LEVEL OF AGREEMENT

MOST DISCUSSED PARAGRAPHS

P1 **Please read before commenting** We welcom
41 0
P6 Connecting participation and civic space: Ho
23 0
P8 From one-off engagement to systems and cultu
23 0
P2 Democratic accountability and political inte
18 0
P7 Overcoming threats to civic space online: Re
16 0
P9 Overcoming polarisation and conflict in demo
15 0
P15 Digital and data governance in the era of bi
14 0
P4 Breaking the silos: whole-of-state strategie
14 0
P19 Digitising government: Systems, skills, stra
13 0
P10 Building and protecting civil society resili
12 0
P3 Connecting global to country action to fight
11 0
P17 Hearing All Voices: Linking Online and Offli
11 0
P5 How open government can help address sources
10 0
P18 Disinformation and disempowerment in democra
8 0
P14 Open government for the energy transition T
7 0
P16 Who is your AI accountable to? Public sector
7 0
P11 Open climate victories: Sharing success acro
7 0
P12 The Bridge: Bringing together diverse actors
6 0
P26 How open government ensures Ukrainian victor
6 0
P20 Priorities, standards and tools for a more o
5 0
P21 Towards a more a people-centred and open jus
5 0
P25 Democratic resilience in the face of interna
5 0
P23 A cohesive, resilient society The crises of
4 0
P13 Environmental Democracy: Escazu, Aarhus and
3 0
P24 Democratic oversight: In what ways should na
3 0
P27 Fostering safe, inclusive participation in c
3 0
P22 Legal Empowerment: Pathway to meaningful co-
2 0

LATEST COMMENTS

The challenge seems to be the search for common points of interest to build a society for all. But the question is: How prepared are we? What tools and strategies are needed to achieve good results? The proposed activity can explore good pratices, examples as well as indicate techniques to not become just a speech by itself.
Have you perhaps considered discussing what is(!) successful citizen engagement? It seems to me we always think in absolute / majoritarian terms, but is this really the case? I would be keen to learn what our expectations in terms of the level of citizen engagement are when public sector institutions and civil society actors seek to engage / work with citizens? - what do we base them on? do we have any data that would support our rationale / expectations?
The description is not very clear, but the goal of a cohesive, resilient society and most importantly, HOW do we build paths towards it should be fundamental across themes/sessions at OGP Summit. This involves not only civil society, but also how to empower champions and potential champions in the State and private sector to push for reforms needed, and as key factors in promoting cohesiveness where lack of trust and low confidence in the possibility of change has been the norm. We at the new Governance Action Hub of R4D to be launched in July, would be interested in exploring with colleagues a session focused on this.
Great idea. I reckon a key question here could - what are the ingredients of a successful anti-corruption program and are we ready to break away from the classical, institutionalist approach to anti-corruption (which I would argue has had limited success) and stress / focus on how(!) to instill long-lasting social norms and create sustainable change in our respective societies.
Mario Picon/Supriya Sadagopan (R4D) We at the new Governance Action Hub of R4D (to be launched in July) would be very much interested in organize/co-organize a session on this theme, building on the great comments below. We are interested in exploring how to build collaborative platforms that build trust between stakeholders with different perspectives on a problem, and spread, act on what is deliberated, particularly in areas or sectors where tribalism has become the norm. As mentioned, it’s important to have actors from across the political spectrum (gov, business, CSO, and local leaders) to learn about the breadth of the problem and frame it appropriately. Constructive dialogue is only possible once common goals and mutual agendas have been built. These dialogues need to have learning processes already built into place to strengthen local movements and build more dialogue for the future. It’s also helpful to have evidence of what has worked/hasn’t in the past, in order to have dialogues on what the future looks like and how it can be measured.
Have you perhaps considered adding the Fintech angle to this discussion? Would be happy to share the work we have done in Lithuania on this topic.
A great topic. Have you perhaps considered a discussion as to how much democratic accountability and reported political integrity help minimize corruption? - i.e. just because there is more transparency / accountability in politics, is politics less corrupt? And then, with the growing income gap / inequality, the weakening sense of civic empowerment in many counties around the world, iwhat is the underlying rationale / theory of change behind our pro-integrity drive to ensure its sustainability down the road?
This theme needs to be in the final program. So needed, but with a focus on how to overcome the challenges of coordination, which requires both political will/savviness and clear mandates/accountability of agencies/actors involved. Looking forward to be part of this discussion. A session could be more targeted by looking at case studies of countries that are implementing national anti-corruption strategies, and their struggles. For example, Mongolia has a dedicated working group that focuses on different pieces of legislation as they relate to the national anti-corruption strategy to be implemented. Successful anti-corruption strategies have also been the most effective when they consider the political environment and cycles, catalogue external and internal motivations and interests, as well as the political feasibility. Working groups or neutral NGOs are also effective for creating a leveled playing field without biases.
I'd like to see an active discussion at the OGP Summit on how to engage different actors in society, including international stakeholders in action against the influence of money in politics. The focus should be on ways to reach effective accountability, not stopping at transparency interventions or laws when even when with those in place, and with those involved identified, nothing happens.
In some contexts, "holding the line" is tantamount to expanding civic space - I encourage organizers to include a really diverse array of perspectives (including potentially informal civil society, like social movements) in this conversation to underscore its complexity. I would also consider linking this conversation to practical considerations for how funders and other organizations (such as USAID implementing partners) can effectively support civic actors in dynamic moments.
The sessions look interesting and well designed. There are some topics that in my perspective are missing and - based on our experience at Global Integrity - would be very useful and potentially engaging to participants: a) in line with the strategic goal 1 in the new OGP strategy, including a session that explores process to build CSO coalitions that can advance relevant reforms and oversee/support the implementation of such reforms. We think it will be particularly useful to discuss how to support these coalitions and how to include local voices in this work. This can contribute to build stronger and more political coalitions for open government. b) Complementing or adding up to the theme mentioned in the point above, it would be good to create a space for roundtables or workshops were participants can exchange experience, lessons, and ways to address challenges to advancing open government reforms. These could be workshop groups or small round tables where participants can discuss several issues about how to strengthen and support the role of civil society and how to address shared bottle necks or take advantage of similar opportunities crowdsourced among registered participants. And, c) Conversations on how open government reforms can more effectively help advance improved development results at the sectoral level, including issues related to health, education, and more. We and our partners working to strengthen health systems in 9 African countries have useful lessons and reflections on this topic. We would be happy to help organize and/or facilitate sessions on these themes if the event organizers consider it useful.
At the Open Knowledge Foundation we believe that data literacy training is an important topic when it comes to Open Government and we could collaborate bringing our experience in different regions. OKFN has been creating data literacy learning content since 2012 with the School of Data programme, whose network spans more than 30 countries and gathers data trainers with a range of domain expertise and multiple languages. From 2020 to 2022, we worked with the Meta Data4Good team on the delivery of a series of data literacy training aimed at governments and civic organisations from 15 countries across Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America. Likewise in 2020 we trained Transparency International (TI) chapters focused on analysing the survey data coming from the Global Corruption Barometer. These are just a few examples of how capacity building training on data skills is key to advancing the open data and transparency agenda across different types of stakeholders.
This session looks great. It might be useful to include and additional angle into the conversation about the role of enablers to include issues related to different legislative and policy frameworks that can be used to better regulate them. Additionally and in line with other comments below, discuss ways to increase the participation of the private sector and enhance the capacity of different actors to use BOT.
We, representatives of the OGP Coordination Council in Ukraine, are ready to present the OGP_UChange toolkit to teach the principles of proper and effective participation in OGP in a game format. The OGP_UChange toolkit is based on the universal applied game component UChange of the CivicLab methodology. OGP_UChange is a gamification of the educational process (interactive reality game) that simulates the work of OGP, namely the training takes place in the format of "learning by doing". This combination will help to understand the basic principles, approaches, processes of OGP, will help to develop effective solutions, proposals for national reforms in any sphere at different levels of government (e.g., good governance, anti-corruption, public service delivery, civic space, youth, education etc.), as well as will help to establish an effective inclusive dialogue between all actors in the public sphere (primarily - the public and the authorities). And even more, it will help to form a policy of cooperation at the international level. The "OGP_UCHANGE" toolkit was developed by the NGO "Civil Society Development Forum" with the participation of the Department for Information and Public Relations at Secretariat of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine within the framework of the "OGP_UCHANGE: NEW STANDARD FOR RESPONSIBLE PARTNERSHIP" project with the support of the European Union and the non-profit public organization Open Government Partnership Europe within the framework of the "EU for Integrity" program. The toolkit was developed in accordance with the Council of Europe UChange and CivicLab methodology standards. We presented the game in Ukraine as part of Open Government Week - 2023. Key speakers: Olesia Arkhypska (Co-chairman of the OGP Coordination Council in Ukraine, expert on governance of the Transparency International of Ukraine), Natalia Oksha (OGP Coordination Council Secretary, Deputy Director of the Department for Information and Public Relations at Secretariat of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) and Oleksii Kovalenko (head of NGO Civil Society Development Forum, Council of Europe expert, Ukraine, member of the OGP Coordination Council in Ukraine).
One of the main challenges with current AI technologies is that their models are widely trained using the commons with no return for communities who care for it, and there’s little protection against potential (ethical, economic) abuses. That’s one of the reasons why we at Open Knowledge Foundation are taking the initiative to review our Open Definition, which in the last two decades helped standardise the debate and provided specific licensing for content based on data. We therefore suggest opening a specific topic within the AI track to discuss ownership, ethical use and accountability. Here is where the discussion is starting to take place: https://discuss.okfn.org/c/opendefinition/66
Citizen Science has much in common with Open Government: Levels of incorporation, Open Data, Sensing and emancipatory technologies etc.. On EU level and in Germany the impact of Citizen Science for policy gains attraction - and funding (while Open Government is lacking of both). As a member of the European Citizen Science Association from the very beginning I strongly suggest to think this two fields together and promote the intersections. There is also a Global Citizen Science Partnership to partner. I can make contacts for invitations and hand in preparation and/or hold a session.
Great topic, indeed! We need to put more emphasis on Parliaments, as MPs are elected people, so they are more prone to consider the voices of the voters and the people. Moreover, there are numerous oversight tools available for MPs.
Necessary to discuss transparency in asset ownership vis-à-vis privacy laws and tax secrecy norms. Which elements should open data communities have in mind to oppose privacy and tax secrecy arguments?
Europe: Civil Society home alone There are activities that can be based little or not at all on a business model that follows market principles. These essentially include those in the public sector - especially in public administration, the productions of large parts of a diverse art and cultural landscape and the so-called volunteering civic engagement in commons matters. While the public administration can rely on financing from taxes and the art and culture industry can nourish itself from more or less adequate and even institutional subsidies from the public sector and from private patronage (after it has been able to convince society, especially in the last decades , to be immanent for their well-being), the financing of voluntary work in Germany is insufficient. As voluntary work is generally equated with free (of charge) work, the lion's share of funding for civil society is mostly near to a project-related microfinancing amounts of a few thousand euros. That may just be enough for occasional engagement in smaller projects and initiatives - but much civic engagement, e.g. in the context of today's challenges and social transformations, requires a great deal of time for ideation and iteration as well as high intellectual efforts in order to be effective and goes beyond the classic understanding of voluntary (free) engagement. Especially when it comes to cooperation with state institutions and oversight activities taking public dicissions accountable as well as practice of emancipatory activities. In addition, there are eventually the challenges of legal negotiations or changing contacts on the part of the state, which repeatedly requires intense stewardship (while civil society contacts usually offer reliable continuity over decades). In the context of open government and in particular the open government partnership, a very high level of commitment is required from civil society if this cultural technique and this binding mechanism is to function well and lead to sustainable reforms. Finally, open government and open government partnership have started with the aspect of co-creation insofar as this brings civil society on an equal footing with governments. This eye level also requires an equal level of reliability, capacity and professionalism on the part of civil society. A business model based on market mechanisms is hardly feasible and should also be avoided to ensure independence and the undisturbed prioritization of the structurally necessary goals for a consistent basis for open government. It is not without reason that well-known philanthropic foundations, especially from the USA and UK, and development banks have supported the efforts of civil society within the framework of the Open Government Partnership financially and intellectually from the very beginning (e.g. in coordination) - and still do so. However, the large foundations from the USA and UK as well as development banks are now obviously focusing on civil society in less strong economies - and not without reason. Where else would the support come from there? In addition, as the number of countries and local jurisdictions participating in the OGP has increased, so has the volume of civil society in need of financial support. It would also not really be conceivable if a dozen Anglo-American donors had to keep civil society alive all over the world within the framework of the OGP, while governments and private foundations in wealthy European participating countries, for example, pulled themselves out of the affair. As a result, civil society within OGP in Europe is severely underfunded. This is also shown by a survey by Access Info in 2021 among 24 CSOs - and only among those in the area of rights for access to information. As a solution, Access Info proposes a "European OGP Fund". Whether the proposed volume is sufficient could be discussed further. The comparative research on foundations by Frank Adloff and Stefan Toepler shows why the function of the philanthropic foundations in the USA, which certainly has played an important role in the conception of the OGP regarding the support of civil society, does not seem to be transferrable to Europe in particular Germany compared to USA. Essentially, the foundation communities have very different self-images with regard to innovation, closeness to the state and grantmaking. The understanding of foundations in Europe, or in this case in Germany, seems likely unsuitable for supporting civil society in the context of OGP but also open government in general. Here the OGP, but above all the governments of the European OGP participants, are called upon to raise awareness of open government and OGP among the foundations and to promote their commitment. Please discuss this at the summit and invite representatives from foundations. I can hand in preperation and/or hold a session.
This is key. Transparency may have limited benefits in contexts where there is little data use, closed civic space and capture law enforcement agencies. We need more discussions about incentives and desincentives for data use
I would also consider adding an additional layer here on how to support pluralism and design programs that foster pluralistic societies.The CSM-STAND consortium recently released a strategy on this that may offer additional food for thought: https://learnwithspark.org/publications/advancing-pluralism-together-a-csm-stand-strategy-for-integrating-pluralism-into-projects/
This is another topic where intersectionality is a critical lens for the conversation, and there is a lot of interesting work happening in this space that can be elevated at the conference. For example, the CSM-STAND consortium is implementing a USAID-funded project on technology-facilitated GBV called Transform: https://www.irex.org/project/transform-digital-spaces-reflect-feminist-democratic-principles-transform-activity.
It seems to me that in general the agenda has more environmental and justice topics than others, so as a general comment, the number of topics could be balanced, or specific thematic tracks could be defined to clearly know the focus of the summit. On the other hand, I think that three topics are essential to include. The first, "Open Government for the rest of the world". OGP is currently established in 76 countries and 105 local governments, so discussing about how to reach/inspire the next 117 countries and thousands of local governments is relevant. Which are the main challenges, plans and needs for the rest of the world. The other topic that I suggest is a specific session on local/subnational governments. Although the issue could be addressed indirectly from other sessions, it deserves that OGP Local have the relevance and presence that it deserves at the Summit. I believe that local/province/cities have the greatest potential for the years to come. And a third, related to experiences of civil society in monitoring commitments and creating action plans. It seems to me that although the public sector is fundamental to implementing the reforms that OGP promotes, these would not be carried out without the work of civil society organizations that influence or promote the adoption and monitoring of open government in the countries. Wishing you the best for the Summit!
If useful for this discussion, we would be happy to share insights and our data collected on what works in changing the behaviour and narrative around lobbying in the country. Lithuania's Law on Lobbying Activities established the so-called “cross-declaration” that requires both lobbyists, and politicians and public servants who have contact with lobbyists to report lobbying activities.
We would suggest to consider having a session – active debate on the tactics and strategies that create change. The aim of such a session / discussion would be to review the current transparency, good governance and anti-corruption efforts and explore how to achieve measurable and sustainable success in the upcoming years. Objectives: (1) to delve into discussion on how we understand success; (2) to challenge our current transparency, good governance and anti-corruption approaches – what is it that we are failing to achieve and how to learn from that; (3) to explore innovative approaches and methods from the field that could be applied in good governance, transparency and anti-corruption - how we could approach this in the upcoming years? Ingrida Kalinauskienė, Transparency International Lithuania
In special, public sector algorithms' accountability in the age of machine learning.
This session sounds like a great to involve the private sector. OGP Summit should invite specific private sector representatives, ie telcos, social media, big techs, to talk about data sharing and how can these companies can engage with the data community, not only in times of crisis.
This topic could be included in 4. Open government and corruption in climate action.
Not just democratic transitions but also in times of conflict.
It would be great to also talk about what has not worked, what not to do, and how to sustain public participation in the long term, regardless of the changes of governments and political conjunctures in the countries.
This is a great topic. The session should also discuss the role of the different initiatives, like OCP, OO, EITI, FITI, etc, on this coordination. How each of these initiatives connect or relate with each other. These conversations are happening in parallel and should intersect. Also, not just collaboration but also coordination with non governmental stakeholders.
Besides discussing I think that this would be a great opportunity to start a global effort to connect national beneficiary ownership data with other countries' data, which from my point of view is the missing link.
Hello, I think that it is essential to include in this conversation the need to strengthen beneficiary ownership transparency initiatives and the adoption of open data to political financing data handled by National Electoral Entities.
I would like to propose to discuss the topic "Civic engagement as a condition for ensuring transparent and accountable recovery of Ukraine". Here is our vision of this topic https://izi.institute/en/research/transparent-and-accountable-recovery-a-brief-overview/ And I could contribute this as a speaker
We at TI Lithuania would suggest to consider including a topic of whistleblowers' protection to the agenda as, in our view, it is directly related to the "people-centred" system. We also know that at least a few organizations in the EU have data and inspiring stories to share, thus this could inspire others to set concrete, measurable and achievable goals in this field. From our side, we would be happy to present the data-driven approach that we use in Lithuania to measure the success of the implementation of the Law on the Protection of Whistleblowers.
I would like to propose to discuss the topic "Civic engagement as a condition for ensuring transparent and accountable recovery of Ukraine". Here is our vision of this topic https://izi.institute/en/research/transparent-and-accountable-recovery-a-brief-overview/ And I could contribute this as a speaker
In this topic, I would elevate a focus on intersectionality - how well can people from different marginalized groups access these participatory government mechanisms? Why and why not? It would be really helpful to learn from CSOs and CBOs who serve these communities, among others, to understand the challenges they face in engaging in these platforms and cascading the results with communities. In particular, I'd be interested to learn from groups using rights-based approaches, and understanding how they use engagement in these platforms to enable citizens to better understand and claim their rights.
We at TI Lithuania would suggest to consider including a session (and would be happy to lead it) which would aim to explore the causal relationship between transparency and increased citizen engagement through the prism of the participatory budgeting (PB) and other applied innovative methods. During the session, we propose to discuss the rationale behind good case examples and small success stories created by such initiatives. We maintain this is step-change needed to increase public transparency and accountability standards, to increase civic literacy, safeguard public funds and contribute to sustainable future. Objectives of the suggested session-panel discussion: 1) to take stock of the goals set and methods used by the newest (cross-)country initiatives and evidence-based approaches (and measurement tools) aimed to increase civic participation; 2) to discuss and, if possible, establish what constitutes a successful civic engagement initiative; how to set realistic goals, engage various stakeholders and ensure necessary resources; 3) to discuss how civic initiatives can be taken on by decision-makers and public institutions and mainstreamed into government-led participatory processes; gaps in the readiness to do so and resources needed will also be addressed. 4) to discuss how to engage underrepresented and vulnerable groups into democratic decision-making processes, encourage people to participate, and transfer this know-how to schools, municipalities and other public institutions; 5) to explore how civic empowerment, participation and transparency can contribute to the enhancement of social integration of higher-risk groups and public resilience against third-party propaganda. Ingrida Kalinauskiene, Transparency International Lithuania
Pact would be happy to share our experience from USAID-funded projects in countries like Zimbabwe, Ukraine, and Nepal on deepening engagement, advocacy, and social accountability. In particular, Pact is about to complete a review of our social accountability portfolio, including the countries noted above and more, that I think is an important contribution to this conversation. Social accountability offers an important avenue for reworking the social contract and engaging citizens more deeply. We would be quite interested in spearheading a conversation around this topic and facilitating learning around it.
-
We propose to involve N. Oksha, OGP POC in Ukraine, as a speaker. We have a practical experience of linking online and offline tools for inclusive community engagement
W
We propose to involve O. Yarema, State Secretary of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, as a speaker, who will be able to share Ukraine's experience on this issue
This session can provide practical and implementable recommendations for policymakers, community organizers, and practitioners to effectively integrate online and offline tools, fostering inclusive participation processes that amplify the voices of marginalized communities and ensure their meaningful inclusion in decision-making.
As a goal, we can see the possible ways of enhancing governance frameworks for emerging technologies: Utilizing multi-stakeholder transnational models to tackle the distinctive challenges arising from technologies like artificial intelligence, blockchain, and the Internet of Things in the era dominated by big tech.
It is necessary to advocate for the utilization of open data and transparent information in energy transition initiatives, empowering stakeholders to make knowledgeable decisions and facilitating public oversight of the transition process.
There can be a discussion of the potential of the Aarhus Agreement as a complementary instrument to reinforce transparency, public participation, and accountability in environmental decision-making processes, and identify opportunities for synergy between the two agreements.
As a goal, promoting the development of actionable plans for collaborative projects, partnerships, and initiatives that harness the strengths and expertise of different stakeholders to address climate change comprehensively would be also crucial.
This session can be contributed by the Law Society of Azerbaijan, with speakers, or moderators.
There can be additional goals such as: a) Exploring strategies and approaches to enhance the resilience of civil society and their capacity to advocate for democratic values and human rights in times of democratic regression. b)Examine the involvement of international actors, such as governments, multilateral organizations, and civil society, in providing support and protection to civil society during periods of democratic transition.
Additional goals can be: Examine the possibilities offered by technology and digital platforms to foster inclusive dialogue, bridge divides, and expand the reach of discussions in polarized contexts.
Azerbaijan currently faces challenges in establishing an effective model for public participation in policy-making and law-making processes. While the 'Law on Public Participation' addresses the involvement of civil society in various forms of public participation, the government falls short in ensuring the implementation of such models in higher-level instances.
Data protection, cyber attacks
Revision of the existing government/governance models in the times of digital transformation and developments.
Facilitate discussions on policy and legal frameworks that can effectively respond to cyber threats targeting civic space and ensure the protection of fundamental rights online.
Promote dialogue and knowledge sharing among stakeholders, including government officials, civil society organizations, and citizens, to strengthen participatory governance and civic space.
27. The impact of business and investment on human rights The impact of business and investment on human rights can be substantial, with both positive and negative outcomes. Responsible business practices have the potential to advance and safeguard human rights, whereas irresponsible or unethical behavior can lead to human rights violations. The following key points outline the influence of business and investment on human rights and can be added as a separate topic for discussion: a) Environmental Impact: Business activities, particularly those related to natural resource extraction, manufacturing, and energy production, can have adverse effects on the environment and subsequently impact human rights. Pollution, deforestation, and climate change can undermine the right to a clean and healthy environment, affecting communities' well-being and livelihoods. b) Land and Indigenous Rights: Investments in land-based projects, including agriculture, mining, and infrastructure, can have detrimental effects on land and indigenous rights, leading to land dispossession, community displacement, and violations of indigenous rights. It is imperative for businesses to uphold land rights, engage in meaningful consultations with affected communities, and secure their free, prior, and informed consent. c) Community Engagement and Human Rights Impact Assessments: To minimize potential human rights risks associated with their operations, businesses should actively engage with local communities and conduct assessments of the impact on human rights. This process involves meaningful consultation, fostering community participation, and taking remedial actions as necessary. By undertaking these measures, businesses can effectively address human rights concerns, reduce negative impacts, and promote positive outcomes.
Another important issue is to support whistleblowers. We need to encourage whistleblowing and protection: it is necessary to establish mechanisms to protect and incentivize whistleblowers who report corruption and develop legislation that safeguards whistleblowers from retaliation and provides channels for anonymous reporting.
We can suggest the following actions: a) Implement strong legal frameworks: Establish comprehensive and robust anti-corruption legislation that criminalizes corruption, bribery, money laundering, and illicit enrichment. 2) Promote transparency and access to information: Foster a culture of transparency by implementing measures to disclose information related to public procurement, government budgets, and financial transactions. Enhance access to information laws and ensure their effective implementation.
Global cooperation and harmonization are essential for addressing beneficial ownership transparency as a global issue. It necessitates collaborative efforts among countries, international organizations, and financial institutions to establish uniform standards and best practices. The focus of harmonization endeavors should be on aligning legal frameworks, improving information exchange mechanisms, and cultivating a culture that values transparency.
I would suggest covering the issue of usage of administrative resources during the campaign, and media literacy.
It is linked with 7th. I copy here comment I left there. --- Rahvaalgatus.ee can share insights to their hands-on experience. As the platform has now matured to a stage where the early majority is actively participating, we are observing how both online and offline elements are integrated into the process of collective proposals. Through user support, we are assisting recipients in preparing for the adoption of these hybrid forms. Given the visibility of the incoming this large wave, more proactive local governments have realized that they need to approach this systematically, creating a structure that is ready to consistently engage with collectively submitted ideas and adeptly harness this energy to achieve shared goals. NB! It's vital to regard active citizens as a significant resource!
Kairi Tilga from the Estonian Cooperation Assembly could share experiences of training librarians to act as facilitators in local communities, addressing challenging topics through dialogue. The possibility of extending a similar program to local government officers could also be explored.
Rahvaalgatus.ee can share insights to their hands-on experience. As the platform has now matured to a stage where the early majority is actively participating, we are observing how both online and offline elements are integrated into the process of collective proposals. Through user support, we are assisting recipients in preparing for the adoption of these hybrid forms. Given the visibility of the incoming this large wave, more proactive local governments have realized that they need to approach this systematically, creating a structure that is ready to consistently engage with collectively submitted ideas and adeptly harness this energy to achieve shared goals. NB! It's vital to regard active citizens as a significant resource!
It would be interesting to demonstrate some exchange between CSOs/initiatives in countries with varying degrees of digitization in order to see room for cross-country support and engagement.
I am more than happy to participate, here are two angles from which the topic can be unpacked: - Open data and technology as a digital public space; - Participatory platforms: maintaining space for presenting the dialogue between the initiator and the processor, and mostly we must not forget the signatory and their rights!
The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly is coming out with a policy on this matter that could be interesting to present. The Democracy Festivals Initiative (democracyfestivals.org) is a good example of an effort to bridge the gap between governments and civil society, as well as creating a political culture of this engagement in participating countries.
It would be great if the presenters can bring in examples from carbon emission policies.
We agree to the observation and the need to include in the topic line up a session on fiscal openness. The Philippines will be glad to co-organize the session with GIFT and possible collaboration with other OGP participating countries to highlight different fiscal openness initiatives.
Potential example that was developed as part of an OGP partnership: In Georgia, there were consultative meetings with a board of 12 NGOs that were in contact with the state audit office, who helped the process of creating a website that monitored political funding: https://monitoring.sao.ge/en
Open Source solutions are key to developing a transparent data strategy for governments and creating such tools is part of the Open Knowledge Foundation work so we would be happy to collaborate on this panel bringing some use cases around CKAN, the world’s leading open source data management system. To gain a broad perspective on the subject, we propose that the panel encompass 3 main perspectives: Development, Implementation and User Experience. For CKAN, from our development perspective, we can talk about collaborative work and its requirements, but also how an international vision on the same problem allows the community to build a robust solution. For the implementation aspect, we can cite some of the many government open data portals around the globe. And from a user perspective, we can talk about how it enables journalists and the civic society to easily access relevant data. Moreover, how a consistent API allows people to get data from different portals reusing already existing tools.
We would be delighted to share our experience regarding the expansion of the Rahvaalgatus.ee platform to the local level in Estonia. During a wave of major cutbacks this year, when local governments all over the country had to make difficult decisions about closing schools, cultural houses, and libraries, it was enlightening to observe the implementation of collective proposals and how it sparked local dialogue. There are also good journalistic overviews of this.
In the Philippines, the Dagyaw Town Hall Sessions is one of the commitment under its 5th National Action Plan (NAP) aimed at strengthening citizen participation in government processes. This has provided platform for civic engagement that reached different sectors across different levels and branches of government.Based on the findings of the IRM, they have found positive collaboration between CSOs and the Philippine government through open government practices against the backdrop of shrinking civic space. The Dagyaw also adopted a collaborative approach in designing the sessions through a multi-stakeholder working group composed of government and civil society members. The Philippines will be happy to share how Dagyaw made it easier for CSOs to monitor government programs and solicit direct government responses to issues raised by the civil society during the sessions. We would also like to learn from the insights of the global community on how we can even more strengthen the Dagyaw platform.
UNESCO published a very interesting report on "Artificial Intelligence and Digital Transformation Competencies for Civil Servants", maybe they could be interested in talking about it: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000383325/PDF/383325eng.pdf.multi
We would also like to underline the still prevailing need to build critical mass and a culture of openness and transparency for any data governance initiative involving governments, whether locally or globally, with few or many stakeholders. At Open Knowledge Foundation, “advancing open knowledge as a design principle” is part of our mission statement, so we would be very happy to collaborate on discussions about how to make this happen, what kind of multilateral agreements are needed for wide adoption and also providing concrete case evidence on how open knowledge envisioned from scratch has helped to reduce inequality and generate important scalable changes.
We would like to mention that the Open Knowledge Network (https://okfn.org/network/) - an excellent cluster of open data/knowledge professionals from all over the globe, is organising a fringe event on transparency and open governance just before the Summit. It could be interesting to do a short restitutions of the main findings and ideas discussed.
We helped design and implement various dialogical/deliberative formats in Germany on contentious issues, amongst others, the National Security Strategy, covid vaccination, and renewable energy infrastructure projects. Would be very interested to learn from and exchange with other practitioners.
I could think of Germany, Belgium, France, and Ireland as good use cases. Should be discussed along with examples from the global south.
While campaigning around elections is closely monitored, the emerging practice of collective proposals, which are becoming more impactful, is not as visible. However, ensuring transparency in this campaigning process is also an important issue to address.
To keep this particularly relevant, I'd also like to see this tackle the question of how representatives balance and promote open governance and transparency with increasingly convincing trends in disinformation (deep fakes, etc.). Studies show that fact checking/exposing alone does not seem to work, so how do you manage to keep a very open, public presence, put out content, and at the same time combat the higher likelihood of efforts to co-opt those communications by malign actors?
The Rahvaalgatus.ee platform allows for collective proposals to be submitted to the Estonian Parliament. Two years ago, there was a real leap in usage. Within a year, now we collect a comparable number of digital signatures as those used for e-voting during the Estonian Parliamentary elections. Our team would be interested in a discussion where more mature digital discussion spaces could exchange thoughts on how to lead change from this point onwards? How to describe and measure this impact when the early majority has adopted it and change is happening? The discussion could involve international think tanks and researchers who deal with impact measurement and the creation of frameworks that can be used to compare such digital spaces in different countries.
I'd suggest a broader discussion on the involvement of the public/civil society in developing and monitoring accountability mechanisms for public integrity concerns that go beyond money in politics - for instance, in cases of impropriety (racism, sexual harassment, poor conduct in the chamber) or developing/monitoring breaches of codes of conduct.
The success to fight corruption comes largely through effective practices aimed at the prevention of corruption. We would like to contribute with sharing information on: 1. how new institutional scheme-Corruption prevention commission in Armenia amplified countries efforts to combat corruption through new system of integrity checking of candidates for certain positions, control of political party finance, conflict of interest and corruption risk assessment. 2. We would like also to promote discussion on how and what promises IT has for prevention of corruption, especially sharing successful experience on building and operating the digitalized system for asset declaration-https://www.ned.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/NED_FORUM-The-Digitalization-of-Democracy-Essay-Collection-2.pdf Haykuhi Harutyunayn
Se podría incluir en la agenda: 1. Un tema de cómo pueden impactar las políticas públicas inspiradas en gobierno abierto en el acceso al trabajo de las personas. 2. Gobierno abierto y la calidad de los servicios públicos. Ambos temas podemos aportar a través de compromisos ya en curso de nuestro V Plan de Acción.
Historias de éxito en los procesos de co-creacion de los Planes de Acción de Gobierno abierto, todo con miras de crear mejores sociedades. Aquí podría ser un espacio de dialogo, o panel, de buenas prácticas con varios países. Podríamos aportar nuestra experiencia en la co-creacion del V Plan de Acción, y todos los actores involucrados ( Foromultiactor (espacio gobierno/sociedad ), comisión redactora, medios de comunicación, organizaciones de sociedad civil por temas, sociedad en general)
En las estrategias de todo el Estado para combatir la corrupción, tener en cuenta: 1. el uso de los datos en formatos abiertos para la prevención de la corrupción administrativa 2. Las Comisiones de Integridad Gubernamental y Cumplimiento Normativo. 3. La prevención de la corrupción gracias a la implementación de un modelo de seguimiento de implementación de las recomendaciones sobre el cumplimiento de instrumentos y compromisos internacionales como la Convención Interamericana contra la Corrupción o la Convención de las Naciones Unidas contra la corrupción. 4. La interoperabilidad para el flujo de datos, información entre diferentes entes y organismos, y procesos más transparentes en la prestación de servicios.
Proponemos incluir el tema de políticas públicas verdes: Como buena práctica, nuestro V Plan de Acción presenta dos compromisos que impactan el clima y medioambiente: 1. Calculadora de huella de carbono para las compras públicas realizadas por el Gobierno dominicano a fin de generar informaciones y datos que permitan medir el impacto de consumo del Gobierno sobre el clima y servir a la toma de decisiones estratégicas para la mitigación y adaptación al cambio climático desde este sector. 2. Portal Eficompras
Luego del COVID 19, el tema de salud mental ha estado presente. Podemos compartir un compromiso de nuestro V Plan de Acción: Contact Center: Cuida tu Salud Mental.
Participación ciudadana y espacios cívicos empoderados y sostenibles para una Gobierno Abierto. Proponemos intercambio de buenas prácticas, compromisos, acciones o proyectos.
Hacia Gobiernos más eficientes, centrados en las personas. Como las políticas inspiradas en el Gobierno Abierto contribuyen a promover la eficiencia de la Administración Pública, a través de marcos normativos claros, oportunos y transparentes, que permitan la simplificación de los trámites y servicios, así como la mejora de la calidad de las regulaciones. Específicamente: a) Reducir los costos económicos y sociales de las cargas que imponen los servicios públicos a la sociedad. b) Elevar la efectividad, transparencia y equidad de la Administración pública, mediante la simplificación y el rediseño de procesos. c) Promover el uso de las tecnologías de la información y comunicación (TIC) para la automatización y digitalización de trámites y servicios públicos. d) Implementar herramientas de mejora regulatoria, con el fin de elevar la calidad de las regulaciones, ampliar la participación ciudadana y confianza en los procesos normativos del Estado. e) Monitorear y dar seguimiento al funcionamiento de los trámites y servicios públicos, a fin de elevar su productividad y garantizar la mejora continua de estos. Quisiéramos compartir nuestra experiencia un compromiso de nuestro V Plan de Acción.
The role of research in strengthening and innovating democratic institutions. AS OGP is a knowledge-based mechanism (the IRM), it would be great to discuss about the importance of knowledge-based decision making, whether in social or climate policy, or in securing the separation of powers. We at the Center for Developing Democracy (Estonia) - www.democracy.ee - are working on these aspects.
El V Plan de acción de la República Dominicana presenta dos compromisos que nos gustaría compartir (ambos o uno de ellos según disponibilidad de tiempo). Gobierno Abierto a través las gobernaciones provinciales, su impacto en los territorios y la Apertura de las demandas territoriales, ambas herramientas en línea (con componentes presenciales también) para la participación inclusiva de la comunidad ( este sistema permite un registro único de las demandas territoriales de la ciudadanía residente en los distintos puntos de la geografía nacional, para que sean atendidas por el Gobierno, para mejorar la respuesta oportuna y con esto elevar las condiciones de vida de la población)
Eva Bordoz, DeMnet (Hungary) demnet.org.hu - local climate assemblies around Hungary accelerating climate policy steps Eva is great organising assemblies with her team and conceptualising the impact of deliberative mini-publics in the context of a closed society like Hungary is.
Proposing speakers: Maarja-Leena Saar, rahvaalgatus.ee or Margo Loor, CitizenOS, Estonia
Potential session organisers: Dialogue Academy (Finland) - Kai Alhanen and Janne Kareinen
It would be important to address how disinformation as a form of online gender-based violence refers to the dissemination of misleading or inaccurate information and images against women political and civic leaders based on sexists and misogynists preexisting beliefs, stereotypes and tropes. Gendered disinformation is a multidimensional phenomenon that is used as a powerful tool to exclude women from decision-making by sowing doubt. It could be beneficial to treat this topic from a gender perspective and its impacts to democracy resilience.
Regulatory frameworks play a crucial role in harnessing the potential of technological advances while ensuring they align with societal values and priorities. The rapid growth of big tech has raised concerns about its negative influence on democracies and societies. To address this challenge, it is essential to adopt multi-stakeholder transnational models that promote collaboration and knowledge sharing across countries. It would be interesting to explore mechanisms as co-regulation that involve the different stakeholders.
The capacity to establish agreements not only mitigates polarization but also profoundly impacts governance. This aspect becomes particularly crucial in overcoming such polarization. For instance, consider constitutional elections, where voters are presented with only two choices: maintaining the status quo or modifying the Magna Carta. In this scenario, the voter becomes a polarizing force within the political landscape. The true measure of success lies in the outcome, where we should observe the ability to transcend polarization and foster meaningful dialogue between opposing positions.
The rise in online threats is an undeniable reality that requires our immediate attention. In light of this, the focus of this session's discussion should revolve around fostering collaborations among diverse governmental institutions, private entities, political parties, and civil society organizations. The objective is to develop comprehensive plans and digital ethical agreements that actively combat disinformation and online threats. This concerted effort aims to safeguard the privacy, security, and overall well-being of citizens.
In this session, it is essential to include a discussion on the capacity to establish and promote various mechanisms that foster lasting connections between civic spaces and government participation. By doing so, those who are initiating or in the early stages of implementing such initiatives can gain insights into different scenarios related to the implementation of open government programs and activities. This comprehensive understanding will facilitate the creation of synergies between both actors, ultimately contributing to the improved development and successful execution of collaborative plans.
As per my comment under theme 5, Sanitation and Water is able to recommend names for this session. SWA Mutual Accountability Mechanism has been supporting continuous participation, collaboration and accountability in a number of engaged countries.
Sanitation and Water for All global partnership would be happy to share/ suggest govt or civil society representatives to share their experience in engaging with the SWA Mutual Accountability Mechanism. Engaging in this 'accountability for action' process is inspiring collaboration and improving sector coordination in a number of countries, guaranteeing a seat at the table civil society organisations and other key stakeholder groups.
Ensure Ukrainian victory? I think "Ensuring the end of the war in Ukraine and open reconstruction" is better. I don't think NATO is really an open institution, or wants to be.
Ownership of the data and technologies repositories.
I would like to add a few issues to the discussion: 1- Institutionalized vs dynamic public participation instruments. 2- Virtual, face-to-face or mixed public participation format. Tools, digital divide, etc. (Maybe this is similar to P17)
Further development of a security protocol for individuals within the framework of an OGP membership The Afghan-exit became a major embarrassment for many governments involved, including governments participating in the OGP. A number of local actors have been left behind and have since faced grave dangers, particularly if they previously worked alongside the old government on human rights, transparency and accountability - such as Afghanistan's participation in the OGP. Why are governments participating in the OGP particularly responsible? Trust in one's own integrity and in the security of the open government partners in the relationship between civil society and governments is an elementary basis of cooperation and its timbre. Not only trust in (weak) civil society's own security is important, but also the trust of civil society in the security of their counterparts in government. Because if the members of the government are as free as possible from fears and reservations, they can press ahead with reform projects in the governments. Even in normal times, this reduces then the risk of ineffective commitment and wasted effort and time for civil society actors and increases motivation. In a number of countries with human rights reforms in the past decades, institutions for human rights were not necessarily set up, let alone reforms on transparency and freedom of the press. As a result, they have not been convincingly reformed and one has to reckon with the fact that their institutional design and implementation may be too unstable/fragile and thus not sufficiently strengthened to ensure the security of OGP actors in the event of an authoritarian change of government. In view of the currently shifting global architectures, one has to reckon with the fact that the resilience of these reforms will be put to the test in some (OGP) countries when the time comes. OGP is an important frame: The evacuation and admission of OGP actors on site receive a thematic reference via the OGP and the topic of open government, which makes it easier for decision-makers in other OGP countries that can also be considered as a place of refuge to take responsibility for their security and to take responsibility for it to use their cause. Open government actors in the countries on the ground and in the field have local experiences and competencies that are difficult to replace. So individuals must also been seen as valuable capacities for Open Government and must be saved for the future, if only because of a prospective renewed deployment in their countries of origin. But they are also valuable for the internal and external affairs of their host country. As a rule, actors in the field of open government, both on the part of civil society and the government, are excellently trained people with valuable skills for which there are hardly any classic and formal qualification biographies. Even if there are no immediate threats to the human rights of those affected when authoritarian governments take over government, it can be assumed that open government actors, especially from the authorities, will not be given any functional tasks under the new government. A security protocol should reliably define processes, resources and responsibilities in the OGP family, similar to and if possible better than the agreement of the US State Department: https://prhome.defense.gov/Portals/52/Documents/PR%20Docs/DOS-DOD%20Memo%20of%20Agreement%20on%20Protection%20and%20Evacuation.pdf One of the reasons for the chaos of the Afghanistan withdrawal was the lack of an overview of the actors involved in many programs, especially since databases had to be deleted or were not even created in order to protect the individuals, or because the collaborations are often of an informal nature. Looking at a security protocol, I came across Golda Velez's Linked Trust project, which aims to provide a universal format for collecting credentials in a graph. This would have the potential to identify actors retrospectively and pseudonymised via their graph connection for a case like in Afghanistan. https://www.linkedtrust.us/ This should be discussed at the Summit. I can support.
While that is not a problem in Argentina, for now, I think we are experiencing a setback in civic space around the world.
Fundamental theme! I agree to split it into different parts, for example: 1- Accountability of political campaigns. Private and corporate donors. Off the books expenses. 2- Relationship with public procurement and financing of political campaigns. 3- Political propaganda in the media. Hidden advertising.
Long before I became a journalist, I had to learn the technique of dialectics again and again in German class at school: the reflected and balanced self-dialogue between different pro and contra arguments. A very important process of finding an opinion. During my time as a journalist, I kept saying (and still do) that my central task is to give the recipients this opportunity for dialogical dialectics and to serve them to form their opinions on the basis of my research and informational house keeping. In my opinion, this simple Greek technique is important to increase empathy among different interests and to counteract polarization. In addition to the function of public supervision and "4th power" by the interplay of journalism and civil society, I also see in journalism this objectifying function. Just as I always advocate using the neutrality of scientific institutions in OGP processes, for example in the evaluation of the implementation of action plans at the local level, I also see journalism as an extreme important player in the context of open government that is not enough included. This topic of the interaction between civil society, governments and journalism should also become more important in the context of OGP. This would also help increase the outreach of the open government partnership and open gov in general. Journalism/publications on the basis of and for open government should be rewarded. There are examples in the USA: Lucy Morgan Award for Open Government Reporting https://floridafaf.org/news-events/first-amendment-foundation-awards/ Washington State Coalition for Open Government (WCOG) - open government reporting award https://www.washcog.org/awards
In the best case, civil society can take more space at first in the digital space. At least in Germany, for example, in the context of the OGP processes, the possibilities of the digital space are not used enough, both by governments and civil society. Governments would have better opportunities to provide this space but face dependencies such as IT departments and data protection officers eventually in the way. At least for the OGP processes, the digital space should therefore be made available globally (with instruments for cooperation, coordination, consultation, document storage, commenting, voting etc.) in the best case by OGP itself. At the same time, this would also support standards in the OGP cycles, especially in designing APs and tracking/communicationg during implementation. Also would facilitate analysis by the IRM since already digitized. Imho this should be discussed at the summit.
Essential Topics that are missing: "Mainstreaming OGP at the Grassroots: The Joinbodi Experience" Goal: To learn about innovative methods of empowering communities through digital inclusion, “the potential to make governance and policy-making more transparent and accountable” and explore different approaches to making open government partnership the norm. Through this, discussions will be held on community approaches to curbing corruption, mainstreaming OGP at the community level driven by community governance groups, and giving the global audience the opportunity to hear inspirational stories on how CSOs and governments are collaborating to transform one community at a time in Nigeria. In line with the OGP Global Summit 2023 themes, the session will also be an opportunity to learn about the "Joinbodi" innovative methods of empowering communities through digital inclusion, “the potential to make governance and policy-making more transparent and accountable” and explore different approaches to making open government the norm. Format: High-level Panel discussion Themes: Sustainability, grassroots community, collaboration, joinbodi, anticorruption, transparency, accountability
There are multiple paths to achieve proper AI governance, with no one definitive solution. For example, establishing a multi-stakeholder data governance committee can ensure the enforcement of explainable and responsible AI, striking a balance between data privacy protection and its utilization for public welfare, including life-saving purposes. In Taiwan, we have explored these methods and gained insights into their advantages, challenges, and constraints.
This item seems to be a subset of the previous one just focused on the tools and tech barriers. Good point because takes the attention to the challenge of educating people to turn them into active participant
The interaction gap among citizens and the "government" is too large and we need more "middlemen" beyond regular politicians. It is important to create regional councils, formed by volunteers that represent their territories and lead the citizens' participation, bringing "neighbors" to the civic space to discuss their territory problems/solutions, so the local authorities get their contributions.
In emergency situations, that are officially established by governments, many shortcuts are authorized, reducing controls, simplifying buying processes reducing competition in the name of urgency. During COVID it happened in many places resulting in higher prices, no bidding acquisitions, and out of specs products. Heavy usage of technology, that is one of OGP principles can help to keep the controls and offer a speedy process, avoiding corruption. Anti corruption mindset, promoted by OGP should support objectives in climate action
Suggest to include the public money funds subject, for it has been almost an scandal at least in some countries (Brazil example, as the world's largest budget for public funds to political parties) were the same politicians that benefit from the funds, decide the budget amount. Additionally, the penalties when accountability of the money usage is not compliant to the rules / law, after some time, gets an amnesty also voted by the same politicians, so they never are punished and will continue to misuse public money forever.
I agree with the comments of Mor, Digiphile and Gavin Hayman about the sessions they suggest. However, a more fundamental issue is threats to the credibility of the OGP itself. NZ civil society experienced yet another disastrous NAP creation process, and yet the draft IRM report says that the co-creation standards were met. If the standards for co-creation are this weak, then it gives a pass to countries to not work sincerely with CSOs to genuinely co-create NAPs. I suggest a session on how we tighten up the definition of co-creation, because if this is not done, there seems very little point in CSOs dedicating precious time and energy to what will inevitably be a plan filled with pre-existing government programmes.
The Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data's #DataValues manifesto could be a valuable addition to this session, since it focuses not on standards, but on the principles that should govern data collection, management and publication.
The Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data's #DataValues manifesto could be a valuable addition to this session, since it focuses not on standards, but on the principles that should govern data collection, management and publication.
One element that has been ignored many times in many different discussions is the importance of participation of civil society in AML-CFT processes from the position as watchdogs and anti-corruption fighters and from the position of ensuring that civic space remains unharmed by said framework and global standards. The interaction between these two fields is often underestimated and should be discussed in a broader plenum for raising awareness on the problem and gathering more allies to advocate for change in both the global and national level.
Multiple comments below already refer to the issue of the EU court verdict to close registers and rightfully so, as this is a key issue that is currently driving the "what next" debate - because it was such a negative step backwards on transparency and accountability. So a discussion on this would definitely be important, tied into topics as land and asset registration that should be linked up to company UBO, involving UBO data in public procurement processes, leverating private sector involvement which is currently only partly involved at best and so forth. All these aspects intertwine and build on the current global UBO discussion and will be essential to the direction in which this reform will move forward in the future
I would like to offer to include Ukrainian speaker to the panel from National Agency on Corruption Prevention (O. Podoliev, advisor the Head). Currently Ukraine are actively develop and implement digital IT integrity tools which are already recognized by World Bank, OECD, UNDP etc. This could be an example of how the country which is in war can develop transparency and accountability over the civil society and public officials. NACP tools are working with international databases, and also are integrated with more than 18 state registers, processing 1 million documents per year.
I agree that this is an important topic. I would suggest the speakers highlight conflict resolution and conciliation, as they are quite important
I see at least two different themes on the title. There is a lot to discuss about beneficial ownership reforms, especially how can they be enhanced or complemented so the goals of beneficial ownership is achieved. But the connection of global and country action to stop money laundering is much more complex than what a focus on beneficial ownership can offer. I would suggest up to three sessions here with storylines that complement/build on each other: one session on beneficial ownership registers and how cross-country information can be used to identify and deter corruption/money laundering: examples of successes, and remaining challenges (Open Ownership and obvious leader here); a second session more focused on "Complex issues" to fulfill the promises of beneficial ownership reform: how to coordinate action on foreign actors, stock markets, role of investment groups (Tim LAw/Michael Barron have significant experience here), and a third more focus on coordination for accountability beyond beneficial ownership processes themselves, a focus on the ecosystem around BOT: who (if anyone) demands and uses the information generated by BOT registries to act /persuade governments in enabling countries both in global South and global North to take action (we at the LTRC initiative would be interested in either leading or participating in a panel on this). Building on Johannes comment and acknowledging there are significant challenges remaining on BO registries in several countries, we need to discuss how to more effectively bring different actors in society (private sector, civil society) to use and act on BO information of their own country, or from abroad, when the beneficiary is a national of an enabling country.
This is a huge topic indeed. Agree with dividing it, but also, rather than focusing on the description of the problem, I hope we can go beyond the stories and more into the pending agenda. What is missing in what we are currently doing?
potential idea could be the training and co-creation of systems to address online violence against women in Australia and South Africa.
agree 16 and 18 are both important but should be clarified. 16 being about the role of community engagement and this about the practical scaling of data digitization. In this session, it is also important to note the variance in resourcing, sustainability and tech talent of OGP members that is often the greatest barrier to success. Those voices and concerns should be discussed.
I agree this can be more ambitious. As the EU is embarking on the first real accountability frameworks it is worth exploring what works and what doesn't and the challenges with varied environments. I'd offer, NDI's own Info/tegrity approach as a model we've applied successfully. Could include Ukraine's approach if looking to the role of the public sector (putting civil society in the lead). I would suggest that a more narrow topic around the trust of institutions as well as eliminating "disinformation" and rather talk about the public responsibility for enabling information integrity.
The topic of AI specifically should be included given the generative AI potential impacts on all aspects of life. However, I think instead of practical approaches and focus on risks, frameworks like the draft AI Bill of Rights could generate normative/oversight approaches that are much needed.
I would be very interested in learning more about these models. Also second next poster that I think UN GDC is a rather expansive approach and not the best topic for this session. Overall, I strongly support the topic with a modified framing.
Discussions of Polarization are often linked to online discourse and social media regulation. I would be interested in how the session intends to address this.
Strongly support the focus on reforms to limit digital surveillance and best practices around this. As other commenters suggest, it would help to clarify if this is about legal frameworks or enhancing CSO resilience through tools. Also strongly suggest a focus on at risk groups: women, LGBTQI+ etc as the interventions often require more tailored considerations. The Freedom Online Coalition Guiding Principles can serve as a useful point of departure.
Good afternoon. I believe that a discussion is missing here on the role of Open Government in reducing inequalities, a structural problem in the countries of the Global South, mainly in Latin America. The Sustainable Cities Institute has been working with data and indicators on this topic, and we would like to contribute on this point.
I think this is an important topic and sharing knowledge and experience will be very useful. I am working on open justice issues in Georgia. I research the use of technologies in the court system and their role in ensuring open justice and citizen-oriented court services. I would be delighted to participate as a speaker in this session and talk about the challenges that the Georgian judiciary faces as well as opportunities and recommended measures to promote open justice.
In line with the Public Participation, Mzalendo Trust has ONLINE AND OFFLINE TOOLS TO AGGREGATE AND AMPLIFY PUBLIC COMMENTS on legislative initiatives and debates, such as: Dokeza, Bonga-na-Mzalendo, Mzalendo Chats and Mzalendo’s social media and newsletters. Further on Public Participation, Mzalendo innovated "DOKEZA" Dokeza - Swahili for 'Share your Idea' is an initiative by Mzalendo Trust, a Kenyan non-partisan Parliamentary monitoring organization (PMO) whose mission is to “promote the realization of open, inclusive, and accountable Parliaments across Kenya and Africa. Dokeza seeks to:- Empower the public to voice their opinions whether as individuals or loose communities of interest or practice, Enable organizations in Nairobi and other parts of the country to collate public opinion and draft memoranda within the stringent timelines Parliament gives; Serve as a repository of public regulations on various calls for memoranda; Provide Members of Parliament and Government Institutions an opportunity to practice open stakeholder management in drafting a bill or during its public participation phase; Test the access to information law by encouraging Parliament, the National Council for Law Reporting, the Kenya Law Reforms Commission, Attorney General and Government Printers to make legislative information accessible to the public within sensible timelines and in formats that are user friendly.Dokeza has been endorsed by Parliament - National Assembly and the Senate - as an innovative platform that has the capacity to radically change public participation in lawmaking, since, it is modern, accessible and exciting. Traditionally, Parliament advertises calls for memoranda in leading newspapers (mostly Nation and The Standard) and give Kenyans a maximum of six days to submit their views through written memoranda to Parliament. Also outreach through newspapers is mandated by the law, it has limited reach as only about 500,000 Kenyans regularly buy them hence low or no participation. Having in mind that the largest segment of Kenya’s population is the youth and coincidentally most of them are online, Dokeza will thereby give this critical demographic of Kenya’s population an opportunity to participate and influence legislation.
Mzalendo Trust (https://mzalendo.com/) , being a parliamentary monitoring organization, monitoring Kenyan Parliament though Civic Tech Tools, it would be good to consider Mzalendo Trust Executive Director speak on this for shared learning on expanded parliamentary engagement and Openness. NB: Mzalendo Trust leads the publication participation cluster for Kenya OGP NAP IV and has among other milestones achieved the Institutionalization of OGP Parliamentary Caucus in Kenyan Parliament. We also have public participation tools endorsed by the parliament of Kenya like Dokeza: https://dokeza.mzalendo.com/about/
I recommend Mzalendo Trust Executive Director, Ms. Caroline Gaita Director to be one of the speaker's. Currently Mzalendo Trust is the Civil Society Convener for the Kenya OGP NAP IV. Among the 8 commitments, Mzalendo co-leads the Public Participation and Legislative Openness Cluster with the Senate of Kenya (Parliament). I believe she will provide great insights on this topic. Kindly consider her a as aspeaker.
Press freedom is an essential topic for an open government summit, complementing freedom of information, freedom of expression, and Internet freedom. OGP has continually acknowledged that press freedom and FOI are essential since launch in 2010, but has not consistently elevated these issues in plenary panels and policy outreach. In an age when autocrats are stoking hatred towards journalists as "enemies of the people," delegtimizing journalism as "fake news", lying to publics about invented sources and intentional deception & shutting down Internet access, it's critical for OGP to make press freedom and Internet freedom a pillar of its work, not to leave it offstage.
It is essential to highlight what and how global/regional norms and regulations need to be improved to create better data architecture. For example, the European Commission should update Open Data Directive to mandate harmonised publication of critical datasets (public procurement i.e.) in Europe - it would have tremendous impacts on publication of data across other continents too (with "Brussels effect", remember the GDPR example?). It also would support cooperation between governments and civil society leading to more benefits of digitization and open data. Please include a spot for tangible goals our communities should chase to make real improvements. OCP or Open Spending EU Coalition could speak to that point.
Thanks so much for proposing an exciting and useful agenda. Here is one additional thought for either a topical approach or a plenary session — aligned with goal #1 of the newly crafted strategy and building on aspects of session #3 and #8 in this document: I think there is value in exploring — and being much more explicit about — principles, tradeoffs and tensions we all face when building ‘political’ coalitions to advance our open governance goals. Instead of simply hoping - as some have commented - that dialogue will lead to some sort of success down the road, or believing that it is someone else's job to bring new actors to the table, it would be useful for us all to grapple with, think through, and learn about the sometimes tricky aspects of coalition-building. Concretely, I I have heard from four different governments, three different civil society organizations, and a suite of private sector actors in just the past month that they all feel they don’t have entry points to talk to each other because of their perception (fear) of having differing values and because they suspect they don’t speak the same language. My suggestion is we tackle this issue head-on and explore ways and approaches of how to embrace and advance coalition-building efforts beyond existing relationships and formalized multi-stakeholder groups. There is a number of examples and great speakers who could help out on this front - happy to provide additional thoughts if useful.
This has been a critical issue in public procurement and open contracting – for example in implementing e-procurement systems in Africa. This issue also provides a good foundation to address open gov strategies more widely and linking up different solutions on company registers, open budgets and others.
This seems quite similar to the previous sessions. I would recommend providing a good balance of concrete practical actions on climate (such as on procurement, tracking red flags on conservation), with building effective coalitions beyond OGP, as well as some of the inspiring stories where this has worked.
Public procurement can provide a mature sector where this is working with some good experiences from Albania to Paraguay (including on school infrastructure).
This is a critical issue and could benefit from further depth looking at some of the key questions: How are climate decisions taken, who are the actors, how is money spent on climate mitigation and sustainability strategies spent. At OCP, we have developed clear guidance for governments to integrate open gov thinking into sustainable spending. Good country examples come for example from Lithuania.
Supreme Audit institutions as well as organized citizen/vendor feedback are an underused and -supported sector in fighting corruption. They rely heavily on open government data and approaches. Public contracts and open contracting are a good example where this is working. Indonesia, Kyrgyz Republic, Kenya and Ukraine can provide insights. Overall, this session seems to be too broad for a workshop.
This is an excellent topic to dive into from several perspectives. One area is the link between campaign financing and public contracts as a "pay to play". Open contracting data linked up with party donations can provide powerful insight. Flip (Colombia) and Civio (Spain) have done some excellent work.
A key suggestion on BOT would be to include a focus on the value the private sector can derive through open and verified registers — in order to guard against fraud, crime and corruption they experience through suppliers, customers, and PEPs. To us in civil society, we may think the private sector must know that BOT can help to secure their investments, de-risk operations and lower their compliance cost, but many of them do not. Our CIPE interactions and round-table discussions with private sector associations around the world — and I think this is mirrored by findings from OO and EITI — show that additional government and civil society sensitization and capacity-building efforts can move the business community into our column of open governance supporters. Doing so would help boost private sector compliance with BOT rules and simultaneously widen the coalition to build political will to drive into the direction of open and more effective registers. In terms of speakers, I'd suggest including a participant from the Freedom of Information Center (FOICA) in Armenia to share their experience in working with the private sector and perhaps also Lilya Afrikyan, the OGP point of contact in Armenia + a business representative (to be named).
this is a timely discussion, and we see significant interest in this issue with regard to the public interest case in oversight of public spending vs the national security justification of keeping information private. The Open Ownership team would be happy to talk to this in context of how the issue is playing out re information on the beneficial owners of companies contracted in defence, critical infrastructure etc and some of the headline issues we see emerging
this is a very important topic that historically hasn't perhaps been addressed in much detail within OGP. It would be valuable to bring speakers together who have experience of delivering digital transformation within government, contractors who have delivered software, and civil society/business data users. Open Ownership would be happy to brainstorm more on this - it is key to our work supporting governments to deliver effective beneficial ownership reforms and digital registers, and is also a key area of expertise of our Exec Director.
Agree with the previous poster that this session could be made more ambitious. There are concrete examples where information can be used to empower people to interrogate and counter disinformation. I'd suggest showcasing some of these (Open Ownership colleagues could speak about the role of knowing who is behind actors that are eg funding social media campaigns, publishing media information etc) , and more broadly I would suggest framining this in the positive to empower people by tackling disinformation
Would suggest sharing cases of concrete open gov tools and solutions that are being leveraged for the energy transition. THere are strong lessons from extractives and under the Opening Extractives programme Open Ownership and EITI are supporting beneficial ownership transparency in critical minerals and the energy transition more broadly. Under this programme we are producing a new report documenting case studies of beneficial ownership transparency being used to support a just energy transition. We would be happy to present findings from this during the session.
a hot potato kinda of topic to consider; international procurement policies and how they deter national democratic resilience. Though some of the topics suggested fit in early theme topics .e.g Electoral integrity and political finance is in topic 1.
fits as a sub-topic on Open climate, the goals are almost similar
I agree that the panelist should be both from Government and CSO's
It will be great to hear more on how technology has been leveraged to bridge this gap. Covid shows us that civic space can be massively limited, we moving to the era of AI, are there examples to learn from. World Vision had developed a citizen database that is enhancing civic space
It would be useful to share international best practices regarding connecting participation and civic space
It would be useful to share international best practices regarding connecting participation and civic space
Saludos desde Guatemala !!!. Gracias por la Oportunidad de aportar y proponer. Por primera vez, las OSC logramos que se incorporara en un Plan de Acción Nacional, el abordaje del Tema POBREZA Y MIGRACIÓN. Para esta Cumbre, creemos importante el abordaje de un tema que correlacione: políticas públicas, inclusión social, transparencia y migración irregular. Actualmente el Consejo Nacional de Migraciones y CEIDEPAZ implementamos un Compromiso orientado a crear una Mesa Multisectorial para diseñar una estrategia nacional para el abordaje de las causas generadoras de migración irregular. Sería importante establecer en esta Cumbre Mundial, un PANEL para compartir experiencias sobre cómo se está abordando, desde las causas estructurales, la migración irregular, por parte de la institucionalidad pública, la legislación y las políticas públicas, asimismo cómo se coordinan los esfuerzos públicos con las acciones de la sociedad civil, la Cooperación y el sector privado empresarial, entre otros. Desde la Mesa Multisectorial de Guatemala, podemos apoyar y participar.
Talks on combating authoritarian forces, supporting peace building policymakers and practioners and aiding in the contribution towards having both rule of law systems and responsive governance strengthened, would be great to see and hear
I encourage the experts to talk about SAGE (Solidarity, Agency, Gain and Environmental Sustainability) and how all these push the energy transition forward or draws it back. In addition, the discussion of trade flows and how that affects climate policies and the energy transition. So, for example, the scale, composition and technological effect of trade flows on the energy transition, and the climate vagueness centering the different bi lateral trade policies instruments.
There should be discussions on nuclear non-proliferation, such as ways to push for the enforcement of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which must be binding on all signatories to the treaty regardless of submission to jurisdiction . In addition, the speakers can highlight ways in which global governance is wavering and how conflict resolution plays key roles in political dynamics
Would be interesting to collectively reinvent democracy through a participatory rapid foresight exercise on "Future of Democracy". It will allow to capture the signals of change and to map the risks and resources.
WWF Ukraine, Basel and others have been doing work / analysis / convening on links of this topic and risks of negative feedback loops with unsustainable recovery - would be keen to bring this into the discussion somewhere.
Encourage looking at some of the risks with critical minerals and role of open gov in this space - I imagine this is the intent but super to bring it out a bit more clearly! NRGI would be good on this topic....
An important topic, I would encourage expanding this to include open government and environmental degradation / biodiversity loss. WWF and several others have been very involved in this space - including looking at addressing vested interests in deforestation and land conversion (amongst other themes) which has a direct link to our climate aims - keen to see these issues harmonised more.
Sanctions are currently at the forefront of anti-corruption conversations and priorities to hold individuals accountable; as well as target proceeds of corruption in 'enabling jurisdictions' Propose a focus on the role/impact of anticorruption sanctions in the global fight against corruption
Hi OGP team! Thanks for sharing the draft programme for OGP Estonia! Can we add a session on fiscal openness? It is an important OGP Policy Area and a popular commitment theme, but it seems to be missing from the topic lineup. Continuing emphasis should be made on the importance of opening government budgets and financial transactions, and how this can promote citizen engagement, accountability, and public trust. From our end in GIFT, it would be great to have an opportunity to co-organize a session that features best practices and emerging impactful OGP commitments under this particular theme.
I agree with a few comments here that we could have some sessions focused on the role of Parliaments in OGP as this would incentivise MPs to join the Summit. The Open Parliament e-Network (OPeN) has organized Parliamentary Days in the framework of OGP Global Summits in the past and we would be happy to do so this time as well.
I think it lacks a bit of basics and nuts and bolts of the OGP. For example - how to create a NAP that works? A summit is a great place to discuss this. In particular, how to bring more diverse actors to the NAP itself. This is different to the session inclusive community engagement as the NAP process is different from country to country and it will be good to have a knowledge sharing session about it.
Why the goal at the end is only about online debate and not also offline?
I agree with ovoicu that a high level discussion here is not the right approach, especially if it come from politicians who will say what will serve their political agenda. This need to be a very critical discussion and if there are any example to share of how to preserve democracy then it needs to be there. Also, understanding what the OGP and can't do in situations where democracy is declining is something that is not discussed much and need a more broader discussion.
it could be better addressed . What is missing here is how to bring governments to take into account counterdata and algorithms which already shape public decision (with negative effects on minority groups) I would suggest to invite SCO's to this world cafè such as Period Think Tank https://www.thinktankperiod.org/ already working on these subjects at the national and local lavel in Italy
Climate finance is a key topic to be discussed. CoST with support from GIZ is developing a climate finance module (or extension) in its open data standard and testing/validating it in South Africa. We will be delighted to contribute to this session.
Hi all. I agree that this seems like a VERY large topic to cover all together. And even political integrity is possibly too much ground for one session. Perhaps we could divide this up into the ways different parts can be regulated, so: Lobbying. Donors. Ministerial Codes. That kind of thing?
I am missing a session on the issue of corruption, open government and service delivery, with a focus both on national and local government. With the strategy of OGP to include local government, there is insufficient focus on it in the programme, particularly in relation to service delivery
It will be good to have activists from the front line, those who have actually felt the impact of discrimination and threats, to talk on this matter
It is important to frame this discussion carefully. Statements such as 'the importance of NATO-EU-Ukraine integration advancement for international military, political and economic security' will be considered problematic by countries that have deliberately taken a non-aligned stance and that have stated that this war does not concern them. The war in Ukraine is viewed very differently by large parts of the global south from how it is viewed in Europe and USA.
In this discussion, it may be useful to consider the constraints on digitisation in areas where there is low connectivity, poor electricity supplies, high levels of illiteract etc. How does one ensure that digitisation does not further marginalised the already marginalised?
Why is this specific to 'in democracies', rather than just around disinformation and disempowerment, which takes place at the national and transnational levels
It will be good to include the concept of rights-holders, and putting rights-holders at the centre. It would also be good to have grassroots activists who are fighting on the ground, at the grassroots level, to speak on this topic about their own experiences, how they work, the challenges they face, etc
It will be useful to ensure that the session deals with both mitigation and adaptation. WIN, with GCF and GIZ, has been doing some work around the relationship between corruption and possible maladaptation. It is an interesting and important issue to consider, that corruption may lead to maladaptation, or at least, to the failure of adaptation. We would be happy to give some input on this if it is useful.
The concpet is good. However, this seems to overlap with sesssion 24.
Love the idea. It will be better to engage experts from service design.
I agree with Blair and SebH23. The topic is great but includes too many things. I will suggest keeping the topic and simplifying the content as below. 1. Institution: electoral integrity and political finance,strategic corruption, resourcing open government across sectors and levels 2. Digital transformation: cybersecurity, data protection and strategies against ransomware, surveillance technologies and artificial intelligence application Above will allow the speakers to map threats for different areas, discuss particular challenges , provide examples and solutions and talk about their thoughts on the role of accountability and oversight in responding to these challenges easier. I personally recommend Audrey Tang to speak for the digital transformation part of this session.
topics: Create a collaborative digital platform: Develop an accessible and easy-to-use online platform that allows citizens, civil society organizations and public officials to collaborate in the creation, monitoring, and evaluation of public policies. Implement a gamification system: Incentivize citizen participation through a system of rewards and recognition, such as points, badges, and levels, that motivate users to actively contribute to the platform. Integrate artificial intelligence: Use AI technologies to analyze and process large volumes of data, identify trends and patterns, and provide valuable information for evidence-based decision making. Promote education and training: Offer online and in-person courses, workshops, and seminars to train citizens and public officials on topics related to open government, transparency, and citizen participation. Establish strategic alliances: Collaborate with international organizations, universities, and private companies to obtain technical, financial, and logistical support in the implementation of the action plan. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation: Implement a monitoring and evaluation system to measure the progress and impact of actions, and adjust the strategy as needed. Communication and outreach: Develop an effective communication campaign that promotes the platform and its objectives and informs citizens about how they can participate in and benefit from the open government partnership. Create spaces for dialogue and collaboration: Organize regular events and meetings between citizens, civil society organizations and public officials to discuss and debate issues of interest and foster collaboration. Recognize and celebrate success: Highlight and share success stories and achievements through the open government partnership to inspire and motivate more people to join the movement.
I am Sandra Cerrato Flores Rapporteur of the technical table of the Open Government Partnership in Honduras 2023, I am researching on a real action plan that convinces people to get involved and gain the trust of the multi-stakeholder groups that make up the partnership and I believe that we have to work hard to achieve our goals and involve more of the population, here is a summary of the analysis I have been able to do regarding what we have worked on in Honduras and what we must implement: 1. identify the key problems: The first thing we must do is identify the key problems that have impeded the success of previous attempts to implement an open government policy. This may include lack of political commitment, lack of resources, lack of training, and lack of citizen participation. 2. Set clear objectives: Once we have identified the key issues, we must set clear and measurable objectives for our open government policy. These objectives should be realistic and achievable, and should be aligned with the needs and expectations of citizens. 3. Develop a detailed action plan: Once we have established our objectives, we must develop a detailed action plan that includes the specific activities that will be carried out to achieve those objectives. This plan should include a clear timeline and an appropriate allocation of resources. 4. Involve citizens: Citizen participation is critical to the success of any open government policy. We must involve citizens in all stages of the process, from problem identification to policy implementation and evaluation. 5. Train staff: It is important that the staff in charge of implementing the open government policy is properly trained and has the necessary skills to carry out the activities foreseen in the action plan. 6. Evaluate and adjust: Finally, we should regularly evaluate the progress of our open government policy and adjust it as necessary to ensure that we are achieving our objectives and meeting the needs of the public.
would like to share a proposal for the upcoming OGP Summit to consider either in the agenda or as a side event. Our idea is for an one hour lightning talks session titled "EDIH Digital Government Innovation & Open Government Technology" and you can find a description attached. European Digital Innovation Hubs (EDIH), is a pan European project to accelerate digital transformation. In Greece, GFOSS along with leading Research and Academic institutions is part of the https://digigov.innohub.gr/en/. The value proposition is to explore synergies between work in the EDIH (more than 200 in Europe) and the OGP strategy for openness in digital transformation. You can download details on the format and structure of the proposed session here: https://cloud.ellak.gr/s/AM7xHaAacTCPnxC/download/EDIH%20OGP%20Summit%20Workshop-.pdf The floor will be open for anyone from the OGP and EDIH communities interested to contribute.
Agree re: trying to do too much with 1 session. Would suggest focusing on 1 of these bullets.
The description here is a little confusing/it is unclear exactly what the session will focus on currently.
Great session- the key will be getting really diverse participants as speakers who have lived experience.
Excellent ideas from Gavin. The current USAID JET Grand Challenge also has many good people involved/has sourced some amazing local change-makers on this topic.
If high level discussion means this will be a larger plenary, that is great signaling on the importance of the topic- thank you!
It might be good during this session to touch on how civil society orgs can stay safe during periods of closing civic space too.
This is broad but by the sounds of the format countries will "pitch" some specific issues they are facing and the groups will help them brainstorm during the session? In that way it can be a bit broader as is; and sounds like a fun format.
This session could focus in a little more on a specific aspect of the whole-of-state approach to make the conversation targeted.
Amazing work so far OGP team! I know there are some possible roundtables and other formats that can include other topics- one would be youth specifically. There is one session on inclusion but it might be worth making the connections on that issue a bit more explicit in other sessions too even if that is not the main focus (in terms of session goals/speakers etc). And agree with the below that there might be more room for a focus on local specifically.
Understanding of power dynamics would be good to discuss here.
This seems a space where the experience of Brazil, specially of open gov ecosystems such as Santa Catarina, is particularly relevant - with open government itself becoming a contentious issue, the ecosystem finds ways to ensure that actors from across the political spectrum who voted for different presidential and gubernatorial candidates in a polarized context, are still able to maintain spaces for constructive dialogue and joint action, while innovating, finding new spaces that above all seek to maintain the sustainability and resilience of the ecosystem and expand it. At the core of this work is the notion of systems convening. More information contact act4delivery
This seems a space where the experience of Brazil, specially of open gov ecosystems such as Santa Catarina, is particularly relevant - with strategies implemented within and beyond the OGP-Local Plan to ensure resilience given opening and closing of civic space in different levels of government and at different times. These include: commitment to focus on municipal governments that are not OGP members, systems convening anchored in CSOs and academia, work with candidates to the legislative and articulation at national level via OGP and beyond. contact act4delivery for more information
In OGP-Brazil's OpenGov Week we are having a session on this topic, sharing different approaches to capacity building to support this culture, including act4delivery's combination of systems convening, research and action.
Very rich program! Some suggestions of topics that could be included in the agenda: - the open state perspective is present in open justice sessions, but not treated as a topic itself. How can countries move from open government to open state? Is this still relevant? - The role of Parliaments in the open government community could be strenghten. Specially in the ssions regarding participation and democratic resilience. - Democratic innovation and new frontiers of participation could be included in one of the sessions about participation. This could cover deliberative assemblies, online/virtual participatory spaces, commons-based governance approaches, and other examples of democratic innovation coming from Global South countries.
Agree that the issues and examples of local open government are not sufficiently salient in the program. Service delivery is absent, but also other challenges and opportunities presented in that arena based on practice that speaks to both government and CSOs
Interesting and relevant session. Would be great opportunity to discuss the opportunities/challenges of the institutional setting for participatory systems. Hearing from independent institutions such as French National Commission for Public Debate, or Mexican Electoral Institute on the opportunites of having a dedicated institution. Moreover, covering other settings where participatory infrastructure is diffused across offices, or embedded in all public institutions.
"The Corrosive Influence of Money in Politics: Undermining Democratic Accountability and Political Integrity"Money in politics has become a pervasive and corrosive force that undermines the principles of democratic accountability and political integrity. Wealthy individuals and special interest groups are able to wield enormous influence over political outcomes, often at the expense of the public interest. The ability of money to shape political outcomes is facilitated by a range of factors, including the influence of corporate lobbyists, the rise of unregulated campaign finance, and the revolving door between government and the private sector. This has led to a system in which politicians are often more accountable to their wealthy donors than to the constituents they are supposed to represent.
I fully support some of the comments mentioned by other users related to the fact that there are very few agenda items that actually deal with government. I think it would be very useful to discuss and debate OGP agenda at the local level. My suggestion is to have a panel discussion on the following topic: Open Government at the local level: co-creating public policies at the level it matters the most. For this topic, we could present multiple case studies from various countries around the world: e.g. Moldova, Ukraine, Estonia, Mexico, Netherlands etc.
We can also discuss about CSOs resilience in the shrinking civic space and shrinking resources. and i recommend Mr. Francis Kiwanga from Foundation for Civil Society in Tanzania to share more light on how his organization is supporting CSOs resilience in East Africa. https://thefoundation.or.tz/
There will be particular considerations and approaches at the national and subnational levels. Helpful if the discussion can take levels of government into account in the framing.
Some interesting intersections here with open data aims and national security and defense prerogatives. Perhaps addressing this balancing act would be a useful addition.
Also a good entry point to look specifically at citizen assemblies, the different ways they are used/aims they serve (decision guidance but also trust proxies, etc.). And consider differences in how their recommendations are used by governments (advisory vs compulsory adoption, etc.). What types of policy issues might this mechanism be most useful for? Considerations at different levels of government, etc.
What about the role of legal and regulatory frameworks in fostering participatory governance? What does this look like at different levels of government? How might this foster the participation of marginalized groups? What are the benefits and drawbacks of a legal approach as seen by officials and civil society?
In order to achieve a true Open State it is necessary to bring the Justice system into the conversation. I think this high level panel is important to commit justice authorities to be more accountable.
The experiences and knowledge shared will be very useful and will inspire others to replicate.
I agree! this point is really important so as to share lessons learnt and different advocacy approaches
I think there are many examples (at least in LatinAmerica) of the use of OGP principles to achive or raise awareness on climate justice. RIJA and CEPAL are working on that in our region.
Would include emphasis on disinformation as a spoiler to institutional trust. And would dedicate space to the relationship between disinformation & extremism as symbiotic destabilizers of democracy. Can discussion global examples of anti-disinfo legislation and subsequent effects, with special focus paid to anti-disinfo laws that have been weaponized against journalists & transparency advocates.
Last year I participated in the America Abierta in Santo Domingo and it was really visible the lack of participation from vulnerable groups from civil society: LGBTIQ+, youth, indigenous. The travel scholarships should be directed to people that cannot pay them and that are underrepresented, and not to the same people that are seen in every OGP events. I have participated in the ABRELATAM/CONDATOS Latin American desconferences and the participative approach in the workshops is key. If we are gathering people from all over the world, it is a paramount opportunity to build something bigger together and to try to solve people's problems in a cooperative way. There is a needed discussion on how some OGP country members are sliding into authoritarian regimes. I really hope that this is not an opportunity for authoritarian governments to wash their faces and talk about a couple of commitments executed while there are people on the streets being brutalized by the police.
I would suggest for this session to invite not just governments, but also civic and govtechs that are contributing to the digital transformation of the government. Initiatives like Govstack would be also very interesting in order to see the bigger picture of digital government as a combination of building blocks.
We could also touch upon the challenges faced by grassroots justice defenders - many of whom are active in the feminist or environmental/climate justice space. It would be great if we could compile and share effective strategies that organizations and individuals are using to stay safe.
When discussing about data governance we should talk about open standards or modules. Examples of GTFS, OCDS, WMS, KML and so on should be presented. Moreover, modules as the ones developed by the Govstack initiative are useful for governments that want to continue with their digitalization and do not know how to do it. It would be great if we have implementations of the same standards in different countries; for example, Datasketch has developed Open Data Platforms for the Government of Ecuador and for the City of Mexico, how is the process of dealing with the implementation of the same standard in two different countries?
It is usually good to show facts when there is polarization. A good example would be to showcase examples of information platforms that share data in a non-biased way in order to diminish the polarization that could arise in conflict situations.
More than sharing the perspective from the government, it would be useful to share the vision from the citizens invited to engage with the government. As a civil society member, when I approach to a government that has their OGP Action Plan commitments, governments are not so open to collaborate or discuss them, unless it is in their agendas. Even better, to hear the voices from CSOs that are part of their respective OGP committees and have not been successful on engaging with the government would be more useful. So we can know and understand what is still lacking in the government side.
It would be great to present what are actionable tools and guidelines for journalists, activists and human rights defenders to use for protecting themselves in violence contexts. This also could be an opportunity to present what have been the human rights violations done by many governments when citizens go to protest and how to avoid them and defend ourselves.
It would be great if the session would present successful and sustainable cases of involvement and appropriation of vulnerable groups in the participatory government programmes. The experts should be part of these vulnerable groups and it should present the do's and don'ts for engaging citizens. The session should also present physical and online tools for creating these participation spaces.
It would be useful to include issues like - What to do not letting the participatory government be the game of the median voters /middle class - only/ exclusively? How public authorities could reach out and involve citizens of vulnerable/disadvantaged groups...
It would be useful to include issues on how to make civic participation more inclusive - see, good practices of outreach to and involvement of vulnerable groups (eg, youth in a disadvantaged situation, ethnic minorities/migrants, or mothers with children). What to do not letting the participatory government be the game of the median voters /middle class - only/ exclusively?
I think the theme of overcoming polarisation and being able to discuss contentious issues should fall as a topic or question of discussion under a larger-scoped theme. On its own, it seems redundant and the output is vague as well
Great session idea
I think if we throw gender and inclusion into the mix it would be too broad. The goals and the description made sense until gender was suddenly mentioned there
Agreed
j'adhère à cette session
cette session ne réjoint-elle pas la précédente?
est ce que cette session tiendra compte des contextes des pays qui ne sont pas forcément les mêmes
je suis d'accord avec vous que l'on aborde la numérisation rapide du gouvernement cependant il est judicieux de parler de l'importance de la numérisation de nos administrations pour favoriser la transparence, la bonne gouvernance et la réduction des distances
les fakes news constituent un réel défi surtout en période électoral. la période à prendre en compte devrait être à partir de la pandémie à corona virus 19
j'adhère à cette session. la prise en compte des outils en ligne et hors ligne pour favoriser une participation citoyenne plus inclusive car certaines zones n'ont pas constamment accès à internet (taux de couverture faible) et cela ne devrait pas empêcher l'engagement des communautés
je trouve cette session intéressante dans la mesure où l'IA est au coeur de l'actualité et est impliquée dans la modernisation des services du secteur public
qu'entend-on par discussion sur aquarium? ce serait intéressant d'aborder la protection des données personnelles dans les pays qui ne détiennent pas une loi d'accès à l'information et d'autres normes internationales
peut-être intéressant si les outils, mécanismes et bonnes pratiques sont mis en exergue
je suggérais l'intervention de la société civile et des gouvernants car chaque entité pourrait donner des outils selon son point de vue. Ce qui permettrait d'aborder la question sur divers angles
je proposerais l'intervention des gouvernants mais aussi de société civile /citoyens qui participent à intégrer la participation citoyenne dans la culture des institutions et structures étatiques et/paraétatiques
il serait intéressant de relever durant cette session les cadres de collaboration mis en place par les programmes gouvernementaux pour favoriser une co-création des différents acteurs pertinents
Il est judicieux de discuter et partager les expériences sur les stratégies PAN pour luttercontre la corruption mais aussi relever les mecanismes de suivi des engagements des précédents PAN pour des actions à impact durable
ne dit-on pas que le nerf de la guerre c'est l'argent. Il est opportun de discuter de cet aspect et surtout de l'origine du financement des partis politiques
Great session. Some recommendations: 1) Africa Centre for Energy Policy and 2) Rusiaya Ibrahim-Tanko from Energy for Growth Hub, 3) Green Hydrogen org (Joe Williams), 4) NRGI but also great to hear from 5) BHP and other companies too?
Logging the absence of open contracting and procurement reform as a topic here. Worth noting 1) it is one of the most active areas of OGP commitments, 2) with amongst the highest impact and 3) has amazing champions from the frontlines of open gov around the world and 4) fundamental to address iniquity, inequality, money, power and cronyism across gov. I guess I would say that though ;)
You definitely want the RISE Ukraine) (Reconstruction with Integrity, Stustainability and Efficiency) to input (and speak) here! And I would suggest that the session plan maybe brings out the massively important "follow the money"/procurement/infrastructure component in all this more clearly.
Like a few others I've read, I'd love to see a bit more depth in the Participation stream. Areas of additional interest could include deliberation (building on the OECD's landmark report, Catching the Deliberative Wave), equity in public participation and place-based engagement (or engagement within cities and local governments). A potentially useful framework for equity in public participation and several case studies that could be featured are contained within the Beyond Inclusion report at Simon Fraser University's Morris J Wosk Centre for Dialogue: https://www.sfu.ca/dialogue/resources/public-participation-and-government-decision-making/beyond-inclusion.html
Glad to see procurement mentioned here. Let's be honest, we are going to have to ask governments to buy things in a completely different way to acheive meaningful progress on our climate objectives and governments are struggling with this. Would be good to explore what is working (like in Lithunia), what the sticking points are and where OGP commitments, including to wider procurement and open contracting reforms can help.
Some governments and civil society groups that have inspired our work recently and may be good to feature include People Powered, the Knowledge Network of Climate Assemblies, the Global Assembly, Scotland and it's Open Government program, Delibera (Brazil), Kota Kita (Indonesia), Women's Climate Centers International (Kenya, Uganda, etc.), Green Participatory Budgeting worldwide as tracked by the IOPD, etc. For more mapping and case study ideas, please feel free to draw on our report from the International Climate Engagement Network (https://www.climateengagement.net) or contact Robin Prest (rjprest[at]sfu.ca)
I think there needs to be an acknowledgement within this about some of the work that is being done at a grassroots level around the development of alternative forms of data custodianship especially regarding the formation of data cooperatives to empower vulnerable and marginalised communities have a voice and be seen in data. Especially important when data is used to create policy that can then impact those communities. Aapti Institute (IN), Data2X (US) and ourselves - Open Data Manchester (UK) are heavily involved in this space. Apologies for the shameless plug. :)
The (citizen) participation track is disappointingly limited, compared with other topics. The discussion on the role of independent mass-media and investigative journalism is missing almost completely. The is absolutely no space to discuss open government standards, and how to make governments accountable to these standards. The program is completely avoiding the needed discussion on how some OGP members are sliding on the authoritarian path, and what can it be done about it. The program is surprisingly missing the opportunity of a Summit in EU, and it is not connecting with EU's landmark efforts on topics like digitization, AI, private data, or regulation of big tech. Instead, the program is checking all the big issues, which is, sadly, what OGP is doing best these days, instead of setting standards on the open government itself.
I would also suggest including "Increase community recovery from and resilience to emergencies through participatory and proactive action"
This is a very nice topic. Also, it can be organized as a discussion among CSOs representatives. Also, I propose to open a dissuasion on how we can create resources among our beneficiaries that will support CSOs mission and process of long-term changes in a situation of CSOs non-existence. This session should include donors and international organizations that influence the national agendas and at some point shift the national priorities.
I would suggest including the perspective of citizens. More precisely to explore how citizens and CSOs can be empowered to follow and use the government efforts or opportunities for engagement.
I see no difference between this topic and topic (9): the same issues on the same format. See my comment on (9) as well.
As in other cases, this topic seems very general and with limited potential for relevant outcomes.
I see a strong connection between this topic and topic (16), on inclusive digitization. The big risk of rapid government digitization is exclusion, and it should be better reflected in the session.
This session is the essence of sustainability of initiatives, such as fighting corruption, access to justice and information, and so on. In that regard, I would suggest inviting speakers with experience in different sectors (health, employment, justice, education, etc.). Additionally, all speakers should give a perspective on the participation of most marginalized/vulnerable citizens and gender.
While the topic is relevant and timely, the very low ambition of the session is disappointing. Starting from 'problem identification' in 2023?!
Again, similarly to the previous topic (14), the most advanced entity in regulating AI is EU. And the Summit is taking place in EU. Why isn't EU involved in the session?
With the Summit taking place in EU, it is disappointing to see that this topic is not taking advantage to focus on the specific EU regulations (planned and in place). It is probably the only positive example of transnational model that actually works. The UN Global digital compact is a joke.
This topic should bring at the table EITI.
Compared to the previous point (11), this one looks actually good at bridging the two topics.
While I understand the importance of the topic, I don't really understand the connection with OGP. Well, I do understand OGP's tendency to connect with all the topics, in order to remain relevant and catchy. I disagree with this tendency: it what weakens OGP.
What exactly is 'high level discussion' on this topic? A bunch of politicians lecturing on the importance of civil society? It should be the other way around: the politicians listening to civil society.
While the topic is relevant, the session seems rather superficial. It may easily lead to a boring session where everybody agrees that dialogue is positive but nobody has a concrete solution. I suggest identifying positive practices and reframe the session around them.
I like the topic and the proposed format. Not sure about the political leaders part. I see a potential risk of going into political propaganda, if some 'good' and charismatic political leaders (perhaps friends of the OGP Leadership) will be invited to be promoted.
I find the topic timely and relevant for the current context.
Strongly agree. It will be great if the session will be build on concrete positive practices rather than undisclosed experts.
This section seems very general and unfocused. It is about everything and nothing.
The session should also cover how autocratic/closed regimes (including some OGP member states) are using BO principles to put pressure on critical voices in the society, by painting them as foreign agents etc.
It is an important and timely focus. In particular for Tallinn, Estonia, with the EU preparing for the 2024 European Parliament elections. One important topic that is missing is the influence on political money on independent media. However, I agree with the above comment that the description is too broad. For a better focus, this section could be divided into two debates: - the negative/adverse impact of unchecked money in politics, including public money; - the potential for positive impact of well directed financing on increasing the participation of women, youth and vulnerable persons.
I am interested to know where ‘revolving door’ policies feature here if at all. This is both important for both former elected representative and public servants. Apologies if I have missed the section!
Good to see this session given the strong focus on BOT in the anti-corruption theme of OGP's new strategy. I would suggest building on the theme of asset ownership to talk broadly about 'where next' for BOT - covering big horizon issues such as - how to justify public access to BO data after the EU ruling, how to accelerate progress on BOT in major financial centres, delivering impact - connecting data across borders to drive investigations (by journalists and law enforcement), and/or frontier issues such as BOT in sectors such as fisheries. Connected to the upcoming CoSP in December it would be useful to cover the policy case for BOT as a broad tool to prevent corruption, beyond just tackling money laundering and assisting asset recovery. Open Ownership would be happy to participate in the session talking to any one of these topics.
It will be great to place the topic in the context of the OGP, because its' rather lacking here. E.g. here we can focus on mechanisms on how to enhance digital civic space and ensure that it remains open, inclusive, and accessible to all? how we can use OGP platform to push this agenda. I would also add 2 more points: a) How can we engage different stakeholders, including governments, civil society organizations, and the private sector, in protecting and enhancing digital civic space? b) What are the challenges and opportunities for international cooperation and coordination in tackling threats to digital civic space and promoting privacy and human rights online?
As a sub-topic of discussion I would also add the role of civil society (also including the media), in promoting democratic accountability and political integrity in the face of money's influence? It will also be interested to discuss how individuals and communities can get involved in promoting greater transparency and accountability in political financing, and what steps can they take to reduce the influence of money in politics?
It would be great if the session also provides sucessful tools and best practices of citizen motivation and participation.
It would probably make sense to narrow this down to one or more specific things, otherweise it will be a very broad discussion about the course of the fighting at the moment, scenarios for after, war crimes persecution and much more. Let's focuson where open government an OGP can actually come in: transitional justice and reconsiliation; reconstruction and integrity, strengthening political process and trust in government; other aspects seem a bit too far outside of what participants at an OGP summit can contribute, and even that is quite broad considering there is already a series of UKR reconstruction conferences.
This is great but it's about 10 sessions rolled into one. Suggest to spread it: 1) strengthening electoral systems and trust in political process 2) harnessing open government to uncover strategic corruption and destabilization efforts 3) democratic oversight (use and export) of surveillance technology. 4) the role of the free media in open government 5) resourcing open government across sectors and levels 6) tackling transnational challenges... the cybersecurity bullet point is misplaced at this summit, maybe reword to "the role of cybersecurity in open government projects: strengthening integrity and trust in an age of digital hybrid warfare" or something along these lines
Germany example that cold later be added as a contribution: transparency in arms export control.
This should be "upgraded" to be a much more prominent item on the list. And it could be more than one session. Social coherence is one big block, resilience another. Fleshing out the role of open government efforts in democratic resolience will require quite an arch in the discussion, narrowing it down more might yield more concrete results and insights.
Suggest to make this much more specific to the role of open government, otherwise this would be its own little summit
Needs to be reworded to it becomes more focused on the role of open government, otherwise it would be a session more suitable to a COP summit than an OGP summit
"open climate victories" is a weird tile. What is an 'open climate'. I suggest to reword the title to make it more palable to people outside the OGP bubble of lingo
Suggest to reword to "the public sector's role in overcoming..." or 'Governments' role in covercoming..." to tailor it more to the theme of this summit. It's about how openness of government can contribute
an agenda item actually on open government. There should be more of those
The relation to "open government" is rather indirect. Fits more into a summit on fundamental rights and law enforcmement in the digital realm than a summit that at its core aims at making government more open.
Also quite broad and rather vague. If it's just about transparency, then reword the title so it's not about open government in general because that would beg the question: what is the role of participation, collaboration, etc. in fighting corruption in the context of climate policy. And that opens the can of worms: is that a catch all for everything related to climate policy? What specifically are we talking about?
The OGP bubble needs to understand that in most countries' governments, there is no such thing as "anti-corruption". There may be, for example, integrity measures, preventative measures when it comes to the public sector body of employees, and then there's law enforcement and prosecution of acts that are crimes. So for a small session like this, what do we want to cover: prevention? strenghenting public sector integrity? prosecution criminal cases of corruption? Corruption where (federal, local level, outside public sector, in the private sector, etc)
A session on BO necessarily has to cover a "what now?" in the EU after the landmark decision on privacy vs transparency
Suggest to make this more specific. Currently it is a catch-all for anything and everything related to politics and corruption. It's either a fishboal on integrity in government (i.e. the executive), or in politics more broadly (parties, parliaments, etc.). I suggest the first, the second doesn't really fit into an open GOVERNMENT summit.
For an Open Government Summit, there are currently very few program items that actually deal with government. There's much on democracy and digital and climate, but few of all this sounds like an OGP Summit, it sounds more like a summit on democracy, politics and climate.. Maybe add some items that for example deal with - participation (which is often time consuming) in an age of need for rapid public sector transformation - efforts at codifying open government (open data laws, participation guidelines, public-community- partnerships etc) - transforming the culture of government towards more transparency, participation, collaboration - the largely unexplored area of intra-governmental openness (between agencies, within agencies, between different levels of government, etc) - open government in terms of demographic change (ageing of societs will starve public sectors enormously over the next few decades, how do we deal with it) - open government in times of crisis (Russian aggression, energy transition, adverse effects of climate change, civil unrest, etc.) - How to "marry" political inclusion and participation with concrete projects of public participation more generally - The role of Open Government in the wider democracy and public sector modernization discourse - where do we stand X years after the Obama memor

MOST ACTIVE USERS

	ovoicu	18	20

Ziya Guliyev

17

18

SebH23

15

9

SATOU

14

20

	Blair Glencorse	9	26

Eduardo Bejar

9

0

Berenice Barinas Ubiñas

8

0

mwhelan@ndi..org

7

8

	Miguel Alor	7	5

Maarja-Leena Saar

7

5

Barbara Schreiner

7

0

Tanya.A

6

13

	Georg Neumann	6	2

mariopicon

6

2

Lauren Keevill

6

2

Miguel Cánaves

5

17

	Oliver Rack	5	5

Louise R-P

5

4

Víctor Valdenegro

5

2

adcolletto@inspro.org.br

4

10

	Jessica Omuna Anabor	4	9

SarahO

4

6

Ines Selvood

4

5

Teele Pehk

4

4

	Darko Antik	4	4

Sergejus Muravjovas

4

3

Florencia

4

2

ehoulihan

4

2

	maharani_opengovindo	4	2

GavinH

4

1

Petti

4

1

Ingrida Kalinauskiene

4

0

	rosalind06	3	3

Mor

3

2

fangelico

3

2

Nataliia Oksha

3

0

	mmartini	3	0

aniharutyunyan1991@gmail.com

3

0

Idah Knowles

3

0

johntonn

2

8

	jorgeflorez	2	7

marianadiasimp

2

2

Tristan Fuhrmann

2

2

ivan.kantardjiski

2

2

	Morocco_gov	2	1

Martina_Boguslavets

2

1

MauricioMG

2

0

Robin_Prest

2

0

	Sandra Cerrato	2	0

danielcarranza

2

0

reszketop

2

0

Rolando U. Toledo

2

0

	Kingsley Agu	1	10

Carolina Kichller

1

8

M. Favoino

1

6

Evelyn Hernandez

1

6

	mfabian	1	5

akhilakolisetty

1

4

Badru Juma Rajabu

1

3

Carol Matos

1

2

	ckl	1	1

DigiGovEnthusiast

1

1

igorpantoja

1

0

Olesia Arkhypska

1

0

	Andrew E	1	0

ceidepaz@gmail.com

1

0

juank

1

0

Alexandros Melidis1683623509

1

0

	edwardkusewa	1	0

Digiphile

1

0

Grainne Walsh

1

0

Stas Ghiletchi

1

0

	hemlion	1	0

Ketevan Kukava

1

0

Haykuhi Harutyunyan

1

0

Steph

1

0

	JulianTait	1	0

Marina Mkhitaryan

1

0

Juliet Swann

1

0

lucaspretti

1

0

	Remaya Campbell	1	0

KarolisGranickas

1

0

Kristina Mänd

1

0

msuantak

0

16

	jreina	0	14

weichen

0

12

JFQueralt

0

6

Kathryn

0

4

	martin.noorkoiv	0	3

gabrielreyessilva

0

3

claire@ocf.tw

0

2

Tafida

0

2

	kspan	0	1

Evelyn

0

1

Charles Bazie

0

1

Asif Orujlu

0

1

	Aimee	0	1

raolalita

0

1

jorgevalladares@hotmail.com

0

1

panzambia

0

1

	Abha Vasani	0	1

Acerdan

0

1

lprokic

0

1

akcon

0

1

	JKeegan	0	1