzar con la magnitud que se podría).
•        Esto, de ningún modo, implica dejar de lado la espontaneidad de un evento como Abrelatam. Quizás tengamos que repensar como adaptarlo para poder aprovecharlo al máximo.
•        Los productos están avanzando, las charlas también deberían hacerlo.

Estos puntos (en cada uno de los temas/áreas) reflejan que las agendas relacionadas con información y datos gubernamentales se encuentran en proceso de maduración. Queda en cada uno de nosotros, miembros de estas comunidades, el animarnos a salir de la “zona de confort” (cada uno en nuestros respectivos espacios) y así colaborar para que estas agendas maduren. Desde las mediciones, los retos, las alianzas, las estrategias hasta la sustentabilidad de los proyectos, todos esos puntos necesitan ser analizados con una mayor profundidad.

En este contexto, las expectativas para el futuro deben dar paso a los planes concretos. Junto con un análisis mayor de los grandes temas se encuentra la necesidad de pasar de las charlas y debates a los planes conjuntos. Espero que estos breves puntos (cada uno de ellos necesitaría su propio desarrollo y análisis, pero los numerosos pendientes hacen que queden para otro momento) colaboren a pensar el año que nos espera por delante.

Superando las expresiones de deseo?

A un día del comienzo de las actividades “oficiales” de Abrelatam y Condatos la expectativa por lo que podemos aprender es mucha (y va in crescendo con las horas). Y por qué tantas expectativas? Porque creo firmemente que en la interacción con otros actores es donde mas podemos aprender y reflexionar. Y cuanto mas diversa sea esa comunidad de actores, mas enriquecedora será la experiencia.

En ese sentido, hay buenos augurios que permiten pensar que muchos estamos “in the same page” (perdón por el “spanglish’). El post de @appcivico reafirma la necesidad de abrir el campo de los datos para poder producir cambios efectivos. El taller sobre uso de leyes de acceso a la información, que coordinaremos junto a Romina Colman, también intenta aportar en ese mismo sentido.

Esperemos que estas agendas, diferentes pero con muchos puntos en común, se vean robustecidas con el accionar conjunto de diferentes actores. Asimismo, esperemos que ya pronto no haya que escribir sobre estas confluencias como una expresión de deseo sino como una manera habitual de encarar el trabajo en las diferentes agendas.

Understanding Mechanisms for Accessing Government Data and Information

@SilvanavF*

Back in 2013, I posted an article at the OGP Civil Society Hub blog on the need for a closer collaboration between the Freedom of Information (FOI) and Open Government Data (OGD) communities. A couple of years later (and many developments in these fields), the debate on the connections between FOI and OGD has resurfaced. The third International Open Data Conference (held in Canada in May 2015) provided the location and opportunity to reinvigorate the debate about the linkages between these two communities. Following the discussions at that event, a debate, which began as a discussion about the relationship between privacy and openness, soon focused on the lack of relationship between the FOI and OGD communities.

Despite the fact that these types of exchange have attracted more attention in FOI circles, the topic has not been ignored by the OGD organisations (in particular, the international groups). The concerns expressed in FOI circles have had a clear correlation in the reaction of international organisations such as the Web Foundation, MySociety and OKFN to the proposed weakening of the UK FOI Act. Thus, the current Government backlash against FOI in the UK, even though it is worrying news for the FOI community, has had positive side effects. The international organisations working in open data-related activities are publicly getting involved in the advocacy process, to try and stop the British government’s latest efforts to weaken that country’s FOI law.

In this context, this report predicated on the idea that there is still plenty to learn in terms of Freedom of Information and Open Government Data policies. Thus, it examines some of the basic differences and similarities between the two information-related initiatives of FOI and OGD. Despite OGD and FOI common points, the differences between these two fields have to be taken into account, especially in a context of paucity of joint activities.

This report also includes information on existing rankings, indices and other measurements used for these two initiatives, FOI and OGD. The assessments were also classified according to the main object, approach and goals, together with some geographical references.

Most of the measurements included in this report relate to the possibilities of access to information and data, and the possibility of reusing disclosed data (depending on the specific field). In this context, even though assessing these issues is not straightforward, we can see even greater efforts are needed if we are to progress to assessing the impacts of FOI and OGD.

There is much fruitful research, assessment and analysis to be done of both OGD and FOI. In addition to research on the conceptual aspects of both, there is a need to complement this with more action-based research into how these mechanisms of access and reuse are being used. Despite some research has been conducted in terms of the users of certain types of information and open data, further research is needed to develop a framework to allow for a global systematic assessment on the use of a government information and data.

There are also other points that need some effort in order to build bridges between the FOI and the OGD communities:

• On the FOI side, fairly close links have been developed with privacy/data protection specialists, as all FOI regimes need to navigate the boundary line between appropriate disclosure of government-held information and what would be inappropriate disclosure of personal information about third parties.  On the OGD side, technologists working to derive valuable insights datasets face similar privacy issues. Thus, there are connections that can be fostered here.
• There is also scope to explore collaboration on improvements to copyright and intellectual property legislation. There seems little reason why the rights to re-use data should be greater than the right to re-use information obtained via FOI requests.
• Similarly, there is room for collaboration on the question of file formats. While the formats and mechanisms needed by OGD practitioners may differ from those needed by FOI requesters, the latter are still subject to risks of not being able to use disclosed information if it is provided in a close file format.
• While the OGD movement may not have exhausted other technical and legal issues around datasets that are proactively published, practitioners are already seeking access to datasets that their government are unwilling to publish. Thus, the most likely area of collaboration between FOI and OGD communities will come in the issue of gaining access to datasets that governments do not wish to proactively publish, for reasons of political sensitivity mostly. It is here that the decades of experience built up by the FOI community can assist the OGD community. This collaboration can be foster by creating a physical and intellectual space for these FOI and OGD actors to come together to talk to each other (an space with people talking across each other could provide a better chance of an agreed approach to the disclosure of information and data).

In addition to these areas that are ripe for better collaboration at a practical level, conceptual and practical research will assist in removing misunderstandings and enhance the collaboration between these communities. Both successes and failures can help provide examples of the possible collaboration between these groups, and in different sectors (health, environment, education, etc.). Despite the efforts made in the last decade, we have really only begun to take some firsts steps, and there is much to do and a significant distance to be covered. Far more will be achieved, and with far greater efficiency, if both FOI and OGD communities invest in trying to develop a shared learning and research agenda. This will not only deliver more coherent and effective research outputs, but also build crucial bridges between the two communities.

*A variant of this post was published at the Web Foundation's blog.

Nota sobre Uso y Cumplimiento de la legislación de Acceso a la Información Pública en Brasil, Chile y México

@SilvanavF

Un control efectivo solo se logra si se cuenta con la información adecuada para poder demandarlo (por parte de la ciudadanía) y ejercerlo (por parte de organismos de fiscalización). Si no se generan datos acerca del desempeño de los sujetos obligados por la legislación sobre acceso a la información pública a responder a las solicitudes de información, el ejercicio de control sobre la implementación de dicha normativa, es en el mejor de los casos, incompleto y/o insuficiente. Por consiguiente, así también lo es el ejercicio del derecho de acceso a la información pública (AIP).

Para poder garantizar el acceso a la información pública es necesario mejorar el funcionamiento de los sistemas de información del sector público. Es por ello que, con el apoyo del Banco Mundial y la Red de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información, este estudio procura explorar brevemente experiencias de generación y publicación de datos sobre uso y cumplimiento de las leyes sobre acceso a la información pública en 3 países de América Latina: Brasil, Chile y México. De esta manera, esta nota, elaborada junto a mi colega Marcos Mendiburu, procura contribuir a los esfuerzos de aquellos países que se encuentran en etapas iniciales de implementación de dicha normativa, así como de aquellos que procuran mejorar los regímenes de acceso vigentes.

Link al documento aquí