Proposed Legislation in New Hampshire...
Seth Cohn
Source and an Open Government Data bill here in New Hampshire.
I welcome feedback, directly please...
yours,
Rep. Seth Cohn
New Hampshire
(one of those rare geek/politicians who actually writes open source
software and hopes to open government more)
(I'm slightly revising the Open Source bill, so I don't have the
current text... post it when I get a final text)
The text of the Open Government Data bill (subject to revisions still,
but hurry with your suggestions):
AN ACT relative to the use of open data formats and the
adoption of a statewide policy regarding open government data
standards.
SPONSORS: [sponsors]
COMMITTEE: [committee]
ANALYSIS
This bill directs the commissioner of information technology to
develop a statewide information policy based on certain principles of
open government data. The bill also promotes the use of open data
formats by state agencies.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold
italics.
Matter removed from current law
appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new
or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven
AN ACT relative to the use of open data formats and the
adoption of a statewide policy regarding open government data
standards.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General
Court convened:
1 Statement of Purpose. The general court is committed to using
technology to foster open, transparent, and accessible state
government and finds that, by sharing data freely, the state will
generate new opportunities for economic development, commerce, and
civic engagement for the citizens of this state. The general court
further finds that adoption of open government data standards will
improve transparency, access to public information, and coordination
between state agencies and the private sector by providing timely
access to relevant information in a less costly manner. In
furtherance of these objectives, this legislation lays the groundwork
for adoption of a statewide information policy based on the principles
of open government data and encourages the adoption of open data
formats by state agencies.
2 Department of Information Technology; Duties of Commissioner
Regarding Acquisition of Information Systems. Amend RSA 21-R:4, I to
read as follows:
I. Providing technical information technology consultation to all
executive branch agencies and to any other agency that requests it,
including technical advice consistent with the principles of open
government data established in RSA 21-R:7-a and RSA 21-R:8-b during
the development or acquisition of information systems.
3 New Section; Statewide Information Policy; Open Government Data
Standards. Amend RSA 21-R by inserting after paragraph 7 the
following new paragraph:
21-R:7-a Open Government Data Standards.
I. The commissioner shall develop a statewide information policy
based on the following principles of open government data. According
to these principles, open data is data that is:
(a) Complete. All public data is made available. Public data
is data that is not subject to valid privacy, security or privilege
limitations.
(b) Primary. Data is collected at the sources, with the
highest possible level of granularity, not in aggregate or modified
forms.
(c) Timely. Data is made available as quickly as necessary to
preserve the value of the data.
(d) Accessible. Data is available to the widest range of users
for the widest range of purposes.
(e) Machine processable. Data is reasonably structured to allow
automated processing.
(f) Non-discriminatory. Data is available to anyone, with no
requirement of registration.
(g) Non-proprietary. Data is available in a format over which
no entity has exclusive control.
(h) License-free. Data is not subject to any copyright, patent,
trademark, or trade secret regulation. Reasonable privacy, security,
and privilege restrictions may be allowed.
II. The information policy developed under paragraph I shall include
a mechanism for adoption and review by each state agency. Upon
adopting the policy, an agency shall designate a contact person
responsible for oversight and implementation of open government data
standards for that agency. The contact shall act as a liaison between
the department, the implementing agency, and the public in matters
related to open government data standards. The commissioner shall
include the status of the development and implementation of the
statewide information policy based on open government data standards
in the quarterly report to the legislative oversight committee in RSA
21-R:9.
4 New Section; Department of Information Technology; Open Data
Formats. Amend RSA 21-R by inserting after section 8-a the following
new section:
21-R:8-b Open Data Formats.
I. The commissioner shall assist state agencies in the purchase or
creation of data processing devices or systems that comply with open
standards for the accessing, storing, or transferring of data. The
commissioner shall:
(a) Ensure that any new data standards which
the state of New Hampshire defines and to which it owns all rights are
open standards compliant.
(b) Use open standards unless specific
project requirements preclude use of an open data format. Neither the
current storage format of previously collected data, nor current
utilization of specific software products, is a sufficient reason, in
the absence of other specific overriding functional requirements, to
use a restricted format.
(c) Reexamine existing data stored in a
restricted format, to which the state of New Hampshire does not own
the rights, every 4 years to determine if the format has become open
and, if not, whether an appropriate open standard exists.
(d) Make readily accessible, on the state
website, documentation on open data formats used by the state of New
Hampshire. When data in open format is made available through the
state's website, a link shall be provided to the corresponding data
format documentation.
II. In this section:
(a) "Open standards" means specifications for the encoding and
transfer of computer data that:
(1) Is free for all to implement and
use in perpetuity, with no royalty or fee;
(2) Has no restrictions on the use of
data stored in the format;
(3) Has no restrictions on the creation
of software that stores, transmits, receives, or accesses data
codified in such way;
(4) Has a specification available for
all to read, in a human-readable format, written in commonly accepted
technical language;
(5) Is documented, so that anyone can
write software that can read and interpret the complete semantics of
any data file stored in the data format;
(6) If it allows extensions, ensures
that all extensions of the data format are themselves documented and
have the other characteristics of an open data format;
(7) Allows any file written in that
format to be identified as adhering or not adhering to the format;
and
(8) If it includes any use of
encryption, provides that the encryption algorithm is usable in a
royalty-free, nondiscriminatory manner in perpetuity, and is
documented so that anyone in possession of the appropriate encryption
key or keys is able to write software to unencrypt the data.
(b) "Restricted format" means any data format that is
accessed, stored, or transferred and is not open standards compliant.
5 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its
passage.
Seth Cohn
> Source and an Open Government Data bill here in New Hampshire.
>
> I welcome feedback, directly please...
>
Open Source: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2011/HB0418.html
Open Data: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2011/HB0310.html
Related bill (ie a perfect example of why we need the above Open Data
bill)
that I'm a cosponsor on: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2011/HB0331.html
Philip Ashlock
These look pretty good to me. I'm glad to see that they're following what seem to be the best practices established in these policy areas. Last year I wrote a post summarizing some open gov policies which explains this: http://openplans.org/civichacker/2010/05/26/the-state-of-open-government/
I've also added these to the Civic Commons wiki:
http://wiki.civiccommons.org/Open_Data_Policy
http://wiki.civiccommons.org/Open_Source_Policy
I know these policies are just the foundation and more is set to come, but one thing worth considering as a starting point for taking action on a policy like this is to make the requests and responses for freedom of information requests open and online by default. This is often referred to as "open FOIA." In alignment with existing law, this would still adhere to privacy considerations and anonymize the requester if needed. This would reduce the cost and burden of fulfilling common requests. I'm not sure what the current status of New Hampshire's open records law is, but it might be worth addressing this open data policy in that context as well. I started to collect some pointers on establishing the release of data with a policy or initiative like this at http://wiki.civiccommons.com/Open_Data_Priorities
Another thing worth considering is the approach to open source as it pertains to software developed by the government and made available to the public. The principles of this being open are much the same as for data being open, but with important benefits worth considering: if more governments are contributing their source code there is more source code for governments to use and build upon. There aren't any U.S. policy precedents that I know of for releasing source code, but I know of some in development and I'd be happy to keep you posted about those. However, it is worth noting that because of the alignment between this principle and the open data policy, it could make sense to combine the two. This is just what the nationwide policy in the UK has done, thereby defining software that the government develops as being open by default. One nice caveat they provide is that existing open source software that the government contributes to can include their contributions using the native license of the software project. This provision significantly streamlines the governments involvement with and contribution to open source projects. In short, it might be worth taking internal open source development into account in either the open source policy or the open data policy.
Here's the UK Policy:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/government-licensing/the-framework.htm
Open Source for America also has a useful set of criteria that relates to policy like this:
http://opensourceforamerica.org/reportcard
It's great to know there are open source folks in a legislative body. Did you ever read this?
http://infovegan.com/2010/07/19/why-developers-should-run-for-congress
Best,
Phil
I'm BCCing a few other lists:
dis...@civiccommons.org
opengovi...@googlegroups.com
forg...@googlegroups.com
Seth Cohn
> Hey Seth,
>
> These look pretty good to me. I'm glad to see that they're following what
> seem to be the best practices established in these policy areas.
Well, the 'they' is me, for the most part, and the best practices were
actually hard to turn into good legislative language, so hopefully the
next people down this road will find this easier than I did.
> I know these policies are just the foundation and more is set to come, but
> one thing worth considering as a starting point for taking action on a
> policy like this is to make the requests and responses for freedom of
> information requests open and online by default. This is often referred to
> as "open FOIA." In alignment with existing law, this would still adhere to
> privacy considerations and anonymize the requester if needed. This would
> reduce the cost and burden of fulfilling common requests. I'm not sure what
> the current status of New Hampshire's open records law is, but it might be
> worth addressing this open data policy in that context as well. I started to
> collect some pointers on establishing the release of data with a policy or
> initiative like this at http://wiki.civiccommons.com/Open_Data_Priorities
Depending on the results of these bills, I'll seriously look into
this. NH's got very good FOIA laws now, but this would be a good next
step, and certainly directly flow from the combining of the 2.
> Another thing worth considering is the approach to open source as it
> pertains to software developed by the government and made available to the
> public. The principles of this being open are much the same as for data
> being open, but with important benefits worth considering: if more
> governments are contributing their source code there is more source code for
> governments to use and build upon.
Yes, this is actually part of my pitch on the Open Source bill - the
potential for reuse is huge.
> In short, it
> might be worth taking internal open source development into account in
> either the open source policy or the open data policy.
Good point. I'm trying to focus on external acquisitions in the Open
Source bill now, because it's the more obvious piece here,
but yes, internal development is certainly the next step.
> It's great to know there are open source folks in a legislative body. Did
> you ever read this?
> http://infovegan.com/2010/07/19/why-developers-should-run-for-congress
I hadn't and I will share with the other coders in our body. I think
we have at least 5, out of 400, which is pretty good, considering
we're also still working our coding jobs so we can afford to work for
just $100 a year here at the NH State House. (Yes, you did read those
numbers correct. 400 House Reps, each paid $100 a year.)
> I'm BCCing a few other lists:
> dis...@civiccommons.org
> opengovi...@googlegroups.com
> forg...@googlegroups.com
Excellent.
If anyone wishes to submit short and concise written testimony (in
favor, I'd hope) to the committee hearing this (Open Data is being
heard next week, Open Source unscheduled but in the next few weeks),
I'd be glad to help make that happen. Just contact me.
thanks,
Rep. Seth Cohn
representing Merrimack 6
New Hampshire House of Representatives
Seth...@leg.state.nh.us
Philip Ashlock
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Philip Ashlock <ph...@openplans.org> wrote:Hey Seth, These look pretty good to me. I'm glad to see that they're following what seem to be the best practices established in these policy areas.Well, the 'they' is me, for the most part,
and the best practices were
actually hard to turn into good legislative language,
As for the Perens definitions for open source and open standards, I know that the open source definition was used by the state of California and both of them were used by Vermont.
I haven't really compared what you have to these too much, but if you have a chance, it'd be great if you could outline some of the changes you made in order to improve or adapt them for legislative language.
so hopefully the next people down this road will find this easier than I did.
Josh Tauberer
doing. Keep us posted on the bill's progress!
- Josh Tauberer
- CivicImpulse / GovTrack.us
http://razor.occams.info | www.govtrack.us | civicimpulse.com
"Members of both sides are reminded not to use guests of the
House as props."
On 01/27/2011 09:31 PM, Philip Ashlock wrote:
> On 1/27/11 8:56 PM, Seth Cohn wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Philip Ashlock<ph...@openplans.org> wrote:
>>> Hey Seth,
>>>
>>> These look pretty good to me. I'm glad to see that they're following what
>>> seem to be the best practices established in these policy areas.
>> Well, the 'they' is me, for the most part,
>
> It's really impressive for you to take this on. By "they" I just meant
> the policies :)
>
>> and the best practices were
>
> Just for clarity for others listening, the best practices I'm referring
> to are the Perens/OSI definitions for open source
> <http://www.opensource.org/osd.html> and open standards
> <http://perens.com/OpenStandards/Definition.html> as well as the 8
> principles of open data <http://resource.org/8_principles.html> which I
> discussed in my aforementioned blog post.
>
>
>> actually hard to turn into good legislative language,
>
> This might be the first open data policy I've seen that includes the 8
> principles other than the one from Ottawa
> but theirs wasn't nearly as integrated into the legislation as this one.
> I've seen the 8 principles used so much that it seems like I've seen it
> in other policies, but I can't think of any others (save for some
> internal policies <http://wiki.civiccommons.org/Risk_Evaluation>).
>
> As for the Perens definitions for open source and open standards, I know
> that the open source definition was used by the state of California
> <http://www.cio.ca.gov/Government/IT_Policy/pdf/IT_Policy_Letter_10-01_Open_Source_Software.pdf>
> and both of them were used by Vermont
> <http://dii.vermont.gov/sites/dii/files/pdfs/DII-Open_Source_Policy.pdf>.
>
> I haven't really compared what you have to these too much, but if you
> have a chance, it'd be great if you could outline some of the changes
> you made in order to improve or adapt them for legislative language.
>
>
>> so hopefully the
>> next people down this road will find this easier than I did.
>>
> That's the beauty of building on and improving what's already out there.
> Much appreciation for you having that attitude.
>
>>> I know these policies are just the foundation and more is set to come, but
>>> one thing worth considering as a starting point for taking action on a
>>> policy like this is to make the requests and responses for freedom of
>>> information requests open and online by default. This is often referred to
>>> as "open FOIA." In alignment with existing law, this would still adhere to
>>> privacy considerations and anonymize the requester if needed. This would
>>> reduce the cost and burden of fulfilling common requests. I'm not sure what
>>> the current status of New Hampshire's open records law is, but it might be
>>> worth addressing this open data policy in that context as well. I started to
>>> collect some pointers on establishing the release of data with a policy or
>>> initiative like this athttp://wiki.civiccommons.com/Open_Data_Priorities
> OpenPlans.org <http://www.openplans.org> | @philipashlock
> <http://twitter.com/philipashlock> | (360) 389-2741
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "sunlightlabs" group.
> To post to this group, send email to sunlig...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> sunlightlabs...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/sunlightlabs?hl=en.