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

The Access to Information and Transparency Network (RTA) together with the World Bank has just released the English version of the Note on Online Platforms to process Access to Information (ATI) requests in 3 countries in Latin America

@SilvanavF

Over the past two decades, advances in information and communication technology (ICT) have transformed the way people access and interact with the information produced and held by governments. The development of online platforms, which enable users to file requests for information under access to public information (ATI) legislation, is one of many examples of these changes.

Despite the growing number of such platforms, there is a lack of literature that explores the main characteristics or the processes behind these platforms’ design and implementation. In this context, the documentation of experiences, and the exchange of knowledge with those who have already gone through this process, is especially valuable for governments that are embarking on this path.

The study – supported by the World Bank and the Transparency and Access to Information Network (RTA, as per the acronym in Spanish) – focuses on online platforms that have been developed in three countries from Latin America, as part of their efforts for implementing ATI legislation. This note briefly presents three experiences (Brazil, Chile, and Mexico) with the aim to buttress the efforts of other countries that are seeking to build similar online platforms.

Link to the report (in English) here.


The original Spanish version of this note was launched back in September 2014. 

Original version (in Spanish) here.

IODC15 Recount / Recuento de la Conferencia Internacional de Datos Abiertos 2015

@SilvanavF

Spanish version below/ debajo, la version en español 

After a really long trip back from Canada to Australia, it is time to share some of the ideas and reflections from the third International Open Data Conference (IODC). There are two points that have resonated with me the most mainly because of my background and interests.

1) The relevance of Latin America in the Open Data (OD) and Open Government Data (OGD) field; and

2) The need for a closer relationship between OGD and FOI is starting to come up as a topic in global OGD conversations.

I want to share a few ideas on both topics before going back to my daily activities. Not only to have feedback from participants but also as a personal archive of my view on a particular moment to see how they change (or not) over the next few months and years.

1) Latin America and the OGD field

The IODC has provided evidence of the prominent position of Latin American groups and individuals as actors to keep an eye on in the OGD field. Even though the agenda was born in the Global North, the interest of the Latin American community on this topic has steadily grown over the past 5 years.

If we look at the panels at the main conference as well as during the pre-events (such as the un-conference and the research symposium) the presence of Latin American actors was conclusive. In some panels, such as the panel on policy and initiatives at the Research Symposium, all the presenters were from Latin America (and this was not a geographically focused session).

However it is probably not such a surprise after all. The Latin American Open Data  (in all its variants) community has produced applications, researches, events and other activities, which have attracted the interest of actors around the world (a small example, Justin Arenstein wearing an Abrelatam t-shirt and throwing in a plug for the next event in Chile)

Why this is happening? Why is this Latin American community producing so many resources? Many reasons could be given but probably not of them is entirely correct or complete. I can guess:

- A high level of higher education in some countries in the region;

- High level of Internet penetration in many of the main Latin American cities;
- Influence of entrepreneurship culture in some places;
- The opportunities that a new field of work provide may attract many young professionals;
- In some cases, the importance of the transparency agenda relates to the inclusion of ICT for transparency initiatives;
- The presence of international donors to provide some support (but not in a level for the activities to be mostly donor-driven); and
- An important level of political participation in some countries in the region.

These are all guesses/preliminary hypotheses -as I haven’t done a thorough research on the topic- coming mostly from personal observation (but it would be a very relevant topic for some researcher who wants to take up the challenge). Despite knowing (or not) the reasons for this success, the number, importance and potential of the work of many of the actors in the region are beginning to be recognised. This potential will become an evident reality if some of the actors keep collaborating with each other as they are currently starting to.

2) The need for a closer relationship between OGD and FOI communities is starting to come up as a topic in global OGD conversations

It has been a while since I started to work on the similarities and divergences of the FOI and the OGD fields. For quite some time I believed that, despite my personal interest on the topic, nobody else (from both fields) would care. To my surprise (despite the relationship seems obvious, at least to me) during the first day of main event at the IODC15 the idea that there is a need to connect both communities, FOI and OGD, surfaced in one of the panels (I presented some ideas the previous day during the research symposium).

Even though nothing clear and/or concrete came out of the mentions and tweets, the recognition of the connections -and the need to strengthen that relationship between both communities- is a great step in the right direction. 

The second good news about this same topic relates to the good reception that the session on the right to information and open data received. To be honest, in the context of an Open Data conference I thought that a session on Right to Information wouldn't be too popular. Even though there wasn't a large amount of people, the interest that the participants showed in the topic was really encouraging. Some of the points that came up during the conversations at this session were:

- Differences between both communities;

- The role of online portals to request information, in particular civil society websites such as Alaveteli platforms (which were also mentioned in some of the tweets on the topic);

- The predominantly reactive and proactive nature of each of the initiatives and the linkage with the role of civil society actors;
- The need for deeper connections to take advantage of all the possibilities in a diverse range of fields that government-held information and data can provide.

Despite the importance of all these points, the most important comments during the session were the ones related to the desire and need to learn more about the topic. Those comments made my day and left me with hopes for the future connections between these two fields.

After these brief comments, I would like to close this post with a reminder on two events later this year that tie up both the topics covered in the previous paragraphs. In September, Santiago will host Abrelatam and Condatos. These two events present a great opportunity to keep working on the two above-mentioned topics: the Latin American community and the relationship between FOI and OGD. Hope to see you there! 

----------------

Después de un largo viaje de regreso desde Canadá hasta Australia creo que llegó el momento de compartir algunas de las ideas y reflexiones que surgieron durante la tercera Conferencia Internacional Open Data (IODC). De todos los temas conversados dos puntos son los que mas me han atraído, principalmente debido a mis antecedentes e intereses.

1) La relevancia de la región latinoamericana en el campo de los Datos Abiertos (provenientes del sector público, así como también en lineas generales); y

2) El tema de la necesidad de una relación más estrecha entre las áreas de Datos Abiertos y de Acceso a la Información Pública está comenzando a surgir en las conversaciones globales de la comunidad de datos abiertos.

Quiero compartir algunas ideas sobre ambos temas antes de volver a mis actividades cotidianas, no sólo para tener retroalimentación de otros actores, sino también como un archivo personal de mi ideas. Esto último me permitirá ver los cambios en las ideas a lo largo de los próximos meses y años.

1) América Latina y los Datos Abiertos (mayormente provenientes del sector público)

La IODC ha dejado en evidencia que varios grupos e individuos de América Latina se han posicionado como actores clave en el campo de los datos abiertos. Si bien la agenda de Datos Abiertos ha nacido en países desarrollados del hemisferio norte, el interés de la comunidad latinoamericana en este tema ha crecido, en forma constante, durante los últimos 5 años.

Los paneles del evento principal de la Conferencia de Datos Abiertos, así como durante las pre-eventos (la “desconferencia” y el simposio de investigación, por ejemplo), son testimonio de la masiva presencia de actores latinoamericanos. Un claro ejemplo de ello fue que en algunos paneles- como el de política e iniciativas en el Simposio de Investigación- todos los presentadores eran latinoamericanos. Cabe señalar que este panel no tenia ningún tipo de foco regional (o geográfico de algún otro tipo).

Esta importante participación, probablemente, no sea una gran sorpresa para muchos, después de todo. El movimiento de Datos Abiertos (en todas sus variantes) en América Latina ha creado aplicaciones, desarrollado investigaciones, organizado eventos, entre otras actividades, que han atraído el interés de actores en todo el mundo (una muestra de ello es el momento en que Justin Arenstein, vistiendo una remera de Abrelatam, anuncia su participación en el próximo evento en Chile)

¿Por qué está sucediendo esto? Se podrían esgrimir muchas razones, pero probablemente ninguna de las que yo pueda ofrecer en este post sean enteramente correctas o completas. Podría argumentar:

- Un alto nivel de la educación superior en varios países de la región;
- Alto nivel de penetración de Internet en muchas de las principales ciudades de América Latina;
- Influencia de la cultura emprendedora en algunos zonas de la región;
- Las posibilidades proporcionadas por un nuevo campo de trabajo pueden atraer a muchos jóvenes profesionales;
- En algunos casos, la importancia de la agenda de la transparencia en la región (principalmente en aquellas iniciativas relacionadas con el uso de las TICs para la transparencia);
- Presencia de donantes internacionales que proporcionan cierto nivel de apoyo (pero, a su vez, esa presencia no es tan dominante como para que las iniciativas estén mayormente dirigidas por las necesidades de los donantes); y
- Un alto nivel de participación política en muchos países de la región..

Todas las razones enunciadas son conjeturas/hipótesis preliminares (no excluyentes) provenientes de observación personal - no he hecho una investigación exhaustiva sobre el tema, aunque sería un tema muy interesante para algún investigador que quiera asumir el reto. A pesar de que esos sean o no los motivos de la relevancia de la región, es indiscutible que el número, importancia y potencial de muchos de los actores de la región están comenzando a ser reconocidos globalmente. Este potencial se convertirá en una realidad si algunos de los actores mantienen colaborar entre sí como ya han comenzado a hacerlo.

2) La necesidad de una relación más estrecha entre las comunidades de Datos Abiertos del sector público y de Acceso a la Información Pública está comenzando a surgir como un tema relevante en las conversaciones globales de la comunidad de Datos Abiertos. 

Ya ha transcurrido bastante tiempo desde que comencé a trabajar en las similitudes y divergencias de las áreas de Datos Abiertos del sector público y el Acceso a la Información Pública. Hasta hace algún tiempo creía que, a pesar de mi interés, la relación entre ambas comunidades no era un tema relevante para otros actores (en ambos campos). Para mi sorpresa (a pesar de que la importancia de la relación es evidente, al menos para mí) durante el primer día del evento principal en el IODC15 la idea de que hay una necesidad de conectar ambas comunidades salió claramente a la superficie en una de las conversaciones (presenté algunas ideas pero el día anterior, durante el simposio de investigación).

No es que las menciones y los tweets hayan llevado a alguna conclusión concreta y clara pero el reconocimiento de las conexiones entre ambas comunidades es un paso en la dirección correcta.

La segunda buena noticia fue la buena recepción que recibió la sesión sobre el derecho a la información y los datos abiertos. Para ser honesta, en el contexto de una conferencia Datos Abiertos, yo creía que una sesión sobre Derecho a Acceso a la Información no sería una opción muy popular. A pesar de que los participantes no se agolparon para ingresar a la sala, el número e interés de los participantes fue muy alentador. Algunos de los puntos que surgieron durante las conversaciones en esta sesión fueron:

- Las diferencias entre ambas comunidades;
- El papel de los portales en linea para solicitar información, en particular los sitios web desarrollados por actores de sociedad civil como alaveteli (que también fueron mencionados en algunos de los tweets sobre el tema);
- La naturaleza predominantemente reactiva y proactiva de cada una de las iniciativas y la vinculación con el rol de los actores de sociedad civil; y
- La necesidad de conexiones más profundas para aprovechar todas las posibilidades que la información y los datos en poder del gobierno pueden proporcionar

A pesar de la importancia de todos estos puntos, los comentarios más importantes durante la sesión fueron los relacionados con el deseo y la necesidad de aprender más sobre el tema. Eso hizo mi día y me dejó con muchas esperanzas sobre lo que podemos hacer en el futuro próximo en relación a la conexión entre estos dos campos.

Después de estos breves comentarios, me gustaría terminar este post con un recordatorio de dos eventos que se realizan este año y que unen los dos temas mencionados en estas breves líneas. En septiembre, Santiago será la ciudad anfitriona de Abrelatam y Condatos. Estos dos eventos presentan una gran oportunidad para seguir trabajando en los dos temas arriba mencionados: la comunidad Latinoamericana y la relación entre la libertad de información y la OGD. Espero que nos encontremos allí para seguir reflexionando! 

Session notes: A7 - Measuring open data impacts / Mesurer les effets des données ouvertes

@SilvanavF

As I mentioned in a previous post, there is an over-demand for measurements, rankings and assessments. This is so as, on the demand side of information, advocacy groups and practitioners find it easier to promote something based on certain results that they cab prove. On the supply side of information, champions inside public administration need to “sell” the benefits that these types of polices bring (and to show them that the pros surpass the cons) to the staff implementing these policies as well as the heads of the agencies and/or governments taking the decisions.

The large amount of people in this session might be related to the above-mentioned demand for measurements. As a rapporteur, there is not much I can say about this session, as the work was mainly focus on each of the individual groups. Each of them focused on a key issue regarding measurements. They were:

-        Refining the Common Assessment Methods Framework

-        Building a Roadmap for open data measurements

-        Creating resources for researchers

-        Assessing sectoral open data: the case of National Statistical systems

Global rankings, ratings, indexes, barometers, they all refer to the idea of placing the elements of a given universe in a certain order. However, this order is not arbitrary. Thus, rankings, ratings, among others, refer to the placement of a certain list of objects according to a set of criteria/variables. In this sense, it does not necessarily mean that the objects in the first positions of that ranking are more valuable/useful than the ones at the bottom. It just means that those first objects are closer to preferable conditions set by the author of that scale. The first 3 groups have a clear relationship with the development and refinement of previous and future variables/criteria to assess the different initiatives.

At the end of the session facilitators met and selected the messages (actions) that were later taken to the plenary. Barbara Ubaldi presented to the plenary. For new developments on this action area, the IODC organizers suggested to check the action area #7 in their website. Hopefully we will see less overlapping and more accuracy in the measuring exercises to come.

What are we measuring?

@Silvanavf

Openness and transparency are overused buzzwords these days. At the risk of sounding redundant, these two qualities are related to the asymmetry of the informational resources between governments and citizens in an information age (in words of Castells). In this context, not only freedom of information (FOI) has amounted to more than a hundred laws worldwide but also open government data (OGD) initiatives have become a trend for governments everywhere (these numbers have increased after the launch of the Open Government Partnership- OGP[1]).

References to openness and transparency can be found in blogs, academic papers and now, more than ever, in political speeches (specially when close to election’s times). Not only these concepts are overused, there is also an over-demand for measurements, rankings and assessments. This last statement relates to the demand side of information as advocacy groups and practitioners find it difficult to promote something based on certain impact when it is difficult to prove. On the supply side of information, public administration’s champions need to “sell” the benefits that these types of polices bring (and to show them that the pros surpass the cons) to the staff implementing these policies as well as the heads of the agencies and/or governments taking the decisions. 

In this context, during the first semester of 2015 we have witnessed the launch of several initiatives that try to measure the impact, results and other variables related to the disclosure of government-held information and data. Some of those exercises are related to open government data, others to transparency in a broader sense. All these global exercises should be added to the long list of available measurements, rankings and index in FOI and OGD fields. Thus, are these exercises enough? Do we need to think a new way to assess them both?

- Rankings, ratings and other measurements

Global rankings, ratings, indexes, barometers, they all refer to the idea of placing the elements of a given universe in a certain order. However, this order is not arbitrary. Thus, rankings, ratings, among others, refer to the placement of a certain list of objects according to a set of criteria/variables. In this sense, it does not necessarily mean that the objects in the first positions of that ranking are more valuable/useful than the ones at the bottom. It just means that those first objects are closer to preferable conditions set by the author of that scale. Thus, it is important to highlight that in all cases (FOI and OGD) these measurements reflect the availability of information and not the impact of this initiatives (policies and/or legislations)

There are numerous examples to illustrate these ideas. Some of them from the Open Data field are, for example the indexes, such as Global Open Data Index^[2] by OKFN, which presents information on the current state of open data release around the world, according to a list of criteria. In terms of ratings, a clear example is the RTI (Right to Information) rating developed by Access Info Europe and the Centre for Law and Democracy. This exercise is based on placing a large list of RTI legislation according to the correlation between the text of the law and a set of standards (most of them originated in Mendel’s work “Principles on Freedom of Information Legislation” back in the 90s when he was a member of Article 19)

The Open Data Barometer is another example of this list of initiatives. This exercise is more rigorous in the correlation between the information they present and the name of their initiative. A barometer reflects changes in circumstances or opinions and, thus, the gathered information aims to reflect changes in the disclosure of data disclosed in open reusable formats.

Despite the lack of literature, in particular in terms of measurement and impact, in the FOI and even more in the OGD field, there is some relevant work on the area. In the case of FOI, there is some analysis on the different types of rankings and index. In these exercises, they mostly refer to the link between FOI and transparency. This close relationship between FOI and transparency (as a necessary previous step towards accountability^[3], in most cases) has been portrayed in most of the assessments. As explained by Sheila Coronel a couple of years ago, “the existing ratings differ only in the countries they cover and some of the indicators they use. There is already much overlap in this field” [4]. A similar situation can be pictured in the OGD field. 

Even though both fields are intrinsically related there are some important points that differ FOI and OGD (I won’t go into the details as I wrote about this in previous posts). Despite all the differences in the assessments there are also some other variables in both within and between both fields. This is my attempt at classification:

Scope:

•       One Country (government and civil society) Even though this is not the focus of this post but it is important to include them here.

•       Global (international). Mostly from INGOs and/or IGOs

Object:

•       Information

•       Open Data

•       Proactive disclosure

•       Reactive disclosure

•       Public information

•       Personal information

Types of Assessment:

•       Performance/implementation

•       Legal assessment

Thus, if we take these variables we can classify some of the assessments in both fields, as follow:

Access to Government-held Information

(RTI/FOI)

Open Government Data- Right to Data

-       Recommendation for future assessments combining both fields:

Summing up some of the above-mentioned ideas and looking into the future of both fields, there are some points I would like to share (hoping to get feedback to keep thinking about these issues).

Firstly, if we are talking about different initiatives (even though they share similar resources), different goals and different scopes, we also need to think about the need to design different assessments (or joint assessments but focusing on different elements).

Thus, we need to have a baseline in both areas (in global initiatives) to which the different assessments can add their own particularities. There are basic elements in both fields such as the presence of FOI legislation according to international standards and the actual possibility of reusing (licensing and copyright) the disclosed data in reusable formats. This means that in each of the accessed districts, users have a guaranteed right to access government-held information (legislation) and also a guaranteed access to preferable format (to request OGD and not only obtain the data via governments’ proactive disclosure).

In terms of implementation (as sometimes the letter of the legislation has little to say about the actual right to access government-held information and data in a given country), it is necessary to count with statistics on compliance in FOI and OGD. This type of information will allow advocates and researchers to produce an accurate picture of the access to information and data in a given district.

Another important point is to have statistics on the use of that government-held information and data (even though the proactive disclosure of OGD makes this type of figures really difficult to gather).

These are all basic elements that scholars and advocates in both fields already know. However, there are another sort of recommendations, closely related to the common sense, but it is important to remember when designing a global/international measurement in FOI and/or OGD. They are:

-       Clear goals (what do we want to measure and what for?)

-       Clear methodology according to the goals (don’t follow established practices just because everybody is doing the same thing but don’t try to reinvent the wheel if it is not necessary either)

-       If you are not adding value, don’t waste resources. In some cases, “the existing ratings differ only in the countries they cover and some of the indicators they use. There is already much overlap in this field”

-       Acknowledgment of the particularities of each initiative (different types of disclosure, scope, etc.)

-       Acknowledgment of the particularities of each reality (context matters)

I started this post saying that, following Sheila (Coronel Columbia Journalism School) we are in “the midst of an explosion in the measurement of government openness and the accessibility of information to the public”. In this context, it is extremely important to learn from past mistakes and also to avoid “reinventing the wheel”. And why this is important? Just because, as mentioned by Alan Hudson (Global Integrity), “assessments, done right, can be an entry-point for learning and reflection”, and both fields really need to learn from each other and to reflect about how to improve not only the availability of information and data but also the actual use to promote not only transparency but also accountability (among many other important goals).

Notes:  

[1] “The Open Government Partnership is a multilateral initiative that aims to secure concrete commitments from governments to promote transparency, empower citizens, fight corruption, and harness new technologies to strengthen governance. In the spirit of multi-stakeholder collaboration, OGP is overseen by a Steering Committee including representatives of governments and civil society organizations.”

“The Open Government Partnership formally launched on September 20, 2011, when the 8 founding governments (Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, the Philippines, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States) endorsed the Open Government Declaration, and announced their country action plans. In just two years, OGP has welcomed the commitment of 57 additional governments to join the Partnership.”

http://www.opengovpartnership.org

^[2] It is used to be called Open Data Census, which it was clearly a methodological mistake as only some countries are reviewed in the exercises (not all the elements of the universe, clearly)

^[3] Despite the many differences- emphasis on the formats in the case of the OGD assessments, for example- in both cases the measurements and assessments relate to the availability of different types of information. In both cases, the measurements are just indicators of opaque (mostly) and clear transparency (in words of Jonathan Fox), depending on the case.

^[4] There is a broad agreement among transparency researchers that the presence of FOI laws is an insufficient measure of transparency (Coronel, 2012)