Foundation for a IIX

Free Information Infrastructure e.V.

Malmöer Str. 6 / 10439 Berlin / Germany

Phone: +49-30-41722597 Fax (office service): +49 721 509663769

Email: office@ffii.org

Registered Charitable Association, Amtsgericht München VR 16460

IBAN: DE78701500000031112097, SWIFT/BIC: SSKMDEMM
The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) is a non-profit association
registered in several European countries, which is dedicated to the spread of data
processing literacy. FFII supports the development of public information goods based on
copyright, free competition, open standards.

Ten recommendations on the leaked EIF 2.0 draft1

Paper or tiger?

This week a Dutch journalist, Brenno de Winter, alerted the public about a new
draft for an upcoming European Interoperability Framework (EIF) 2.0
communication of the European Commission. The leaked draft is a follow-up to
the famous 2004 EIF 1.0 document with a strong emphasis on genuine open
standards (and open source).
The IDABC EIF 1.0 is referenced across the world because of its clear definition
of the professional term open standards. The release of EIF 1.0 was followed by
intense lobbying from stakeholders from third nations which aimed to
undermine its contribution to European Digital Independence. Aggressive
intervention to water it down demonstrated for all to see a positive strategic
impact of the EIF 1.0 as a tool to defend interoperability in the market.
The EIF update process has been delayed. First a study and proposal of the
consultancy company Gartner was presented which took a vendor-driven
perspective for public procurement and turned the EIF mission into general
provision of public services we need. In the Gartner proposal interoperability
became an empty phrase. Last year a draft for the EIF 2.0 has been presented
by the EU Commission IDABC for broad stakeholder consultations and was
generally better received by all sides. The new leaked draft is a trimmed down
version of that text. Like the older draft it still includes many elements which
are unrelated to interoperability. It fails to take the proposals for improvement
on board. The document makes undue concessions to the commercial
opponents of openness and interoperability. The EIF 2.0 is expected to enter
soon into inter-service consultations at the European Commission.
FFII quickly analysed the new document and contributes Ten
Recommendations on how to get a better EIF 2.0. Nevertheless, the only
aspect that actually matters is to preserve a strong definition of "open

1 http://www.bigwobber.nl/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/European-Interoperability-Framework-for-European-Public-
Services-draft.pdf
standards and specifications" in a way that patent cartels do not qualify for the
gold standard. Admission of patent cartels (RAND licensing terms) is also a
means to make the terminology incompatible with the European Union Public
License and compatible licenses as well as some national legal requirements.
We further highlight the absence of political or legal endorsement of a software
patenting practice on the EU level, although parts of the Commission aim to
outsource a democratic decision on patentable subject matter to new
specialized patent courts governed outside the acquis communautaire
("UPLS").

1. Alignment of EIF 2.0 with the new ISA programme

We propose to streamline the principles of the upcoming European

Interoperability Framework 2.0 with the General Principles of the new ISA
programme, Article 42

(a) technological neutrality and adaptability;

(b) openness;
(c) reusability
(d) privacy and protection of personal data; and
(e) security.

The EIF 2.0 General Principles are framed as principles of the European Public
Services. In the context of an Interoperability Framework they should rather be
framed as Principles for the interoperability of (European) public services.

An additional need for interoperability frameworks for purposes other than

European Public Services could emerge from ISA activities. To this end a set of
core interoperability principles is beneficial to make the EIF 2.0 more generic.

For these reasons we recommend to separate general features for European

Public Services such as costs ("effectiveness&efficiency"), user friendliness etc.
from tangible interoperability related general principles ("core") such as
openness, technological neutrality, adaptability, reusability. As a result we
would get two sets of general principles, for interoperability and for public
services.

As of Principle 2.2 we recommend deletion. It suggests a top-down approach as

opposed to voluntary coordination and sharing of best administrative practice.
We find the Principle 2.2 too narrow and limited for an European Public Service.
Information sharing in an administrative environment is often characterised by
open coordination, informal exchange, imitation and learning. The weakness of
the former IDABC programme in terms of enforcement is in fact its unique
strength.

2. Improve interoperability terminology

According to the definition of the ISA programme, Article 2

"interoperability" means the ability of disparate and diverse organisations
2 http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st03/st03667.en09.pdf
 to interact towards mutually beneficial and agreed common goals,
involving the sharing of information and knowledge between the
organisations, through the business processes they support, by means of
the exchange of data between their respective ICT systems"

Therefore we found it very intuitive to reconcile the EIF 2.0 definition of

interoperability with that ISA programme definition, a view shared by the draft
persons. For clarity reasons we propose to eliminate the additional "shared
value of the community" sentence (Section 1.2.2). It is not well defined what a
"community" means and how interoperability relates to an international
understanding ("entente cordiale", "Völkerverständigung") cause.

For technical purposes (Chapter 4) interoperability ought to be defined more

narrowly than 'cooperation'. For pragmatic reasons the term "Technical
Interoperability" should be defined in accordance with the applicable technical
ISO definition.

Furthermore "Legal interoperability" does not relate to legal harmonisation as

these means would be on a political decision-making level. Instead Legal
Interoperability relates to arrangements (e.g. standardisation of licensing
contracts and other legal conventions) under an existing, positive law.

3. Market Order and public constituency

Section 1.1 notes briefly "The EIF contributes to the better functioning of the
Internal Market through increased interoperability among European public
administrations.". It would be very helpful to further elaborate on that
message. It is apparent that A2A relations are not characterized by market
relations but administrative needs are the building block of an interoperability
framework for the public sector.

Presumably the EIF 2.0 remark relates to "positive spillover effects on the
single market" (ISA Recital 12). Significant here are external effects of public
action: "Citizens and enterprises would also benefit from common, reusable
and interoperable solutions and interoperable administrative back-office
processes, as those solutions and processes would promote the efficient and
effective delivery of public services to citizens and enterprises across borders
and sectors." (ISA Recital 7)

Such language from ISA could be added to stress the implications of public
procurement action for the market order, and the expectations of the masters,
the constituency of a public authority, the people who are served by a public
service and ultimately govern it by democratic means.

4. Deletion of Chapter 3 and its empty talk

As we stressed before the centralist vision of aggregated European Public

Services provision has little in common with an Interoperability Framework. The
Chapter 3 from the draft EIF 2.0 is considered superfluous annoyance. It should
be released as a separate document in its epic form, provided there was any
practical merit found in it, which we seriously doubt.
For these reason the Chapter 3 of the new draft should be deleted as a whole
or cut down to the Recommendation 8 (development of such a concept).

5. Administrative principles

Recommendation 13 is plain nonsense:

"Public administrations should obtain political support for their

interoperability efforts required for the establishment of European Public
Services."

It is an illegitimate task of public administration to lobby the legislator or a

superior authority. Even more - as it is highlighted in the EIF 2.0 historical
section and evidenced by the recent conclusion of the ISA programme - the
policy makers fully back the activities of the administration to enforce
interoperability, and repeatedly called for activities in the field. What seems to
stop enforcement progress in the area are divergent administrative policy
perspectives, which follow unfaithful objectives in the specific context, and lack
of available instruments and measures.

Recommendation 14 is equally questionable:

"Public administrations should carefully consider all relevant legislation

linked to the information exchange, including data protection legislation,
when envisaging the establishment of a European public service."

We take it for granted that public administrations are governed by the law and
adhere to it, and they do not need to be educated towards this end. Rather
their task would be to ensure that external contractors meet these special legal
requirements and principles for the public sector.

An example are special interoperability requirements for the public sector such
as "platform independence" of eParticipation tools, which could be derived from
a very general democratic principle of non-discrimination and equality. It is for
instance unacceptable that an e-petition platform of Parliament only
interoperates with Internet Explorer and Opera browser but not Google Chrome
and Mozilla Firefox. Neglect of these requirements in a contraction phase will
lead to later high level political intervention in these very technical matters. We
observed such debates for instance in Germany for the ELSTER tax software
and the internet streaming services of the European Council of Ministers.

6. Avoid capture and dilution of interest

Some phrases provide grounds for concern. A wording as

"In order for such cooperation to be effective, all stakeholders involved

must share visions, agree on objectives and align priorities."

seems to reflect a rather misguided depiction of the exercise of administrative

powers, and the public powers to lay down rules, impose requirements within
their public legal mandate and cordially cooperate with other administrations to
seek agreements.

The scope of a term as "stakeholder" is not defined here. It should be clear that
it ought to be defined in a capture-unfriendly manner, which keeps the
administration shielded from a dilution of interest. To clarify what we mean, let
us quote from a Commission "Guide on dealing with innovative solutions in
public procurement", SEC(2007) 280: "Evaluation provides a forum in which
public procurement officials and the supplier community can review the
effectiveness of measures to promote innovation." - the Commission
document3 is a great case study for so called "vendor capture" of public
procurement decision making, and arguments raised towards this end.

In terms of a market system it is not upon procurement professionals or

providers of public services to fraternise with a vendor community which
pursues legitimate antagonist commercial objectives.

7. Adjust to public administrative needs

Chapter 4.4.1 should be eliminated. Chapter 4.4.2 does not suit the dignity of a
public office and her existing well-developed methods, capabilities and
established practice to conclude agreements. Public administration does not
need consultancy to this end. The same applies to the somewhat daunting
recommendations of Chapter 4.4.3.

While it is factually correct that "Multilingualism in the EU adds further

complexity to the problem of achieving semantic interoperability" (Chapter
4.5) it should rather be phrased in a less offensive manner.

What annoyed us in an earlier EIF 2.0 draft from last year resurfaces in the new
draft: a cheap reuse of cancerous consultancy methodology which was
apparently not originally written for the public sector, and has been adapted
without considerations of the specific public administrative needs and
practices.

8. Open standards, not open concepts

While some terms as "European Public Services" are defined in the draft
framework (Section 1.2.1) central terms as "open specification" are not
defined. It should be added at least to the annex and follow the accustomed EIF
1.0 language.

Sticking to the current practice is in particular important as some stakeholders

wage an amusing lobby war to claim that patent cartels were compatible with
their own definition of 'open standards'. The severity of this capturing attempt
is demonstrated by the fact that even parts of ISO standardised such
terminology: It was managed to get an ISO definition of "open standards" which

3 http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/07/st05/st05751.en07.pdf
declares all patent cartels as "open".
Public language which reinstates the professional meaning of 'open standards
and specifications' is helpful (reason for broader EIF 1.0 relevance) to prevent
these hostile takeovers. It could also provide clarity to the authors of national
interoperability frameworks such as SAGA 4.0 who express their alleged
terminological confusion.

Notably, what is an "open standards or specification" is a terminology question

independent from the question what to use in administrative practice.

9. Openness assessment and continuum

The section about Technical Interoperability should be further expanded. We

recommend to include different levels of openness. While "open standards and
specifications" are the "gold standard" and we objected to moving the goal
post, reality looks more like "copper, silver and tin".

We suggest to add a recommendation for the development of an European

openness assessment instrument and to keep a professionally correct definition
of Open Standards as found in the EIF 1.0 to overcome the irritation. In the
context of technical interoperability an "openness continuum" instrument
provides for flexibility and set clear preferences. An "openness continuum" will
help to ennoble interoperability of public ICT services.

Given that "openness" is a general principle of the ISA programme and central
to interoperability debates, we believe the principle deserves more attention in
the upcoming EIF 2.0.

10. Problem-oriented approach

In line with our public interest to overcome interoperability barriers and

strategic dependencies, the EIF2 should be enriched with language which
highlights identifying and solving interoperability problems. As history has
demonstrated interoperability progress is stifled by those players on the
market which have a commercial interest in suboptimal interoperability. An
interoperability framework is a means to strengthen the negotiation and
bargaining powers of the public sector in that respect and help public
administrations to identify, tackle, overcome their strategic ICT dependencies
and deadlocks.

When there are obstacles to establish principles what is considered right or

open, it could be less controversial to identify what goes wrong, what stifles
interoperability, and how to break those interoperability barriers through
administrative action and other means. Ultimately small pragmatic steps would
contribute to better e-government services and European Digital
Independence.