1

Miguel A. AmutioMinistry of Territorial Policy and Public Administration

ISA WG on Interoperability ArchitectureLearning Day on February, 10th

What to do to facilitate, improve and develop IOP?

2

17 Departments 139 Autonomous organisms The Department of Presidency is the one with the responsibility of the technological modernization

State Autonomous Communities (Regional level)

Local Entities

8.108 municipalities 41 County councils 10 Chapters and island Councils

17 Autonomous Communities 2 Autonomous cities

Context and problem statement (1/2)

3

- RD 1671/2009, development of specific aspects of Law 11/2007. - RD 3/2010, National Security Framework - RD 4/4010, National Interoperability Framework- ...

Recognises the citizens’ right to interact with Public Administration by electronic means → obligation to public administrations to enable electronic access to their services.

Regulates principles, rights.

Regulates basic aspects of IT use in administrative procedures: electronic site, e-registries, e-identification, e-communications and e-notifications, electronic administrative procedure, e-documents, …

Cooperation of Public Administrations to facilitate access to services.

+ Legal development:

Context and problem statement (2/2)

4

Interoperability Solution

The Spanish NIF is a legal text (Royal Decree 4/2010) It develops the provisions about interoperability foreseen in eGov. Law 11/2007, art 42.

A set of direct statements to build and improve interoperability.

To be followed by all Public administrations in their relations between them and with citizens.

5

Interoperability Solution

...

6

What to do to facilitate, improve and develop IOP? (1/3)

#1 Services provided are identified; also administrative units. Inventory of administrative Procedures and services provided: in the General

State Administration done with System of Administrative Information (SIA). Inventory of administrative and registry offices: Done through the Common

Directory – Directorio Común); and associated codings. (Something equivalent would be the IMI DB of competente authorities).

Interconnection of registry offices: Done through the system called SIR.

#2 Services are available through the administrative network; conditions of use are known (published).Development of supporting instruments: Role of Intermediation services (SVD).

#3 The role of “interoperability nodes” is recognized. Entities that provide IOP services (Org., Sem., tech.) on behalf of others. IOP nodes notably simplify organizational interoperability. Intermediation services: facilitate the access to BASIC REGISTRIES. (e.g.

Identity, Residence, Catastral information, Tax information Social Security information, Education titles...)

Some kind of nodes are usuarlly needed: STESTA LDCPs, STORK PEPs, ...

7

#4 Semantic assets are published and used. Share, reuse and collaborate around a collaborative instrument equivalent to

SEMIC.EU (currently under development).#5 Use of standards.

Legal basis: (EU) D.98/34/C, national (Law 11/2007), ... + Additional criteria (inspired in CAMSS). Catalogue of standards for IOP and rules of maintenance under development.

#6 Common infrastructures and services are available, used and linked with equivalent ones → Local->Regional->National->EU.

What to do to facilitate, improve and develop IOP? (2/3)

8

#7 In particular, all P.A.s are connected through adm. Network. and equivalent networks → Local->Regional->National->EU

Administrative Network (Red SARA) connected to sTESTA. #8 eIdentification, eAuthentication and eSignature are interoperable in an scenario of diversity (CSPs, certificates, ...)

Electronic Identity Card (DNI-e). Platform of validation services @Firma: > 100 types of certificates of >15 providers

(national and int.) used by > 500 entities of Public Administrations. STORK for cross border interoperability.

#9 Conditions for interoperability of eDocuments are defined. There is a common understanting about eDocument and eFile. There are agreed XML structures for exchange of Documents and Files.

#10 Share, reuse and collaborate → Local->Regional->National->EUThere are collaborative instruments linked with equivalent ones.

What to do to facilitate, improve and develop IOP? (3/3)

9

“Reusable architecture framework, existing practical guidelines, concepts and methods, artefacts per EIF layer, … + additional supporting documents”:

Global approach to interoperability, recognised within the full legal development of eGovernment (available in English), in a complex administrative environement.

What to do, the 10 statements included in this presentation.

eSgnature Policy, for a complex administrative environment.

Policy documents about eDocument and related issues.

@Firma (Client of @Firma released under EUPL and GPL v3).

Also online Online validation service of eSignatures and certificates (VALIDE https://valide.redsara.es)

Model and system for intermediantion services (SVD)

...

Reusable elements

10

Many thanks

Country E-Government 2010

Rank 2010

Rank 2008

Rank Change

Republic of Korea 0.8785 1 6 +5

United States of America 0.8510 2 4 +2

Canada 0.8448 3 7 +4

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

0.8147 4 10 +6

Netherlands 0.8097 5 5 --

Norway 0.8020 6 3 -3

Denmark 0.7872 7 2 -5

Australia 0.7863 8 8 --

Spain 0.7516 9 20 +11

France 0.7510 10 9 -1

ONU eGovReport