@jaydaley just replying to your comment in the other thread as I think there is an impact here to think about (and we've refocused our discussion here around impacts).

To quote @jaydaley from another thread:

"Cam - From this page: https://www.ict.govt.nz/guidance-and-resources/open-government/new-zealand-data-and-information-management-principles/ I see no mention in the NZDIMP of specific NZ laws such as the Privacy Act. Am I looking at the right thing?"

NZDIMP mentions "... Official Information Act or other government policy" so while not explicit, you could interpret this to include privacy concerns under the Privacy Act

Further down the page it also makes references to "Complementary Documents" which includes the Privacy Act among others explicitly.

The impact I see here is if the ODC became a core set of principles for NZ, how might we express the interconnectedness with the existing legislation in the New Zealand context? I feel like there would need to be some work around a "New Zealand layer" of interpretation that would be part of implementing the ODC. What might that look like?

I think this is similar to the impact raised by @aaronmcglinchy in some of the other threads.

Interestingly, the Open Data Charter has some information around the adoption process http://opendatacharter.net/adopt-the-charter/

Would be great to hear your thoughts and explore this further.

Thanks @camfindlay1. The applications of various laws to this space apply regardless of whether or not the principles/charter reference those so no specific reference is necessary.

The main purpose then in referencing other laws is to inform/remind those people in agencies and the public who are involved in this area that those laws apply. If it's felt sufficiently important then that can done inside the principles/charter as has been done with the OIA in NZDIMP or it can be done outside it as with the 'Complementary Documents' section to that web page. Personally I think there are too many to reference them inside the principles/charter and that reduces the benefit of a globally standard charter.

I would recommend exactly what the ODC recommends on the link you pointed to - that there is a statement of adoption of the ODC that contains the localisation necessary.

As someone from outside Gov't who has not had a stake in developing NZDIMP I am struggling to see why this level of debate on adopting the ODC is needed.

The ODC should be seen for what it is - a more modern set of principles, agreed at a global level and primarily focused on how citizens will use the data. Contrast this with NZDIMP

• While the NZDIMP are only a couple of years older than the ODC there has been a significant shift in areas such as data being "released free of charge" and being made "interoperable" that NZDIMP does not capture. Even without the ODC there would be a clear case for a major update to the NZDIMP but with the ODC one has to question if that is needed when a more modern path already exists.

• While the NZDIMP were ahead of their time and includes some elements that are not in ODC, we are never going to have the perfect world where a global standard reflects all of our local contribution. The benefits of a global standard are clear - the best practice, tools, policies, etc developed in other countries can be imported and we can export our best practice, tools, policies, etc.

• The NZDIMP is focused on agencies and what they should be doing and why, whereas the ODC is described as a set of expectations that citizens can have of the data. This is a crucial difference and one where the ODC takes a far better approach than the NZDIMP.

Sorry if this sounds dismissive of the excellent work undertaken but - I feel that this decision is a bit of a distraction from real progress and the ODC should just replace the NZDIMP and then we can move on.

@jaydaley could I ask you nicely to rephase your proposal and let a voter understand what it means for them to agree or disagree in this case.

Can you define "replace" here, do we simply drop NZDIMP overnight? What might be the impacts then? Put yourself in the shoes of someone in an agency that has integrated NZDIMP tightly with their internal policies (they've acted in good faith and adopted the open approach as set out in the principles, a good thing)? How might they feel about this?

Perhaps take your statement in the current proposal verbatim and re-post as a comment in the thread too?

Remember we are building the case for adoption during this consultation (and investigating the impacts). There is follow up work to be done afterwards once we've built up the picture, so the proposal question may be more correct to say something like "I support the adoption of the Open Data Charter ... "*

Yes, it's semantics and language is important on the web (just as we've seen with "data" and "information" already) :smiley:

@camfindlay1 I understand there is work to be done if the ODC is adopted and discussion is certainly needed to unpick the implications and provide assistance and guidance to those working with the current NZDIMP. However, I think in this case we would be better off not mixing up the decision and the implementation and tackling the two separately. That's mainly because the ODC is a reasonable forward step from the NZDIMP (not perfect) and when framed in that way the implementation discussion becomes a progressive conversation.

I will change the wording to "I support the adoption..." as you suggest to acknowledge that there is work to be done after the decision is made.

As requested by @camfindlay1 I'm posting the text of my proposal "I support the adoption of the Open Data Charter as a replacement for the NZ Data and Information Management Principles" here verbatim:

"I am concerned that discussing this much further is a distraction from real progress and we just need to adopt the ODC and move forward.

While I regard the NZDIMP as world leading at the time they were produced and I am deeply appreciative of the efforts that were put into developing them, I believe the ODC is superior in three key aspects:

• The ODC is more modern and deals with a number of key areas such as pricing (free of charge in ODC) and interoperability better than NZDIMP.

• The ODC is a global standard and by adopting it we get all the synergies that come from working within a global standard with committed partners.

• The ODC is framed from the perspective of the citizens who will use the data in contrast to the NZDIMP that are framed from the perspective of agencies that publish data. The ODC approach better reflects the general shift in government interactions with citizens.

Following this decision a discussion is needed to determine if the ODC is a simple drop-in replacement for the NZDIMP or if further work is needed. However, I see that as being a progressive conversation given the important step forward that ODC brings."

Thanks @jaydaley - let's also update the proposal context text to set out some detail as to what "agree" means (phrasing proposals I have found to be part art and science to help others understand enough to lend their position :smiley: ).

Do you think something along these lines in place of your concerns text (which is now captured in the conversation section) might suit the proposal? If so, feel free to replace :thumbsup:

Agreement in this proposal means you: generally support the adoption of the ODC in New Zealand, you'd like to see the ODC replace the NZDIMP directly, you accept that there would be some work to be carried out to determine how this happens in practice (and we will begin to discuss this further in this thread).

This helps make the question a "yes, and..." style question inviting further dialogue.

@weijileong would you please suggest a rephrasing of this proposal - I can understand the spirit behind what @jaydaley is proposing here and think we should let it run. I agree that some of the preamble to that proposal would be best as part of the dialogue section in Loomio rather than the proposal context. Remember we can also run a series of small proposals towards a larger one.

I'd suggest once we can get a workable (it might not be 100% perfect, and what is?) proposal we close the current one and @jaydaley opens a new one with suggested phrasing. Note once a vote is placed on a proposal you cannot change it (to avoid a bait and switch situation).

@weijileong @jaydaley are you happy with this approach? Let's try to resolve and get the proposal underway by the end of the day if possible :thumbsup:

Hi @weijileong the leading points in my proposal are both explicit (nothing is being concealed) and intentional as I am intentionally proposing that we skip a lengthy comparison between NZDIMP and ODC and move straight to adoption of ODC based on a small set of important strategic differences.

A fully objective proposal to support the adoption of ODC over NZDIMP is not possible without thorough discussion of the two approaches, which is specifically what I am attempting to skip. If I were to change the proposal in that way, that would defeat the purpose of proposing this in this way and deny those of us who feel this way a chance to vote on a proposal of this nature.

A suggestion here then, given in the context on this thread we ask:

"As a thought experiment, consider what is affected or might need to change assuming the Open Data Charter was adopted in NZ."

Perhaps we can have dialogue here under that assumption and the current specific proposal isn't required until the end of the consult period once we've worked through a number of smaller proposals, impacts and issues?

I am quite wary of a vocal few trying to push for "either or" changes without consideration of how it may impact on the lives of others. I can empathize with the need for speed, but there is also a need to balance that with consideration for those who need more time.

Here is a draft proposal which is by no means authoritative:

~~

Title: Fast-tracking adoption of ODP as replacement of NZDIMP

I am concerned that discussing this much further is a distraction from real progress, so let us vote here to see whether we want to fast-track the direct adoption of ODP over NZDIMP, or take a more considered and balanced approach.

The ODC can be seen as superior over the NZDIMP in three key aspects:

• The ODC is more modern and deals with a number of key areas such as pricing (free of charge in ODC) and interoperability better than NZDIMP.

• The ODC is a global standard and by adopting it we get all the synergies that come from working within a global standard with committed partners.

• The ODC is framed from the perspective of the citizens who will use the data in contrast to the NZDIMP that are framed from the perspective of agencies that publish data. The ODC approach better reflects the general shift in government interactions with citizens.

On the other hand, we may want to retain aspects of the NZDIMP because:

• The NZDIMP not only considers data per se, but also information derived from open data.

• The NZDIMP has a clearer mandate on "long-term preservation and access" to data and information, whereas the ODP is more fuzzy, stating that historical copies of datasets are preserved, archived, and kept accessible as long as they retain value

• TODO: add another point

Following this decision a discussion is needed to determine if the ODC is a simple drop-in replacement for the NZDIMP or if further work is needed.

Agreement to this proposal means you support the adoption of the ODC in New Zealand, you’d like to see the ODC replace the NZDIMP directly and you note that there would be some work to be carried out to determine how this happens in practice (and we will begin to discuss this further in this thread).

~~

P.S. Someone might want to summarize some of the new points (at https://www.loomio.org/d/TA7dG9lj/aspects-of-nzdimp-not-found-in-odc) to put into the proposal e.g. those things around standards @aaronmcglinchy

Would be great to see you all in tomorrows teleconference around this, see https://www.loomio.org/d/rMwU9c3i :thumbsup:

Generally when New Zealand signs up to any international treaty or convention or charter, it tries to be already compliant or able to become so within a feasible time-frame. New Zealand law and practice can be different where there is substantive difference, sometimes due to historical peculiarities.

In other words, NZ could sign up to the Open Data Charter as the policy framework and review, and if necessary change, the NZDIMP as an operational guide for implementation. The two should be complementary. Other parts of New Zealand's policies and practices should be considered for where they fit - including those on Privacy and Surveillance and Access to Government Information.

Government agencies usually require more specific information than a broad charter for guidance on actions. A modified and expanded NZDIMP would fit with an All of Government Approach, and then each agency would have its own simple and clear guides or examples of use for internal reference. Not for more bureaucracy but to save time, just as with standards for dealing with Official Information Act (OIA) requests.

Principles (ODC) policies (NZDIMP), practical matters (circulars to agencies), and examples (in agency guides).

Thanks for the response @kayscarlet - just to see if I've got your points correct:
- you are saying that the government often likes to be already aligned to something before adopting rather than adopting and pulling itself into line in an iterative way (ideally with public input and collaboration).
- You are in support of a more operational layer that sits underneath a hypothetical ODC adoption, this may be a revamped NZDIMP or some derivative of this that applies to All of Government (AoG).

I am thinking it might be good to explore more about this NZ layer might look like, is it some boxes to tick? or is it something that when implemented helps to drive culture change around open data over time?

Yes @camfindlay1 in my experience with ILO Conventions the Government goes through a process before signing up to an international agreement of checking what we already do, what we can do without much extra work, and where more work is needed, and what the implications are for cost and in regard to other agreements and practices. Like Due Diligence. MFAT are usually involved and outline the process for here
https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/about-us/who-we-are/treaty-making-process/

While the OD Charter is less rigorous than a treaty or convention, Cabinet is used to the process going this way and adoption of the ODC would be smoother if all boxes can be ticked.

If implemented correctly - via a comprehensive data base, requiring registration / login each access (a pre requisite for most government websites) would be a welcomed research toil for many. Information pertaining to/ affecting matters of national security and sensative information of individuals protected by privacy laws and subject to information act must be unavailable. Legal reference guides provided for such searches.
It is important that public access to info is not orherwise restricted particularly in the case of government / policy making in order to hold credibilty. As a government information portal, it has to be transparent, unbias and without agenda.

Thanks for your comment @awhinaforbes - a couple of questions and a statement for you to clarify :smiley:

1. Are you saying that you think requiring registration to access data if made easy to use is an ok thing?

2. When you use the term "information" in your comment do you mean raw information (data) or something more refined (that is, someone has take something raw and produced something from this)?

3. When we talk about "open data" we are referring to non-sensitive data so this would exclude personal identifiable information and things in the matter of national security. Have a look over Principle 1 in the Open Data Charter to see more about what is said about this point.

Dear Cam forgive me, for jumping the gun...

Look, I wholeheartedly support the sharing of knowledge in its purest form, and site that provided tools to group and flip raw data into a visual resource, so information is available at a glance... is brilliant!

Open Data Policy is inevitable. It's introduction merely numbers the days of non transparent governance.

It's truly gladening to the soul to know that our generation has laid down what I believe to the first stone upon which future generations can rebuild new transparent governance.

"Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the world."

If in the implementation process there arises any issues... It would be wise to ensure a witness of sorts, at all times.

Jungle is full of wild animals... ;)

Posting on behalf of @keithabooth commenting as Interim Public Lead for Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand (with permission of course):

[W]e support New Zealand all of government information and data policy continuing to explictly endorse open licensing. This is in line with the Open Data Charter and picks up on the NZDIMP Reusable Principle stating that "copyright works are licensed for re-use, and open access to and re-use of non-copyright materials is enabled, in accordance with the New Zealand Government Open Access and Licensing framework." This is also in line with the detailed Policy Principles in the New Zealand Government Open Acess and Licensing framework and government's adoption of Creative Commons licences when agencies release contents for re-use.

We also support retention of the concepts of ownership, stewardship and custodianship of all government-held information. Examples would be unpublished manuscripts, documents, records, images, collections, personal and restricted information and data as well as open data. As these concepts and the details set out in the Reusable NZDIMP principle have been incorporated in many agencies' information strategies, we submit that an updated policy must continue to embrace all government held information and data.

We also support retention of language in the New Zealand policy that retains a direct link to the Privacy and Official Information Acts. The 'readily available' NZDIMP Principle uses the words in the purpose statement of the Official Information Act and the 'closed' NZDIMP principle uses the words from the purpose statement of the Privacy Act. We would like these high level statements to continue and we support them being supplemented by practical guidance but not being replaced. It is an opportunity to be more explicit about their source to avoid future questions about their language.

We also support a new principle stating that government-held information and data are free of charge.

Adding my support to that last line: "We also support a new principle stating that government-held information and data are free of charge."

And adding my agreement to @jaydaley's (now-closed) proposal. I absolutely support the adoption of the ODC, and most likely as a replacement for (rather than another layer on top of) the NZDIMP.

Underlying the adoption of the Open Data Charter (which I support) there should also be more information for public and government workers, and more training, on the spectrum of data and how it should be treated.

Context:
In their lifetime any person in New Zealand trusts the government with a range of personal data in order to participate in society. Even before birth a baby is entered into the health system, their parent(s) details recorded, a birth registered, information transferred to IRD for entitlements, further data recorded in education institutes. This data capture is understood and broadly accepted. At particular points people can opt out of their data being transferred and they have access to their records for checking and correcting if needed. Personal identifiers may be stripped and data aggregated to create data sets for open data, or maintained as cleaned but closed data sets for public good research.

Recommendations in Paper
In my view, recommendations to Government on the adoption of the Open Data Charter should make the link with other moves within government for greater emphasis of open data sets for public and private use, and for greater sharing with the IDI (Integrated Data Infrastructure) coordinated by Statistics NZ, and access to closed data for public good research or specific needs e.g. ACC Sensitive Claims data validating different treatment of some data e.g. address of a person or family fleeing an abusive ex-partner. Guidance and training for public servants should include data literacy, privacy protections, transparency and accountability. In general people should have the right of access to information held about them, and to be able to challenge inaccuracies.

In short - everyone is using more data, people need more information and training on what will be collected, who by, what will be open, what will be covered by IDI, in order to build trust in the system and how privacy will be maintained. Staff need to be respectful.

Also data collection should cover a range of attributes to enable meaningful research and decision-making. Data should be sought for gains as well as costs. There needs to be quality survey methodology and decisions on what data is to be collected and why.

Reference to other moves: Social Investment Analytics
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/social-investment-analytics-layer-launch

I support free access to Open Data. In some situations, such as overcoming the digital divide, or in areas with less internet access, Government should investigate and offer community resources like to enable New Zealanders to access data and services. For example, via libraries with staff assistance to navigate requirements. This should be supported by local government and schools.

Some Government data is currently charged for on the basis of cost to provide it. Government agencies should investigate Cloud hosting, in liaison with ICT.govt.nz as the preferred mode for access, as per the Accelerating the Adoption of Public Sector Cloud decisions
https://www.ict.govt.nz/guidance-and-resources/information-management/requirements-for-cloud-computing/2016-cloud-services-review/