attempt to mitigate this, remote participation was established for meetings through a webinar service. Additional information The government pointed out that outside of the NAP, numerous further reviews were carried out, and other bodies were involved with the wider open data agenda. These included— The Information Commissioner’s Office looking into data anonymisation; Ongoing discussions with the policy advisory body the Open Data User Group, which held regular meetings; and Ongoing work of the Open Data Institute. In parallel to the creation of the second National Action Plan, there was— An independent review of public-sector information by Stephen Shakespeare in 2013 and A review by the Public Administration Select Committee on Open Data, the initial evidence sessions of overlapped with the publication of the NAP. The UK government’s time as of the OGP was also used as a lever by CSOs to persuade the government to seek more ambitious targets. In the media, the Guardian newspaper also covered the launch of the draft NAP via its Public Leaders Network. The paper also asked for readers’ comments on the proposals, although none were registered. III. Action Plan Implementation Regular multi-stakeholder consultation were two overlapping fora, one for the CSOs and one for the public. The CSO forum was based on the first NAP mechanisms and adapted for the second NAP. The invitation to participate was drawn widely, with more than 50 varied groups included on an email list and 36 contributing. The initial process, getting to the draft NAP stage, consisted of four meetings in neutral venues in London. As a signal of co-operation, the government two of the meetings, and CSOs, the other two. Two further consultation exercises were held in London and Manchester that were open to the public, the latter being organized by CSOs.
attempt to mitigate this, remote participation was established for meetings through a webinar service. Additional information The government pointed out that outside of the NAP, numerous further reviews were carried out, and other bodies were involved with the wider open data agenda. These included— The Information Commissioner’s Office looking into data anonymisation; Ongoing discussions with the policy advisory body the Open Data User Group, which held regular meetings; and Ongoing work of the Open Data Institute. In parallel to the creation of the second National Action Plan, there was— An independent review of public-sector information by Stephen Shakespeare in 2013 and A review by the Public Administration Select Committee on Open Data, the initial evidence sessions of overlapped with the publication of the NAP. The UK government’s time as of the OGP was also used as a lever by CSOs to persuade the government to seek more ambitious targets. In the media, the Guardian newspaper also covered the launch of the draft NAP via its Public Leaders Network. The paper also asked for readers’ comments on the proposals, although none were registered. III. Action Plan Implementation Regular multi-stakeholder consultation were two overlapping fora, one for the CSOs and one for the public. The CSO forum was based on the first NAP mechanisms and adapted for the second NAP. The invitation to participate was drawn widely, with more than 50 varied groups included on an email list and 36 contributing. The initial process, getting to the draft NAP stage, consisted of four meetings in neutral venues in London. As a signal of co-operation, the government two of the meetings, and CSOs, the other two. Two further consultation exercises were held in London and Manchester that were open to the public, the latter being organized by CSOs.
UK%20IRM%20Report%202013-2015%20Google%20Doc%20Public%20Comments.docx