National interoperability framework What to do to facilitate, improve and develop IOP? Challenges thinking about the European context.

1. ISA WG on Interoperability Architecture
Learning Day on February, 10th
What to do to facilitate, improve
and develop IOP?
Miguel A. Amutio
Ministry of Territorial Policy and Public Administration
1

2. Context and
problem statement (1/2)
State Autonomous Local Entities
Communities
(Regional level)
 17 Autonomous  8.108
 17 Departments
Communities municipalities
 139 Autonomous organisms  2 Autonomous cities
 The Department of Presidency  41 County councils
is the one with the responsibility  10 Chapters and
of the technological island Councils
modernization
2

3. Context and
problem statement (2/2)
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:
- RD 1671/2009, development of specific aspects of Law 11/2007.
- RD 3/2010, National Security Framework
- RD 4/4010, National Interoperability Framework
- ...
3

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.
4

5. Interoperability Solution
...
5

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, ...
6

7. What to do to facilitate, improve
and develop IOP? (2/3)
#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.
7

8. What to do to facilitate, improve
and develop IOP? (3/3)
#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->EU
There are collaborative instruments linked with equivalent ones. 8

9. Reusable elements
“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)
...
9

10. Many thanks
ONU eGov Country
E-Government
2010
Rank
2010
Rank
2008
Rank
Change
Report Republic of Korea 0.8785 1 6 +5
United States of
0.8510 2 4 +2
America
Canada 0.8448 3 7 +4
United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern 0.8147 4 10 +6
Ireland
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
10