RE: Campaign for rejecting Inspire directive?

Good to hear from you Jo. Brief responses below in-line.

-----------
Michael Gould
Department of Information Systems (LSI)
Universitat Jaume I, 12071 Castellón Spain
E-mail: gould (at) lsi.uji.es
http://www.mgould.com
http://www.geoinfo.uji.es
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Jo Walsh [mailto:[email protected]] 
Enviado el: miércoles, 17 de agosto de 2005 11:48
Para: michael gould
CC: 'Benjamin Henrion'; [email protected]
Asunto: Re: [Freegis-list] Campaign for rejecting Inspire directive?

dear Michael, list, 

On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 09:51:01AM +0200, michael gould wrote:
> The current thinking among Inspire creators/supporters, is that it is
better
> to get a weak directive signed, and then work on the implementation rules
to
> try to tighten things up.

It would be good to hear your assessment of where the proposed Directive
has been 'weakened' and how that might be subject to fixing
non-legislatively. 
[gould>>>] 
[gould>>>] Chris Corbin has been publishing (EGIP list) a stream of
documents coming out of the comitology process, so you have lots of examples
there, where plenty of "must"s have become "should"s, etc.
And then the document states in many places that it is up to each member
state to detrmine how each guideline or rule is applied. Standard EU
practice.

  
> The current GI situation in Europe is
> heavily NMA-controlled, however I see their position(s) evolving some over
> the past few years. 

To an EU process and GI industry outsider, it looks as if INSPIRE has
been dictated by the concerns of a cartel of National Mapping Agency
representatives, at the expense of data holders and users. These are
valid concerns: because NMAs can and do operate in competitive commercial 
markets, government pressure to semi-privatise mapping agencies,
and reduce their public budget is intense. 
This is part of a bigger debate surrounding the ethics, if you like,
of commercialising government-collected information of all kinds. 
[gould>>>] 
[gould>>>] Regarding the NMAs dictating, please remember that the EU is a
union of member states, who always have the last word. Member states are
made up of ministries, and one or another in each MS runs the NMA.
So naturally NMAs are going to have a LOT more say than you or I do.


The 'weak' directive does not reflect this debate; it enshrines
existing copyright and IP policies in EU law, decreasing our
chances of amending it locally. It entrenches the NMAs in a historic
position, rather than reflecting their changing role as it rapidly
emerges. It makes expensive and unnecessary stipulations about data
distribution, *mandating* e-commerce services for all geodata sources
that are not openly accessible - quite a cost and implementation
burden in itself. 
[gould>>>] 
[gould>>>] It seems a rather typical agreement...not perfect but good enough
to get passed. If you put too many teeth in it, the MS representatives would
simply be ordered to vote NO and go on to the next issue on their agenda.
It's trickier business than many of us might expect.

> producers. As coordinators they will find the current licensing and
pricing
> schemes too messy and will themselves lobby for more open distribution
> (sharing) among the partners they are coordinating.

Then why the rush to entrench IP stances in EU law now? Again, why
can't this be addressed at the national level before rushing into a
Directive that is evasive and unclear? 
[gould>>>] 
[gould>>>] Because all previous attempts to lay anchor (i.e. have a Euro
equivalent to the Clinton mandate of 1994) have failed.
And I do not believe it is more evasive or unclear than all the rest... I
think it is just that here we are more sensitized.
And regarding the national level, essentially EVERYTHING does happen at
national level, implementation-wise at least. This framework directive
attempts to harmonize national efforts, so that Europe ends up with more or
less a single coherent puzzle of national SDI pieces (each composed of local
pieces)...à la GSM, instead of a sordid collection of 25+ pieces (25+
special case SDIs) that do not fit together.
 
> Alternative to campaign for rejection? Gentle pressure in the form of
> alternatives proposed on lists such as this one. It is my impression that
> more radical approaches --especially those from individuals or small
groups
> labeling themselves as hackers (!)-- do not get decision-makers' attention
> and are too easily dismissed. 

I understand that to have a voice at an EU level, one needs to be not
merely an organisation, but a coalition of organisations. These
structures reflect the priorities of large-scale business and
professional lobbying organisations, not of loose groups of small
companies and individual developers.  

This is why we set up http://www.okfn.org/geo/ and why, as a small
coalition of projects, we've been working to propose a not-for-profit
free license for state-collected geodata, generalised if necessary, 
very similar to that being used by the BBC to provide more open access to
its archives.
[gould>>>] 
[gould>>>] Great idea!! Go for it! The more critical mass the better, but
remember that status quo proposals are best fought against (and corrected)
by sound counter-proposals. Politicians are not going to simply drop an
initiative and leave a vacuum; they need viable alternatives.

I've been Inspire-watching for a year and would have had no idea how
to submit amendments or acquire a voice in the process; especially
when large coalitions of state-funded data holders and creators (the
marine/oceanographic people) have had their needs and views sidelined.
[gould>>>] 
[gould>>>] I understand your frustration. But I cannot imagine that "our"
voices were any stronger or relevant during the GSM hearings, or before many
other important initiatives were heard. Here in Spain the socialist
government won in the 1980s on the campaign pledge to keep out of NATO. Then
they won and joined NATO. A few years back the centre-right party decided to
join Bush and Blair in Iraq, despite something like 80% of the population
opposed.  Not to be overly pessimistic mind you :-)

A recent example: the PSI directive is now in force, supposedly. Do you see
any difference where you live? Here there is supposely a commission
(ministry of Culture!) to decide what to do about it...I am not holding my
breath.  Question is (IMHO): are we better with or without the PSI on the
books? Same goes for Inspire I suspect.  A similarly vague Clinton mandate
seems to have served USA...although arguably the results have not been
spectacular.

> Practical demos of how things could be
> different seem to be working better. 

"Chicken, meet egg." Most of the interesting activity on the
geowanking list is from US and some Canadian projects. Without open access 
to the GI that describes our own parts of the world, how can we
develop metadata sharing and web services solutions that will appear
meaningful, recognisable to those we are trying to convince?
[gould>>>] 
[gould>>>] In my mind a demo of interoperable map servers (and the like)
showing mostly data from outside our region IS indeed useful, because it
shines a spotlight on our own lack of access. Also, in many european
countries data layers are being released, slowly... You happen to live in a
special-case (for multiple reasons) member state :-(

I co-authored 'Mapping Hacks' to have the chance to present
interesting Open Source GIS tools and semantic web principles in the
context of the data access and dissemination debate. I hang my head
when i confess to my UK/EU friends that 75% of the 'hacks' in the book
are only possible in the US because of the data access policy that
obtains there. 
[gould>>>] 
[gould>>>] That and other such publications and demos ARE helping to change
minds. Rest assured that you are on the (short) list of individuals who
really do make a difference in this debate.

I don't keep up with the OpenSDI conversation, but there is at least a
candidate free software solution for Total Spatial Data Infrastructure
in the world. I don't see where the route to informing 'decision
makers' at the INSPIRE level of these solutions is. Can you help?
[gould>>>] 
[gould>>>] Thre EGIP list. The EC-GIS conference, recently held in Sardinia.
And also the Inspire website, where you are invited to contribute papers and
other possibly useful docs to the process.

> But remember that complete solutions are not only tech-related. They need
to
> include solutions for tricky legal issues such as digital rights
management,
> versioning, etc.

Without access to real-world, meaningful data to make test cases out
of, we can't develop these solutions at a free-software, free-time
level.
[gould>>>] 
[gould>>>] Access to data could be a LOT better for sure. But the gvSIG
project (free soft gis/sdi client) in our region --to cite just one
example-- has found plenty of bits and pieces of data to demo. For demos we
are fine: the question is to get the demos to decision-makers' desks, and
have them ask the typical question "why doesn't my neighborhood show up?"
And careful, because now due to publicity many of these people have seen
Google Earth.!!! It is now on our shoulders to convince them that buying the
$149 version is not enough (that is, it's not a SDI)! :-)

> So let's hear fully-developed ideas on how to migrate 25 NMAs from cost
> recovery mode to public dissemination mode!

I would rather hear these ideas emerging from the NMAs themselves, or
hear more about where this debate is being conducted inside the
INSPIRE implementation process now.
[gould>>>] 
[gould>>>] NMAs follow their established chain of decisions. That is, they
do not search for innovation; they try their best to comply with the mandate
set by their minister. Convince the minister to change data access policy
and the NMA will gladly do so (in most cases). Those who argue that it's not
so simple need only be reminded that after most general elections, entire
ministries are merged, created and vaporized, at the swish of a pen.
In Portugal, a decade ago a young MBA-toting minister of technology and
whatever, decided to connect 100% of the nations schools to Internet, and so
it was. Spain is still hoping to some day reach 50%. 


I think that a free-for-non-profit-use license, available without
supplication, is the turnkey in enabling academic and private
researchers to build integration and translation solutions driven by
their own needs. 

Given the messy history of European GI directives i appreciate that
you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. 

I would like to see an alternative to INSPIRE and deeply regret having
been unable to mobilise an amendment campaign before the first reading
was complete. I'd like to see an analysis of where it is really still 
weak, and where it makes IP and copyright assumptions that will
suppress innovation and economic activity, before any campaign to
throw the whole thing out, which i fear would just be an energy sink
for those of us working towards free information infrastructures.

http://www.ael.be/index.php/InspireDirective seems like a good place
to start, at least.
[gould>>>] 
[gould>>>] I think perhaps we (you) are over- AND underestimating Inspire.
Overestimating the change it might effect...whereas not even the Inpsire
drafters are expecting miracles and complete turnaround of the GI data
market. And underestimating the mild effect that any directive may have in
pressuring some (most) data providers to provide better accessibility. As
mild, I argue, as was the effect of the Clinton Mandate.


Paolo, i think, suggested a while back that the freegis 'community'
could be putting together a whitepaper on open standards, open source
driven approaches to the 'implementing rules'. Again, i don't know how
such proposals are inserted or accepted into the INSPIRE working
groups, or how to make sure this would just not sink without trace.

This is perhaps not the FFII's normal thing, Benjamin, but perhaps it 
could help assemble a 'working group' / provide online space for such
an effort.
[gould>>>] 
[gould>>>] I agree that the bottom-up approach should be followed at the
same time we are awaiting improvements from the top-down. I might even go so
far as predict that the way technology is progressing (GPS, RFID, free
software, cell phone capabilities, map servers, google-like apps, etc.) that
NMAs and their products may indeed become irrelevant to all but the small
core of partner government agencies.


> These are going to be interesting times (next 5 years or so).

I'm still waiting for the Big Information Crunch.
[gould>>>] Please elaborate!

Ciao,
MG


-jo