The document discusses petitions and electronic petitions (ePetitions) at both the local and European level. It provides background on petitions submitted to the European Parliament and introduces the new European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) process. It then describes the EuroPetition project which developed an online petitioning system to facilitate the submission of petitions from multiple countries to European bodies. The system was piloted in five countries and regions and saw growing use of local and European-level petitions over the course of 2010.

4. ePetitions within an overall eParticipation Strategy Status Processes Communication Informal Participation Formal Consultation (Council) Formal Democracy (Representative) The Wild West The Law Social Networks/ Online communities Video Magazines Formal webcasting ePetitions Support representative PB Local strategic plan Flip point Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu

9. EuroPetition PEC1, www.EuroPetition.eu Kingston North Lincs Birmingham Bristol signatures Gothenburg Malmö Stockholm Linkoping Pitea Almere Flevoland Den Haag Groningen Amsterdam Abla Córdoba M á lag a Vicenza Article 8b of the Treaty of Lisbon “ One million citizens from a number of Member States will have the possibility to call on the Commission to bring forward new policy proposals. . ” http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/glance/index_en.htm European Citizens Initiative

11. EuroPetition Service. Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu

17. Sweden Pilot Trials’ Experience, Impacts and Plans of Users Grethe, Malmo. EuroPetition Final Review

24. Review Meeting Fraser Henderson March 2011 for Bristol City Council, UK UK Cluster

25. Periodic summary by locality Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu North Lincolnshire : Rural, industrial. New to ePetitions Birmingham City : Urban, Multi-cultural. New to ePetitions Bristol City : Urban, longstanding local ePetition system RB Kingston Upon Thames : Wealthy London borough, longstanding local ePetitioning

27. Activity Evidence from other Parliamentary systems suggests opening an ePetition facility does not significantly increase petition volumes. i.e. Aim not to create a new burden. Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu March 2011 “ We, the ordinary citizens of the EU object to the interference in the EU in our daily lives and in particular the ruling by the European Court of Justice that men and women should pay equal insurance premiums. This ruling defies all logic and should be rescinded.” Approx 50% rejection ratio

32. 22nd March 2011 Dutch Cluster Dirk-Jan, Dijksman.com EuroPetition Review Meeting

38. Europetition The Netherlands Italy Great- Brittain Sweden Spain 1 million signatures Petities.nl Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu

41. 22nd March 2011 Italian Cluster Christian, NESTOR EuroPetition Review Meeting

54. Spanish Cluster Laia, I2BC

56. www.europetitionandalucia.es EuroPetition Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11, www.EuroPetition.eu

57. General Stats

59. Europetitions

61. Local petitions

63. Dissemination actions

65. Project impact

67. Lessons learned

69. Evaluation Report Peter Cruickshank Edinburgh Napier University EuroPetition Project Review

75. Live running Install & Operate Design & Develop Service User Requirements & Service Spec Establish Baseline & Develop Evaluation Plan Ongoing Evaluation & monitoring of pilots Dialogue to build data gathering into system Validate system meets eval objectives Data gathering, responding to issues Baseline survey (authority-held data) Baseline survey (of citizens) Lit review Scenario-testing workshops Evaluation process Final Evaluation Final data collection ‘ exit’ surveys Debate statistics System data Partner monitoring data Interviews Database analysis Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu

76. How the petitioning process can support engagement Opportunity to sign a petition Signing a petition is one of the smallest possible steps in active e-participation Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu

77. Research interest: Facing the challenge of the lurker Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu

79. Self efficacy: Understanding the lurker Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu

80. Theoretical background: Self Efficacy Experience of the process matters Adapted from Compeau & Higgins 1999 Positive and negative reinforcement from previous experiences Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu Self Efficacy Outcome expectations (Performance) Outcome expectations (Personal) Affect Anxiety Usage

86. Data analysis Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu

87. Baseline survey Mobile computing to access internet Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu

88. Total petitions and time to accept Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu

89. Daily signature counts by cluster Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu

90. Cumulative signature counts Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu

91. Signatures on Europetitions Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu

92. Uptake of EuroPetitions by country Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu

99. Findings & challenges Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu

104. Journey of an ECI signature National Identity Database(s) Secure Storage  Certified, tamper-proof records Signature records Validation By National Authorities 100% or sample based  Certification Authority eg Verisign, EuroPKI Verification First line verification  Handwritten Signature Confirmation email Other methods Identity Spam checks CAPTCHA etc Record signature  Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu

105. ECI Process What is a system? How is it approved? By whom? Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu Organiser e-ECI system provider Think of subject for ECI Find online ECI system Submit ECI and name service provider Basic Approval of wording of ECI OK Set up ECI (multilingual) Configure online system Collect paper signatures Obtain certification Collate signatures by country etc National Competent Authorities Give certification Collate e-signatures by country etc Validate signatures according to national practice Target reached (in time)? Collate certificates & submit to Commission Verify submission conditions met YES Into legislative / policy process Advanced e-signatures Collect e-signatures Certificate Ref Log Rejection reason Record on system ECI number, admin access Translations Approx 100,000 signatures Target not reached Confirm wording acceptable Formal & informal agree ’ t processes Destroy records within one month To Commission ? European Commission

106. ECI Process Will the EC allow unofficial translations? How to audit signatures? What can be used from e-petitioning systems? Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu Organiser e-ECI system provider Think of subject for ECI Find online ECI system Submit ECI and name service provider Basic Approval of wording of ECI OK Set up ECI (multilingual) Configure online system Collect paper signatures Obtain certification Collate signatures by country etc National Competent Authorities Give certification Collate e-signatures by country etc Validate signatures according to national practice Target reached (in time)? Collate certificates & submit to Commission Verify submission conditions met YES Into legislative / policy process Advanced e-signatures Collect e-signatures Certificate Ref Log Rejection reason Record on system ECI number, admin access Translations Approx 100,000 signatures Target not reached Confirm wording acceptable Formal & informal agree ’ t processes Destroy records within one month To Commission ? European Commission

108. Project Dissemination Activities Catherine, Public-i EuroPetition Final Review